Opinion 
 Blogs 
 The week observed 
 Why Cubbie's water won't save the Murray 

Why Cubbie's water won't save the Murray

The world is turning upside down when I find myself in agreement with long-time Cubbie basher Senator Bill Heffernan.

Indeed, after years of reading metropolitan newspaper reports blaming Cubbie Station for all of the ills of the Murray Darling Basin, I thought the news that the block is on the market would be met with another rush of public sentiment saying 'buy it and shut it down'.

So it has been a pleasant surprise to see the results so far of this week's FarmOnline poll in which 67 per cent of respondents don't believe the Federal Government should buy the Cubbie group of properties.

Senator Heffernan is one of those who doesn't believe the Federal Government should buy Cubbie Station. He is right in arguing that if the Federal Government buys the three Cubbie properties for their water it will be a symbolic gesture and a waste of $450 million in taxpayers' money, because it won't do a thing to save the Murray-Darling system.

If all of Cubbie's levee banks were dropped tomorrow, the water would not even reach Bourke, let alone the giant evaporation ponds of the Menindee Lakes.

And not a drop would reach the Murray River or Adelaide - Cubbie accounts for just 0.28pc of the entire Murray Darling flow - despite what South Australian Premier Mike Rann would have the public believe with his populist game of up-stream blame shifting.

People who believe such arguments have generally spent little time on the flood plains of north-west NSW and South West Queensland. Its vastness is incredible, to the point it dwarfs the gigantic creation which is Cubbie Station.

Cubbie has to be seen to be believed and to be understood. I have been to the property a couple of times - yes, it is big and it stores an incredible amount of water, but it is also efficient and using best irrigation practices.

Its design ensures it can harvest its entitlement in overland flood water, while a huge channel running through the middle of the property allows the flood to continue on into NSW.

Rather than robbing Adelaide of water for its gardens, at most Cubbie is limiting the volume of water reaching the floodplain graziers of North West NSW.

Those graziers have argued a strong case over the years that the health of their land is being affected by Cubbie's activities, despite Cubbie providing equally strong arguments that the real culprit has been the drought.

At best flattening Cubbie's water storages would ensure more flood water passed over the grazing plains of north-west NSW, but after that, the water would just be captured and stored by irrigators further south.

The Government would then have to buy those licences as well for the environment to gain any of the water.

Ironically, this shows that Water Minister Penny Wong was not entirely wrong to let slip the opportunity to buyback some of Cubbie's licences earlier this year - it would have achieved nothing but to buffer the company's bottom line and would not have been a wise investment of taxpayers' money.

Unfortunately for Senator Wong perceptions have always played a big part in the debate about Cubbie and her inaction has not been well received.

Indeed the whole debate about Cubbie would be perceived differently if, instead of one corporation running one big property which employs hundreds of people, the land and water was used by 100 family farmers for the same purpose.

If that was the case shutting down Cubbie would be seen as killing a bush community, even though shutting down Cubbie in its corporate state would have exactly the same effect for the town of Dirranbandi.

The problem of Cubbie is such an incredibly complex situation that it cannot be simply resolved by glib populist demands to buy it out and shut it down.

It's a question of how governments, both state and federal, can somehow work together to determine how to equitably diminish the volume of flood water extracted across the whole floodplain, for minimal community and economic impact and maximum environmental gain.

And that task is almost impossible as long as water is still controlled by the States.

This time around Bill Heffernan and Nick Xenophon are exactly right.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Page:
1

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Farmers have been derided for years in regards to their small-scale inefficiencies. We only need 5000 corporate farmers we have been told. Yet when confronted with farming on a corporate scale, with those large scale efficiencies, the reaction of the urban media has been to paint it as the devil incarnate.
Posted by Qlander, 19/08/2009 10:04:32 AM
I find it funny when anything about the Menindee Lakes (yes I live in Menindee) are mentioned the HUGE!!! EVAPORATION PROBLEM comes up. I know Menindee Lakes aren't perfect and can be improved but it seems to me that we have more evaporation here then anywhere else in Australia and places like Cubbie Station has none because it's never mentioned.
Posted by michael, 19/08/2009 9:07:32 PM
The issue in this argument is the magnitude of the "entitlement". Poor planning and allocation policy has underpinned the issues surrounding Cubbie. Let's get back to basics - if the planning is right the rest works. Let's focus on understanding the capacity of the environment to forego inflows and then work out what that amount can supply to other sectors.
Posted by tim, 20/08/2009 8:31:01 AM
Here's a rare thing. I agree with a Farmonline editorial!! The Feds buying Cubbie and turning it over to save the MDB will achieve little apart from the likely demolition of Dirranbandi and St George - which will cost even more money to sort out - and the preservation of the Culgoa, Birrie & Bokhara River floodplain grasslands and the Narran Lake system (never a bad thing in itself). By all means, buy some of Cubbie's water or (shock! horror!) withdraw some of their water rights...but the best solution would be to alter their water licence to allow a more realistic water sharing arrangement between Cubbie and the Culgoa floodplain downstream. This would help preserve a very special but rarely visited part of the Basin and perhaps (just perhaps) serve as a bloody good model for what could happen elsewhere in the system. The old adage is think globally but act locally in order to make a difference. Little steps like evening the balance between Cubbie and the Culgoa system and other similar efforts (already happening) is far more effective in the long run for the MDB rather broad sweeping statements of stuff all that have characterised the debate this far.
Posted by seano, 20/08/2009 9:06:13 AM
To the opposers of buying Cubbie on the basis that it won't save the MDB, I say to you: one brick won't build a house; but this pallet load will go a long way in helping! Especially for the riverine ecosystems in the Darling.
Posted by chippy, 20/08/2009 12:09:22 PM
Buying cubbie and using it to control or prolong floods would ensure more water gets further down stream. Catch some of the flood to fill the dams and then let it out in a controlled manner after the flood has passed. The water is not available for irrigators down stream. The price is too high just now though. It will come down.
Posted by brian, 20/08/2009 3:37:41 PM
Lake Alexandrina/Lake Albert, area, 770 square kilometres. Menindee Lakes, 460 Square Kilometers. Cubbie Station is irrelevent to the solutions of the MDB. Build a "Lock" near Wellington. Remove the lower lakes from Ramsar listing. (Artificial created wetlands do not qualify in any case). Remove the barrages blocking the tidal estuarine features of the lakes. Apply objective, dispassionate analisis to the problem, with vision and void of personal politics.
Posted by Stephen, 21/08/2009 7:34:39 AM
And what of all the floodplains and ecosystems above Wellington Stephen? Do we just put the final nail in the coffin and watch all the communities along the lower Murray and Darling that rely on the river die? These rivers rely on flow events for their very existance but monstrocities like Cubbie are mitigating any chance they have of recieving them. O.2% might not sound like much but it bloody well is when it is taken all at one time. Everyone is banging on about Dirranbandi and St George but you can see the 'demolition' of communities along the lower Murray as we speak, the same communities that have been involved in irrigation for over 100 years not just the last 15 like Cubbie. And to the editor, since when has flood irrigation been "efficient and best irrigation practice"?
Posted by fridgimus, 21/08/2009 8:14:43 PM
Shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic might make you feel a bit more comfy on the way to death but it would be better to keep a bit of a lookout for icebergs. Nationalise water. Ban mining in the Murray Darling Basin. Give the river the allocation it needs to stay alive BEFORE all other allocations. Support sustainable farming. That would be a start. If we don't sort this out we will have a civil war.
Posted by Actionturtle, 22/08/2009 10:00:22 PM
It's not as though it would fix it in one go - would take many years of sustained flows for the benefit to reach areas lower in the catchment as it will take a while to 'wet up' - once the flood plains and aquifers are topped up the river flow will improve. It has to start somewhere.
Posted by dd, 24/08/2009 9:20:24 AM
1 | 2  |  next >
The week observed
FarmOnline editor Michael Thomson's observations of the week's major rural news and what it means for rural Australia.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
14 August, 2009
17 August, 2009
POLL
Q: Should the Federal Government buy Cubbie Station?

Yes
(29.1%)

No
(66.2%)

Undecided
(4.7%)

Total Votes: 656
Poll Date: 16 August, 2009

Most popular articles




Queensland Country Life







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...