Dealing with salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys - Department of Water

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Morrell, Hatton and Curry Another three severe frosts repeated the devastation of 1998, with losses of up to 80% of potential yields lost. In 2000, drought reduced yields to an even lower level than the previous two frosts. As a result of the three years of greatly reduced income, the average loss of equity was in the order of 10% per year, leaving the community in a very vulnerable position. The whole of the catchment falls within the declared Exceptional Circumstances area. 2001 is shaping up to be the driest on record. Currently, at the time of writing (early July) farmers are in one of the following positions: (1) no crop in the ground yet, (2) some or (3) all in the ground. It depends entirely on tillage methods as to the amount of seeding completed. No tillage or minimum tillage farmers have either all or some in, while traditional croppers have either some or none in. Some crops have emerged, with many now dying; some seed has malted in the ground, while much seed has not germinated due to the extremely dry conditions. Much of the area is totally reliant on rainfall for all water requirements, and many landholders have been carting both house and stock water from off farm sources for many months. The worst affected areas for lacking water also coincide with the areas with the most salinity. With a total community population of approximately 200, a loss of even one family is felt. In the last year and a half, eight families have left the district, with three more leaving at the end of the school year. It has meant a net loss of 23 to our community with a further sixteen leaving later in the year. If the dry conditions continue, and another crop failure occurs, many more families will be forced to either sell up, or move off their properties. Without a vibrant, stable community, implementation of the Catchment Plan and other landcare works will cease. In other words, if there is no community, no one will be left to address the salinity issues. Without any implementation of the Catchment Plan and other landcare works, much of the land that is not affected by salinity yet will be lost to production of cereal crops and traditional farming, as we know it. Not only will the traditional farming land be lost to salinity, but large areas of the remaining remnants will also be lost. Current predictions show that if there are no changes to current agricultural – 6 – practices, then more than 80% of remnants on farms are in danger as are more than 50% of those in Reserves, either Conservation Commission, Crown Land or Shire controlled. It is vital therefore to keep our community as a functioning, vibrant concern, because without the community in place there is very little chance of tackling the declining biodiversity issues that face the region. Without people, there will be no fight to control salinity. Communities such as Pingrup will only survive to tackle these issues if they are able to be profitable. Without being able to make a living from farming or its associated industries, there will be no money available to do landcare work for the public’s benefit. It is therefore in everyone’s interest to ensure that communities like Pingrup survive. It is vital that we realise that without people, no amount of new technology will be effective, as there will be no one left in rural areas to enact these new ways. Community survival should, therefore, be uppermost in the minds of our decision makers. Terms of trade are not favourable for Australian farmers. We seem to be the only country playing on the "level playing field". Our major competitors are heavily subsidised by their governments, while we are not. This has made Australian farmers the most efficient in the world, but doesn't help us to survive, as the returns for our commodities barely cover the costs of production. Minor weather events, or events occurring somewhere in the world, threaten our viability. With major weather caused events, such has occurred in the last three years, and seemingly continuing this year, very few farmers are able to make a profit. This causes an exodus of families at the very worst, or a change to "survival mode" by the remaining farmers. Very little can be done in the landcare area, as all money is required to try to ensure survival in the short term, rather than looking after the environment on farmers own land, let alone that off farm. Unfortunately, Pingrup is not unique in this regard. This situation is repeated right across the Wheatbelt. THE DILEMMA: WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT? Currently two thirds of farming families have some salinity on their properties. These range from a few hectares to an enormous 30% of previously arable cereal land now being non-productive. Twelve percent of the catchment is currently affected. This may seem a small amount, but when it is your farm that is affected, it can have major ramifications.
Scientists talk of up to 30% of the landscape generally being affected by salinity. Various figures are bandied around, but whatever figure is accurate, it means different things to different people. Those fortunate enough to have land high in the catchment generally show little concern, as it is not their problem. They will never suffer much, if any, salinity on their properties. It is a problem of those neighbours lower in the landscape, not theirs. Landholders in the middle areas of the catchment are being forced to acknowledge that salinity may in fact be a problem for them, and not just those in the valley floors. This awakening is occurring due to "unexplained" areas of salt affected land suddenly appearing mid-slope, or running up gullies, for no apparent reason. Unfortunately, there are also farmers who through no fault of their own have land low in the catchment in valley floors. These farmers face salinity on a daily basis. If 30% of each catchment becomes saline then the likely scenario for these farmers is almost total loss of their arable land. Farming, as they know it today, will disappear. This third sector of farmers is forced to accept the results caused not only by their excess water, but that of their upstream neighbours. This makes decision making all the more difficult for them. The Lake Chinocup Catchment Committee began exploring reasons for this increased salinity. Frequently asked questions included: • Is my salinity caused by my neighbour's water causing water table rises? • Is my salinity due to waterlogging? • Why is there suddenly an area of salinity appearing mid-slope? • Will planting trees solve my salinity problem? Morrell, Hatton and Curry Getting answers to our questions has always been difficult. When asked, often all we get is a lot of boot shuffling and evasive answers, as even the "experts" are not sure. The Lake Chinocup Catchment Resource Management Committee asked CSIRO Land and Water, plus the Department of Environmental Protection and Murdoch University, to assist in answering some of these questions and give us a feel for what was happening within the catchment. SALINITY RISK ASSESSMENT OF LAKE CHINOCUP CATCHMENT In 2000, the Lake Chinocup Catchment commissioned an assessment of salinity risk under current and alternative land uses. The committee hoped to obtain: • A clearer awareness of the hydrological processes we are dealing with in relation to our declared goal for managing rising water tables. • The best available information on options for future salinity management strategies. • A clearer indication regarding the timescale of likely salinisation and the windows of opportunity for remedial action to reduce salinity risk in particular areas of the catchment. • A sounder basis on which to draw support for community planning and decision making towards agreed sub-catchment scale environmental management goals which may be needed in relation to saving the natural diversity assets at risk in the Lake Chinocup Nature Reserve, and other reserves, remnant bush, listed wetlands and the many significant environmental values in the catchment, and downstream of it. • Why can't I drain my groundwater off my farm? • Advice on the extent and nature of any further • Are there farming systems currently available which will reverse my salinity? priorities for obtaining groundwater monitoring data, or other lines of monitoring for environmental outcomes. • What can I do with my land that no longer sustains a cereal crop? The report provided detailed descriptions of geology, • How can I remain profitable? • What is a sustainable system of farming? • What percentage of my catchment, and my farm will go saline? • What needs to be done to save the vegetation found in the Lake Chinocup Reserve? – 7 – surface drainage patterns, geomorphology and groundwater processes across the region. All available hydrological information was used to infer groundwater levels and flow lines. Due to the absence of adequate reduced water level data from existing bores, steady state water level maps were produced for the catchment using hydrogeomorphic principles (Salama et al. 1996b).
Page 1 and 2:
Foreword Dealing with Salinity in W
Page 3 and 4:
1Day one: Monday 30th July. Field t
Page 5 and 6:
Papers Dealing with Salinity in Whe
Page 7 and 8:
Ali and Coles biggest challenges fa
Page 9 and 10:
Ali and Coles erosion, maintenance
Page 11 and 12:
Ali and Coles expected under these
Page 13 and 14:
Ali and Coles Coles, N.A. & Ali, M.
Page 15 and 16:
Commander, Schoknecht, Verboom and
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
APPRECIATING AND CREATING OUR HISTO
Page 43 and 44:
services. The Government responded
Page 45 and 46:
WHEATBELT VALLEYS IN DIFFICULTIES T
Page 47 and 48:
argue that they were really abnorma
Page 49 and 50:
1990s, the wheatbelt valleys in par
Page 51 and 52:
REFERENCES Agstats (1997). Agricult
Page 53 and 54:
George and Coleman two to four fold
Page 55 and 56:
George and Coleman surface, the vas
Page 57 and 58:
George and Coleman for example in t
Page 59 and 60: George and Coleman current trends c
Page 61 and 62: George and Coleman While not as div
Page 63 and 64: George and Coleman SPECIES Table 5:
Page 65 and 66: George and Coleman advantages of so
Page 67 and 68: George and Coleman this volume). In
Page 69 and 70: George and Coleman Venture Economy
Page 71 and 72: George and Coleman Lawrence, C. (19
Page 73 and 74: Hatton and Ruprecht WATCHING THE RI
Page 75 and 76: Since the mid 1970s annual rainfall
Page 77 and 78: Effect of clearing on runoff The ot
Page 79 and 80: Salinity Monthly streamflow (ML) 10
Page 81 and 82: The ratio of the salt outputs to in
Page 83 and 84: - 11 - Hatton and Ruprecht Table 4:
Page 85 and 86: THE FUTURE In looking at the future
Page 87 and 88: McFarlane, D.J., George, R.J. & Far
Page 89 and 90: Keighery, Halse and McKenzie Terres
Page 91 and 92: Keighery, Halse and McKenzie Wetlan
Page 93 and 94: Keighery, Halse and McKenzie specie
Page 95 and 96: Keighery, Halse and McKenzie enviro
Page 97 and 98: Lloyd number of legal cases pending
Page 99 and 100: Lloyd 0 -500 -1000 -1500 -2000 -250
Page 101 and 102: Lloyd Table 3. Sheep grazing days i
Page 103 and 104: Lloyd Hectares project to provide w
Page 105 and 106: INTRODUCTION The Lake Chinocup Catc
Page 107 and 108: agriculture) in various stages, the
Page 109: - 3,477 ha of remnant vegetation or
Page 113 and 114: 6320000 6300000 6280000 6260000 624
Page 115 and 116: Although the waterlogged area under
Page 117 and 118: eliminates drainage through the nex
Page 119 and 120: REFERENCES Dawes, W.R., Stauffacher
Page 121 and 122: Pannell ECONOMICS, SOCIETY AND ENVI
Page 123 and 124: Pannell • the area of land protec
Page 125 and 126: Pannell Proposals to construct majo
Page 127 and 128: Pannell been conducted for the Cent
Page 129 and 130: Pannell investments in long-term la
Page 131 and 132: Pannell Pannell, D.J. (2001). Dryla
Page 133 and 134: Porter, Bartle and Cooper Table 1:
Page 139 and 140: Porter, Bartle and Cooper operation
Page 141 and 142: Porter, Bartle and Cooper Increase
Page 145 and 146: Porter, Bartle and Cooper support i
Page 147 and 148: Porter, Bartle and Cooper that is a
Page 149 and 150: CASE STUDY - TOOLIBIN LAKE AND CATC
Page 151 and 152: • The distribution, storage and m
Page 153 and 154: Secondly, there is a set of practic
Page 155 and 156: within three categories: relationsh
Page 157 and 158: CONCLUSIONS Actions to protect and
Page 159 and 160: FIELD TOUR LOCATIONS FIELD TOUR NOT
Page 161 and 162:
COLES FARM “Avon River Basin Over
Page 163 and 164:
Conference Outcomes Dealing with Sa
Page 165 and 166:
with Salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys:
Page 167 and 168:
with Salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Photo Gallery 2 Dealing with Salini
Page 199 and 200:
APPENDIX 1 BACKGROUND HYDROLOGY AND
Page 201 and 202:
WHEATBELT HYDROLOGY Flow in the Yil
Page 203 and 204:
Flow (ML) STREAM SALINITY Salt Rive
Page 205 and 206:
APPENDIX 2 WATER MANAGEMENT OPTIONS
Page 207 and 208:
APPENDIX 3 MANAGING WATER AND SALIN
Page 209 and 210:
SUMMARY- TIMELINE OF RECENT SIGNIFI
Page 211 and 212:
RECENT HISTORY OF WATER AND SALINIT
Page 213 and 214:
Figure 1. Hydrological cross-sectio
Page 215:
Depth (m) 316 315 314 313 312 311 M
Page 218 and 219:
FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS AND MANAGEME
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
show all

Dealing with salinity in Wheatbelt Valleys - Department of Water

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?