The History of the Great Artesian Basin and Its Management Issues - Term Paper Example

Student’s Name: Instructors’ Name: Course: Date: Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Overview 3 Introduction 5 A Brief History of Great Artesian Basin 6 The Dimensions of Great Artesian Basin 7 Coal Seam Gas project at the Great Artesian Basin 8 Impacts of Coal Seam Gas project 8 The Management of Great Artesian Basin 9 Management Bodies 11 Recommendations 13 Conclusion 14 Bibliography 15 Overview It is undoubtedly clear that The Great Artesian Basin in Australia refers to one of underground water reservoirs globally. According to the Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council (1998), the reservoir covers around twenty percent of the Australian landmass. The total area per square kilometres that is occupied by the Great Artesian Basin is estimated to be 1.7 million square kilometres. This area is beneath the semi-arid and arid parts of New South Wales, Queensland, South and Northern Territories of Australia. This is because it has acted as a source of water for pastoral communities who occupy a vast area of Australia. This reports looks at the history of the Great Artesian Basin and its management issues. It also highlights the controversy surrounding the Coal Seam Gas project, its suitability and impacts on the environment. Introduction Despite the fact that Great Artesian Basin is such an important resource, over the years, there have been water issues surrounding it. The Artesian water, which comes on the surface of the earth through natural pressure, has traditionally been allowed to flow uncontrollably into open creeks and drains, to be distributed to livestock. According to Speed (2013), it is understandable that this water can be lost through seepage or evaporation even when there is enough control. In the early 1900, it was discovered that the control of this water was not enough. At the same time, Blake et al. (2006), contend that the management realised that there was a reduction in pressure and also water volume. This was attributed to the increased bores which had been drilled. There is uncontrolled flow of water from these bores and also open bores draining into the Great Artesian Basin were threatening the health of all ecosystems that depend on the ground water. In addition, it also hampered the pastoralist’s access to this water. Further, Kellett (2003) admits that it has been observed that this wastage of water has caused pollution and general damage to the environment. Eamus, (2004) observes that this is through the reduction of pressure in the springs, enhancing the spread of pest animals and plants. It has also led to high water and land salinity. These issues, coupled with other related concerns, have caused problems in the whole management of the Great Artesian Basin. A Brief History of Great Artesian Basin The Europeans discovered the Great Artesian Basin in the late 1870s. This was after a shallow bore was sunk and produced water near Bourke. It is from this time that the Basin became a crucial water source for irrigation, domestic uses, livestock and an important part of the rural people of Australia. Castle (2008) says that in order to tap this water, bores were drilled. However, water from these bores was being allowed to come out without any control measures. This scenario continued for a while until 1900s, when unsustainable usage of water was noted. According to Hillstrom et al. (2003), in 1954, an Artesian Water Investigations Committee came up with a report that showed the implications of mismanagement of the basin. After the release of this report, the Queensland government decided to formulate laws to allow land owners to have licenses of capping and piping bores in the region. This has been an encouraging move since it has helped to save thousands of litres of water which were being wasted initially. The government, as Queensland (2005) finds out, went a step further to offer financial assistance to the bore owners through an initiative termed ‘Great Artesian Basin Sustainable Initiative’-GABSI. This initiative was to be carried out on three phases. Larsen, (1996) says that the main aim was to help bore owners to replace their dilapidated and uncontrolled drains with pipes. The final stage was to ensure that a proper management plan is formulated to enable proper use of this resource. The Dimensions of Great Artesian Basin The Great Artesian Basin of Australia is the largest underground water reservoir in the world. It is estimated to have a depth of between 100 m at the edges to over 3000m at the thickest point. According to Chapman et al. (1981), the Basin covers 1.7 million km2 and at the widest end, it is approximately 1300 km. It is estimated that this area is about 22 percent of the Australian landmass. The total amount of water volume is approximately 65,000 million mega litres. In addition, according to geological studies which have been carried out, this water are about 2 million years old with a maximum pressure of 1300 kilopascals. The water temperature ranges between 30–50° C, with a maximum temperature of 100° C at the earth surface. Finally, the flow rate of this water is estimated to be about one to five metres per annum. The Geographical Coverage of Great Artesian Basin Courtesy:GABCC Coal Seam Gas project at the Great Artesian Basin According to Joyce et al. (2011), it should be noted that apart from providing water as a resource, the GAB has also coal deposits. This has, over the years, attracted many local and international companies who are mostly interested in the Coal Seam Gas extraction. This project has been met with protest from different sources. There is an open failure on the side of the Basin’s management since most of decisions being made are not participatory. Kerty, (2009) admits that the public is not fully informed by the government on the activities of these mining companies. The government has been accused of giving licenses to companies who are later damaging the environment. The government has been seen to ignore the plight of the landowners and the nearby communities and instead only mind about the income it is getting from such investments. Impacts of Coal Seam Gas project As mentioned above, there have been many complaints from different sources on the Coal Seam Gas projects carried out by different companies. The companies are blamed of ignoring the plight of the community and the environment. The bone of contention, as Green (2013) says, has also been on the fact that the government allows these companies to pump unlimited water from the ground yet studies have shown that this resource is not sustainable. Some of the effects of this controversial project are on the agriculture where studies have shown that some toxic chemicals have found their way to the land. A good example is the case where one company is accused of pumping ten thousands litres of saline water in the project. According to Gun (2012), this case was reported in the North Western region of New South Wales. However, the issues were not reported to the government until after six months were over. The effects to the soil are that it could raise the soil pH, thus affecting agricultural activities. This kind of discharge is prosecutable at all aspects. Water contamination is inevitable in such environment. There have been concerns that the Basin and the entire aquifer will be threatened if the companies continue to operate with their licenses by extracting unlimited amount of groundwater. The government has tried to change the Water Act and Water Supply Act of 2000 and 2008 respectively, in order to ensure proper management of such impacts (Robin, 2010) Many have argued that the government has been taking measurers to manage impacts after occurring instead of proposing measures of how to avoid such environmental effects. The health of people is also at risk! This is according to International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (2001). Contamination of water is a serious land and environmental pollution. The effects to human health could be long term. According to a study, there have been revelations of usage of toxic chemicals in the coal seam mining which is mostly in the ‘Fracking’ process. This is where a mixture of sand, water and some chemicals is pumped underground at a high pressure so that to fracture formations of rock and then release the coal seam gas (Robin, 2010) At least thirty six toxic materials have been identified to be used. Among these, include acetic acid, naphthalene and hydrochloric acid. These have alleged fears of water contamination and therefore effects on human health. However, the government has come strong to defend these companies and disputing any fears of drinking-water contamination. Some companies have been ordered to stop using some chemicals such as benzene in the fracking process. This is a worrying trend since the industry seems is so strong to an extent of hiring lobbyists who support their moves. Environmental pollution, including that of land and water, to such degrees, cannot be compromised. The Management of Great Artesian Basin As mentioned above, state governments were forced to intervene in the management of the Basin due to the continued decline of pressure and flows. The government of Queensland took the ownership of the Basin and required that landowners to have licences. New South Wales Government, in 1912, came up with construction and licensing standards for 30m deep bores. These standards were to be met in the western division of the Basin. Amendments were to be made in later years-1976, to cover other regions including South Australia. Robin at al. (2010) contends that there have been deliberate efforts to properly manage the Basin including the formation of Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee and the GABSI management strategies. These management bodies ensure that there is collaboration among states, including sharing of information, research activities and consistency across all State borders (Robin, L., Dickman, C. R., & Martin, M.2010).The National Water Initiative has done a lot in ensuring there is cooperative management among different stakeholders for social, economic and environmental benefits. Management Bodies The State and Territory governments These governments carry out their management responsibilities in their own respective regions. They follow their resource management laws but receive advice from state advisory groups. They come up with water plans, which are developed in conjunction with the public (this is not always the case). They also ensure that water entitlements are set and protection of flows to waterways and springs is achieved (Robin, L., Dickman, C. R., & Martin, M.2010).The Australia and state governments including landowners, through the GABSI, work together and contribute both private and public funds in repairing and replacing the bore drains. The Australian Government This government plays a great role in the management of water resources by working with governments and facilitating agreements. It also contributes half of the funds needed in the GABSI. It is however, forced to apply national laws when the life or ecosystem is damaged, posing a threat to human and other species. This is usually applicable if the State governments are not able to enforce their own laws on water management. The Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee This is a committee formed by representatives from community stakeholders, federal, territory and State governments and water users. At the same time, it monitors all activities in the water usage, identifying research needs, providing policy advice and liaising with all stakeholders in the Basin (Robin, L., Dickman, C. R., & Martin, M.2010). Natural Resource Management Regional bodies These bodies are nineteen in number. They are responsible for wider resource management across the basin. These could be animals and pests issues or any other environmental factor that comes as a result of water usage in the Basin. Water users and land managers These management bodies have the largest number of members. They contribute to the management of the Basin through participating in the GABSI. They are also involved in the adoption of technologies and improvement of land management techniques. The members also participate in the water planning strategies. Despite the establishment of all these management bodies, there are a lot of management flaws especially with Coal Seam Gas project (Eamus, 2004) these bodies are not working in tandem to enforce efficient and sustainable water usage by the CSG companies. This has seen community and the better part of the public complaining on how licences are issued and failure to follow environmental regulations. Recommendations Public participation It is obvious that the public is not well represented in the decision making process in the coal seam gas extraction. This is what brings disagreement and protest among the community members. Community members do not feel part and parcel of the whole project. Implementation and Formulation of more strict regulations Although there are regulations set aside in almost all aspect of the project, but more stringent measures need to be taken to curb environmental degradation. The available policies seem to be soft in regard to water usage ion the basin. At the same time, implementation of the existing policies is also a challenge (Eamus, 2004) these laws should be applicable to al stakeholders without considering the investment by a CSG company. Aggressive and efficient management The Great Artesian Basin’s problems are based on poor management. Despite the presence of all these management bodies, there are no deliberate and concerted efforts to stop land and water pollution (Robin, L., Dickman, C. R., & Martin, M.2010).The management seem to be reactive instead of proactive, which has made this groundwater being unsustainably used. Though there are efforts to reduce water wastage, this should be a continuous process. This process requires efficient and more aggressive management teams. Political will It is shocking to know that different stakeholders have opted to hire lobby groups and individuals to make ‘noise’ for them. Industries have hired groups that ensure their objectives are met (Speed, 2013)Some have gone a step further to bribe government officials to continue extracting gas from the mines regardless of the impacts they are casing to the population after using toxic chemicals. Conclusion The role that GAB plays in the Australian economy is crucial. In the days to come if proper management will not be enforced to ensure sustainable use of this water. The economic implications could be great since a good percentage of Australian depend on this groundwater including agriculture. There is no problem with the Coal Seam Gas extraction, but strict more strategic measures need to be put in place to enhance responsible and accountable mining practices. Bibliography Blake, T., & COOK, M. (2006). Great Artesian Basin: historical overview. Brisbane, Dept. of Natural Resources and Mines. Casle, J. (2008). The history of Great Artesian Basin: Brisbane, Dept. of Natural Resources and Mines. Chapman, R. E., & HARD, L. (1981). Geology and water: an introduction to fluid mechanics for geologists. The Hague, Nijhoff. Eamus, D. (2004). Ecohydrology of terrestrial landscapes. Collingwood, CSIRO. Green, G. (2013). Risk assessment process for evaluating water use impacts on Great Artesian Basin springs. Canberra, National Water Commission. Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council. (1998). Great Artesian Basin: resource study summary. [Fortitude Valley BC, Qld.], Great Artesian Basin Consultative Council. Queensland. (2005).Hydrogeological framework report for the Great Artesian Basin water resource plan area: version 1.0. [Brisbane], Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Gun, J. /. D. (2012). Groundwater and global change trends.Paris, UNESCO. Hillstrom, K., & Hillstrom, L. C. (2003). Australia, Oceania, and Antarctica: a continental overview of environmental issues. Santa Barbara, Calif. [u.a.], ABC-CLIO. Joyce, E. B., & MCCANN, D. A. (2011). Burke & Wills: the scientific legacy of the Victorian Exploring Expedition. Collingwood, Vic, CSIRO Pub. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GREENHOUSE GAS CONTROL Technologies, & Williams, D. (2001). Greenhouse gas control technologies: proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies. Melbourne, CSIRO Publishing KERTY, M. (2009). Understanding the basics of Great Artesian Basin. Melbourne, CSIRO Pub KELLETT, J. (2003). Groundwater recharge in the Great Artesian Basin intake beds, Queensland. Coorparoo, Qld, Dept. of Natural Resources and Mines. LARSEN, R. M. (1996). Borehole corrosion in the Great Artesian Basin: phase 1. Canberra, Australian Geological Survey Organisation. Robin, L., Dickman, C. R., & MARTIN, M. (2010). Desert Channels the Impulse to Conserve. Melbourne, CSIRO Pub. Speed, R. (2013).Basin water allocation planning principles. Metro Manila, Philippines, Asian Development Bank,GIWP, UNESCO, and WWF-UK. Read More