14 thoughts on “University of Western Australia shuts down Centre for Water Research – on our fairly dry continent”

1. It does seem odd that the Centre for Water Research could not have carried on with new leadership. It must be telling that when the story broke in The West it was handled by their Legal Affairs Editor.

2. Interesting to see that UWA’s justification for closing the Centre was that it was not “financially viable”.

   But not one public university in Australia is “financially viable”. They are all subsidised by the taxpayer, in multiple ways – billions a year in total. The financial viability of any little unit in them is just an artefact of the accounting method used. In this case the accounting method might even be correct – since the Centre, like every other part of the Australian university system – lives off subsidies.

   Notice that financial viability doesn’t even occur as a term when in discussing the billions a year poured down the drain on dodgy global warming research. What have we got for this money? ACORN “homogenised” climate records – “pasteurised” would be closer to the mark given the amount of artificial heat added. PAGES2 Southern Hemisphere temperature reconstructions – so badly botched they had to be withdrawn. Endless ridiculous model speculations about crop yields, the Murray-Darling, the Barrier Reef, you name it. A $180K a year part-time job for Tim Flannery spruiking doom to the masses. These activities were not just financially unviable. They generated no revenue at all, and stimulated further waste.

   It’s difficult to believe that the true reason for closing the Centre was not to shut down a potential source of real information on WA water problems. These are not, as Warwick has shown time and again, the inevitable result of climate change, but the predictable outcome of bad water management decisions.

3. The Lunatics are now in charge of the Asylum and the Fox is in charge of the Henhouse. Tim Flannery continues preaching Armageddon and doom to the masses. Desalination Plants are mothballed but continue bleeding money. Climate records are altered on a daily and yearly basis. Green Projects go into receivership as if they were on a production line. Merchant Bankers profit from Carbon (Dioxide) Trading Schemes at the expense of the general population.

4. The driest (inhabited) continent is highly misleading. Because of our low population density we have more water available per capita than most countries and most of it falls in unpopulated areas where we can capture it in dams (were the dams built).

   Our water consumption per capita is the 2nd highest in the world after the USA.

   www.data360.org/dsg.aspx?Data_Set_Group_Id=757

   And most water is used by agriculture (52%). Households only use 14%. ABS

5. In 2013 CWR published in international forums a research paper linking the decline in southern WA rainfall to large scale deforestation between 1960 and 1980, rather than to CO2 induced climate change! With such ‘incorrect’ thinking they surely had to go.

6. Have to say that I am sceptical of the specific connection between clearing/planting trees and rainfall levels in any particular district/region. Consider that in the Southern Hemisphere at the latitude of SW WA weather systems develop and circulate around vast areas of ocean which must surely be the dominant factor in the air masses ability to carry moisture. In the case of SW WA we are expected to accept that as the typical wet season front approaches the Perth coast from the west a signal tells it that the wheatbelt (100km to the east) was cleared over decades and it better reduce the rain it drops on Perth. ’nuff said.
   Here are some views from FAO scientists –
   Forests, trees and water in arid lands: a delicate balance
   www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1598e/a1598e06.htm
   my selection from over half way down article.

   IMPROVING THE WATER BALANCE
   Natural forests and tree plantations improve the water cycle in diminishing runoff and improving the replenishment of the water table. Tree planting has often been proposed as a way to increase rainfall. It has been estimated that 60 percent of rainfall over the moist evergreen Amazon forest comes from the forest itself through evapotranspiration (TheAmazon.org, 2007). However, planting trees will produce tangible results in increasing rainfall on neighbouring areas only when very large areas are converted to forest (Avissar and Otte, 2007).

   However, trees also consume water. The more the aerial system of trees is developed, the more water they transpire. The desirability of tree planting in arid lands is debated because trees may consume more water than they provide to the water cycle. Some countries, such as South Africa, have imposed a tax on the water consumed by forests. In certain circumstances where trees consume all the rainwater, it may be judged better to harvest this water through a bare watershed, store it in a reservoir and use it to irrigate high-value agricultural crops. For example, in Yatir, Israel, where average precipitation is only 270 mm per year, more than 3 000 ha of rainfed Pinus halepensis were planted in the early 1960s under a large-scale afforestation project. Although the forest provides carbon sequestration benefits and contributes to the livelihoods of nearby communities (particularly through fuelwood and non-wood forest products such as resins, fodder and medicinal and aromatic plants), it uses all the precipitation water. Furthermore, the forest has altered the biodiversity of the region, as new predation dynamics threaten endemic species. Rueff and Schwartz (2007) reported that the water that the watershed would have provided if it had not been afforested would have alleviated poverty better if it had been used for agriculture. They suggested that afforestation on a smaller scale, such as on farmers’ plots, may yield similar benefits with fewer drawbacks, as combining tree planting and agriculture is less disturbing to the environment, improves agricultural yields, conserves water and soils and provides fuelwood for farmers.

7. If you think the closure was the result of an anti-climate change conspiracy, or even solely about financial viability, you clearly never worked there. Those trying to paint the former head as a vocal critic of government who was demoted for ruffling feathers are erroneously buying into his preferred line…
   This is not about climate change; it is about right and wrong.
   The facts in the matter will perhaps never be fully disclosed for fear of damage to several individual and institutional reputations, and existing threats of defamation actions that will follow any such disclosure.
   But just think about it. A shameless self-promoter is lauded for decades by his employer as a quality researcher and the “jewel in the crown” of the university. It doesn’t take a prize-winning civil engineer to know that when cracks appear in a dam, leaks soon become torrents….
   How does an employer deal with an employee who turns out to be less than jewel-like? When those with less power in a university than a professor finally say “Enough”, lay out their claims and in so doing, tarnish the jewel? And how does the employer respond when the employee threatens to sue in the Federal Court for damage to his reputation if sacked?
   How do parents respond to a wayward child without throwing him out of the house? Take away his toys and banish him to his room.
   To quote from The West Australian of April 14th 2015, “Professor Imberger was demoted only after a “thoroughly and properly conducted” investigation upheld claims that he had “bullied, threatened and intimidated students”. Grounds enough, without even looking into his interesting accounting techniques… And before you dismiss the quality of the internal investigation let me tell you, these were extremely brave people given the political and big business connections at play.
   So please, don’t use this most unsavoury affair to imply a political agenda for closing CWR and demoting Professor Imberger. Such arguments are misguided and only serve to muddy the water around what should have been a totally transparent issue.
   As a former employee with more than a decade of first hand experience in this sordid affair, I can only lament that it took so damn long to come to this. So many good staff and promising students left rather than keep banging their head against the crumbling limestone facade.

8. Thanks for letting us have your insights. I was in Perth 2001 to 2008 and recall Jorg as a “go-to” water expert for the media.
   Still has his say.
   jorgimberger.me/

9. @wazsah: Yes, the “go-to” water expert… I don’t know enough about the science to comment on his expertise, but I do know that his research unit employed several public relations staff to assist his personal promotion, nominate him for international awards and generally create an image that served him (and UWA) well for many years. As is so often the case, people who need an entourage of PR people and media spin experts are rarely what they seem. The countless staff and students who know the real man also know that this ‘fall from grace’ and exile to a Department of One cause his ego more damage than a termination of his employment, which he would willingly have fought and manipulated in the press as a politically-motivated attack on his one-man crusade against climate change deniers. Ain’t Karma a bitch, professor?

10. Everyone has a theory about our “alleged” water crisis and usually they are science based arguments, particularly about
    over clearing and high CO2 emissions being the cause, especially
    from the Government and Water Corporation and the plethora
    of other agencies, including, CSIRO, CALM, DEPT of Water, Dept. of Agriculture and BOM, who are all science based and totally focused on a scientific cure and I wonder what the outcome would be if the government (Federal and State) cut their staff and funding by 50% and transferred the money saved to the private sector and their multi disciplined engineering sections for their answers and detailed plans.

    Waterguru

11. Personality aside, it does seem odd that in the same year the UWA sought to appoint climate sceptic Bjorn Lomberg, (who has his own glorification website), an international laureate of the Stockholm Water Prize, is ignominiously fired aged 72 when more than qualified for the gold watch…..that in a state with a growing water problem.

    Its chancellor is a “businessman” (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chaney), has the university gone pro-buck, pro industry and cowtow to government uber alles?

12. Privatising research as raised by Waterguru has obvious appeal in being more “market” responsive. That said, the broader market, that is the public, will often not pay for the “externalities of research and that is where government often does, or should step in, or, as in the case of the CWR, the UWA.

    We may never know the full story of why really the CWR was closed and a senior professor beyond retirement age ignominious discharged. Given however that the Centre was the only voice to stand up to the Premier quoted as saying the Swan looks “stunning” and that the “experts” (ie. its director, Imberger) was “carrying on a bit much”, then the public has lost a voice.

    Frankly given the absence of reporting on the Swan river system (that even the Auditor General reported on in 2014), then the Centre’s controversial closure should be revisited and consideration be given to a replacement.

13. The leading proposed water supply project I am aware of is by Agritech and involves desalinating the saline (6000ppm) scour water at Wellington Dam. I have a post with links to the two Agritech projects.
    “Plans to reduce WA wheatbelt salinity and utilize Wellington Dam” 15 May 2016
    www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=4482
    WA Govt has stolidy opposed the no-brainer Wellington Dam project for over a decade now.

14. @Din: I know Michael Chaney personally and can assure you, he is not a climate change denier. Quite the opposite, in fact.
    I should also point out that the nomination for the Stockholm Water Prize was prepared by Imberger’s then ‘Business Manager’, but of course, these details are not made public…
    One might also note that Imberger was a keen tennis player and would often boast about playing with then Premier Richard Court. Of course, in those days the Liberal Government was most supportive of CWR and in turn, Imberger had nothing but praise for them. When relationships soured, he became more outspoken about water mismanagement. Funny that.
    Sorry to keep dropping in with what seem like cynical comments, but I don’t think we can afford to say “personality aside” in this case because this dominant personality has a lot to answer for. Putting that aside and suggesting a political motive for the closure of CWR and exile of Imberger is just wrong and does not advance any meaningful discussion of the state of water management policy and practice in Western Australia.