Can't understand the opposition to this practice. I am a fan of people like Peter Andrews...
Natural Sequence Farming is a method of landscape regeneration devised by the Australian agricultural pioneer, Peter Andrews, in the 1970s. From the 1970s till the mid-2000s, Natural Sequence Farming was ignored and rejected by many farmers, the agriculture industry and local, state and federal governments, but these bodies have since come full circle and today NSF is recognised as a viable solution to environmental regeneration.
The method involves implementing major earthworks on a given area of land that has been devastated by deforestation and general agricultural activities, to emulate the role of natural watercourses in an effort to reverse salinity, slow erosion and increase soil and water quality to enable native vegetation to regenerate and restore the riparian zone.
The method does not require the use of artificial fertilisers or herbicides.
Most interesting, Night Parrot. The leaky barriers placed across the gully seem to perform the function of native vegetation which is to slow water flow allowing it to soak into the ground. As well, the slower water speed reduces soil erosion & silting of landscapes downstream.
Threats from government bureaucrats to prosecute those who care for the land serve a number of purposes. Firstly, they reinforce the rules & thereby keep the bureaucrats in their jobs by showing that they're fulfilling their roles. No slackers there! Secondly, they reinforce the dominant Australian culture which is to dominate nature & make it serve our wants rather than work in tandem with nature so that everyone can survive long term. To fight against the dominant culture & oppose the conventional wisdom takes guts, persistence, determination & not a little cunning strategy.
Well said Woko. Your description of the strengths required to fight the good fight reminds me of my football days. The coach always fired us up at the end of his pep-talks with the words: "guts, determination and concentration".
I would be interested to know the reasoning used by the bureaucrats for opposing slow water flow. After all, it seems no water is lost and eventually it all gets to its ultimate destination, just a bit later that's all.
To think that conservation concious landowners have been battling the bureaucracy on this for forty or more years now is really surprising. In the meantime a lot of topsoil has been lost and a lot of habitat destroyed by erosion and denudation.
I am a big fan of this sort of thing sort of thing but have a couple of comments on this particular project.
First, I don't agree with importing used concrete to make the weirs, the barriers are not meant to be permanent and a major flood might move the concrete downstream into a neighbours property. Creeks are dynamic systems.
Second, she should fence her cattle out of the creek.
One reason Peter Andrews is controversial is he advocates the use of weeds and non-native deciduous trees to stabilise creeks, not always a popularidea even though it is very effective.
he's certainly got some interesting unorthodox views on ecology
http://permaculturenews.org/2010/07/29/are-eucalypts-weeds/
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2013/s3782459.htm
Yes, Greg, I have trouble with that aspect of Peter Davis' model. If you want grass along creek lines why not encourage natives? There are often remnant populations which can be encouraged.
Yes also to keeping stock out of the creek line. Stock are wondeerful soil eroders.
And yes to using something other than concrete weirs. But the principle of the approach needs to be encouraged.
agree, and we don't know if the government notice was served purely because concrete barriers were used
can the government require you to remove trees that have fallen into a creek?
Peter
Probably as simple as rocks are natural, concrete is not. If rocks were used then one could argue it was all there naturally. Bit instead some muppit with an ego and a disliking for naturalist wants to stick to the rules. Its quite surprising how many people see nature as the enemy.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks
I think the biggest problem in this case was probably the landowner wanting to publicise her efforts. The Water Dept have very low staff and morale, and there isn't much enforcement of rules, but if you gring it to the attention of the govt they might feel they have to take action. You are much better to keep quiet about this sort of thing.
The problem is that the water (companies) believe that when a drop of water falls out of a cloud it belongs to them.
Shorty......Canon gear
Canberra
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rawshorty/
There's no doubt that putting big lumps of used concrete in your creek without permission is illegal, if there was open slather for this sort of thing our waterways would be a real mess. On the other hand we all benefit when land owners take action to rehabilitate their waterways, and the rules are very restrictive and don;t allow any sort of remedial action without great expense of studies, experts etc. The sensible thing is to take action but don't go overboard and keep it quiet, that is the way a lot of good work gets done. You can't blamethe government for being cautious and keeping an eye on things to make sure people don't make a mess of things, it is a difficult balance.
But sadly Greg instead of just acknowledging that and making it clear it was the wrong thing to do, but well done with the overall outcome, thay have just gone the big stick line again. I'm sure Governments / councils have poured concrete blocks into creek banks or sea walls to control erosion. They certinally leave raod base, bitumen, and other road making stuff all over the countryside. I think she has embarrased them really. Shown them up for how slack they are with managing land. Mowed lands, bollards, and gates with the occasional BBQ and shelter shed is far from it.
Ipswich Shire Eastern flanks