News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Water war: NSW won't cave in for SA 

Water war: NSW won't cave in for SA

14 Jan, 2010 02:30 AM
NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally, will not cave in to extra demands from South Australia for a bigger cut of flood waters expected to gush into Menindee Lakes this week, dashing any hopes the southern Premier might have of a major environmental win ahead of the State's election in March.

While water will more than likely be released from Menindee for South Australia in coming weeks, it will only be in line with an existing water sharing agreement between States with confirmation from NSW that it will be "no more, and no less".

In a special announcement on Tuesday, Ms Keneally said "we are all Australians and we must work together; this is the worst drought in more than 100 years".

She said the extra flood water would not just make a difference to irrigators and farmers in NSW, but there was now water available to be sent to the Ramsar-listed Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert.

But NSW Water Resources Minister, Phil Costa, told Rural Press on Wednesday the NSW Premier had agreed with her South Australian counterpart, Mike Rann, to stick to a deal already in place.

He said despite pressure for extra water to be sent to the high-profile Lower Lakes and Coorong at the Murray mouth, it wouldn't be happening.

Mr Costa said water officials from the two States were meeting yesterday to work out the most practical way of getting the water to South Australia without incurring major losses.

This week's heat wave is also forecast to take a toll on flows and the amount stored in Menindee, but it's unclear whether authorities will factor in excessive evaporation before a release decision is made.

In the past week, more than 42,000 megalitres a day has been flowing through gauges upstream of Bourke and by Tuesday flows past Wilcannia, further down the Darling, were at a steady 19,000Ml a day.

On Monday morning the Darling River at Menindee was 1.58 metres and there had been no recorded flows there.

However, it didn't take long for the political argy bargy over the Murray-Darling to start after the big soak over much of north western NSW – which included falls of up to 250 to 500 millimetres - or 10-20 inches on the old scale - over about a week.

It started with a letter from Mr Rann to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd last week seeking a significant proportion of the floodwaters once they reach Menindee Lakes.

Mr Rann called for the release to support the Lower Lakes and Coorong, suggesting the Government help broker additional environmental flows out of NSW.

With the Lower Lakes regularly a political hot-potato, Mr Rann has been accused of political opportunism ahead of a State election in March.

Last week he made the embarrassing blunder of claiming his Government had negotiated an extra 170 gigalitres for South Australia, when that was in fact the amount brokered under the water-sharing deal and, it is now clear, was not additional water and there was no guarantee those flows would even eventuate.

Federal Minister for Water and South Australian Senator, Penny Wong, also put pressure on the NSW Government with her own calls for "reasonable discretion" to be applied where there is water available.

But Mr Costa said just how much is sent would be worked out according to a formula based on the amount of water which eventually reaches Menindee, and while too early to say what that would be, he confirmed it would be less than 100 gigalitres.

"South Australia will get what their entitled under our agreement between the States," Mr Costa said.

"We are conscious of the demand from South Australia, but they must understand that before we had sharing agreements their chances of getting water from these sorts of events would have been none.

"Under this agreement they get more than if we hadn't intervened.

"As important as that Lower Lakes system is, we've got our own families and communities to look after.

"We will do what we can to share resources, but farmers and communities in NSW have an equally demanding need."

He said Ms Keneally would not be giving in to pressure to boost the release, despite the boost it could give to Mr Rann in the lead up to the State election.

He said any sharing mechanisms to be decided among the two States must be mindful of the allocations to southern-basin farmers.

Mr Costa said he did not expect this deal would affect farmers, except in the case that South Australia bought or borrowed water to meet its needs on top of the agreed release.

National Farmers' Federation water spokesman, Laurie Arthur, said any deal must be fully transparent and stick to the existing sharing agreement.

He said to think that there was a "magic pudding" of excessive water available in NSW was false because there really was "no spare water in the system".

National Irrigators Council chief executive, Danny O'Brien, accused Mr Rann of "grandstanding" for a greater chunk of NSW's big northern floods before it was known just how much water will even reach the storages at Menindee.

Opposition spokesman for agriculture and food security, John Cobb, said the State Water Sharing Plans underpin irrigator property rights and must be adhered to, even during this big rain event.

"I doubt that much of the flood water will reach South Australia," Mr Cobb said.

"It won’t be because of irrigators in NSW, it will be because the rain fell in some of the most drought ravaged country in Australia and it will soak it up like a sponge."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1


comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The sooner we get rid of States the better. Just how much do these "sharing" agreements actually cost us taxpayers? Water should be controlled nationally. That would save the greedy grabs by upstream states. Water should never have been a State controlled responsibility.
Posted by mayabalene, 15/01/2010 7:00:19 AM, on Stock Journal
Yeah, right, Maybalene, we'll just hand it all over to the sorry string of parochial South Australian Senators who just happen to have ended up in the post of federal environment minister. My understanding is that the far eastern end of the Coorong has salinity levels much higher than sea water. So any injection of sea water would greatly improve water quality there. So could someone please explain to the SA plodders that they don't even need to dig a pipe through the sand spit to enable tidal flushing. They can simply lay it on the surface and let it siphon with the tides. That body of water has been open to the sea many times in the past so there is no excuse for not doing it now. A set of pipes, rather than an open chanel, will allow precise delivery of clean sea water to fix the problem. And at a fraction of the cost of everyone else's fresh water. And SA has a duty to every other Australian to take reasonable, practical and cost effective measures to help themselves before they put their hand out for anyone else's resources.
Posted by Ian Mott, 15/01/2010 9:49:14 AM, on Stock Journal
Always a joy to log on to Ian Mott's warm words. Not sure just where the far eastern end of the Coorong is - certainly wasn't there last time I visited - but the southern Coorong has indeed always been highly saline although 'never' as hypersaline as now. But the really sad thing is to still read people like Ian (and others) lecturing on how to manage a part of the system as if it is unrelated to other parts, blaming (ridiculing) individuals who are not in their tent, and referring to the resource (presumably the water) as if it belongs exclusively to them.
Posted by bruce, 15/01/2010 11:50:39 AM, on Stock Journal
Looks like South-East on my map, Bruce. So at this stage all you have offered us is a bit of hair-splitting masquerading as rebuttal and minimal substance. The facts are that upstream farmers cannot supply their needs with sea water while those wringing their hands about the condition of the Coorong can. And they can do so a whole lot cheaper than using fresh water. The facts are that no river system can possibly hope to be managed sustainably if there is a city with a million parasites who claim the right to take more and more water for increasingly bogus reasons. Game's up fellas, we're onto you guys big time.
Posted by Ian Mott, 15/01/2010 1:54:52 PM, on Stock Journal
Grossly unfair that NSW irrigators get up to 100% water allocation. Meanwhile SA irrigators stuck on 48% - if they want more they will have to purchase the surplus from NSW. 300 billion litres will cost SA around $60 million. The current rules also prevent the SA Government entering the water market, but our growers have run out of cash - doesn't sound very fair does it? Let the waters flow - sounds like a job for the "Dam Busters"!
Posted by Peter5044, 15/01/2010 4:28:13 PM, on Stock Journal
Let's stop bickering and stick to existing agreements. In My Humble Dumb Opinion there is a lot more rain coming. We need Patience --- Yes, that is a lot to ask for after so many years of drought. But it will soon rain massively even in downstream areas. In any watershed (even though humans have interfered with their dams and diversions) water can usually only flow downhill. Let's not discuss pumping upstream here. Since water only flows down, it makes little sense to move it massively downstream, if those areas can soon expect their OWN massive rainfalls --- and those rains will come! Why? Because once the water received as rain upstream is released AND we get the rain in the downstream regions, we will have an EXCESS in those downstream areas! What will people be screaming about then? Why did you release that upstream water while we still need it there and now we cannot even use the water that is falling as rain in the downstream areas?! Let's just try to hang on to our sanity and patience a tad bit longer. Either that or let's tear down all the dams and let Nature run the whole river system Herself! A. Viirlaid, Toronto
Posted by AViirlaid, 18/01/2010 4:14:36 AM, on Stock Journal
Ian Mott. You don't know nothing about us South Australians and our water. Perhaps if there was no rice or cotton plants in Australia we would all be much better off. So how about getting ya facts straight. Not everything is about you! Think of some other poor, waterless state for once!
Posted by Toby220, 11/02/2010 9:21:24 AM, on Stock Journal

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Moorna Station farmer Annabel Walsh, who lives on the River Murray near Wentworth, in Victoria, says while there is a lot of floodwater coming down, the system is very dry and quite often estimates can be well above what will actually flow down the river.
Moorna Station farmer Annabel Walsh, who lives on the River Murray near Wentworth, in Victoria, says while there is a lot of floodwater coming down, the system is "very dry and quite often estimates can be well above what will actually flow down the river".
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
POLL
Q: Does the 'catastrophic' fire warning unnecessarily inflate bushfire danger?

Yes - it is over used and its meaning diluted
(61.8%)

No - it truthfully represents danger and should not be ignored
(28.3%)

I don't know what it really means
(9.9%)

Total Votes: 212
Poll Date: 13 January, 2010

Most popular articles




Stock Journal







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...