Australia pumps $1.83 bln into food bowl river

Oct 26, 2012
This file photo shows algae along the Murray River at Albury, in 2009, as the continuing drought affects the river which supplies irrigation to Australia's food bowl region, some 300 km north of Melbourne. The government on Friday pledged $1.83 bln to pump more than 450 bln litres of water into the ailing river and help rejuvenate the crucial system.

The government on Friday pledged Aus$1.77 billion (US$1.83 billion) to pump more than 450 billion litres of water into the ailing Murray-Darling River and help rejuvenate a crucial system supplying Australia's food bowl.

The river and its basin stretches thousands of kilometres from Queensland state to South Australia and crosses various climates, affecting the livelihood of millions of people, but it has been over-exploited for years.

It has also been seriously depleted by years of drought while suffering from increased salt concentrations due in part to low rainfall.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard called the cash injection a landmark step in the plan to return the river and its basin to health.

"The plan is a historic event for water reform in Australia and provides greater certainty for future ensuring all those dependent on a sustainable river system can face the future with greater confidence," she said.

Gillard added that the additional water would benefit major wetlands across the basin and lakes in South Australia "and help ensure the system never again goes into a period of drought lacking the resilience it needs to survive".

By investing the cash in farm infrastructure and water-saving projects, the government hopes a combination of increased flows and better management will meet ecological goals without hurting basin towns.

Most of the money will be earmarked for making farms more water-efficient instead of buying back water from irrigators.

Up to Aus$200 million will be used to remove river constraints, such as low-lying bridges and undersized dam outlets, to help free the additional 450 billion litres for the environment.

Caroline Sullivan, an ecological and environmental economist at the Research Centre at Southern Cross University in , said it was welcome news.

She said the Murray-Darling was the only river system in Australia that "exhibited crisis-level exposure to the combined effects of pollution, water regulation, flood plain fragmentation and other threats".

"The decision to increase water allocation to support river integrity is an excellent signal to the people of Australia that our core ecosystems matter," she said.

"If we can steer policy through the treacherous waters of competing uses in multifunctional systems, our efforts to achieve ecological, social and economic sustainability will be a more reachable goal."

The money will be made available over a decade starting in 2014.

Explore further: Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Plan for crucial Australian rivers draws anger

Nov 28, 2011

Farmers Monday slammed the government's draft plan to rescue a crucial river system supplying Australia's food bowl, saying it will destroy communities and put pressure on food prices.

Dam risk to Murray-Darling wetlands may be underestimated

Jun 07, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Computer modelling used to develop the Murray-Darling Basin Plan may have significantly underestimated the effects of building dams and diverting water on the internationally listed Macquarie Marshes wetlands, ...

The pros and cons of trading water: A case study in Australia

Oct 01, 2012

Water is a commodity, and water rights can be freely traded in an open market. Proponents of the free market approach argue that it leads to the most efficient allocation of water resources, as it would for any other commodity. ...

Damage to farms minimal under Basin plan

Oct 24, 2012

For the first time, scientists at UNSW have investigated the likely impact of planned environmental flows on farmlands and nature reserves around the Murray-Darling Basin.

Recommended for you

Rising anger as Nicaragua canal to break ground

3 hours ago

As a conscripted soldier during the Contra War of the 1980s, Esteban Ruiz used to flee from battles because he didn't want to have to kill anyone. But now, as the 47-year-old farmer prepares to fight for ...

Hopes, fears, doubts surround Cuba's oil future

Dec 20, 2014

One of the most prolific oil and gas basins on the planet sits just off Cuba's northwest coast, and the thaw in relations with the United States is giving rise to hopes that Cuba can now get in on the action.

New challenges for ocean acidification research

Dec 19, 2014

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

wgard
3 / 5 (2) Oct 26, 2012
The Murray-Darling already had 'protection' that worked in concert with the climate, terrain, etc. It was greed for water that screwed the system. So, now, just use taxpayer funds to readjust the various finite elements of the water-lust? Oh, and for those who advocate completely free markets, the water of the basin has been commoditized for a very long time. Now, in a dry (relatively) climate and region, can anyone explain the logic of raising rice and cotton, which far exceed the water demand of even market garden crops? And why should the taxpayer fund irrigation improvements, when it is the landowner/grower who benefits? Ultimately, I expect this funding whirl to be of about equal benefit as all the others previously, or similar ones... zilch, or next to it. (It also begs the question... if the Murray-Darling is currently not sustainable, what will be the perpetual source of the added 450 billion liter flow?)
Jonseer
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2012
The Murray-Darling already had 'protection' that worked in concert with the climate, terrain, etc. It was greed for water that screwed the system. So, now, just use taxpayer funds to readjust the various finite elements of the water-lust? Oh, and for those who advocate completely free markets, the water of the basin has been commoditized for a very long time. Now, in a dry (relatively) climate and region, can anyone explain the logic of raising rice and cotton, which far exceed the water demand of even market garden crops? And why should the taxpayer fund irrigation improvements, when it is the landowner/grower who benefits? Ultimately, I expect this funding whirl to be of about equal benefit as all the others previously, or similar ones... zilch, or next to it. (It also begs the question... if the Murray-Darling is currently not sustainable, what will be the perpetual source of the added 450 billion liter flow?)


U R so right. Only Aussies match Yanks in this way.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.