As the Murray-Darling continues to collapse, first the South Australian Government announces a $100 million upgrade to Adelaide's Football Park and then the Federal Government throws $70 million at an automotive manufacturing colossus that recently announced a first quarter profit of $3 billion.

If both the Prime Minister and the South Australian Premier spent more time out in the heartland of this country and less time on international promotional jaunts, they would see what is happening to Australia's most significant river system whilst they sit on their hands - and their bulging governmental coffers.

Mr Rudd's "visionary" statement on nuclear disarmament may press the right buttons in some quarters, but the vast majority of  Australians would prefer that he concentrated on decisions rather than aspirations; especially the bold decisions that are urgently required to resuscitate the failing Murray-Darling system - including the long-overdue prohibition of the cultivation of cotton and rice cultivation in the basin.

The $170 million wasted by Messrs Rudd and Rann would have been used much more effectively as part of a generous compensation package for growers and communities affected by what would be a genuinely visionary initiative.

A visit to the "Water Harvest" section of the Cubbie Group web-site currently reveals a blank page: http://www.cubbie.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=8&Itemid=40

There are many reasons why this may be so. Could it possibly be that they are  too embarrassed to let Australians know the situation and their  plans for our water?

Fair Water Use considers one of the most pressing issues, of the many which comprise the Murray-Darling crisis, to be the severe degradation of  the Lower Murray Lakes and the Coorong. Years of inaction have allowed Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert to decay to such an extent that an increasing body of opinion believes that they cannot realistically be saved as fresh water ecosystems in the long-term. Additionally evaporative losses from the lakes have been estimated at up to 1000 gigalitres annually.

Given the lack of government action to order the release of the 1500 gigalitres required to revive the system, it now appears almost inevitable that the much-debated Wellington weir will be constructed in the near future. It is generally agreed that this provides no long-term solution and will have further negative impacts on the health of the River Murray and its water quality.

Fair Water use has been advised of a plan which would appear to address these problems in the long-term. The "Western Rim Proposal"  involves construction of a levee (highlighted in green) around the shore of Lake Alexandrina, effectively extending the River Murray to the mouth and isolating it from the lakes which would then be opened to the sea, as was the case before the barrages were built.

A weir on the north-eastern side of the lake would allow diversion of flood water into the lakes as and when Murray flows allowed, maintaining them as a quasi-estuarine environment. As is currently the case, the lock below Goolwa would enable boat access between the sea and the river. 

Fresh water wetlands would be restored and created along the western edge of the river extension. Flows to these areas could be regulated to simulate natural wet and dry periodicity. The unique and natural Coorong would be preserved as a brackish water system by diversion of several large drainage channels which currently discharge fresh water directly into the sea to its east. Local biodiversity is projected to increase.

This would be a major undertaking, involving both the South Australian and the Federal Governments, but, as it allows the Murray to flow to its mouth and to deposit its salt load into the ocean, it appears to offer significant hope that the river can be restored. It would also enable the weir at Wellington to be decommissioned, should construction proceed.

The project is certainly a long term one, designed to counter the projected effects of climate change as much as the impacts of over allocation. We are told that it would take around five years to complete, as the sad state of the lake would enable the major on-site earthworks to be undertaken on the dry rim. We are also told that lake bed soils could be used in part to construct the levee, augmented by rubble trucked-in to encase it. The budget would be required to allocate significant funds for remedial work to address the impact of quarrying.

It is generally agreed that the Murray-Darling Basin accounts for around 40 per cent of Australia?s gross agricultural production (calculated by the ABS as $37.3 billion in 2005-6). The one-off price of this major project should therefore not be an issue, as the annual opportunity cost is many times greater. Under the proposal, the levee would be sufficiently wide to be sold for development, with the river on one side and the lakes on the other. The value of these blocks would significantly offset the cost of this ambitious project. 

We are advised that there would be positive economic impact on local communities during the construction period, as employment demand and logistic support opportunities would be immense. In the long-term, given the degree of rationalisation of agriculture that has already occurred locally, the opinion of rim proponents is that communities would gain from the development: tourism and related industries would be expected to particularly benefit as boating and fishing sectors would have access to both fresh water and quasi-estuarine environments.

Jennifer Marohasy is a ?senior fellow? with the Institute of Public Affairs, ?an independent, non-profit public policy think tank, dedicated to preserving and strengthening the foundations of economic and political freedom?.

According to the IPA website, ?Concerned that public policy on environmental issues is increasingly driven by moral crusading, rather than objective science or need, Jennifer works to provide an important counterpoint in public debate and discussion. Jennifer contends that if we really care about the environment, we will want to understand how it really is, and not deny ?good news? stories.?

Sadly, her own understanding of the crisis in the Murray-Darling is clearly limited, as demonstrated by her recent article in ?The Land?, in which she advocates that the barrages at the Murray Mouth ?be opened to let the water run from the lower lakes out to sea?.

We must assume from these comments that Dr Marohasy is not aware that the river level at the next barrage, at Blanchetown, some 270 kilometres from the Murray mouth, is currently around 500mm below sea level. If the Goolwa barrages were opened as she suggests, water would certainly flow, but in the opposite direction to that expected by Dr Marohasy, turning the entire length of Murray from Blanchetown to the mouth into an inlet of the Southern Ocean.

Fair Water Use (Australia) doubts whether many Australians would view this as a ?good news? story.

We are not sure how Dr Marohasy is able to engage in finger-pointing whilst her head is so deeply embedded in the sand (or should that be acidic mud). The plight of the Murray-Darling is a result of over-exploitation of the entire basin; the solution must therefore involve bold decisions being taken which will have long-term consequences for all users of the river system, from the cotton plantations in the north to the dairy farms and wineries of the south.

Some would say that the communities of the Lower Murray are already paying a high price, with a large and increasing number of farmers left with no choice but to walk off the land due to lack of safe water.

It is common knowledge that vast dams constructed by cotton industry to the north are currently brim full of water which would otherwise have flowed into the Darling, reviving the entire system - So much excess water that it has been reported that cotton-corporates intend to commence aquaculture in their man-made lakes. Perhaps Dr Marohasy views this as a potential ?good news? story.

We cannot save the Murray-Darling without experiencing significant pain, but the suffering must be equally shared. At the moment, Dr Marohasy, this is clearly not the case.

In these days of  corporate "spin", it should come as no surprise that investment companies have little or no interest in the future of the the Murray-Darling, irrespective of their stated position on environmental issues.

Fair Water Use has been informed that agribusiness investment group, Great Southern Investment Managers (Australia) Ltd is still seeking investors for its "2008 Almond Income Project"  which will consist of 500 hectares of irrigated almond trees sited on the banks of the Lachlan River.

The associated Project Disclosure Statement states that both river and ground water will be used and that  the irrigation system will be able to deliver 16mm per day (compared to the industry standard of around 10 mm per day), in order that higher yields (read "profit") will be achieved.

A recent report from the CSIRO predicts that groundwater extraction in the Lachlan Valley is likely to triple over the next 20 years, effectively reducing surface water availability by about 11% and leading to a further 8% drop in water available for irrigation.

The ABC quotes CSIRO scientist Dr Tom Hatton as saying "Our estimates are that growth in groundwater use in those areas will translate to a reduction in streamflow, in surface water resources of some 30 gigalitres per year, so you are robbing Peter to pay Paul," he said.

"By taking more groundwater you're actually reducing the amount of surface water in the system."

This project is totally inappropriate and entirely at odds with the environmental mission statement on the Great Southern website:

"Great Southern is committed to conducting all of its business activities in an environmentally responsible way and strictly complies with all applicable environmental laws and regulations, as well as its own comprehensive environmental management system (EMS).

At Great Southern, we feel very privileged to live and work in some of the most unique and beautiful landscapes Australia has to offer, and we are committed to protecting these natural resources for the enjoyment of all for generations to come."

Fair Water Use views this project as an environmentally-exploiting money grab and condemns  Great Southern for its apparent duplicity.

Fair Water Use notes that the register of Weeds of National Significance, a publication of the Australian Weeds Committee,  and a Federal Government initiative, lists twelve specific noxious impacts that weeds may have on Australia. The complete list can be viewed at:  http://www.weeds.org.au/docs/WONSimpacts.pdf

Whereas the infamous blackberry is responsible for seven of the listed impacts, cotton and rice (which do not appear on the register) are a cause of at least nine. All plants on the register are scheduled for eradication under the National Weeds Strategy.

Fair Water Use has contacted the Federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett MP, recommending that, in view of the threats posed by cotton and rice, they be added to the register forthwith. 

FWUA supporters are encouraged to do likewise via: http://www.alp.org.au/people/email/garrett_peter.php

The cotton barons continue their environmental rape:  

The following is an extract from an article published by ?Cotton Catchment Communities CRC? on the 25^th March 2008:  One of the stated aims of this development is to increase environmental sustainability ? do they really believe this ?!  

?With the world?s and Australia?s fish stocks diminishing the demand for fresh seafood is increasing, Australian cotton growers are looking at adding fish to their farming enterprises.

Aquaculture is the fastest growing food-producing industry in the world. Water for irrigation is a substantial and recurring cost to cotton farmers, and aquaculture provides an opportunity to add value to this water.?  

The original story can be accessed via the "Relevant Articles" page.

It was revealed on ABC Radio National this morning (2nd May 2008) that inflows into the Murray this year to date are only slightly greater than  the same period in 2007, despite the flooding rains in southern Queensland earlier this year. To date only  60 gigalitres of new water have entered the Murray, compared to the long-term average for the period of 240 gigalitres.

"Ah, but there is a drought", you may say: That is certainly true for much of the River Murray catchment, but data from the Bureau of Meteorology clearly indicates that well over half the River Darling catchment has received average or above average rainfall in the last three years when compared to long-term averages.

Where is the water? - You may well ask. Fair Water Use suggests a visit to the upper Darling and the vast impoundments constructed by cotton and rice irrigators in that region. 

Sustainable farming practices? - we don't think so. Perhaps Penny Wong does not listen to the ABC....

The following is an extract of a  letter received from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in response to our request to consider the prohibition of cotton cultivation in this country. It appears that the Federal Government is largely happy to let the farming industry grow whatever it chooses, purely on the basis of financial returns - no mention of environmental or social impact:

"In relation to your suggestion to phase-out certain crops, I note that generally the Australian Government does not favour certain types of production over others, or prescribe to farmers what they should or should not grow. Instead, this is an important role for farmers in response to water markets, pricing and trading."

Fair Water Use encourages all supporters to contact the Minister, The Hon. Tony Burke, informing him of the need to amend this antiquated policy, requesting that he acknowledges the impacts of cotton and rice cultivation on the Murray-Darling Basin and takes action to proscribe their cultivation in the region.

Please email the Minister via: http://www.alp.org.au/people/nsw/burke_tony.php

An economist says Australia should consider developing a labelling system to identify how much water is used to produce various products. Some goods such as washing machines already have efficiency labels to help people make choices based on water or energy use.

James Hazelton from Macquarie University in Sydney is at an international water conference in Adelaide, urging that a similar system be developed for other products such as food.

He says giving the information on water intensive products such as rice and meat would help consumers make more informed choices.

"The majority of water consumption is by agricultural industries and in particular things like rice..."

View original article:  http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/15/2217435.htm