The Degradation of Murray-Darling Basin Rivers and Strategies to Preserve This Important Ecosystem - Term Paper Example

Murray-Darling Basin Name Course Lecture Date Introduction The biosphere consists of the land, oceans and rivers (water), and the air or atmosphere (Vlavianos-Arvanitis 2002). A range of human activities negatively impact the biosphere indirectly or inadvertently. Human activities change the natural equilibrium of the environment either accidentally or deliberately. Human activities within the biosphere have a significant negative influence on the ability of the ecosystem to sustain human, animal and plant life. While humans are part of the ecosystem their activities are rapidly changing the environment harmfully. Many environmentalists worry that the effects of human activities on the ecosystem are irreversible. The world’s oceans and rivers are faced with the problem of overconsumption and pollution. According to Vlavianos-Arvanitis (2002), people in industrialized countries over consume resources in comparison to citizens of poor third world countries. The problem of overconsumption has continued to affect the Murray River basin for many years. Growing populations continue to exert unprecented pressure on the limited natural resources (Vlavianos-Arvanitis 2002). The Murray-Darling River basin is a good example of how human activities can negatively affect a component of the biosphere. For many years farmers have overdrawn water from the Murray River and its tributaries for use in irrigation. Farming activities have also led to the river becoming increasingly saline. However, humans are tasked with the challenge of improving their interaction with the biosphere. In the Murray-Darling basin a management plan was introduced to reduce the degradation by reducing water uptake and decreasing salinity. This essay studies the past degradation of Murray-Darling Basin Rivers and strategies used by preserve this important ecosystem. The problem The effect of human activity along the Murray-Darlin Basin has been profound. A massive increase in uptake of the rivers water for irrigation means its volume and indeed its livelihood is at risk (MDBA 2013). Agricultural activities have also led to the increased Salinity and water logging of rivers in this area. The two problems arise from intensive agriculture and the clearing of vegetation to pave way for farming (Clarke 2012). The over-exploitation of rivers has a profound effect on residents and animal life that depends in it. For aboriginal communities the many dams that form part of the project have flooded ancestral burial sites (Clarke 2012). Thirdly, the regulation of the river route through levees has seen the limitation of habitats for river-fowl and fish. As a result of the salinity of the rivers waters algae bloom sometimes occur in the water. The cost of treating water that is polluted with so many contaminants is extremely high. However, agricultural and industrial concerns continue to use harmful chemicals including herbicides and insecticides which later find their way into the Murray. While only treated sewage is discharged into the Murray it still contains nutrients in algae. The fish in the basin sourced from its rivers have also been found to contain mercury as a result activities in the Gold Mines along the tributaries of the Murray. Mercury is a harmful chemical that accumulates in the body of the consuming person or organism and causes serious health effects. On the other hand, the Murray has become an important tourist attraction (Prideaux 2009). However, with reducing volumes some recreational activities like boating may no longer be possible with reduced flows (MDBA 2013). In contrast, better management would see the importance of tourism in the base in rise to rival agriculture. Clearly, human activity is causing detriment to the health of animal and plant life on the river Murray basin. Pollution continues to increase water salinity and reduces the quality of water in the river significantly. The effects of the gradual accumulation of these detrimental human activities may mean the death of the Murray and its tributaries as we know them. Many of the world’s great rivers have been destroyed as human activity took their toll on them. According to Clarke (2012), the world’s great rivers like the Ohio, Mississippi, Trent, Rhine, and Vistula are now just sewer lines conveying their lethal mixture of sewage and chemical to the sea. This shows that farther destruction of the Murray River will have a negative effect on the quality of water in the ocean. However, Pigram (2007) still considers the Murray-darling River basin relatively health. In his opinion the river system is undergoing the same degradation process as the rivers mentioned above. Despite this Australia seems to have learnt a lesson from the death of these rivers. The management authority for basin ensures no discharge of raw sewage and little industrial waste water discharge (MDBA 2012). Many productive wetlands containing native forest and floodplain vegetation and floodplain vegetation still grow on the river’s basin. Furthermore, native fish species still inhabit the rivers but their numbers have been reduced greatly due to the overexploitation of rivers in the basin. Managing the Problems Management authorities have had great success in implementing policies to save the Murray-Darlin Basin River (MDBA 2012). These actions have taken huge investment of capital to ensure their success. The Murray-Darling River basin continued good health may be credited to low population in Australia and in settlements along the river basin, possibility and application of evaporation and irrigation as methods of disposal of waste water (Connell, D 2007). Lower levels of industrial development have also been in favour of Murray-Darling basin. Furthermore, all discharge of sewage is only allowed after a level of treatment has been achieved. Indeed most of the treated sewage is used for irrigation on farm in the basin. The river management plan has enabled the preservation and reasonable exploitation of water resources in the basin MDBA (2014). The dams built on the Murray and its tributaries are required to release variable amounts of water for usage by the river vegetation and floodplain woodlands (Prideaux 2009). The terrain of the basin makes it almost impossible to build large enough dams that can store water for usage over long droughts. In effect, the little water that is stored has to be efficiently used. By 1971, Australia has recognized the need to protect and preserve the Murray River from pollution and overexploitation (MDBA 2012). In1971, the Murray River commission was formed and tasked with tackling the salinity problem in the basin. The first conscious effort to manage the rivers of the Murray-Darling water basin has been the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement. The agreement took legal status in 1993 (Roberts and Marston 2011). Further development saw the formation of the Murray Darling commission and other bodies to manage the Murray-Darling Basin water resources. These organizations were succeeded by a single body the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). The Authority is responsible for planning the integrated management of both surface and ground water in the basin (MDBA 2014). The authorities started by developing a river management plan which aims at setting a sustainable limit for the uptake of water from both ground and surface sources in the basin. On November 22 2012, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was signed into law by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (MDBA 2014). This historical plan underlines Australia’s determination to ensure that the Murray and its tributaries do not become conveyors of sewage and chemicals to the sea or simply dry up altogether. The Plan was drafted by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority which is responsible for addressing the problems of the Murray-Darling Basin. According to the MDBA (2012), the plan would ensure the long-term ecological health of the basin. It aimed at addressing the over-allocation of water for irrigation, climate change, prolonged drought, and the deterioration of wetlands, floodplains, and forests in the basin (Pigram 2007). The plan involved cuts in existing allocation of water uptake and increase in environmental flow. Divided opinions As is with most other environmental issues, the Basin’s management plan was mired in controversy from the start. The authority was accused of prioritizing environmental preservation over social economic needs of the people of Murray basin (Rodgers 2010). According to opponents of the plan, the 4,000 Gigalitres cutback in allocation would be negatively affect agricultural production in the area and lead to the loss of thousands of jobs (MDBA 2014). Farming communities across the basin opposed the plan and at some point threatened to challenge it legally. However, environmental groups voiced strong support for the plan. Under pressure from farmers, the MDBA cut the proposed water allocation cutbacks from 4,000 to the 2,750 Gigalitres (Young 2011). However, the plan was criticized by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists which wanted the plan to stick to the original 4,000 Gigalitres of allocation cutbacks (MDBA 2013). Mike Taylor, the MDBA chair retired in disapproval of the scale back on the amount of water to be released into the river. Both Taylor and the scientists rightly argued that the river ecosystem would be helped by a release of over 3,000 Gigalitres (Rodgers 2010). They believed that environmental concerns override the social-economic concern of those exploiting the river, if rivers in the basin were to be rescued. Conclusion In this paper we have analyzed the effect of human activities especially farming and irrigation on water resources in the Murray-Darling river basin. Clearly these activities have serious detrimental effects on the water quality, animal and plant life in the basin. While the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was put in place to address these problems, it fails by placing social-economic concerns over the need to preserve the river ecosystem. If the world major rivers are to be preserved for use by future generation people must be able to sacrifice their social-economic position for a better environment. References Clarke, R 2012, Climate change, irrigation threaten Murray-Darling disaster, Accessed 5 June 2014, https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/51073 Connell, D 2007, Water politics in the Murray-Darling basin, Federation Press. MDBA 2012, proposed Murray Darling Basin Plan, Accessed 5 June 2014, http://download.mdba.gov.au/altered-PBP/APBP-Proposed-Basin-Plan-20120806.pdf MDBA 2013, The proposed" environmentally sustainable level of take" for surface water of the Murray–Darling Basin: Method and Outcomes, Murray-Darling Basin Authority. MDBA 2014, Run the River-a water sharing challenge, Murray-Darling Basin Authority. Pigram, JJ 2007, Australia’s Water Resources: From use to management, CSIRO Publishing. p. 160—162, Collingwood, Victoria. Prideaux, B 2009, "River Heritage: the Murray–Darling River". In Prideaux, Bruce; Cooper, Malcolm. River Tourism. Wallingford, United Kingdom: CAB International, pp. 167. Roberts, J, & Marston, F 2011, Water regime for wetland and floodplain plants: a source book for the Murray-Darling Basin, National Water Commission, Canberra: Rodgers, E 2010, "Murray–Darling boss resigns". ABC News 7 January, accessed 5 June 2014, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-12-07/murray-darling-boss-resigns/2365224?section=justin Vlavianos-Arvanitis, A 2002, Bio-syllabus for European environmental education: a textbook for the better understanding and appreciation of the bio-environment, Bio politics International Organisation BIO. Young, WJ 2011, Science Review of the Estimation of an Environmentally Sustainable Level of Take for the Murray-Darling Basin, CSIRO, Canberra Read More