A big water problem in a wealthy nation

Clearly, water scarcities will cause the greatest hardships in the poorest nations--those with the fewest options for engineered alternatives. But water issues in developed countries can also harm the most vulnerable, especially if those have the potential to diminish foodstuffs available for export.

Australia is a very wealthy nation and a major agricultural exporter. On the eastern half of the country is the Murray-Darling Basin, named for the two huge river systems that flow through it:

This is an enormous region. It is over one million square kilometers, 14% of the entire land area of Australia, or twice the area of California--however you want to look at it. Other facts that are important for this blog:

• Basin generates 39% of the national income derived from agricultural production
• Produces 53% of Australian cereals grown for grain, 95% of oranges, and 54% of apples
• Supports 28% of the nation’s cattle herd, 45% of sheep, and 62% of pigs.

Agricultural productivity in the MDB has been estimated at $15 billion. There is also probably over $1B in recreational fishing activity. So not only is the Murray-Darling Basin big, it is important. It is a huge food-producing machine. And Australia exports a lot of that food.

Some of the agriculture in the MDB (40%) uses irrigation. As in many nations today, there has been over-pumping. Extraction from the Murray and Darling rivers has led to numerous environmental problems including:

• excessive downstream salinity
• hypoxic blackwater events
• cyanobacteria blooms
• acid sulphate soil impacts
• reduction in native fish species

The Basin crosses the boundaries of four Australian states, each of which has its own concerns. For example, South Australia, downstream, is concerned about salininty; New South Wales, upstream, wants to irrigate.

To enable progress in the midst of disagreement, the national government created the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and charged it to come up with a plan that returned more water to the environment, while minimizing the economic impacts to the region. The first version of the plan was centered around a 40% reduction in irrigation. Farmers were so pleased with that that they conducted public burnings of copies of the plan.

Oh, forgot to mention: this planning was going on as MDB farmers were recovering from the "millennium drought": many were forced out of agriculture or into bankruptcy. No doubt that made the irrigation-reduction pill somewhat hard to swallow.





(Photo from the website of the Australia TEA party. "Julia" is of course the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.)

The Authority has released a revised draft of the Basin Plan, sent it to the State governments, and is preparing a response to their comments. The revised plan reduces the irrigation reduction to about 20%, and asserts that the net reduction in the Basin economy will be only about 1%. That assumes, however, a shift in economic activity from agriculture to other income sources such as fishing, boating and tourism. Which means less food available for export.

And ironically, the protests, now, are starting to come from the environmental community, who say that the amount of water returned to the environment isn't enough.






(Photo from the website of the Weekly Times of Australia.)

The lesson is that agriculture has an INESCAPABLE effect on the environment; yet we are entering a period of human history where the danger of mass starvation has never been greater. Australia's attempt to resolve this dilemma is instructive and troubling at the same time.