1 / 28

BRS Seminar Program

BRS Seminar Program. Science & Conflicts over Water in the Lower Balonne Peter Cullen Visiting Fellow, BRS. N. Condamine-Balonne Basin. MARANOA RIVER. CONDAMINE RIVER. ST.GEORGE. BALONNE R. LOWER BALONNE FLOODPLAIN. CULGOA R. BALONNE MINOR R. BRIARIE CK. DIRRANBANDI. BALLANDOOL R.

salali
Download Presentation

BRS Seminar Program

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. BRS Seminar Program Science & Conflicts over Water in the Lower Balonne Peter Cullen Visiting Fellow, BRS

  2. N Condamine-Balonne Basin MARANOA RIVER CONDAMINE RIVER ST.GEORGE BALONNE R. LOWER BALONNE FLOODPLAIN CULGOA R. BALONNE MINOR R. BRIARIE CK DIRRANBANDI BALLANDOOL R. NARRAN R. QLD HEBEL NSW BOKHARA R. 0 20KM

  3. Flow thresholds Flow ML/D Av Return Ecol Sig 25,000 ~ 1.6 years Water moves out of main channel 45,000~ 3 years3 vegetation types 50 % wet 60,000~ 3.6 yearsMain flow paths full 70,000~ 4 yearsAt least 40 % of floodplain wet. 120,000~ 8 years70 % of floodplain wet

  4. Harvesting of Floodflow Water • Bunds to divert floodflow • Pump from river & distributary channels • Large, shallow on farm storages • Irrigated cotton • Major economic benefits

  5. Pressures • Huge wealth from cotton • Seen as most over developed part of MDB • Degradation of river health • Salinity risks • Inadequate payments for water • Pressures on Qld re cap on MDB • Threat to NCC payments • History of court action

  6. The issues • View that water in LB is over-committed • LB river system degraded • Anger that irrigators don’t pay much for water • What should be done? • All science contestable - Smartrivers

  7. The Cubbie Option • Proposed 53% of MAF to environment rather than 47% as present • Premier Beattie proposed acquisition of largest cotton property • Local outrage - no action needed, & if needed any pain should be spread! • Beattie proposed independent scientific review

  8. Terms of reference • Review DNRM IQQM for LB. • Review ecological condition of the LB, including floodplains & wetlands. • Propose an ecological definition of healthy working river. • Review likely future ecological conditions in LB • Review reversibility of likely impacts • Advise on monitoring

  9. Review process • Cullen, Mein & Marchant • Advertised & invited call for submissions • Community Reference Group established (Boully as chair) • Held series of hearings where submissions put & questions asked

  10. The water conflicts • interests - large financial benefits to growers & community • values - wetland & river health issues • data - is the river degraded & what should be done • structural - DNRM, MDBC, NCC & irrigators in conflict • labelling - greenies, rapers etc

  11. The data conflicts- Irrigators • flow measurement underestimates flood flows • probably already at 53% • IQQM modelling unreliable • river not degraded at all • Irrigators wanted to be clear as to the environmental assets & what they needed

  12. The Flow Findings • IQQM modelling & flow measurement adequate for purposes • Workshops with irrigators reduced concerns about IQQM • Emphasis on MAF a diversion - focussed on stream gauging errors • Don’t expect better than +/- 30% in floods

  13. Mean Annual Flow ? • We know the lowest flow is zero • We don’t know max flow - only 80 yrs records ( need 250 yrs to be 90% sure) • MAF a nonsense - not a useful management concept in such systems

  14. The Ecological Assets • Rivers & distributary channels • Coolabah floodplain National Parks • Narran lakes • Darling river

  15. The challenge of ecological assessment • LB not yet seen the impacts of current infrastructure - built in last couple of years • Lag times for ecological impacts to be obvious - 70 yrs for some wetlands and they are still changing

  16. Rivers & distributary channels • good woody debris • riparian improved with move from grazing • weirs block fish in low flow but not floods • pulses of flow • all storage’s are off-river

  17. Rivers & distributary channels Invertebrate data • Initial TAP reported degradation • Subsequent work did not support • no real downstream trends • similar to adjacent undeveloped catchments

  18. Rivers & distributary channels Fish data • no significant downstream trends • if a subtle trend, problem of causality - flow or distributary system • similar fish to adjacent undeveloped catchments

  19. Rivers & distributary channels • currently in reasonably healthy state with regard to invertebrates and fish • delighted irrigators and did not please Govt • based on reasonable sampling • are these good indicators in ephemeral systems?

  20. Coolabah floodplain National Parks • limited information submitted • responsible agencies seem to manage in data free way • Irrigators hardly influence the big flood - every 10 yrs • Expect Coolabah to cope, but red gums may go • Reduction in downstream pastoral production

  21. Darling river • Upper Darling degraded - several studies • LB may contribute about 20% of flow • No submissions from NSW or MDBC on this • LB contributes about 1% of flow at Murray mouth

  22. Narran lakes • Ramsar wetland and important bird breeding area • Used to flood every 2 yrs on average • Irrigation development will let it flood every 7 yrs • Currently in good condition but strong view they would not survive likely wetting regime

  23. Narran lakes • major study by CRC for Freshwater Ecology just starting • Interim wetting to be every 3.5 yrs • Irrigators to work with Dept modellers and find least impact way of delivering this • A share of medium floods • No impact on small floods

  24. Community Reference Group • Irrigators, business, grazing and green groups • listened to major presentations • allowed to ask questions • most hearings allowed wider public to attend • had to report to Govt on our process

  25. Community Reference Group • helped focus on important issues • a great learning experience as they observed our cross-examination of science submissions • saw themselves as vehicles for a variety of viewpoints rather than presenting a unified community view

  26. Agency science • Boxes of reports • Consultant after consultant • Series of trivial, short studies rather than a serious effort • Little integration of knowledge • Little discrimination as to what we needed to do our job

  27. Agency science • Must not protect from normal quality assurance procedures of publishing • If time tight, need independent peer review • Management domination of science? • Timeliness of science - setting strategic work priorities

  28. Science findings • science is always contestable • Irrigators hired their own scientists and with regard to river health successfully contested agency findings • agency should never have got into this position

More Related