22 June 2012
29 January 2012
Groundwater issues - sustainability, salinity, water sufficiency
From water campaigner, Maria Reidl:
Maria has sent a link to podcast of a Fran Kelly interview with Professor Craig Simmons of the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training and Professor Robert F.Glennon is the Morris K. Udall Professor of Law and Public Policy in the Rogers College of Law at the University of Arizona.
The interview was brought about because of last week's meeting in Sydney where four of the world’s leading authorities on global and regional water issues will gathered to advise on Australia’s groundwater research and training needs.
A note on groundwater below is from here.
Groundwater
Due to the cap on surface water extractions in the Murray-Darling Basin and the scarcity of surface water resources in other areas, groundwater use across Australia has increased by 90% between 1985 and 1996/97 to approximately 5000 GL/year (NLWRA 2001b). Overall, 33% of groundwater extracted is for urban/industrial use, 48% is used for irrigation and 19% is for stock watering and rural use. South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria use more than 60% of groundwater for irrigation, while Western Australia uses 72% for urban and industrial purposes.
The total volume of groundwater that can be sustainably extracted from groundwater resources is currently estimated to be 25 735 GL/year (< 5000 mg/L TDS); however, many undeveloped groundwater resources are in remote areas. More importantly, most groundwater sustainable yield estimates do not consider groundwater dependent ecosystems or the impact of groundwater extraction on baseflows associated with surface waters. These are major issues that need to be addressed before the intensive development of groundwater resources can be managed sustainably. Some groundwater resources are already overdeveloped including the Great Artesian Basin and many small aquifers in the Murray-Darling Basin and along the east coast of Australia.
Further reading & listening:
25 January 2012
Whither Science? Professor Emerita Diane Bell and the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists
The article below is from my friend Diane Bell. Diane is:
PLEASE NOTE: Miss Eagle has a companion blog to The Network titled Rivers Research. There is a lot of stuff on Rivers - particularly the Murray-Darling Basin and documents relating to the Proposed Plan for the Murray-Darling Basin - there.
Professor Emerita of Anthropology
The George Washington UniversityWashington DC USA 20052Writer and Editor in ResidenceFlinders University SA 5001Visiting ProfessorSchool of Social StudiesUniversity of Adelaide SA 5055
Whither
Science?
‘The draft Plan released for public comment by
the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on the 28 November 2011 does not provide the
most basic information required to allow anybody to make an informed decision
on the future management of the water resources of the Basin.’
So
begins the withering critique of the MDBA draft Plan
by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (WGCS) in what should be
essential reading for anyone concerned with the future of the Murray-Darling
Basin, the communities and economies that rely on a healthy river. But, I would
venture, it is also essential reading for those concerned with the quality of
democracy in Australia. The Plan, after all, is to manage the MDB in the
national interest.
In advocating that this draft Plan be withdrawn,
the WGCS examine five fundamental pieces of environmental
information necessary for a credible Basin Plan.
1. The
water regime that the best available science says is required for a healthy
working river;
2. The
cost and feasibility of overcoming river management infrastructure constraints
so that environmental flows can be delivered downstream;
3. The
impact of increased groundwater extractions on surface water flows (and vice
versa), recognising that many groundwater systems in the
Basin are directly linked to the river systems;
4. Accounting
for the risk to river health from climate change when setting long-term
diversion limits; and
5. The
volume and frequency of flows that are required to keep the Murray mouth open
during times of drought and to discharge salt from the Basin.
With
respect to each point, the WGCS finds the draft is fatally flawed. For
instance, while endorsing the MDBA methodology that identifies 122 hydrological
sites across the Basin and the focus on 18 indicator sites for detailed
analysis, the WGCS points out that the draft only addresses 4 of the 18 and
even then the information is incomplete and there is no information as to the
level of extractions required to satisfy the stated objective of the draft
Plan.
With
respect to the assertion that 2,750 GL will deliver an open Murray mouth
nine years in ten, the WGCS notes the draft Plan fails to say how and whether
this will satisfy the objects of the Water Act. And where is the discussion of
how 2,750 GL will achieve the flushing of the 2 million tonnes of salt that
accumulates each year from the MDB out to sea?
The WGCS states that no scientific reasons are
given for doubling groundwater allocations. What sense are we to make of three
year, $ 5 million CSIRO
research project that recommended groundwater extractions be
reduced? And I would add: What of the argument of Professor
Craig Simmons, Director, National Centre for
Groundwater Research and Training, that groundwater will be a major determinant
of Australia’s future as the climate warms and our population swells?
How could it be that after so many years, reports,
research and reviews, we have come to this pass? Why, rather than defend and
refine the existing peer-reviewed science of the October 2010 Guide
did the MDBA start again with ‘new science’? Why have the repeated calls of
environmental groups, the CSIRO, and the WGCS for independent, transparent and
comprehensive peer reviews of the ‘science’ fallen on deaf ears?
In part it seems Craig Knowles, the MDBA Chair,
sees the scientific community as offering one view of many in a power play of
diametric opposed opinions. When the WGCS walked away from the process in May 2011,
Knowles reportedly said: ‘The Wentworth Group clearly have a lot of
skin in this game and they're trying to make their position known and stronger
and I guess that's their right.’ Of their critique of the draft Plan, he noted
their views
were well known. His refrain: ‘All views will be considered as part of the
consultation period.’
But this is not an exercise in relativism. Some
‘views’ carry more weight than others. In
developing the Plan, the Water Act 2007 sets the bar as ‘the best
available scientific knowledge and socio-economic analysis’.
What then are we to make of the charge from the
WGCS that the draft ‘manipulates science in an attempt to engineer a
pre-determined political outcome'? Can
science be practiced under political conditions that pertain? If not, what is
to be done? To whom is the MDBA accountable? What recourse do we have as
citizens if the Plan is an inadequate basis for informed decision-making?
$10 billion of taxpayers’ money is in play. Will we insist that the MDBA
deliver a scientifically credible Plan for the nation or are we beguiled by the
tug-of-war metaphor?
Professor Diane Bell has
published ten books
including Daughters of the Dreaming and NgarrindjeriWurruwarrin
and numerous articles. Her
current anthropological research
is amongst the peoples she calls the ‘Water
Tribe’.
Further Reading:
Call to reserve judgment on Basin plan
MPs defend Basin Stance
(against complaints from DRAG - Darling River Action Group)
MPs defend Basin Stance
(against complaints from DRAG - Darling River Action Group)
24 January 2012
The Pacific Institute and 25 years of speaking out on water : Peak Water enters the lexicon
For Water activists and those with a strong interest in water issues, the Pacific Institute under the leadership of Peter Gleick is a go-to must. It is now celebrating 25 years of sterling service. Congratulations to all who have kept PI afloat!
One recent and valuable contribution - in Miss E's book - mae by PI is the concept of "peak water". The world has become used to discussion about peak oil, but more important that peak oil (after all humanity survived for milennia without oil rigs everywhere) is peak water. Water is important to the planet - it covers so much of it - and vital to the live of most plants; people; and other species.
Peak Water Cited in The New York Times
Last January The New York Times chose "peak water"as one of the 33 words to enter mainstream lexicon, linking directly to the Pacific Institute. The Times wrote: "Like 'peak oil,' a theory that humans may have used the water easiest to obtain, and that scarcity may be on the rise."
Peak Water Concept Impacts Water Management and Planning
Dr. Peter Gleick and International Water and Communities Initiative Director Meena Palaniappan published "Peak Water: Conceptual and Practical Limits to Freshwater Withdrawal and Use" in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in June. A version of their analysis was published in On the Water Front, describing peak water in the context of global and local water challenges.
23 January 2012
Getting Aboriginal voices into the Basin Plan ‘A Yarn on the river: Getting Aboriginal voices into the Basin Plan’ is being distributed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to outline the parts of the draft plan that are most relevant to Aboriginal people.
“We need Aboriginal people to have a say about the draft because the decisions that will be set out in the final plan will have an impact on river country,” said Chief Executive Rhondda Dickson.
“I encourage Aboriginal people around the Basin to read the Yarn and draft plan, talk it through with us and send us submissions.”
The MDBA will be travelling to towns throughout the Basin to talk with Aboriginal people on their country — in halls, homes or by the river. This is part of the broader MDBA 20-week consultation period on the draft Basin Plan.
While visiting country, the MDBA wants to help Aboriginal people learn more about the draft Basin Plan, and have their say about what’s in the final Basin Plan.
The MDBA also funds the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) and Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN). Both MLDRIN and NBAN provide an Indigenous perspective into the development of the Basin Plan. In addition, the MDBA funds the National Cultural Flows Planning and Research Committee, which aims to provide more information on cultural flows.
The Yarn is available from the MDBA website or hard copies can be ordered via engagement@mdba.gov.au or 1800 230 067.
Submissions on the draft plan will close on 16 April 2012.
Follow the MDBA http://twitter.com/MD_Basin_
Join the discussion on the MDBA blog:http://freeflow.mdba.gov.au/
MDBA Media Office
Murray–Darling Basin Authority
GPO Box 1801 Canberra ACT 2601
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: (02) 6279 0141 blog: freeflow.mdba.gov.au
Join the discussion on the MDBA blog:http://freeflow.mdba.gov.au/
GPO Box 1801 Canberra ACT 2601
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: (02) 6279 0141
Getting Aboriginal voices into the Basin Plan
‘A Yarn on the river: Getting Aboriginal voices into the Basin Plan’ is being distributed by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to outline the parts of the draft plan that are most relevant to Aboriginal people.
“We need Aboriginal people to have a say about the draft because the decisions that will be set out in the final plan will have an impact on river country,” said Chief Executive Rhondda Dickson.
“I encourage Aboriginal people around the Basin to read the Yarn and draft plan, talk it through with us and send us submissions.”
The MDBA will be travelling to towns throughout the Basin to talk with Aboriginal people on their country — in halls, homes or by the river. This is part of the broader MDBA 20-week consultation period on the draft Basin Plan.
While visiting country, the MDBA wants to help Aboriginal people learn more about the draft Basin Plan, and have their say about what’s in the final Basin Plan.
The MDBA also funds the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) and Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN). Both MLDRIN and NBAN provide an Indigenous perspective into the development of the Basin Plan. In addition, the MDBA funds the National Cultural Flows Planning and Research Committee, which aims to provide more information on cultural flows.
The Yarn is available from the MDBA website or hard copies can be ordered via engagement@mdba.gov.au or 1800 230 067.
Submissions on the draft plan will close on 16 April 2012.
Follow the MDBA http://twitter.com/MD_Basin_
Join the discussion on the MDBA blog:http://freeflow.mdba.gov.au/
Join the discussion on the MDBA blog:http://freeflow.mdba.gov.au/
MDBA Media Office
Murray–Darling Basin Authority
GPO Box 1801 Canberra ACT 2601
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: (02) 6279 0141
GPO Box 1801 Canberra ACT 2601
MEDIA ENQUIRIES: (02) 6279 0141
blog: freeflow.mdba.gov.au
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)