The Conversation says:
“(Myth): Australia has world-best water management.
“Australia has one of the world’s largest formal water markets. But that doesn’t mean everyone benefits.
For a start, the water markets are unjust. First Peoples, who were dispossessed of their land and water from 1788 onwards, still have only a tiny share of Australia’s water rights.“
We say:
The authors seem to be confusing water management with water markets.
And there seems to be a lack of understanding on how markets work.
Free enterprise markets don’t address inequalities in the distribution of resources. Government’s role is to do that.
The Australian free enterprise economy doesn’t care for the socially disadvantaged. Markets are about the buying and selling of commodities.
Talking about the lack of access to water by Indigenous people in the same breath as the function of water markets is mischievous and misleading.
The Conversation says:
“In key areas, Australian water management is also far from best practice. For example, building weirs and dams has partly or completely disconnected groundwater from surface water and prevented or restricted the water flows to floodplains and wetlands that keep them healthy.”
We say:
So, weirs and dams have caused groundwater to be separated from surface water?
Ah, the millions of people drinking water from our dams and weirs might be interested in where this argument is going. Should they feel embarrassed that they are causing a geological phenomenon?
Perhaps someone should mention that in many cases, the establishment of dams and weirs has saved some rivers from going dry?
And, what profligate business interests own all the water in Victoria’s biggest dams? Oh, yes, the biggest single owner of water in dams like Eildon, is... wait for it... the environmental water holders.
The Conversation says:
“There is no more obvious sign of the ongoing destruction of Australia’s waterways than the fish kills along the Baaka (Lower Darling River) at Menindee. This happened in 2018–19, during a drought, and again in early 2023, when there was no drought.”
We say:
So, was the 2023 fish kill a result of the Murray-Darling being starved of water volumes due to over-extraction?
No, the fish kills actually followed widespread flooding, followed by high temperatures, sucking the oxygen out of the water.
The authors have not bothered to explain how poor water management is responsible for this event.
The NSW chief scientist and engineer reported on this event:
“Water policy and operations focus largely on water volume, not water quality. This failure in policy implementation is the root cause of the decline in the river ecosystem and the consequent fish deaths.”
The Conversation authors contend that “post-truths” are getting in the way of water reforms, and argue that opinions masquerading as facts are not supported by verifiable evidence.
But the authors stumble over their own contentions.
Kate McBride’s video promoted in The Conversation piece makes for an emotive appeal with the simplistic solution that a greater volume will solve the Murray-Darling’s issues, but having 10 people repeat the mantra “Buy back more water” over and over does not add to the discussion, or I might say, “the conversation”.
In the public debate over water management, it’s never been more important to separate science from opinion, and it is disappointing to see the two authors, well credentialed and with impressive academic qualifications, advance their own myths.
Real science and whole truths are needed to secure a sustainable Australian water future.
Read the original essay at The Conversation, which hosts contributions from academics, at theconversation.com
To submit a letter to the editor of Country News, write to editor@countrynews.com.au
Next week, in Country News, “Five water myths which politicians and armchair critics love”.
