If you thought the ETS was bad news.....

Where daily bits of info can be added and discussed.

Moderator: webmaster

Post Reply
duane
Posts: 1161
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Central Coast, NSW
Contact:

If you thought the ETS was bad news.....

Post by duane » Thu Dec 03, 2009 8:09 am

New water grab fears
by ALAN DICK
The Land.03 Dec, 2009 04:00 AM

A DISCUSSION paper on how to establish “sustainable diversion limits” (SDLs) for Murray-Darling Basin water has raised fears good conservation farming practices that retain more water in the landscape could be counted as water “take”.

The concerns revolve around the concept of “interception” of water in the paper, put out last month for comment by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA).

SDLs are at the centre of a plan the MDBA has to come up with by 2011 to manage the basin’s water resources.

Independent Member for New England, Tony Windsor, has expressed fears “interception” could be applied to such things as no-till cropping where the ground retains more rainwater, or to holistic grazing techniques or farm forestry.

As part of the plan the MDBA will identify “key ecosystem functions” and establish what amounts of water will be needed to sustain these.

Its open-ended definition of water “take” includes “all impoundment of water, including in major public storages and essentially equates to all activities which modify flow”.

The MDBA discussion paper lists forest plantations over certain areas, farm dams, and the capture of water from flood plains among the many types of water “interception” taking place in the basin and which could have a big impact on water resources.

It says where a proposed interception activity is found to be significant and above a specified size, the MDBA would want them included in relevant water resource plans.

“For example, specified kinds of interception activities may be required to hold a water access licence equivalent to the volume being intercepted,” it says.

Mr Windsor said interception might even be construed to apply to “natural sequence farming” techniques developed by Bylong district farmer, Peter Andrews (where structural works are used to slow the flow of streams so that more water can infiltrate the landscape), or the Yeomans “keyline” sub surface watering system.

“There is going to have to be some clarification as to what ‘interception’ means in a legal sense,” he said.

Bureaucratic lunacy is running rampant in this country...its about time we stood up for our rights. Rain is a gift from Nature but like CO2 these idiots want to take it all and tax you for the privelege of getting a free gift.

If pollies and bureaucrats ever realized that farmers with good management systems in place could provide real solutions to managing our water, climate and environment as well as run profitable agriculture. It seems the new Opposition leader, Tony Abbott thinks farmers could sequester all of our CO2 emissions into our poor infertile soils.

Julian
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:57 pm

New water grab fears

Post by Julian » Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:55 pm

Hasnt Peter already proven that more water comes out of his system, not less! Do they want to fix the problems, or is it Just another Great Big Tax?

Shirley Henderson
Posts: 356
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 4:03 pm
Location: Thirlmere

Post by Shirley Henderson » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:28 pm

It seems that the pollies are doing everything in their power to find an idea of where water could exist and then drumming up a way to make us pay for it. Rain is rain and the landscaoe and every living creature needs it to survive. We knew that they wanted to find a way to make money from NSF and this is a definite money grab idea. If it comes to that we will have to speak out loud and clear.

jenni
Posts: 71
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: holbrooknsw

Post by jenni » Thu Dec 03, 2009 6:33 pm

since when is a paddock a dam? are we to be penalized for not letting all the rainwater flow out to sea? surely sense will prevail the concept is too far fetched. question: isn't it a good thing that Tony Abbott thinks farmers can sequester (all?) the co2

Post Reply