Almost two thirds of irrigated land in Australia lies within the Murray-Darling Basin, where, in 2005-6, the volume of water applied (7,370 gigalitres) was more than two thirds of the total volume irrigated nationally.

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.