Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The worst drought in a thousand years is choking Oz's Murray river
#1
A river ran through it

The Murray is the lifeblood of Australia's farming country, a legendary river that thundered 1,500 miles from the Snowy Mountains to the Indian Ocean. Now, it's choking to death in the worst drought for a thousand years, sparking water rationing and suicides on devastated farms. But is the 'big dry' a national emergency, or a warning that the earth is running out of water? Claire Scobie reports

The Observer

Australian farmers always know someone else who is doing it tougher. They pride themselves on their resilience. They take pleasure in living in 'a sunburnt country of droughts and flooding rains'. Conservative and deeply sceptical, many dismiss global warming as hogwash. But with unprecedented water scarcity and the Murray, the country's greatest river system, on the verge of collapse, warning bells are ringing around the globe.

Financially, the drought is pinching as far away as the UK, hiking up the cost of bread in British supermarkets as wheat prices reach a 10-year high. Symbolically, it cuts much deeper. Commentators are looking on, nervously, wondering if what is becoming the norm in Sydney could be the future for Sydenham.

Professor Tim Flannery, an Australian environmental scientist and an international leader on climate change, has no doubts. 'Australia is a harbinger of what is going to happen in other places in the world,' he says. 'This can happen anywhere. China may be next, or parts of western USA. There will be emerging water crises all over the world.' In Kenya, the herdsmen of the Mandera region have been dubbed the 'climate canaries' - the people most likely to be wiped out first by global warming. In Australia, the earth's driest inhabited continent, it is the farmers who are on the frontline.

This extended dry spell began in 1998. Four years later came the one-in-100-years drought. Last year was declared a once-in-a-millennium event. Every city, bar Darwin in the 'top end', is facing water restrictions. Rivers are reduced to a trickle a child can jump across. Old Adaminaby, a town drowned by a reservoir 50 years ago, has resurfaced from its watery grave. Distressed koalas have been drinking from swimming pools. The list goes on.

The extent of the crisis was illustrated in January, when the Prime Minister, John Howard, announced a A$10bn (£4.3bn) package to seize control of the Murray-Darling basin, the nation's food bowl, accounting for 41 per cent of Australia's agriculture and A$22bn worth of agricultural exports. The region covers an area the size of France and Spain combined and is home to almost 3m people; its famed waterway, the River Murray, no longer holds sufficient water to flow out into the sea. Despite Howard's massive rescue plan to overhaul the water system, six months later the irrigation taps to the region's farmers were turned off.

Malcolm Holm knows just how bad things can get. A dairy farmer with a bullish smile, Holm, 39, is a respected pillar in his local community of Finley, on the flat plains of southwest New South Wales (NSW). He depends, as do more than 50,000 other farmers, on the River Murray. I first meet Malcolm and his wife, Jenny Wheeler, 47, in Sydney in mid-July. As we sit down for coffee, it's hard not to notice his strapped left arm, with angry red weals seared along the forearm, resting inert on the table.

Last October, with no water flowing into the major dams, the NSW government faced an unparalleled situation. Following last year's lowest inflows into the Murray on record, they miscalculated how much water was available across the board. 'Carryover water' worth millions of dollars, which had been saved and paid for by farmers for irrigation, was slashed by 20 per cent without consultation. Three weeks later, farmers were hit with another 32 per cent cut. Today they are on zero allocation.

Aside from running his own 1,000 acres and 500 dairy cows, Holm works tirelessly on a raft of community committees. The day after the second water cut, which had 'blown out' his drought strategy and would cost him A$1.5m from the loss of water, fodder and milk production, he was back at work in the dairy. The grain auger - a cylindrical barrel that moves the grain from one massive silo to the other - was jammed. After fiddling with the machine he flicked a switch. 'I wasn't concentrating.' He pauses, frowning. 'I was thinking about water.' It was the wrong switch. In the blink of an eye, Malcolm Holm had sliced off his hand.

In March 2006, Professor Flannery's The Weather Makers was published in the UK, spelling out in incisive detail what awaits us unless we decarbonise our world by 2050. Described by Sir David Attenborough as 'in the league of the all-time great explorers', and the 2007 Australian of the Year, Flannery combines a Gaian approach with hard science. The result: Australia's answer to Silent Spring. When I speak to Flannery, he's recovering from the flu after a particularly cold, damp July. Floods and violent storms have caused havoc along Australia's eastern seaboard, beaching one 40,000-tonne tanker like an aluminium dinghy. I put it to Flannery that the difficulty with global warming is that many areas are facing freak flooding. 'General modelling suggests that every degree Celsius of warming leads to a 1 per cent increase in rainfall globally,' he explains. 'But these downpours are not uniform, causing intense bursts and downpours of rain in some places and not in others. We are learning about this 1 per cent effect as we go.'

In his book, Flannery describes the dramatic decline in winter precipitation in southwestern Australia since the Sixties. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has forecast that on the east coast, rainfall could drop by 40 per cent by 2070, along with a seven-degree rise in temperature and an increased chance of bush fires. Last November, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report added to the predicted misery, stating that 'the annual flow in the Murray-Darling basin is likely to fall by 10-25 per cent by 2050', resulting in a decline in production from agriculture and forestry.

Five years ago, during the last major drought, I travelled through western Queensland, across a fragile, red-baked landscape that was obviously not suited to the hooves of millions of cattle and sheep - there are no Australian native animals with cleft hooves - and met farmers whose dreams were crumbling to dust. Back then, there was virtually no mention of global warming. The problem was attributed to the dry, cyclical conditions caused by El Nino, a powerful climatic phenomenon linked to the Pacific Ocean, which drives rain-bearing clouds away from the continent.

Fast-forward to July 2007 and few scientists doubt the 'big dry' is caused, in part, by climate change. Some refer to it as a climate shift; others, like Flannery, who matches Al Gore in his Armageddon-like predictions, are unequivocal that it is a foretaste of what's to come. As the first developed nation to experience such a prolonged dry spell, it's no wonder that the rest of the world is looking on to see how Australia copes - and what lessons can be learned.

This time I chose not to trek to the burnished outback. I wanted to see the effect of the drought a day's drive from Sydney or Melbourne. This wouldn't be a story of skeletal cows and cracked earth, rather the more complex tale of water mismanagement and a pounding assault by humans on a delicate ecosystem.

What is remarkable is the seismic swing among ordinary Australians over the past 12 months. The synergy of An Inconvenient Truth (although John Howard, until recently a climate sceptic, snubbed Gore on his Australian tour), the release of the Stern Report by British economist Sir Nicholas Stern and a rise in food prices have combined as a loud wake-up call. Now, as the stress of trying to squeeze every drop out of an over-stretched waterway threatens to tear communities apart, fierce public debate has forced the environment to the forefront of this year's general election. Two massive desalination plants will be built in Victoria and NSW, following the construction of Perth's successful 'de-sal plant'; the government also announced it would ban incandescent light bulbs, which contribute to greenhouse gases.

For Flannery, these are baby steps. 'We could be the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy. We've got solar potential; we've got a geo-thermal province in central Australia and the best potential for wind power off the east coast.' For Anne Jensen, an academic who's been studying the ecology of the lower Murray in South Australia for 25 years, it's a question of priority. 'Everyone is fighting to keep what they've got in a situation where people are going to need to give something up,' she says. 'While everyone is on rations, we have to make sure that the river is healthy enough to support us all.'

It was Mark Twain who compared the River Murray to America's Mississippi. During the 19th century, paddle steamers were a familiar sight along its lazy green-grey currents, ferrying goods from town to town. Covering an area of more than one million km2, the basin carries water from the tropical north in Queensland to the Darling River, and from the Murray's source in the Snowy Mountains to the outskirts of Adelaide, 1,500 miles downstream.

Nearly 60 years ago, the Snowy Hydro scheme was opened, harnessing the headwaters of three rivers to generate hydroelectricity and capture melting winter snows in two large lakes, Eucumbene and Jindabyne. With the creation of 16 dams and countless weirs, the scheme promised to 'drought proof' the nation by creating a reliable supply of water to the Murray. In the long term, the environment lost out, but the dry, fertile country, like Finley, to the west, was transformed into dairy pastures, orchards and lush rice fields.

When it comes to the River Murray, nothing is straightforward. Despite the commission in charge of the river being set up in 1917, it is only this year that the federal government is wresting control from the four states which, until now, have had their own rules and conflicting regulations. While Queensland, NSW and South Australia were quick to cede power to the central government, Victoria has raised the possibility of bringing a case to the High Court to protect its water rights.

The accumulation of years of over-allocation and drought has resulted in a pitifully low stream level. In June 2006, the catchment received an inflow of 700 gigalitres. A year later, it had plummeted to 300 gigalitres. (One gigalitre is 1,000m litres.) What is keeping the region functioning is the depleted water storage in dams like Hume, just outside Albury, a bustling centre on the border between NSW and Victoria. And it is from Albury that I set off, the day after meeting Malcolm Holm.

Ironically, it's raining. To an untrained eye, the green verges look promising. To Neville and Ruth Kydd, the grass in their paddocks is too sparse for their herd of dairy cows, which they have been hand-feeding since Christmas. This salt-of-the-earth couple, in grubby jeans and wellies, were particularly hard hit by last year's water cuts. They had bought A$500,000 worth of water early in the season, but the government took back almost half, Neville tells me, grim-faced. 'How could they get it so wrong? It's mind-boggling.'

Australia's water system is, indeed, mind-boggling. There are 24 different sorts of water licences in the Murray-Darling basin alone, which provide irrigators with varying degrees of security. Almonds and oranges are on the more costly high-security licences because without regular sprinkling the trees will die. As Neville Kydd says, 'If this season there is no water in the dam, virtually no dairy farmers will survive. It will return to sheep country. You can't sustain those sorts of losses year in year out.'

From their spartan bungalow it is 15 miles down the road to Prairie Home, the generous homestead of Louise and Andrew Burge. A log fire burns; tea and cake are laid out on a wooden kitchen table, alongside a wad of typed notes. Louise, 49, has written a summary of the state of their sheep and crop farm. She refutes evidence that the current drought is driven by climate change, providing a series of old photographs showing the Murray in drier conditions than it is in now.

'Global warming represents a herd mentality with a herd mentality for the solutions,' she begins. 'Australia has developed mass plantations in the upper catchments so in the next drought we will have less run-off because the trees are going to take water. This will exacerbate the drought,' she pauses for breath. 'My solution is to encourage new technologies and address emission reductions at the source.'

Even though Australia is one of only two western countries (the other is the US) not to ratify the Kyoto Treaty, it still adheres to international obligations to offset its emissions. According to a UN report, per capita, Australia's emissions of greenhouse gases are among the highest in the world. While planting vast forests attempts to fix one problem, it creates another. As the drought bites, the conflict between farmers, traditionally portrayed as rampant land-clearers, and environmentalists is brought to the fore. In reality, while all the farmers I spoke to were global warming sceptics, they were passionate conservationists. And to be fair, as a huge island, Australia experiences such volatile swings in climate it can mask a perception of an irreversible shift. Farmers will argue that the current drought is very similar to that of the 1890s and 1940s.

Nonetheless, the effect on rural towns all along the Murray is acute. Figures from the Reserve Bank reveal that rural debt has almost doubled from A$26.4bn in 1999 to A$43.3bn in 2005. In Deniliquin, 20 minutes from the Burges' farm, the wide streets are eerily quiet. That evening, in the empty Federal Hotel, I meet Wayne Cockayne, an obliging 44-year-old whose glassy eyes stare into the mid-distance. 'This town's gone backward,' he says, taking a sip on a Diet Coke. 'In 1979, when I left school, the town was prospering. Farmers' children are leaving the land now.'

For the past four years, Cockayne hasn't made a cent from the cereals on his 3,000-acre property 20 miles south of Deniliquin. This year he had to pay for water to be trucked in to flush his toilet. He grits his teeth. 'I know about depression,' he goes on. 'I locked myself in at home for four days. Then I got in the family car and drove into town. A friend found me slumped over the steering wheel crying. I never thought I'd be a person who would suffer from it, but I've been better since I went to a grief and depression counsellor.'

'In the first seven years, I had, on average, two people a year from the farming community who presented with depression,' Dr Harry von Rensburg tells me in his surgery in Barham, 60 miles west of Deniliquin. An owlish, direct-talking South African GP, Von Rensburg has lived in Barham for the past decade. This year he is 'actively managing' more than 120 farmers, including some of the most high-profile landowners in the district. A psychologist comes once a week and has back-to-back appointments. 'If we could get her twice a week we would fill that.'

A year ago, Beyond Blue, the national mental health body, reported that one farmer commits suicide in Australia every four days. I ask Dr Von Rensburg whether this figure is accurate.

'Absolutely. In the past three years there have been eight suicide attempts here. A handful are on suicide watch - their spouses or children have taken control of firearms.' He leans back in his big black chair. 'Shooting is the most favoured method; second is hanging.'

Von Rensburg puts this dramatic increase down to the drought's longevity and the uncertainty it brings. 'People are asking themselves, will this be ongoing? Are we going to see our landscape change? That is the greatest fear - what we can't control.'

Neil Eagle, the grand old man of orchard farming in the region, is a sprightly 73-year-old with large, dirt-encrusted hands and a deep, rumbling voice. He refuses to be beaten. Unlike his neighbour, who didn't purchase water this year, and whose orange trees are virtually bare, Eagle's citrus forest looks healthy. 'It could get to the stage where there's no water to buy,' he says, biting open a juicy orange. 'We could lose our trees. Then it would take seven to 10 years to get back into production. That would be very serious.'

Eagle's family have been living around Eagle Creek since 1870. 'As far as temperature changes go, in the Forties and Fifties it was definitely hotter than it is now,' he says. 'I don't agree with the doom and gloom merchants that the sea is going to rise.' He gives a wry smile. 'It's become nearly a religion, this idea of global warming.' Still, he can't resist a swipe at those downstream in South Australia. 'The equivalent of two-and-a-quarter Dartmouth Dams go up in evaporation in the Lower Lakes. It's a squander of our resources.'

Some 300 miles west of Eagle Creek, in South Australia, Anne Jensen is witnessing a collapse of entire ecosystems on the floodplains. In the Nineties, one local from Kingston-on-Murray described this as a 'garden of Eden' for river red gums, some 400 years old. Today it resembles a graveyard. Jensen sees the 'hundreds of thousands of trees' dying in the Lower Murray as 'a combined effect of a man-made drought in the river system, together with the severe natural drought which is proving to be the last straw'.

The twisted, ashen-grey branches of the black box eucalyptus and river gums are stark indicators of the region's deteriorating health. These hardy trees require natural flooding to survive. They have done without a decent drink for over a decade, but now there's 'an abrupt change', according to Jensen. 'If we got a flood in the next two to three years we could save the river, but only with enormous amounts of rain.'

A mile from Kingston is Banrock Station. More famous in Britain for its crisp white wines than its pioneering conservation strategies, this vineyard pumps profits back into restoring the local wetlands. It has had considerable success in improving the Riverlands' biodiversity, but due to the minimal amount of water in the Murray allocated for the environment, and the rising salinity, they can only achieve so much.

Two years ago, the 'Living Murray' programme pledged to recover 500 gigalitres, the equivalent of Sydney Harbour, for the Murray for environmental purposes by 2009. At present they are likely to fall 80 per cent short of that target. For years, the country's most valued artery has been withering, some would say dying. 'In 2002 the river ran out of water,' says Adelaide-based Professor Mike Young, a water expert. 'There are three dredges in the mouth to keep it open and to keep water going into the Coorong wetlands.'

This 60-mile stretch of wetlands holds a particularly poignant place in Australian history, as the inspiration for the film Storm Boy, about a young lad who befriends a pelican called Mr Percival. The Coorong is an internationally recognised wetland sanctuary for migratory birds, but it sits on a part of the coast that is now gasping to stay alive as sand pours in. Over the years there has been a steady decline in its pelican population, due to a lack of fish and hyper-salinity. The water in the southern lagoon of the Coorong is four times saltier than the ocean.

As Anne Jensen explains, 'In South Australia there is water in the river and it looks all right, because of artificial pools held up by weirs. You can see plants and birds.' She pauses, sighing. 'It's the same problem with the drought. It's been raining, people's gardens are green. But it's a false image.' And many hundreds of kilometres away in Albury there is no water in the Hume dam.

I catch up again with Malcolm Holm and his family at the Hume dam. Reduced to 12 per cent of its capacity, there is a yawning gap of cracked red earth at the end of the boat ramp where the water level should be, and the limbs of blackened trees reach skywards. Holm laughs when I tell him that after driving around the region, I'm drowning in arguments about water allocation. 'It is very political,' he says.

What has struck me is that if temperatures continue to rise globally, as predicted, what is happening now in Australia is bound to occur in other regions, where many countries share one river system - the Euphrates in the Middle East, the Mekong in Asia. The World Bank estimates that by 2025, about 48 countries will experience water shortages, affecting more than 1.4bn people, the majority in under-developed regions. Here in Australia, at least the economy is robust and competing groups whose livelihoods depend on the dwindling flow of the Murray can sit down and talk. Where rivers cross borders, it won't be a case of negotiating and compromise - it will be war.

The future of many Australian farmers hangs in the balance. Notwithstanding showers in recent months, the pendulum from a La Nina wet-weather phase, which usually follows an El Nino drought, has not swung. 'And it is unlikely to do so for the rest of the year,' says Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis at Australia's Bureau of Meteorology. The drought, the bureau warns, is a long way from breaking. 'It will take years to refill the dams.'

Last year the drought whittled 1 per cent off the national economy, and this year reduced the available annual milk supply by more than a billion litres. As I write this in late July, during Australia's winter, the blistering summer is still several months away. But Professor Mike Young warns that already 'Adelaide is in a very frightening situation. If it doesn't rain and the dams don't fill, there isn't enough water in the system to supply the city.'

Living with such continued stress inevitably takes its toll, as it did on Holm, known by his friends as a particularly careful person. What's improbable is how rationally he dealt with the tragic mistake in his dairy. 'I called Jenny on the mobile and told her I'd cut off my hand,' he says. It had ended up on the ground after going through the whole machine and was taken and preserved by the paramedics. 'Luckily it wasn't mangled.' Holm was given a hefty dose of morphine and antibiotics and transferred by air to a Sydney hospital. His hand lay in ice in an 'esky', a cool box more commonly used in Australia for chilling beers.

'He amazed me,' says Jenny, who travelled with him. 'On the plane, he kept saying, "Have you got that esky?"' How did you cope? She shrugs and smiles, her face crumpled from the strain. 'He's still alive. I knew we'd be OK.'

Five weeks and 22 hours of anaesthetic later, Malcolm's hand was sewn back on. As he pulls off the protective glove, Ellena screws up her face and looks as queasy as I feel. 'The first skin grafts from my arm didn't take, so they took 12ml [of skin] from my back,' he points to the bulbous lump on the wrist. 'I've got another three operations ahead. There are two tendons to stitch up, pins to remove and a bit of liposuction on the arm to get rid of the flap.'

Movement is returning as the nerves grow back. 'It's a good outcome,' he says, cradling his arm. 'It's the little things... I can't do up a button, so we've put Velcro on my shirts.' At least it's your left hand, I say. 'I am left-handed.' He gives a dry smile. 'But I feel lucky. If I was wearing a jumper or a long-sleeved shirt I wouldn't have had an arm at all.'

Malcolm had to hire extra staff, and eight households are now dependent on his business. What if the drought doesn't break? 'We're in a lot of trouble.' His eyes narrow. 'We have very little fodder. After mid-August, there's no hay left.' He half-laughs. 'I'm a typical farmer. I just get on with it. Life's always a challenge.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/...21,00.html
Reply

#2
This article is true about the fear in the Australia community and the water crisis, yet part of the agenda is to establish industrial water- recycled sewage which is already happening in all major cities in Australia and the general population are not aware that they are paying $2.90 for 600 ml bottled water that is their own waste.
The other fact is Australia is listed as one of, if not the highest, food quality producers in the world. Our food is fantastic, first grade quality and reasonably priced, yet as farmers endure ‘natural’ disasters we, the community, are very happy to accommodate the continual rising prices of farmed Australian food, the other agenda is to increase the imported produce.
But the one thing that the rest of the world does not know is most farmers are rapists, yes they take and take until there is nothing left of the land, the Murray is the life blood of our country but those who have access to it take far more than they need. Over a hundred years of toxic waste and chemicals dumped into that great river, how can it keep sustaining itself? There are sections up north where it has not altered, where people live and cherish the river for its beauty.
When you keep taking and taking, what you are taking eventually surrenders to lifelessness.
Reply

#3
You sound very bitter toward the farmers - and I guess I can understand that. But, on the other hand, don't you also need the farmers? Or do you think that everyone should grow their own food and things would be better? Personally, I wish that I could grow my own food and not have to rely on the stores as much. Maybe in my next house...
Reply

#4
No, I am not bitter and I do respect the farmers for their long working hours, and yes I agree that we need them, it would be too difficult for us all to grow our own produce. I am also aware that many farmers have no choice but to use the chemicals or they will miss out on government assistance.
But it is like so many issues that we currently face, they are our own fault yet we refuse to take any blame or responsibility.
It is like a dog that bites the hand that feeds it.
Farming issues will increase because they have taken ‘eco’ out of the cycle, their green thumbs need to become green minds.
Reply

#5
The Real Story Behind Howard's Murray-Darling Water Legislation
 
Written by Citizens Electoral Council Research Team

Prime Minister John Howard has presented legislation to the Parliament, authorising the Federal Government to seize control of all of the water of the Murray-Darling Basin from the states, and to put it under a new Federal agency with dictatorial powers. Just before Victorian Premier Steve Bracks and his Water Minister John Thwaites suddenly resigned on Friday, July 27, Bracks charged that Howard's actual intent was to privatise all of the Basin's water. Caught, Howard bellowed that Bracks was "desperate, stupid, inaccurate and just totally wrong."

It is Howard who is desperate. The global financial system is now crashing down, and the financial oligarchy which owns Howard is attempting to grab control over such vital assets as raw materials, food, and water, so as to maintain their political power when their paper, and even their banks vaporise. Howard's legislation will give his owners control over the Basin's water for which they will charge whatever they want, and, by bankrupting most of the farmers there, in Australia's food bowl—as this legislation assuredly will—will make us dependent on multinational agribusiness for our food.

Howard lied that he had no secret plan to privatise the Basin's water, but the plot is hardly a secret: it has been underway since another rabid privatiser, Prime Minister Paul Keating, initiated it in 1994 through an agreement of the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), and as part of the same National Competition Policy which led to the other privatisations in gas, electricity, transport and telecommunications. It picked up steam when the Murray-Darling Basin Commission started interstate water trading in 1998, and accelerated rapidly when Howard created his National Water Initiative (NWI) in 2003, and then the National Water Commission (NWC) in December 2004, to implement the NWI. Its final phase is the legislation now before Parliament, which Howard intends to ram through before the Federal election, and it has the full backing of Kevin Rudd's ALP.

Howard's enraged reply to Bracks notwithstanding, Howard, his Water Minister Malcolm Turnbull, and all of the key personnel of the institutions named above have constantly trumpeted their intent to privatise water, often under such typical NWC euphemisms as the "principles of consumption-based pricing and full cost recovery". Or, when NWC Chairman Ken Matthews lectures all over the country, he emphasises such "Reform Challenges" as, in his words:

* The water stewardship concept engages the private sector in improved water management. To [sic] often, water is seen as just the business of governments and in my view this is both myopic, and wrong;
* pricing reform not keeping pace with the task (e.g. recovery of water management costs; recovery of urban investments);
* strengthen competition and innovation and private sector opportunities;
* significant government subsidy of infrastructure still says the sector is not 'normalised'.

The Prime Minister and Cabinet's own website even features the study, "A Discussion Paper on the Role of the Private Sector in the Supply of Water and Wastewater Services". Echoing Bracks, NSW's Minister for Lands and Regional Development, Tony Kelly, declared on August 2, 2007, "I am just a little bit worried this is all about making water another commodity so that Macquarie Bank can be able to buy and sell it and make an absolute fortune".

An absolute fortune, indeed: under the 1994 COAG agreements, governments corporatised their water utilities, which are worth over $70 billion, but would be sold for far less. The real money would be made in charging consumers and the few remaining farmers tens of billions more for water.

The Murray-Darling Basin is the breadbasket of Australia, which accounts for 71% of all of our irrigated crops, and feeds 61% of all Australians. At stake, therefore, is the security of our national food supply, as well as the social and economic viability of regional Australia throughout the Basin. Deregulation of the dairy industry and the initial phases of water privatisation have already contributed to the collapse of Australia's farms by 20,000 from an official figure of 150,391 in 1994 to 130,526 today, though in reality there are far fewer, because the Australian Bureau of Statistics has changed their definition of what is a farm, from one with $22,000 of agricultural output to only $5,000, inflating the farm numbers.

The Privatisation Scam

Privatisation has a simple premise: the less water there is, the more can be charged for it. Thus, there was and has been no serious Federal Government attempts to expand water supplies throughout the entire, horrific drought-ridden period which began coincident with Keating's initial moves toward water privatisation in 1994-95, right through until today. Water supplies to farmers have been shrinking throughout that period, not solely—or perhaps even mainly—due to drought, but to governmental action or inaction, including, most recently, the cut-off of water allocations, and the diversion of ever-larger quantities into "environmental flows".

The whole process of privatising government assets, including water, was begun internationally under the Thatcher government in Britain, and was designed by a London-based think tank, the Mont Pelerin Society (MPS), the granddaddy of all right-wing, deregulationist, pro-globalist think tanks internationally. The MPS was set up after World War II by the British Crown and its chief financier, Harley Drayton, to organise against the type of strong national government represented by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the U.S., which would not kneel to the financial oligarchy. Given the Crown's role in privatisation, it is lawful that the President of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission is the Rt. Hon. Ian Sinclair, a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council. On behalf of, and answerable only to the Crown, the Privy Council is the ruling body of Britain and its still-existing empire ("Commonwealth"). Upon induction, all members swear sole allegiance to the Crown, and an oath of complete secrecy regarding any Privy Council business—which includes any financial business of substance throughout the empire.

All of the chief personnel involved in Howard's "water reforms", from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission through his National Water Commission, are either hard-core privatisers or radical environmentalists. Notably, Howard stacked the MDBC and NWC with former officials of the radical right-wing, Big Business-financed National Farmers Federation (NFF), and with environmentalist fanatics, notably from the notorious Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists [sic]. (As in the global warming scam, Big Business is in bed with the environmental lobby, which it has heavily financed.)

The Role of the NFF

The single most important figure in determining water allocations in the Murray-Darling Basin, has been Dr. Wendy Craik, Chief Executive of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission since 2004, and the Executive Director of the NFF from 1995-2000.

However, since the MDBC could not force changes in water flows and allocations, Howard founded the NWC to establish the infrastructure and policies for such mandatory changes, and two of its seven ruling Commissioners were top figures in the NFF: Peter Corish, the national president of the NFF from 2002-2006 when he left to join the NWC, and longtime Howard hit-man, David Trebeck, the founding Deputy Director of the NFF and the mastermind of the 1997-98 plot to bust the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA). NFF personnel also co-wrote the Workplace Relations Act 1996 as the precursor to the present, anti-human Work Choices Act. Many think that the NFF'er and MDBC boss Craik is the obvious choice to head up the new Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which will dictate what her Murray-Darling Basin Commission could only suggest.

The NFF itself has endorsed Howard's new legislation, though it is obvious that it will decimate regional Australia. Their endorsement is not surprising, since the NFF is known by most farmers as "No Family Farms", and was founded to help push free trade and deregulation throughout the economy, as it is now doing with water.

The full story of the NFF is told in the Citizens Electoral Council's 1998 96-page pamphlet, Stop the British Crown Plot to Crush Australia's Unions we will summarise the essentials here.

When Howard first came to power in March 1996, six members of his government were closely affiliated with the H.R. Nicholls Society, a radical deregulationist spin-off from the Crown's Mont Pelerin Society. These included Howard himself, Defense Minister Ian McLachlan (a former president of the NFF), Treasurer Peter Costello, Minister for Workplace Relations Peter Reith, Assistant Treasurer Rod Kemp, and Minister for Employment David Kemp. The H.R. Nicholls Society was named after the turn-of-the-century editor of the Hobart Mercury, who crusaded against Mr. Justice Higgins, the President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration, for his finding in the famous 1907 Sunshine Harvester case, that labour must be paid a "living wage" sufficient to support a worker, his wife, and three children.

The H.R. Nicholls Society, in turn, was indistinguishable from the leadership of the NFF, who had helped found H.R. Nicholls. The NFF itself had been founded in 1979 by members of the blueblood, Anglophile Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council, to lobby for free trade and to bust up the farmer-labour alliance policy of longtime Minister of Trade, the legendary John "Black Jack" McEwen, based upon a policy of rapid economic growth generated by a policy of "Protection All Around", for both agriculture and for manufacturing. The AWGC's Executive Director was David Trebeck, soon to be the founding Deputy Director of the NFF. Money poured in from Big Business to finance NFF actions against the unions, including the "wide combs" dispute in the shearing industry, and the Mudginberri abattoir conflict.

When then-Transport Minister John Sharp in early 1997 commissioned a report into "waterfront reform", he awarded an $80,000 contract to the Canberra-based industrial consultants, ACIL Economics (later known as ACIL Tasman), whose principals were NFF officials David Trebeck and Paul Houlihan, who was to be one of three authors of the union-busting Workplace Relations Act. Without tender, ACIL was then given a further $600,000 to develop the master plan to smash the MUA, complete with Dubai-trained strikebreakers from among Australian military veterans, overseen by Defense Minister and former NFF president Ian McLachlan.

To help crush the MUA, Big Business poured in funds to the NFF's Australian Farmers Fighting Fund (AFFF), which newspapers reported totaled $100 million. It was overseen by two well-known farmers: former Coles Myer chairman Nobby Clark, who was a partner with Rio Tinto in the world's largest diamond mine, Argyle in WA; and HR Nicholls cofounder Charles Copeman, who as a CRA executive had sacked his entire unionised workforce at Robe River in WA. Its trustees included NFF Executive Director Dr. Wendy Craik, who later headed up the National Competition Council until Howard tapped her to head the MDBC in 2004.

Besides the NFF'ers, another Howard appointee is Professor Peter Cullen, a member of the Wentworth Group, which advocates cutting off water supplies to agriculture and similar genocidal actions. In fact, contrary to Howard's phony pledge of "no forced reduction in allocations", Cullen openly calls for precisely that, as in The Australian on January 10, 2007. Among his other posts, Cullen is a member of the Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee, which specialises in locking up land in perpetuity. The Wentworth philosophy is most famously expressed by the quack "scientist" Tim Flannery, who demands that Australia's population be cut back to six million, and by fellow Wentworth member Prof. Mike Young of the University of Adelaide, who also calls for compulsory acquisition of water allotments because "the market is too small", as in his recent discussion paper. In fact, "buying water on the market should come before spending on water infrastructure, to allow the market to show which irrigation systems warrant future investment and which should be scrapped," Young told Stock & Land on June 12, 2007. "Some systems will inevitably be abandoned as water flows from them, with associated impact on rural communities", but, he chortled, "this would be a sign that the market is working."

Still another Howard appointee to the NWC is Chloe Munro, who oversaw the electricity sector "reforms" (i.e. wholesale privatisation) under former Victorian Premier and Mont Pelerin stooge Jeff Kennett.

How the Scam Actually Works

In January 2007, Howard gave merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull the newly tailor-made Cabinet post of Minister for the Environment and Water Resources, precisely for the purpose of overseeing the privatisation of the Murray-Darling under the MDBA. Turnbull is unabashed about his enthusiasm for water privatisation.
In a speech quoted in The Australian on July 26, 2007, Turnbull summarised the sweeping powers of the new MDBA:

"It will represent the biggest reform of water management in Australia's history, and it will see the Murray-Darling Basin on the path of a sustainable and secure water future. For the first time there will be one body setting and enforcing a sustainable diversion limit across the basin that recognises the interaction between surface water and ground water. There will be a basin-wide approach to establishing a water market and water pricing. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority will set salinity and water quality objectives and develop and implement a Basin Environmental Watering Plan…"

Turnbull said nothing about creating new water supplies, because the new Act is not intended to, but is entirely aimed at privatisation. Indeed, the NWC's chief scientist Dr. Colin Chartres has repeatedly come out against creating new water supplies, as by desalination, in favour of solely relying on "rainfall as the primary source of water", while the NWC's chairman Ken Matthews has denounced the idea of bringing some of the huge water supplies in northern Australia south, as "fanciful". "

The intent to privatise is obvious in the Act's objectives. As summarised by the NWC, its key points are:

1) water access entitlements and planning;
2) water markets and trading;
3) best practice water pricing;
4) integrated management of water for environmental and other public benefit outcomes;
5) water resource accounting;
6) urban water reform;
7) knowledge and capacity building; and
8) community partnerships and adjustment.

The initial premise from which everything in the new legislation will flow, is an "audit" of exactly how much water "exists" in the Murray-Darling Basin. That, of course, can be a highly subjective matter depending on the criteria of those doing the audit, not only as to quantity, but also depending on their calculations for salinity, "climate change", the need for "environmental flows", etc. not to mention whether or not they intend to create additional supplies. In plain English, they can say that the water supply is whatever they "find" it to be; determine whatever supplies should be allocated for whatever uses they want (70% currently goes for irrigation); and can thus cut off the tap to farmers at will, causing the price of water to zoom and bankrupting farmers by the hundreds and thousands. The CSIRO is currently doing an audit for the NWC, and—lo and behold!—is apparently going to find out that there is much less water than thought. "If the CSIRO's water calculations emerge as forecast by Dr. Chartres they may spell disaster for many farmers in Victoria, South Australia and NSW … Mr. Howard said the audit would determine the sustainability of irrigation." (The Age, July 26, 2007)

Howard already announced in April this year, that the general allocation of water for the water year from August to May 2008 will probably be zero. That could result in staggering losses of as much as $36 billion ($6 billion in direct production and the rest in associated industries) according to Prof. Wayne Meyer, Professor of Natural Resource Science at the University of Adelaide (April 20, 2007 The Age), even before considering the much higher prices for food. There is additionally a question as to how much Howard himself is responsible for the predicted zero allocation. Howard held a "Drought Summit" with the state premiers in November 2006. Ken Pattison of the Pyramid Hill-Boort Water Services Committee has reported that he told Howard at the time that a disaster was coming and that he should shut off water to recreational lakes in South Australia, and hold more back in the Snowy, Dartmouth and Hume reservoirs or "face a crisis within 24 weeks". Howard did nothing, the result of which was summarised by Wakool Shire Mayor Ken Trewin: "hundreds of thousands of megalitres of stored water has been squandered to SA where it largely evaporated in Lakes Alexandrina and Albert at the expense of the rest of the communities upstream." (Herald Sun, April 20, 2007)

Bankrupting Agriculture

Two preconditions for privatising water are to separate the ownership of water from the land, so that it is "tradeable", and then jack up its price so that it is profitable for the new water barons. The first took place several years ago, and helped lead directly to the second, in large part through huge government purchases of water, which forced up the price dramatically. Chris Lahy, a dairy farmer from the Murray Valley, recently described the process, "As soon as they separated land title from water title it allowed trading. This happened just after 2000, about 2002. When the water title was separated from land, we saw water prices go up by virtually 300%, from your modest $30 per megalitre up to on average 100 per megalitre and in the drought times we were paying $200 or $270 for water and at that price it was unsustainable and you could not grow or produce anything that was going to make money. That was going to send you broke. For us on our farm, $175 a megalitre once you got to that point, there was no point irrigating anymore because the cost of buying water and delivery exceeded your income."

Craik's MDBC gives each state an allocation, which it then divides up among its users, a process easily open to abuse, particularly as states are under pressure to increase environmental flows. Lahy described how it worked in NSW: "100% water allocations were reduced by the NSW state government in real terms by 13% down to 87%. That 13% was to allow for evaporation, infiltration and environment. That water was taken away from farmers' allocations without a single cent of compensation nor discussion. Then what started happening, at the end of the season, was that parcels of water that were tagged 'environment', they were selling it back to us. What the hell is going on—these guys are taking our allocation and selling it back to us!"

A June 30, 2007 Sydney Morning Herald article by Daniel Lewis and Marian Wilkinson summarized why prices are soaring, and the tap is being increasingly shut for farmers, through the actions of the MDBC/NWC and the host of government-funded radical environmentalist authorities.

"With farmers, management authorities and governments laying claim, the battle for water in the Murray-Darling Basin has reached fever pitch.

"Competition for water in the Murray-Darling Basin has gone from a non-event monopolised by farmers to an aggressive multi-billion-dollar game in a few short, remarkable years. In Australia's food bowl, irrigators have been crowded by the likes of RiverBank, the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, the National Water Commission, Water for Rivers, catchment management authorities, the Living Murray, the Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements Program, the National Water Initiative, the Australian Government Water Fund and the NSW Wetland Recovery Plan.
"So many vehicles for restoring water health and security in response to so many suffering farmers, thirsty towns, stressed rivers, aquifers and wetlands. Now the Prime Minister, John Howard, has trumped the lot with his $10 billion national plan for water security. …

"All this competition for water means it looks more like liquid gold than ever before."

Lewis and Wilkinson cite the case of Water for Rivers to show why water prices are soaring.

"Water for Rivers was set up in 2003 after an inquiry into the ailing Snowy River. Construction of the Snowy Mountains Scheme saw the iconic river reduced to two per cent of its natural flow in the upper reaches. With $375 million from the NSW, Victorian and Federal Governments, the Albury-based enterprise has the job of finding 212 gigalitres so 21 per cent of the Snowy's natural flow is restored. It also has to find 70 gigalitres for the Murray System.

"A recent paper written by the chairman, Richard Bull, said Water for Rivers reclaimed its first 80 gigalitres for $80 million. … But other water-procuring schemes have proliferated and 'as an outcome of these forces, project prices have dramatically increased from about $1 million a gigalitre to $3 million a gigalitre,' Bull says. Some project proponents suggest $5 million per gigalitre as a going rate.' Once the National Plan for Water Security starts operating 'it is not outlandish to suggest that further project costs may increase a further 100 per cent—$6 million per gigalitre' … he predicts that once the Federal Government starts spending its $3 billion dedicated to buyback, the cost of water licenses will 'go through the roof'. …"

To show how far that process has already advanced, Lewis and Wilkinson cite their interview with Cliff Twigg.

"Cliff Twigg is a dairy farmer who sits on the management board of the West Corurgan irrigation scheme near Corowa, on the Murray. The district has been unsuccessfully targeted by the Living Murray. 'The Government offered $1000 [a megalitre] and we just laughed at them,' Twigg says. 'They came back and said we will give you $2000. They wanted 10,000 megs. You will hear some of the deals they are doing are up to $5000 a meg now.'

"Twigg said he was determined to see no water leave Corurgan and undermine the investment he had made in irrigation. 'We have only got to lose 10 per cent of our allocation and it's non-viable. If we don't get that allocation we are running at a loss. I want to keep water because I want to stay as an irrigator. It's our lifeblood. You can't dairy without water'."

In terms of water allocations, Craik's MDBC is running another scam, in which desperate farmers trade in their "General Security" allocations for a much smaller level of allegedly guaranteed "High Security" allocations, and at a substantially higher price. But then, the MDBC (through the state governments which it directs), delivers only a fraction of the "High Security" water. Chris Lahy described how it has worked:
"High security water is divvied out to wine grapes, table grapes, nuts of all sorts—almonds in particular and vegetable growers. It's not a great amount of water, but their use per hectare is a lot lower. For example for a dairy farmer, your water usage per hectare was quite high. Then they started putting in a new equation—dollars per hectare per megalitre, so what that meant was it didn't matter what you do with irrigation water, it was all unproductive, because they say flood irrigation is an evil, because the dollars per megalitre per hectare did not stack up well against high security users. But the thing is the dairy industry says, 'That's crazy man, we're producing milk. Every person in this country has milk in their house—in their fridge and we need wine to live?' So we said dairy farmers should be a priority for water delivery, even if we don't get high security water. Fortunately they saw the sense in that, and said maybe we should supply something called 'modified stock and domestic' or 'modified water' for dairy farmers during the drought time, but it still was not enough. It was too little action too late. A lot of farmers just went broke."

And Howard's claim that there will be no forced acquisition of water is of course a fraud, because desperate farmers will have to sell their water.

Further, when private companies take over the water, they will obviously spend the bare minimum on repairs or upgrading of vital water infrastructure, all the NWI/NWC propaganda about "full cost recovery for infrastructure" to the contrary. University of Adelaide's Prof. Wayne Meyer pointed out the obvious: "We have public water systems that are 50 to 80 to 100 years old all in increasing need of upgrading and replacement." If such repairs/replacement is not done, "there is no way out short of going into catastrophic closure". Does anyone seriously think that the (bankrupt) Macquarie Banks of this world are going to pour tens of billions of dollars into water infrastructure? They clearly do not intend to, but to grab the 70% of the Basin's water now used for irrigation, bankrupt the farmers, and divert that water at skyrocketing prices to the cities.

Howard's new water legislation will devastate the rural sector in the MD Basin, a fact that is so obvious, that the Federal Government has absolutely refused to conduct the normal "social impact" study for such far-reaching legislation. However, an independent study at the Australian National University warns of "social dislocation from small and medium-sized farms being forced out of the market by the price of water. Local communities would be devastated."

http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=ausnews&id=2007_08_13.htm
Reply

#6
Anubis bites the hand that feeds him....:crybaby:
Reply



Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Winter of 2009-2010 Could Be Worst in 25 Years Breaking News 0 1,170 01-05-2010, 12:51 AM
Last Post: Breaking News
  Chicago seeks aid after worst rain in at least 137 years Richard 0 1,079 09-14-2008, 02:30 PM
Last Post: Richard
  Worst Drought In 50 Years Hits US Farmers Richard 5 2,428 09-11-2006, 11:39 PM
Last Post: Astrojewels

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2025 Melroy van den Berg.