Money Down
The Drain
Questioning the causes, effects, and management of dryland salinity in South Australia's Upper South East
Site menu:
This update published 5th June 2010
First published 24th January 2005
Previously published home page news and stories
Government again mangles science?
REFLOWS - community response report published, then pulled?
South East is warmer, drier - BOM
DWLBC ignores own and CSIRO advice - landholders suffer the consequences, yet again
Furious planning amidst media frenzy
Desperate news, desperate measures!
Next page
Challenging the claims on dryland salinity and deep drains
Selective application of science and analysis
What is motivating program staff?
Effective management of dryland salinity
More mismanaged salinity projects
Another disaster in the making
Lose times five
Published 18th March 2009
The perception managers of SA's Department of Whoppers (DWLBC), as it is known by local landholders, appears to have been active again fabricating more spin on its bungled Upper South East drainage program in time for recent debates on the program's extension bill.
Contrary to the DWLBC's hidden website (inaccessible to search engines and apparently produced for gullible politicians and impressionable but uninformed, selected public), the program is lose-lose-lose-lose-lose for agriculture, the environment, tax-payers, levy-slugged landholders, and for the credibility of the State Government.
Unlike in 2002 and 2006, Labor MPs, presumably unwilling to mislead parliament again, had nothing of substance to say in debates on the program's extension bill, not even in defence of detailed criticism. They left spruiking to (conveniently?) misinformed Liberal MPs (Williams, Pederick, Lensinck, Schaeffer and Gunn) following what appears to have been a two-party agreement to support the bill made in about June 2009.
A grossly misinformed Lensinck ignorant of the facts claimed in the Legislative Council debate that the 2 to 6 metre deep, eroding, stinking drains "adjacent to Keith" were "shallow flood control drains". Similar to Schaeffer, Pederick, and implied by Gunn, she also incorrectly claimed that the NRC made an "overwhelming recommendation ... to continue to complete the drains". Nice try, but absolute rubbish!
Even Williams pointed out that the dry landscape in the Upper South East was different to where he lives, where agriculture benefited from drains. So why selectively support the same deep drain solution when DWLBC experts warned against their use in Upper South East soils?
Echoing the disinterested sentiment evident in Minister Wetherill's press release (65kB PDF file), the MPs obviously only supported continued digging of deep drains because of their inexpert gut feeling and government promises made to a few of the 700+ landholders in the region, and not because science or economics justified their need. Not even the NRC report they quoted from recommended digging any more of these ineffective, high maintenance conduits (word used by the program's hydrologist Michael Durkay in 2004)!
Independent scientists only given the task of looking at the risks of different drain options reported (5.0MB PDF) last year that if nothing was done, wetlands' health would continue to deteriorate, and of the drain options highest risks were associated with deep drains. They were not given the task of looking at other options to address the cause of the region's agricultural and environmental problems, such as revegetating vast tracts of denuded landscape (as recommended by CSIRO), or changing damaging land management practices encouraged by decades of flawed government policies.
The NRC's latest program report (1.7MB PDF) supported the construction of a shallow floodway to divert fresh water into the region to refresh over-drained, poisoned Upper South East wetlands, and only noted (not "overwhelmingly recommended") that a decision had already been made by the government to proceed with further digging of drains.
The government's 20-year misinformation campaign continues.
Draining experience
Published 18th November 2009
Recent government and media reports reinforce landholders' suspicions that officials responsible for managing SA's government mandated $80 million Upper South East dryland salinity and flood management program have been inflexibly obsessed for over a decade with digging a damaging and costly 650km regional deep drain network, rather than being focused on improving environmental and agricultural outcomes using natural, productive solutions adapted to the region's different land types and to its rapidly drying climate.
They also explain why another 3-year extension to enabling legislation is being debated in the State's Parliament, and why a project to divert water into our over-drained region has now been added to the program.
In early July, the program board's chairman, Roger Wicks, told ABC regional radio listeners that our past dryland salinity problems (receding naturally for 15 years) occurred because salt that had accumulated under cleared native vegetation on hills had been mobilised only to resurface on adjacent lower flats.
Wicks claimed that deep drains were needed to treat this symptom of vegetation clearance, whereas CSIRO recommended treating the cause by re-planting now denuded hills with deep-rooted perennial plants and pastures.
When the first extension to the program's enabling legislation was being debated, the responsible minister, Gail Gago, clearly misinformed, told Parliament that the land area required to be re-planted with perennial vegetation to control dryland salinity was nearly three times greater than advised by CSIRO. The grossly exaggerated area, conveniently considered "unattainable", was used to justify continued digging of deep drains.
In mid July, Adrian Gargett, the program's director, offered landholders restricted permits to graze drain corridors on their compusorily acquired land (a 200m wide swathe taken without compensation) in exchange for maintaining subsiding drain banks and controlling now spreading weeds, foxes and rabbits.
A month later, Rob Freeman, the Chief Executive of the responsible department (evidence recently challenged in a Parliamentary inquiry) for most of the current program, was reported to be unconvinced by the science of climate change. It appears that the program's senior leadership may thus have been guided by a view that the region's drying climate and naturally falling watertables were anomalies that could be ignored.
Add to this the 2004 claims by program hydrologist Michael Durkay that the Fairview deep drain dug in 1998 had "minimal impact" on watertables, and unpublished observations that the Mount Charles deep drain in the Northern Catchment, dug in 2004, was having no discernible effect on watertables at 500m and beyond, where dryland salinity continues to exist.
... and reports: that drains had been dug through several thousand hectares of potential acid sulfate soils despite published, but now withdrawn, government concerns; of a net increase in emissions of greenhouse gasses that annually exceed in mass the salt drained away from the region; of wetlands drained or poisoned by the program; ... and so on.
The region's near two-decade deep drain nightmare is set to continue for at least another three years.
Government again mangles science?
Published 13th July 2009
Using a selective justification that stretched its credibility beyond reasonable limits, the State Government last week announced construction of the Bald Hill deep drain in the South East.
This was a day before the release of the Federal Government's Climate Change 2009 report (4.7MB PDF), which warned that the region's near two decades drying climate will continue.
The original justification for the $80+ million tax-payer funded deep drain project "to halt rising watertables and expanding salinity", both of which reversed naturally with declining rainfall, has now been replaced with justifications such as "it's better than doing nothing". Neither the Government's media release nor its "independent scientific reviews" provide justification for digging any more deep drains.
In fact, the GHD review (5.3MB PDF) indicates that the risks of adverse impacts to the environment are highest with deep drains, and the Ehrenberg-Bass review (500kB PDF) identified major dissatisfaction among farmers who had direct experience with the drains.
Furthermore, Michael Durkay, a senior DWLBC project officer, reported in 2004 (see report on the Didicoolum drain extension and various notes) that the trial Fairview deep drain was having "minimal impact" on watertables - ie deep drains are not cost-effective. He also recommended against digging the Didicoolum drain extension, which was ignored.
Other DWLBC, DEH and CSIRO officers warned (also ignored) of the damage caused by deep drains to potential acid-sulfate soils (warnings and a map showing large areas of such soils centred on the northern catchment drain network were recently withdrawn from the DWLBC's website); to wetlands (1, 2 & 3); and to saline clay soils (2.3MB PDF) that would become impermeable and hence increase waterlogging if not pre-treated prior to drainage. Over $500,000 has now reportedly been committed by Governments to addressing the latter growing problem in areas adjacent to deep drains in the South East.
A contributor to this website provides probable reasons for the Government's dopey and hasty decision.
The first is a concern that landholders who wanted deep drains would take legal action against the State Government if their "promised" deep drains were not dug. This would result in bad publicity for the current Labor government at the time of the next State election.
The second is that the Federal Government plans to withdraw all financial support for the project at the end of this calendar year. The State Government would then be obliged to pay for all landholder court costs and compensation claims, including for drained, damaged land in the northern and central catchments. A current Act prevents compensation claims from being submitted until surplus land compulsorily acquired (total 13,000ha) in 2003 is formally returned to landholders, probably before the end of 2009.
Stock Journal battle
Published 25th May 2009
Deep drain proponents, apparently encouraged by misleading Government claims (311kB PDF), are pulling out desperate stops in letters to the editor of the rural Stock Journal.
They claim that watertables are rising, when they've been falling for 20 years and are now the lowest since recording began - in some cases 40 years ago.
Look at this Government website for details, and this one to find out why. Annual rainfall has been declining in the region by 20-30mm a decade since 1970!
They also claim that deep drains have benefited agriculture, but ignore the wetlands destroyed by poisoning and over-drainage, and the agricultural land salinised as a consequence of ill-considered deep drainage of acid sulfate soils.
And they won't have read about any failed agricultural trials, because the Government conveniently chooses not to publicise them.
They also ignore the exorbitant costs of deep drains and of the ongoing unaffordable maintenance that less fortunate farmers on more marginal deep drained land (which is now less productive than their so-called salinised land) will be committed to paying for ever.
REFLOWS - community response report published, then pulled?
Published 12th May 2009
A tip off in January indicated that the SA Government accidentally published the controversial and very delayed report on REFLOWS community responses. Not even USE Program staff were aware of this news!
The REFLOWS "Maunsell whitewash" report, as landholders refer to it, had been on the Government's REFLOWS webpage until recently, but was suspiciously removed a few days ago.
Contact the webmaster if you would like a copy.
Who can we trust?
Published 1st February 2009, note added 10th July
Two reports recently published by SA's Natural Resources Committee describe how it believes it was misled by officials of the State Government department (DWLBC) that is also responsible for managing the Upper South East deep drain program.
The first apparent deceit (4.7MB PDF) became evident when the Committee claimed the DWLBC chose to "misunderstand" its earlier findings and recommendations on its Deep Creek inquiry, and the then Chief Executive tried to deflect blame to the Minister.
In its inquiry into the USE deep drain program (3.1MB PDF), the Committee found evidence that the same Chief Executive tried to prevent the publication of a Senate inquiry submission that was highly critical of the program.
The reluctance of DWLBC officials to adequately address landholder concerns and criticisms has been an ongoing source of great anxiety for many in the USE.
The Committee also found that other DWLBC officials had apparently provided misleading information.
Three undated, unsigned notes prepared for the DWLBC (Note added 10th July 2009: these were apparently written by Michael Durkay, a senior project officer in the drain program) and just come to light add more to the Committee's evidence that USE deep drains are under-performing, and that their performance has further deteriorated since they were dug.
One note (60kB PDF) describes how the draw down effect of the trial Fairview drain dug in 1998 had been "lost" by 2005, and provides possible reasons.
A second note (1.1MB PDF) quantifies the deterioration in the draw down effect of the drain, and states that the lowest watertables had fallen in 2005 was still above the level at which "dry land salinity may still have an effect".
The third note (1.9MB PDF) contains photographs of what appear to be cross-sections of a "sealed" sodic layer that formed after drainage, and of preferential-flow, vertical "sand pipes" discovered adjacent to the Fairview and Northern Catchment drains. Both impede drainage, in particular of salts from saline soils.
South East is warmer, drier - BOM
Published 10th January 2009
For all the wrong reasons, this week's media release from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) will dismay supporters of the Upper South East deep drainage program.
Why? Because it adds to the evidence that 15 years promoting deep drains to control flooding and "rising" (actually falling since 1995) watertables in the region, spending $75million of tax-payers' money digging them, damaging soils and destruction of wetlands as a result, spending $14million diverting diminishing fresh water from the south into the now over-drained region, confiscating private land valued at $20million for the drain network, and committing the region to the considerable ongoing cost of clearing blocked drains caused by poorly constructed wind and water eroded drain banks, may have been a waste of time and money.
Furthermore, contrary to a recent South East NRM Board publication (page 8), climate analysis by CSIRO and BOM 1, 2 predicts that the South East will become drier, continuing a 60-year downward rainfall trend of 10-15mm/decade until at least 2070 ... and with no discernible increase in rainfall variability.
Mean temperatures in the region are also predicted to continue climbing at 0.1-0.2°C a decade.
DWLBC ignores own and CSIRO advice - landholders suffer the consequences, yet again
Published 7th January 2009, with amendments 13th July 2009
An earlier news item reported that expanding areas of damaged soils in the region were occurring because CSIRO and international advice to pre-treat saline soils prior to groundwater drainage appears to have been ignored.
Now, yet another emerging problem appears to be a direct result of the DWLBC section responsible for digging the Upper South East drain network ignoring warnings of both CSIRO (2.3MB PDF) and another DWLBC section on the risks of draining acid sulfate soils.
Note added 13th July 2009: although the table remains unchanged, warnings and a map showing affected areas were suspiciously removed from the DWLBC's webpage following this website's publication of the problem! Read on* to find out what was removed.
Indeed, DWLBC indicates that the greatest area of such soils in the State are in the South East, with one extensive area (an estimated 150,000ha) covering almost all of the DWLBC's now completed northern catchment drainage network.
*The following words were removed from the DWLBC website:
"Acid sulfate materials are soils or sediments with accumulations of iron sulfides in the upper layers under waterlogged or highly reducing (anaerobic) conditions. So long as these materials remain waterlogged or de-oxygenated, they are innocuous and do not cause any problems. Drainage or other disturbance which causes oxidation creates a chain of events resulting in the release of highly acidic leachates from the soil. As a general rule, any land with a shallow water table and a source of sulfate (eg gypsum or pyrite minerals) is at risk.
A magnified section of the removed DWLBC map with drain alignments superimposed shows a large area of potential acid sulfate soils centred on the northern catchment network west of Keith! Limestone in South East soils will partially neutralise any acids formed and reduce the release of heavy metals into drain flows, but the products of this process are prolific quantities of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) and gypsum, a salt that is even more difficult to remove than the drains intended target, sodium chloride!
The result. Arsenic detected in newly dug groundwater drains ... but with dryland salinity still visible just metres away. Worse still, landholders and the public have not yet been warned of the risks to their health of coming into contact with this polluted drain water.
Furious planning amidst media frenzy
Published 30th August 2008
The frenzy of coverage by the media on the Lower Lakes and the Upper South East's Coorong continues unabated.
One reported rescue proposal involves pumping water from the Coorong's hyper-saline south lagoon out to sea, and allowing water from the north lagoon to flow in to freshen it. The State's Department of Water, Land, and Biodiversity Conservation is now in "furious planning mode" turning this concept into "reality".
However, the same department claimed in 2002 that a 650km tax-payer funded deep drain network was needed to reverse expanding waterlogging and dryland salinity in the Upper South East, but a down-side was that it would discharge over 40 gigalitres a year of moderately saline water into the south lagoon and over-freshen it!
After compulsorily acquiring $20 million of land without compensation and spending $75 million on drain construction, the department now reluctantly accepts the "reality" that waterlogging and dryland salinity were contracting naturally in 2002, drain discharge flows have averaged less than 10 gigalitres a year, and prior to climate change and the region being cleared for agriculture, the South East was the source of enormous volumes of fresh surface water that flowed in to the Coorong's south lagoon!
Desperate news, desperate measures!
Published 18th August 2008
Buried in a transcript of a recent debate in the State's House of Assembly are quotes of a number of experts made over the past year on the plight of the Upper South East's Coorong, and descriptions of the engineering measures being considered to rescue it.
The engineering solutions include REFLOWS (see below), and, surprisingly, cutting channels through or laying pipes under the Coorong's dunes to connect its south lagoon directly to the sea.
How disappointing that the State Government and Program Board have not informed regional "stakeholders" of their plans. The Program's "quarterly" newsletter (last one published nearly two years ago!) would have provided the ideal medium.
Who's more credible?
Published 7th July 2008
The SA State Government justified digging its mandated $75 million tax-payer and landholder funded 650 km deep drain network in the Upper South East using 1992 predictions that excess water in the landscape would otherwise cause watertables to rise, dryland salinity to expand, agricultural productivity to decline, and wetland health to deteriorate.
Although it quickly became apparent that many of the predictions were grossly flawed, the Government continued to steadfastly stick to and defend them, even though a deficit of water, not an excess, has been clearly evident for more than a decade.
And, according to a recent report (2.3MB PDF file) released by BOM and CSIRO, the water deficit is expected to become far worse!
Take with a grain of salt?
Published 29th May 2008
In a recently published transcript (150kB PDF file) of a Natural Resources Committee hearing, a state government officer is reported to have claimed that a landholder who maintains a website (presumably on the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Program) "misconstrues", "misrepresented", and "bald-facedly lied" about the science, despite "absolutely furious" "CSIRO and the various authors" of quoted papers phoning and trying to explain the science to him.
It is unclear who the officer is referring to. We are not aware of any scientists or other authors making such claims about this or the "Stop the Drains" website, which are believed to be the only landholder-run websites on the Program!
Indeed, government reviews of this website provided to the webmaster are positive, and a number of scientists have contacted the webmaster privately and commented favourably!
Damage control!
Published 2nd April 2008
In a brochure (4.4MB PDF file) released last week by the Keilira Farm Management Group, descriptions of expanding, sunken areas of damaged, infertile soils developing after groundwater drainage, and of methods investigated to prevent or repair them, should not have come as a surprise to the Program Board. But it did, and provides another example of the Board's apparent dismissive approach to rigorous science-based solutions to the region's environmental problems.
The problem (caused by a breakdown in structure of saline soils following groundwater drainage) and a pre-emptive remedy were first reported in Australia over 50 years ago. The subject was extensively researched and reported in international science literature several years before the Program commenced in the early 1990s.
Indeed, a Program manager admitted they were briefed by CSIRO on investigations (2.3MB PDF file) into the problem and remedies before the first drain was dug in the current and largest stage of the drain construction program, but landholders were not warned then by the Program Board of this likely consequence of groundwater drainage on their properties.
You can read more about the problem and remedies by simply typing the word "sodicity" into any internet search engine!
Forced delay
Published 23rd March 2008
The Program Board suffered more damage to its credibility last week when it had to be informed that its request for community comment on its $14 million Stage 4 REFLOWS project proposal was unreasonable.
The Board had access to the nine REFLOWS project background papers in September 2007, and took until the middle of December to finish its own position paper. The Board then waited another three months before writing to members of the local community, inviting them to read and provide written comment on the papers - within a week!
Then, one day before comments were due at Program HQ, the State Government posted a media release on a non-indexed webpage, advising that the time allowed for comment had been increased three-fold, with a due date now of 4th April.
For reasons only known to itself, the State Government has blocked all Program webpages from internet indexing, which means that they are not accessible to the public using search engines such as Google, Yahoo, AOL or MSN.
However, the public should be grateful that the Board has allowed any comment on this latest stage of its ever expanding drain program. The preceding $49 million Stage 3 proposal was mandated in 2002 without any public comment. Six years later, the Stage 3 project background and position papers (including four produced by CSIRO) have still not been formally released to the public!
Week comment
Published 17th March 2008
In what appears to be another attempt at self harm, the Program Board late last week posted to the South East public a brochure on their $14million REFLOWS project, and invited written comment on the project - by the middle of this week!
This was prompted by growing criticism from landholders, the local community, and parliamentarians, and which reached a low point earlier this month during the first stages of an inquiry into the Program initiated by the State's Natural Resources Committee.
REFLOWS (read on) is yet another dubious environmental fix, for a failed fix to problems caused by current and earlier drain projects. You'd never guess this reading the brochure.
Gago's non-answers
Published 8th March 2008
Landholders will be horrified by Minister Gago's uninformed responses to questions on the Upper South East Program in the State's Legislative Council on 4 March.
To a question on the scientific justification for drains, she could only reply that drains have been around for "80-odd years", that the government had applied "our best minds and our best science to this very difficult issue", and went on about problems that occurred more than 15 years ago! If only she and the government would demonstrate by action and in Parliament that they really do understand the best thinking and science on the subject, then her response might have been more credible.
To a question of when did she last visit the South East, she couldn't remember - say no more.
And, finally, to a question on her commitment to an independent environmental audit of the Program, Minister Gago could only quote from a Naracoorte Herald article on the independent review of the Reflows project (see below), which was obvious regurgitated government propaganda. As landholders have come to expect, she selectively quoted one of only about three positive sentences in the report, and completely ignored the eight sections that described issues needing attention!
In other words, she failed to answer any of the questions.
REFLOWS re-announced
Published 9th February 2008
The State Government re-announced yesterday that it will proceed with a 3-year program to divert annually up to an implied 160 gigalitres (up more than 3-fold on the grossly exaggerated estimate of a year ago!) of fresh water from the south to repair damage to Upper South East wetlands killed or seriously stressed by its mandated deep drain program, by past Government-mandated land clearance and drainage, and, more recently, by climate change.
In a refreshing change from its previous policy of secrecy, the Government also released nine background papers prepared for the REFLOWS project, as it is now dubbed, for public comment by 20 March 2008. They can be accessed by clicking here.
If you have insufficient time to plough through the 250 or so pages of scientific and analytical papers and make a written submission prior to the dead-line, or are confused where to start, begin by reading the Upper South East Program Board position paper, and a brief report of an independent review of the background papers by Professor Gary Jones of the University of Canberra. The Professor's report is positioned at the very bottom of the Government's webpage, in a position where the Government presumably hoped it would be overlooked!
In the new spirit of transparency, perhaps the Program Board will now make available on its website ALL papers prepared for the Upper South East Program, and minutes of meetings, to help the public understand how its past decisions were made. It might also like to explain why there are inconsistencies between the reported "science" and "facts", and those presented to the public and parliamentarians!
In the mean time, landholders wait for their promised quarterly Program updates (last one received in 2006!) to learn what is happening to the 13,000 hectares of land compulsorily acquired without compensation five years ago for the drain network, and how much capital gains tax they will have to pay on the 10,000 hectares of land not used for drains, when it is eventually returned.
Review announced
Published 21st December 2007
The State's Natural Resources Committee recently tabled its 2006/7 report (2.9MB PDF file) on the drainage program, and delivered a challenge to the program's managers by announcing its intention to review concerns raised by the public, including:
· compliance with relevant Acts,
· alleged suppression of reports,
· independent environmental and economic auditing requirements,
· why Ombudsman investigation into program halted,
· alleged altering of advisory committee minutes,
· appropriateness of deep drainage,
· appropriateness of levy arrangements,
· compulsory acquisition of land,
· capital gains tax implications of land revestment,
· review of revegetation component, and
· comparison of official advice with management plans.
Click here for more news and stories.