Parliamentary Committees

NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE: UPPER SOUTH EAST DRYLAND SALINITY AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT ACT

Mr RAU (Enfield) (11:17): I move:

That the 25^th report of the Natural Resources Committee, entitled Upper South-East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act 2000 Report 2007-08: To Drain or Not to Drain—That is the Question, be noted.

I think, really, the title of the report—not the first bit, obviously, but the last bit—really sums up exactly what the question is. Just by way of a very brief explanation, we are talking here about the area of the South-East of South Australia. That area of the state has been seriously modified by human activity since the mid-19^th century; and, in fact, a series of deep drains began to be dug in that area back as far as the 1860s.

The purpose of those drains was to remove the large bodies of fresh water which used to accumulate in that region of the state, get it out to sea and thereby make that land available for agricultural activity. Progressively, over probably the last century and a half, this drainage process has continued. Initially the land concerned was either wetland or covered in native vegetation, which ensured that the watertable was kept in some sort of equilibrium in that area. It is important for members to understand that this area of South Australia extends parallel to the Coorong inland over many kilometres.

In fact, over quite recent geological time, this area was the beach. The beach has actually retreated many times to the point where it is now. But, if we went back 10,000 years, for example, the beach would have been, perhaps, five or 10 kilometres inland from where it presently is, but roughly parallel to the present coastline. So, we are dealing with relatively new dryland, and dryland which has had an historical inundation by salt water.

Ms Ciccarello: A bit like the Lower Lakes.

Mr RAU: It is a bit like the Lower Lakes; the member for Norwood is quite right. There is a serious issue here about controlling groundwater salinity. In any event, as I understand what happened, after the initial vegetation was removed, lucerne—which is apparently a very deep-rooted plant—was then planted throughout this region, and it managed to take up the moisture content from the subsoil at roughly the same rate as the native vegetation used to take it up. That was fine until the 1970s, or thereabouts, when a small insect—the lucerne aphid, I think it is called—decided that it was going to wipe out the lucerne crop.

That meant that no longer was there this pumping action going on by the lucerne in the area, and the groundwater saline table began to rise. It was at that point that discussions commenced to put in a far more extensive range of deep drains to remove this groundwater salinity. The project was envisaged and conceived back then when admittedly the environment was much wetter than it is now, and whether that is a matter of cyclic or climate change is something I am neither qualified nor inclined to debate. In any event, it is drier now than it was when this plan was initially conceived, and there is only one drain left to be completed, which is called the Bald Hill Drain.

Here is the issue: landholders in that area have shown our committee—when we have actually been out to visit it and they have given evidence to our committee—that that land is being seriously degraded by rising saline groundwater. It is restricting their ability to harvest useful agricultural products from that land, and the land is gradually going over to types of plants which are not suitable for grazing or anything else. These individuals, the landowners in that area, have been paying a considerable amount of money over many years by way of levies in order to secure these deep drains, which they believe (and which the science suggests) will reduce the watertable in that area, enabling this saline groundwater to exit from that area and thereby freshening the surface of most of this area and making it available for more agricultural activity—different crops, grazing and whatever.

The tension at the moment is between the legitimate interests of these farmers who have, after all, paid a lot of money for many years in order to secure this drain and, on the other hand, the interests of people who are considering the environmental consequences of this, as this area contains a significant part of the last vestige of wetlands which were typical of the whole of the South-East only 150 years ago. So, there is the tension.

The tension is between agricultural activity and the digging of these deep drains in order to get rid of that saline ground water. On the other hand, the question is whether it will have an adverse impact on environmental considerations, in particular, the wetlands and native species, which are dependent on those wetlands for their habitat.

The committee went out there. We looked at the area and took a great deal of evidence. I will not burden the parliament with all of the details, because it is quite an intricate matter, but I will say this: I have served on many committees and have been involved in many inquiries since I have been in this place, and I would have to say that this appears to be one of the most intractable issues that I have ever confronted. The views are very strong on both sides. They are very genuinely held—

Ms Ciccarello: Like the Lower Lakes.

Mr RAU: As the member for Norwood rightly says, like the Lower Lakes. The people on both sides are genuine people. They have legitimate concerns, and they have varying degrees of scientific material to support their respective propositions, and the government is basically being put in the position of Solomon, having to decide what to do. I do not think that Solomon's option of offering to slice the baby in half is going to be satisfactory to either of them, nor will the government be able to do that.

What is happening is this: the Upper South-East drainage people—the administration that is dealing with this matter—have commissioned an environmental impact assessment. The committee warmly welcomes that, partly because it means that the committee does not have to make a decision about a matter that it is not professionally qualified to make, but also because it means that somebody will be overviewing this whole thing in the light of current evidence, current climate configurations, and current knowledge about the environment in that area.

I imagine that it will then be a matter for the executive government to make a determination as to whether they go ahead and, as the report says, decide to drain or not to drain. Whatever choice is made in this case there will be unhappy people. Whatever choice is made, particularly if the choice is not to go ahead with the drain, legitimate issues about compensation and other things may then arise.

This is a very difficult problem. It is a difficult problem for the people who live there, it is a difficult problem for the committee, and it will be a difficult problem for the decision makers in the end. My earnest wish and hope is that the assessment that is being done now, which is reviewing all of the available information and trying to bring it together and advise government, is a robust and very thorough investigation, and that it gives the minister the confidence he needs to be able to proceed one way or the other.

The other point, of course, is time. This program runs out of time at the end of this year. If this drain is not commenced shortly, the sheer effluxion of time will prevent the drain being drawn, because the funding for the arrangement will have been withdrawn. So, we do not have time, we do not have agreement, and we do not have clear information about the environmental impacts. All we have is an array of genuinely and legitimately committed and concerned people living down there. Whatever comes of this, unfortunately there will be unhappy people. I guess that is part of the burden of government, that you cannot please all of the people all of the time, and, in this case, you definitely will not please all of the people.

I would like to thank all of the people whom we met in the South-East who were kind enough to take us around and show us their concerns first hand. I would like to thank the other members of the committee: the Hons Graham Gunn, Sandra Kanck, Stephanie Key, Caroline Schaefer, Lea Stevens and Russell Wortley for their cooperation, assistance and support in relation to this matter.

I would also, of course, like to thank Knut and Patrick, who, as usual, have provided excellent support to the committee. I commend the report to members. If they have time to read it, it does have some lighter moments in it. It is not entirely dry and burdensome. We try to brighten up our reports a little bit. It has nice colour pictures for those who like colour pictures.

The Hon. R.B. Such: There isn't one of the chairman, though.

Mr RAU: No; no pictures of me. There is lots of colour, pictures, graphs and other things, which really do make it quite an exciting read. I commend the report to the house.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:28): First of all, I commend the Natural Resources Committee for this report. I have only had a chance to have a quick look at it, but I think the committee comes to a very sensible conclusion that it does not wish to make a recommendation about the Bald Hill drain until it has had a chance to look at the assessment being carried out in relation to that drain and the reflows proposal. I think that is a very sensible thing, and I commend the committee for not hastily coming to a conclusion.

As the chair of that committee pointed out, over a long period of time, much of the South-East has been drained. There is no point passing judgment on what people did years ago. Some of it was done out of ignorance; some of it may have been done out of greed, but a lot of it was basically done out of ignorance and a lack of understanding of the ecology and environmental interrelationships.

Given that we now have information about interrelationships and interdependence, we have to be very careful about what we do, particularly given the fact that we have very little left in the way of wetlands, not only in the South-East but anywhere in the higher rainfall areas of South Australia. Anyone who studies these things would know that we do not have many high rainfall areas in South Australia.

I would just like to read a section of a letter that I recently received from Mr William D. Hardy, who is a Patron of Wetland Care Australia. Members would know that he is part of the famous Hardy family, of which Barbara Hardy is very well-known. I will not go into the nice words that he said about me at the start; I will go straight to the issue. He says—

The Hon. S.W. Key interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I am tempted. He highlights the fact that they have produced a documentary exposing the plight of the West Avenue Watercourse in the Upper South-East of South Australia. He goes on:

'What's so important about the West Avenue Watercourse?', you ask. Well, in a state which has seen greater loss of wetlands than any other state in Australia, and a region where less than 1 per cent of wetlands remain intact, the West Avenue Watercourse has been described in government studies as, 'arguably the most pristine area of watercourse in the USE' and 'the largest remnant watercourse and contiguous wetland habitat in the Upper South-East region'. It is home to over 40 species of 'conservation significance', including several 'nationally vulnerable' and 'nationally threatened' species.

'And what is its plight?', you ask. Regrettably, the activities of man over the past 150 years have contributed to a slow but certain de-watering of the landscape and diversion of water away from this watercourse. To cite but a few adverse influences, there is the major east-west drainage network in the South-East, which interrupts the traditional northerly flow of floodwaters and carries this valuable asset out to sea, the extensive and ongoing establishment of forestry plantations in the upper catchment which has dramatically reduced surface flows, and the generally hotter and drier climate in recent decades which is postulated to be a flow-on effect from man-made increases in greenhouse gas generation.

Remarkably, the West Avenue Watercourse, whilst not unaffected by these negative influences, has been able to retain many of its environmental values through periodic influxes of 'local' surface water carried by shallow surface drains.

But, if current south Australian government approval plans to dig a deep saline groundwater drain on the Bald Hills Flat adjacent to the West Avenue Watercourse within the next 12 months are enacted, then despite an expensive, overly optimistic, unproven, highly engineered proposal ('Reflows') to re-establish northerly surface water flows to the area, you can 'kiss goodbye' to 'the largest remnant watercourse and contiguous wetland habitat in the Upper South-East region'. The death of this 'most pristine area of watercourse in the USE' will be accompanied by significant species loss and future generations will no longer be able to observe, study and enjoy an example of the biodiversity-rich wetland environment which covered nearly half of this area prior to European settlement.

That is an extract of the letter from Mr William D. Hardy (Bill Hardy). I think, in essence, it summarises the issues. I am pleased that the committee has not rushed to a conclusion. I believe we have a very good minister for the environment, and I trust that he will be very cautious in regard to any approval of further drainage works in the South-East.

Motion carried.