The Salinity levels in the Murray-Darling Basin are rising at an alarming rate. This report will investigate the Causes, Location, History, Possible Solutions and other aspects of the issue.

Problem:

The salinity levels within the Murray-Darling Basin are at an unprecedented high. The influx of salt has lead to numerous agricultural and environmental problems within the Murray-Darling Basin. It is estimated in an average year, “slightly less than 6,000,000 tonnes” (water and salt) of salt enter the Basin. If left unchecked, the salinity levels could rise; resulting in the Murray River being an unusable water source. Keeping in mind the economical costs for such a problem; “it has been estimated that Dry-land salinity cost $250 Million per year nationally” (1999 Basin Audit)

Location:

The location of this problem’s occurrence is in the Murray-Darling Basin (Australia).

Causes:

The 1999 Basin Audit has identified the cause of the problem; salt that was once stored below ground, is being mobilised on an enormous scale, this is being caused by rising groundwater tables. The 1999 Basin Audit also dictates that the cause for the drastic rise in the groundwater tables is a direct result of “land-use changes across the Murray-Darling Basin” (1999 Basin Audit).

History:

European settlement can be held responsible for the first recorded systematic removal of natural scrub within the Basin, resulting in the risen groundwater tables that are apparent today. What has once thought to be insignificant process back then, has now turned into a “National Environmental Problem” (Water and Salt)

Solutions:

The ‘Salt Intercept Scheme’ is the by-far the best option to help combat the salinity issue, which is available at the present time. It works by pumping salty groundwater to a controlled site whereby, the water is not allowed to soak back into the ground. It is then allowed to evaporate, after a lengthy period of time, all the water has evaporated, leaving only raw salt. The salt is then refined and sold

This process deals with a great amount of salt on a yearly basis; “Current interception schemes prevent about 400,000 tonnes of salt from entering the Murray each year” (water and salt). However, “the amount of salt that entered the Murray-Darling Basin in 1999 was estimated to be 6,000,000 tonnes” (1999 Basin Audit).

Despite the shear amount of salt being removed, too much is still entering the Basin, resulting in the Scheme being ineffective. The Scheme also has economical flaws, for example; the cost of transporting the salt to coastal customers far out ways the profit made by sales. The total cost for the establishment of the Salt Interception Stations has been quoted at 60 million dollars, an estimate seven years will be need before all the Stations are fully operational.

A second and less feasible option is to re-plant all the natural scrub that has been removed for agriculture purposes. The main cause for the rise in the groundwater table is the removal of scrub, removing said scrub allows water to into the groundwater table, causing it to rise. By replanting; the roots would be able to absorb the water, thus severely limiting the amount that reaches the groundwater table. As stated above; this option is totally unfeasible as the amount to be replanted is too great, also the time period in which it’ll take the plant’s roots to develop is also too great. In addition; the cost for such a project as well as the man-power required, rules out this option entirely. Unfortunately, this is by-far the most environmentally safe option available.

Conclusion:

After having investigated the problem as it stands, with the best of the resources available, it is clear that the Murray-Darling Basin is in a dire state. The evidence provided is enough to justify this statement, unless something is done; we may lose one of Australia’s most precious resources.