Water Recycling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by journeyman Mick

The trouble with this approach is that it assumes that agriculture sources its water the same way as domestic users: ie the government or a central body like a water supply board builds the infrastructure to collect, store, treat, distribute and charge for water. If you want a truly level playing field then either someone pays for the infrastructure to pipe water to every farmer's gate, or we get rid of all the infrastructure and everyone collects, stores and treats their own water. I'm fine with the latter, I do it already.:U

Mick

---

Yeah Mick to get past the nuts and bolt the detail of structuring a market what I think is that if water was sold on an open market then it would be there to buy. You and I wouldn't be bidding there for our bath water too much mess to sort out to arrange delivery.

SO what I think is that AGL and the like could bid buy water and then for the ones that own the pipes allready just sell it on to customers with a markup to cover their expense. The Farmers who buy it but have their own infrastructure don't have to pay someone in the middle but have to cover their own expenses.

The bit where it gets interesting on a consumer level is that say Mick and Studley open a water company which is like Dick Smith an office and a couple of desks. So we buy water pay whoever owns the pipes for delivery and clip the ticket but only just so that we can get our price below the other guy.

Yep Well anyway that is OK but things like big dams that farmers have. You can say we will charge you for what you have there but what do you do about the rest that is in the dam?

Perhaps someone pays for it and the farmer gets paid for his infrastructure? Might be that he just has to release it into the River going past but gets to clip the ticket on that.

Yep there would have to be nuts and bolts to work out but what we have now is a Government monopoly, just like telephones used to be. Just like when you couldn't get connected, couldn't get your own handset, had no choice of supplier and so on

No reason why the same thing can't happen with water. In fact it must for there to be any hope of a reasonable future in so many ways in this country.

Studley

Get your facts right man! Cubbie Station takes no water from the Darling River. The water is pumped out of the Culgoa river if and only IF it is in flood. As for your other comments that farmers are damming up all the rivers, HA! Have you ever left surburbia? Most rivers in this large dry land only run when there has been big rains somewhere. I have seen rivers way out west that are just a sandy bottom a few metres wide. After large rain they can become 5 kilometres wide overnight. A week later the water has run and they are just sandy bottoms again. We don't have big fast running rivers in this country. The murry is just a drain. Has been for millions of years. Cubby and all the others have spent millions of their own money to develop their dams to catch some of this flood water before the normally dry river becomes just that, dry again. Cubby rarely has their dams full, I have know of the station for 20 years and the dams have only been full twice. And for those that say that we should get rid of cotton and rice, fair enough. But if a farmer has an allocation for 300 megalitres of water then he will use that 300 megalitres to grow something, whether it is cotton, apples, hemp, trees or grain. So lets start paying big dollars for imported cotton and have a glut of apples and almonds! Oh and the same amount of water has been used! Yep, people are smart in this country!

Mate if you want to get a South Aussie upset just mention Cubbie Station and Cotton. They pay almost nothing as I understand it for their water. They got a good deal from the QLD government.

What I was saying about one single national market stands. If water were priced by the market then everyone would pay a fair price. The Federal Government could decide how much water to allow pumped and how much for the system.

Obviously I have you riled up enough to join and make a post although I think I was completely reasonable in what I said. Water is a commodity and it must be properly priced to ensure it will be used efficiently. Figures I have seen vary but range between 80% and 93% of the total use of water in Australia being used by farmers for irrigation. However the irrigated land produces the vast part of Australia's farm wealth.

If water were priced on the market there would be other problems. Orchardists and Vine growers would do OK because they get about $10,000 of produce for each megalitre. Cotton and Rice growers get about $110 of produce for each megalitre. So we would very quickly see everyone trying to grow grapes and oranges. This would then lead to a glut crash the market and nobody would be good.

The solution is still a long way away on this but we must decide which farms and what type of farming we are going to have in this country so that everyone can have a sustainable future.

Studley

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balquhidder

Cubbie Station takes no water from the Darling River. The water is pumped out of the Culgoa river ...

---

and the Culgoa runs into...?

we live in a rural area so have no town watter.

we have always depended on rain watter for all the indor use we have a 20,000 gallon tank on the house and a 5,000 gallon tank atop the hill. the water gets pumped from teh 20,000 up to the 5,000 every coulpa months and gravity feeds back to teh house, this was done due to the large number of power outages. we also have a gass hot water heater and gass oven/griller and cooktop so wee have watter hot and cold and can cook if the power is out. we have never even come close to running out of watter in teh 20 years the house has been here even with 5 of us living here.

we also have 3 large dams that are used for all outside watter as well as around the farm. also pumped up to teh top of the hill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Studley 2436

Obviously I have you riled up enough to join and make a post although I think I was completely reasonable in what I said. Water is a commodity and it must be properly priced to ensure it will be used efficiently. Figures I have seen vary but range between 80% and 93% of the total use of water in Australia being used by farmers for irrigation. However the irrigated land produces the vast part of Australia's farm wealth.

Studley

---

how dare they use al that watter to produce food for the rest of you buggers to eat when it can be got from over seas where they are so enviromentaly minded they even recycle human waste to fertalise it.

Go easy Carl, I grew up in the country. How water was a big big issue back then in the 70's and 80's and still is. I think it always will be and a better solution will be to get as much of it's allocation out of the hands of politicians as possible.

Most of the problem with water use is that a lot of it was allocated by National Party politicians buying votes in Country NSW. The vast part of the water that comes out of the Murray Darling system is taken by NSW irrigators.

Many of these farmers are on land that is not really viable whatever is done.

I think it is fair that some sensible corrections are made. Like taking less water for dryland farming in places like Hay, I would like to see a bit more for orchardists here in SA at present their whole orchards are likely to be lost forever due to being dried out. I would like to see some more water get down to the Coorong for some so called environmental flow.

In the times when I was a kid there was a really big flood every couple of years. I reckon in ten years on the river I saw three big ones when the River was up into the main street of Berri. You don't see that anymore. People are building houses and farms on the floodplains which used to be left as scrub due to the frequent floods. I don't think I am being reckless to say that there is too much water being taken. Flood and drought used to be part of the cycle but the flood part has largely gone now.

I will stand up and say market pricing on water will be good for everyone. Good farmers will prosper, the environment and thus tourism will benefit and downstream in SA we will get enough to manage which we don't at present either our farmers or Adelaide.

It would be pretty dumb to say just stop farming and there will be tons of water and I am not saying that. The fact is though that most of the water taken is taken for farming. Everyone should tighten up I think.

Stephen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by balquhidder

Get your facts right man! Cubbie Station takes no water from the Darling River. The water is pumped out of the Culgoa river if and only IF it is in flood.

---

Hooray, someone else who knows the facts about Cubbie Station. :2tsup:

And the point is that it's pumped when only in flood, otherwise the rest of their water comes from their own dams. As Alex points out it flows into the Darling. It's like telling my FIL, a beef farmer, that he can only collect 10% of the water that falls on his 900 acres, the rest has to be allowed to flow into the creeks, but those creeks only run within his property - sounds stupid doesn't it.

My late Dad, like Alex was a hydrographer for many years - his last field area area he worked included Roma, Cunamalla, Blackall etc. and the surrounding western corner of Qld. so he knew the area well, then when his health went he went into water licensing (still with Queensland Water Resources) and was responsible for giving Cubby their license after a very long and lengthy approval process - I'm not saying anything about anyone - just to say that there's a lot of carp going on about Cubby and misinformation and that Cubby's license was all above board - but nowthe Qld gov' has decided to play politics with it - as they do when the public gets aroused be it rightly or wrongly - in this case wrongly. there my 2¢.

I won't buy into the Cubbie station argument, as I don't know enough about it to give a considered opinion.
In NSW in the 70's, 80s & 90s, it was common to come up with a set of operating rules for regulated rivers that would allow a water allocation to irrigators that ensured that there would always be some water for irrigators and the environment - maybe not as much as they wanted, but enough for them to keep going. Inevitably, the irrigators would put pressure on the government of the day to change the rules so there was a higher allocation, and the government would give it to them. This was water that, in the long term, simply didn't exist. Then, even with the new rules, when things got tight, they would demand 'emergency releases'. All this does is ensure that sooner rather than later, you will run out of water.
This wasn't confined to irrigators. I was intimately involved in developing a set of operating rules for a river which included irrigation areas and a large significant area of wetlands which, under natural conditions, was subjected to long droughts. The rules included provisions for emergency releases if there hadn't been a flood big enough to trigger bird breeding for 5 years, and also releases to maintain breeding if there was a flood at the start of the breeding season. The rules were agreed to by irrigators, National Parks and other interested organisations. After a long (but not 5 years) drought, the government succumbed to pressure to make an emergency environmental release. Naturally, the irrigators also demanded an emergency release. So much for the operating rules.

Just for your interest, the attachment shows pretty graphically the flood and drought periods we've had over the years. The graph is for the Murrumbidgee at Wagga Wagga, but it's pretty typical of NSW and the whole of south-east Australia. Put simply, if the graph is rising to the right, it's above average flows, if it's falling, it's below average flows. I make no comment, other than to say that if you think we're in the worst ever drought now, look at the start of last century.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Studley 2436

Go easy Carl, I grew up in the country. How water was a big big issue back then in the 70's and 80's and still is. I think it always will be and a better solution will be to get as much of it's allocation out of the hands of politicians as possible.

Most of the problem with water use is that a lot of it was allocated by National Party politicians buying votes in Country NSW. oviously not a national party fan.
The vast part of the water that comes out of the Murray Darling system is taken by NSW irrigators. and so it should be there would be a big problem if most of it was taken for the people in town to have a bath .

Many of these farmers are on land that is not really viable whatever is done. no land is unviable it just needs to be farmed in the right way. there is no point in trying to grow lettice in the semi desert when you can breed and run camels verry well.

I think it is fair that some sensible corrections are made. Like taking less water for dryland farming in places like Hay,there are hay shortages right accros austraila as it is this is pressing the price of beef up and up.
I would like to see a bit more for orchardists here in SA at present their whole orchards are likely to be lost forever due to being dried out. most orchids are not run in a verry watter savvy way. sprinckler iragation is used the trees are not mucched properly. grass is left growing up to teh buts of the trees sucking enourmous amounts of watter outof the ground.
I would like to see some more water get down to the Coorong for some so called environmental flow.

In the times when I was a kid there was a really big flood every couple of years. I reckon in ten years on the river I saw three big ones when the River was up into the main street of Berri. You don't see that anymore. People are building houses and farms on the floodplains which used to be left as scrub due to the frequent floods. I don't think I am being reckless to say that there is too much water being taken. Flood and drought used to be part of the cycle but the flood part has largely gone now. we are simply going threw a dry period i think you will find in the next few years at least we will have normal wet seasons.

I will stand up and say market pricing on water will be good for everyone. Good farmers will prosper, the environment and thus tourism will benefit and downstream in SA we will get enough to manage which we don't at present either our farmers or Adelaide. and supermarket wil have a nother reason to up the prices of groceries and the farmer will have to battle even harder to keep his farm going.

It would be pretty dumb to say just stop farming and there will be tons of water and I am not saying that. The fact is though that most of the water taken is taken for farming. most of the watter should be taken for producing food for the 20 odd milion people living in this country. more and more of the best farmlands are being taken over by suburbs.

in qld at least there has been no dams built and no major roads put in since joe went and the population has exploded.
what is happening now is due to the lack of infrastructure put in by the government (we all know who the governmet has been) there are big problems with roads, watter and hospitals.

Everyone should tighten up I think.

Stephen

---

carl

Actually Carl I usually cop a bucketload for being a free market Liberal. That is Liberal in the school of thought of greats such as Menzies. John Hyde was likewise a great Liberal thinker. One of his memorable essays could have been titled, "Who Pays?" which sums it up pretty well. To ask that of people who are baying that money must be spent normally stops them in their tracks. Generally they want public largess to give them either cosy high paid jobs or direct benefits to themselves in other ways at the larger community's expense.

It annoys me a lot that soft and snivelling left wingers are at present stealing the name Liberal.

You will struggle to find someone who hates the ALP more than me. Due to my desire for real solutions that worked in the real world I moved away from my family's rusted on adulation of the ALP and ended up being ostracised for it. Family means so much more than something as pathetic as politics but not in my family or ex family if you like.

The scorn and great spite I feel for people such as Mike Rann who scuttled Howard's attempts at water reform only because he did not want Howard to enjoy any good headlines at all is immense. NSW takes such a huge proportion on the water coming out and was prepared to allow Federal management of it's water use. SA would have been the major beneficiary but guess who scuppered that one. The SA Premier or should I say the ALP's representative in South Australia.

At every step down the river system people take water based on their own needs desires and so on. South Australia gets whatever is left over. At present that is basically nothing.

Points well made about Orchardists and their watering techniques. I having lived there as a teenager had seen how they did it there. Flood irrigation seems such a dumb dumb idea. Open Irrigation Channels are not good either. Getting some heavy mulch down on the red sand they have there would do the world of good for water retention and soil quality but I don't know that anyone does it. However this type of poor use of water is endemic right throughout Australia. In Hay they use vast sprinkler systems to irrigate RICE! Rice which needs so much water and such a huge amount of their water is evaporating before it hits the ground.

Which only makes my argument for a single water market all the stronger. If farmers had to pay the real price of water they would be much more efficient with it. They would be much more innovative in finding ways to maximise the utility they got from it. The single water market would lead to better outcomes all round.

Studley

I haven't looked at Alex S's sheet but I do remember earlier when Media Mike declared this a one in 1000 year drought thinking that he couldn't remember the drought of the early 1980's which was pretty savage. I learned also of the Federation Drought. There was also another really big one I think in the 1930's which I noticed in a very casual glance at previous droughts.

What I did notice is that each one was different in it's own way and had different effects and so it was not really possible to compare any one of them.

But no this one is not a once ever drought it is largely the result of Politicians mismanagement. Actually it has been some months now since you could argue that it is still a drought more a situation of extreme water crisis.

Studley

Without getting deep into political idealogies, Cubbie has always struck me as strange for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, we are a dry country, always have been. Why we allow people to use that water in the most wasteful methods to grow Rice and Cotton is beyond me. It doesn't matter that we might have the most efficient cotton or rice growing methods, it's still a wasteful exercise when compared to traditional Australia dry land farming. The current drought brings that waste into sharp focus.

Secondly, whatever happened to Riparian Rights? The river system is dying dammit, and flood is a natural behaviour of river systems, not an excuse to remove all the water from the system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

Quote:

---

Riparian rights also depend upon "reasonable use" as it relates to other riparian owners to ensure that the rights of one riparian owner are weighed fairly and equitably with the rights of adjacent riparian owners.

---

woodbe.

G'day,

I'm not looking for an arguement over Cubbie either, I think I posted earlier what similar to what I did a few posts up, I just wanted to make some facts known.

Any attack on Cubbie isn't taken against the memory of my Dad, just to make that clear. Times change and the climate has changed, so there are bond to be a whole raft of issues which may/may not need to be addressed in water allocations.

One thing that peeves me is governments jumping in or not as the case may be. An example Qld and Vic. I didn't like Beatie, but he had the guts to do what was best for the population, in this case water restrictions. Now Qld, in this case greater Brisbane, has more dams and can collect more water. On the otherhand, Brax/Brumby in Vic has fewer dams/reservoirs, yet is on Stage 3A while Brisbane in on Stage 6. Now what the heck? One politican had the guts to do what was best in the interest of the public/industry and Brax, who wouldn't make the call for fear of public backlash, with more rain than S.E Qld has had over the period only went so far as Stage 3A, don't call it 4, some people mighn't like it, so we'll call it 3A. ::

S.E. Qld with a lot of rain over the past few months, is still on Stage 6 (last I knew) even though the catchments have received very good rain.

My point is, the public realise that water conservation is paramount, some politicians do and act accordingly. What gets my fire up is politicans who play politics with water, opposite to the greater good.

Haven't looked at the numbers for Victoria, but last time I checked for SA, Domestic use of water is in a minority. By Far. They could eliminate domestic use, and there would still be a problem.

One thing for sure is domestic users are going to cop it in the hip pocket regardless of the restrictions and rights they may enjoy. Largely because of the lack of adequate planning by our elected governments of both major parties. Perth was the only state that had been adequately planning for the future last I heard, and the rest are struggling to get up to last year.

Makes you want to put in a decent water tank.

woodbe.