Big Decisions Called for on Salinity Fight
Common sense must be a priority in tackling salt worries, says David Pannell and Ted Lefroy
Millions of dollars are being spent managing salinity and the need for more has raised the possibility of a salt levy.
Farmer groups argue that the money should be passed on to farmers to help them implement on-ground works such as tree planting, drains and pumping. But research suggests that spending all the salt levy on farms would not be the best way to manage salinity.
Salinity is advanced, so hard decisions need to be made to choose which areas to rescue and which to write off. These decisions will be politically charged but they must be made to avoid further damage and waste of public money.
The State needs to tackle these decisions in the following way if that money is to be spent effectively.
The question of a salt levy arises because the Government has realised that the effects of salinity off farm will be enormous. The impacts of salt on mass extinctions of native plants and animals, damage to buildings, roads and bridges, increased flooding and ruined water supplies are probably greater than the agricultural costs.
We need to divide the effects of salinity into losses of agricultural production and the rest, and divide the action required into that which will be effective [if implemented] on farms and that which will not. This gives us four types of costs competing for money raised by the levy. Not all warrant public funds.
The first type of cost is damage to towns, roads, rivers and native vegetation that cannot be controlled by farm treatments.
An example is Merredin, where millions of dollars of damage to buildings and roads is being caused by rising saline groundwater. A recent study showed the main source of this water is Merredin town.Roads, footpaths, buildings and open space have replaced native vegetation adapted to use up every drop of rain. If surrounding farmers were to revegetate all their properties, it would not help Merredin much.
Towns in this situation need to capture their rainwater, reduce the release of scheme water through septic tanks and gardens and install groundwater pumps. The ground for a salt levy seems clear, but it would need to be spent in the town? Who should pay, those directly affected or the wide community?
For nature reserves in farming areas, drains and pumping may be the only effective remedy. This would benefit the whole community. As the problems generally were not caused by today's farmers, the case for this type of public funding seems strong.
The second case is where damage to towns, roads, rivers and native vegetation can be prevented by on-farm treatment. A case can be made for the public bearing at least some of the cost.
The third type is damage to farms where there is little chance of recovery. This type accounts for a depressingly large area of agricultural land. Studies show that almost regardless of what we do, the amount of salt affected land will double from two million to four million hectares. Another two million hectares is at stake on top of that depending on what is done. The medium term loss of two million hectares is not practically preventable because of the huge amount of water in the system. It would not be sensible to spend money on this land.
The final type is damage on farms that is preventable. Some of this [prevention] is profitable, such as blue gum forestry, but in most areas profitable solutions do not exist. Across the State, there is land where rehabilitation ranges from slightly to extremely unprofitable. For land at the slightly unprofitable end, public money would help to encourage adoption of new farming methods. Unfortunately, this land is in a minority.
For the majority of land, incentives provided by public funds would not be enough to prompt effective action.
The salinity problem would be reduced dramatically if farmers had a wide range of profitable perennial plants. Unfortunately, investment in developing farming methods well adapted to this environment continues to be a tiny component of the salinity budget.
Secondly, like the algal blooms in the Swan River, much of the effort needs to be directed at cure [or rather repair] rather than prevention.
The third stark reality is that regardless of what we do now, we are going to have a lot more salt. We will have to learn to live with it, to find uses for it and turn some saline land into wetlands and conservation areas.
David Pannell is associate professor and Ted Lefroy a research fellow in the faculty of agriculture, University of WA.
Citation: Pannell, D.J. and Lefroy, E. (2000). Big decisions called for on salinity fight, The West Australian, 23 March 2000, p. 20. http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0001b.htm
Check out the full version of this article for a more complete and better balanced argument: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0001.htm (44K)
It is interesting to compare the above article with the text that we sent to the newspaper: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0001b.htm (9K)
The SEA News index is at http://welcome.to/seanews