We graze our country at sustainable levels. In times of drought we produce less, after it floods the land can sustain more grazing. To me being sustainable means that we leave the country, the land, to our children and theirs in better condition than when we started our venture.

The economic benefit of sustainable farming spreads though out the community, supporting processing facilities, transport companies, retail outlets, local employees and countless others.

But all of that could become of thing of the past. The large scale irrigation industries up stream of us are having a massive impact on our river system and therefore our livelihood. The environmental cost of over allocation is huge and we have the science to show this. And there are other costs - to families and famers like us.

If the plan to manage the Murray Darling is released without proper scientific review we won't know if what is done will be enough to restore the rivers to health. What if the plan gets it wrong? In only a matter of weeks the Murray Darling Basin will release the plan, farmers like me need your support in petitioning the Water Minister Tony Burke to make sure he acts now before the plan is released to insist that it is scientifically based and independently scientifically reviewed. Please add your voice to GetUp's campaign:

www.getup.org.au/campaigns/murray-darling/petition-tony-burke/save-our-farm " target="_blank">www.getup.org.au/campaigns/murray-darling/petition-tony-burke/save-our-farm

The health and well being of floodplain graziers as well as that of the riverine environment, towns and communities are being compromised by inappropriate diversion and over extraction of water from our inland rivers. With your help I’m sure we can set a lasting precedent for how we can look after the land, the rivers, wildlife and rural Australian communities.

Yours sincerely,

Mark Etheridge and family,
Kalyanka Station
Murray Darling Basin

---

PS - In just a few weeks time the Murray Darling Basing Authority will release the draft plan on how the Basin will be managed into the future.

Last night in Senate Estimates hearings it was confirmed that in response to backlash from heavy irrigators, the Basin Authority are about to massively reduce the amount of water that would be released back into the Basin. The Authority say this is based on 'new science' but have refused to allow independent scientific review. As a result, key scientists have left the Basin Authority in protest. Let's add our voices to those scientists, and local graziers like Mark, in calling for independent review of this important plan:

www.getup.org.au/campaigns/murray-darling/petition-tony-burke/save-our-farm
GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues. We receive no political party or government funding, and every campaign we run is entirely supported by voluntary donations. If you'd like to contribute to help fund GetUp's work, please donate now! If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to www.getup.org.au. To unsubscribe from GetUp, please click here. Authorised by Simon Sheikh, Level 5, 116 Kippax St, Surry Hills NSW 2010   

from Crikey …..

Murray Murmurings: there's no jobs on a dead river

Simon O’Connor, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s economic adviser, writes:

When the Murray Darling Basin Authority held a meeting in Griffith last Thursday, irrigators tried to replicate their stunt of burning copies of the plan in the street. Luckily, the good folk at the MDBA had planned for this contingency and waxed the report to a high Charlie Sheen -- neatly rendering the pages flame retardant. This serves as a good metaphor for the response of irrigators to the plan more broadly; a great deal of sound and fury, but ultimately self-defeating.

It’s deeply ironic that residents of the Murray-Darling Basin are so violently up in arms about the releasing of water into the river on which they rely. While today they are reliant on water levels to which they’ve grown accustomed, a dead river isn’t about to keep supporting Australia’s food bowl or the farmers therein.

What we have is a draft Murray Darling Basin Plan that fails to serve not only the river, but those who live on and around it. A strong plan would keep an eye fixed firmly on the long term goal of delivering a healthy river system that can support those communities.

Instead, the draft basin plan falls well short of this long term goal. Vested interests are hijacking the debate and introducing confusion and obfuscation wherever possible, such as the claim that the plan, with its minimal increases in water restrictions, will push up food prices. To navigate this minefield, it’s important to keep the facts in sight.

First and foremost is the fact that the science on this is clear. To preserve a living, healthy river system, 4,000 gigalitres of water needs to be returned. The plan proposes only 2,750GL, leaving everyone dissatisfied, robbing Peter to pay nobody in particular. Without enough water the river dies, and with it the jobs and communities it supports.

The argument isn’t about jobs or a healthy river as the irrigation lobby make out. It is about getting a healthy river and jobs. The birds, the native fish, the red gums and the lower lakes will all thank us for that, as will the towns, cities and industries dependent on the Murray’s freshwater, and fishers and tourism operators who rely on a healthy river for their trade.

Beyond those living directly off the water, we also know that healthy rivers underpin a healthy agricultural sector. Healthy rivers store, filter and deliver water to farmers, water important habitat for pollinators and flush salt from the system.

People cannot do all this. Nature does it for us for nothing. When it can’t, we have to redirect money from vital public services to fill the gap. The South Australian government calculated that the last drought’s impact on the Murray cost the state $790 million (see page 32) including $122 million in repairing salinity damage, $160 million in bunds, regulators and pipelines and $294 million in lost tourism.

Likewise, environmental values, even if hard to pin down, are very much “economic” and must not be ignored.

Unfortunately, the Basin Authority has failed to comprehensively consider the massive economic benefits of a healthy river, focusing instead on the costs. Of 23 economic studies commissioned for the draft basin plan only three look at the benefits and the major study remains unfinished.

Nonetheless, the MDBA has done some work to estimate the value of a healthy river, concluding that 4000 GL of extra water is worth $8.5 billion (page 115) to Australians, well above the highest cost estimates.

In relation to jobs, the most detailed economic studies project underlying growth of 13,000 jobs (page 83) a year, while only 200 jobs will be lost due to water reforms. This could be attributed to wishful thinking if it wasn’t supported by recent firsthand experience.

A decade of drought has shown what happens when nature forces more severe water cuts than those proposed under the draft basin plan — jobs grew in many regions, value of production stayed high and farmers innovated through more water efficient production methods.

South Australia, which received less water as it was already used by irrigators upstream, led the way, and is now the only state with more than 4% of its workforce employed in agriculture.

A draft basin plan that fails to achieve a healthy river sells short the communities, farms and businesses who rely on the river, from the mouth to the headwaters. It’s time to focus on the facts and deliver on the promises.

There will be no jobs on a dead river.