The Trees Couldn’t Survive Australia’s Salt Flats. The Fish Could.

Nutrient-loaded saline water passed through salicornia plantings. The plants used part of the organic load to grow. The water leaving that stage remained salty, but it was cleaner.

Then it could be directed toward another salt-tolerant Australian survivor.

Saltbush.

Saltbush did not ask the land to pretend it had never become saline. It was built for difficult country. Its roots could extend sixteen to twenty-six feet, and it could tolerate intense heat—reportedly up to around 122 degrees Fahrenheit.

Most importantly for livestock farmers, it could remain useful when conventional pasture had failed.

Even during drought, saltbush could provide protein-rich forage.

Sheep could return to country from which ordinary pasture had vanished.

Some land that had been regarded as nearly useless for conventional farming suddenly possessed another agricultural purpose.

And the sheep themselves created a market no one had needed to imagine when the salinity crisis began.

Saltbush-fed lamb developed a distinctive character: lean meat with a naturally savory, mineral quality associated with the animals’ forage.

What had once been evidence of agricultural disaster became part of the product’s identity.

Premium restaurants in Sydney and Melbourne served it.

So did restaurants much farther away—in London and Dubai.

For some farmers, the story of the land had reversed.

Salt had taken conventional production away.

Salt-tolerant plants brought livestock back.

The same environmental condition that had destroyed one agricultural system contributed to the identity of another.

The emerging chain was no longer merely an experiment in keeping fish alive.

Brine was pumped from underground, helping reduce pressure from rising saline groundwater.

The brine supported barramundi and prawns.

Aquaculture produced nutrient-rich water.

Salt-tolerant plants used those nutrients.

Salicornia helped clean the water.

Saltbush grew where conventional pasture struggled.

Sheep ate the saltbush.

Farmers could sell premium lamb.

Each stage took a problem left by the previous stage and attempted to turn it into an input.

Even yabbies—freshwater crayfish adapted to harsh Australian conditions—became part of the broader inland aquaculture story. Their natural ability to burrow into mud and survive drought made them suited to difficult environments, but aquaculture brought another problem: cannibalism.

The answer was physical rather than chemical.

Honeycomb-pattern shelters gave individual animals separate spaces, reducing their opportunities to attack one another.

Under the described production conditions, yabbies could reach market size in roughly six months, producing the white meat valued by chefs.

But all these systems shared one unforgiving dependency.

Water had to circulate.

Pumps had to run.

Temperatures had to remain manageable.

Fish did not care that a power station was hundreds of miles away.

Neither did prawns.

An inland aquaculture operation in scorching country could not survive on novelty. It needed energy, continuously and reliably.

The desert offered an answer to that problem too.

Sunlight.

Floating solar panels could be installed on pontoons over saline ponds. Their placement offered several potential advantages at once. By shading portions of the water, they could reduce evaporation significantly over the area they covered—reported figures reached sixty to seventy percent. They could also lower water temperature by around three degrees.

Meanwhile, the water beneath the panels helped cool the photovoltaic equipment. Cooler solar panels can operate more efficiently than overheated ones, and the system reported efficiency gains of roughly fifteen to twenty percent compared with panels operating over dry ground.

The ponds helped the panels.

The panels helped the ponds.

Solar generation helped run the operation.

A facility hundreds of miles from a major power grid could become far more self-sufficient.

The desert supplied another advantage that could not be manufactured cheaply.

Distance.

A marine farm on the coast existed within the biological neighborhood of the ocean. Parasites and pathogens already adapted to marine animals could reach coastal production systems.

An inland marine farm was separated from that world by hundreds of miles of hot, dry country.

The isolation created a formidable biosecurity barrier.

That could reduce dependence on antibiotics and antifungal treatments. Inland production also avoided the need to clear coastal mangroves for ponds, while carefully managed water sources could avoid some contaminants associated with polluted marine environments.

For a moment, the entire story seemed to have reached the ending everyone wanted.

The trees had failed in the worst salt country.

Pumping had lowered saline groundwater.

The extracted brine had become aquaculture water.

Mineral deficiencies had been identified and corrected.

Fish grew.

Prawns grew.

Halophytes grew.

Sheep returned.

Solar panels supplied energy.

The dead land had been given an economic purpose.

It was exactly the kind of story that becomes cleaner each time it is retold.

But the Australian interior does not respect clean endings any more than chemistry respects ambitious government targets.

Between 2001 and 2009, the Millennium Drought struck.

At Wakool, the flow of brine collapsed.

A system that had once pumped more than nine million gallons a day fell to roughly one million.

The aquaculture operation had solved the problem of what to do with saline water.

Now it confronted the opposite problem.

There was not enough reliable water.

Fish farming required certainty.

Investors required something even more difficult: certainty over decades.

At another operation, water licensing could guarantee supply for only about three years.

Commercial investors needed to think in terms closer to thirty.

The mathematics stopped working.

New South Wales eventually shut down its state aquaculture program.

Today, only a small number of commercial inland marine producers remain in Australia.

The transformation had worked scientifically.

That did not mean it worked everywhere economically.

The distinction mattered.

The fish had not proved the idea impossible.

The drought had proved that an aquaculture system could be chemically ingenious and still be vulnerable to water policy, climate, infrastructure, capital, and time.

The billion-tree effort had run into chemistry.

The inland fish farms ran into logistics.

Australia had learned how to make barramundi survive saltwater in the desert.

It had not learned how to make the desert promise thirty years of dependable water.

Yet by then, the idea had already escaped the ponds where it began.

Other countries were watching.

And what Australia could not turn into a vast national industry at home was beginning to find new lives elsewhere.

Part 3

India took inland saline aquaculture toward commercial shrimp production, drawing in part on research developed in Australia.

Israel used inland brine for fish production, including tilapia and carp.

Countries in the Middle East and Central Asia began adopting elements of Australian saline-aquaculture engineering.

An Australian barramundi company carried the idea even farther, purchasing a farm in Arizona.

There, in the Sonoran Desert, the underlying proposition looked strangely familiar.

Ancient salt deposits.

Arid land.

Inland brine.

Hundreds of miles separating marine fish from the ocean.

The experiment had crossed continents because the underlying problem was not uniquely Australian.

Wherever irrigation, groundwater movement, geology, and evaporation concentrate salt in dry regions, the same question eventually appears.

What do you do with land and water that have become too saline for the agricultural system built around them?

For decades, the instinct had been to remove the salt, dilute it, drain it away, or overpower it with restoration.

Australia’s experience suggested another possibility.

Sometimes the problem could become a resource—but only if the new system respected what the old one had ignored.

That lesson could be seen most clearly by returning to the land itself.

Where groundwater pumping continued long enough, water tables could fall several feet below critical levels.

That mattered because the salt visible at the surface was only the final expression of a deeper process.

As long as saline groundwater remained near the root zone, evaporation continued drawing moisture upward and leaving salt behind.

Lower the groundwater, and that upward supply could be interrupted.

Then seasonal rain had a chance to do something it could not do effectively before.

Wash salt downward.

Slowly.

Not in a single storm and not with a miraculous overnight recovery.

Rain moved some of the remaining salt away from the upper soil layers.

Conditions improved.

Meadow grasses appeared.

Then clover.

Wild shrubs returned to places that had been white and nearly barren for decades.

The first signs were modest.

A patch of green did not erase the years of damage.

A returning grass did not restore an ecosystem by itself.

But plants changed what became possible next.

Insects returned.

Birds followed.

Then small mammals.

Land that had functioned primarily as a salt crust began functioning as habitat again.

The recovery did not resemble the original billion-tree campaign.

There was no single dramatic moment when dead land became healthy.

There was a sequence.

Pump.

Lower the water table.

Reduce the source of rising salt.

Allow rainfall to leach the upper soil.

Wait.

Let salt-tolerant plants establish.

Let other vegetation follow where conditions permitted.

Let insects discover it.

Let birds discover the insects.

Let animals discover the cover.

The landscape returned by degrees.

That slow progression revealed why the original crisis had been so difficult to solve.

Australia had not suffered merely because there was salt underground.

The salt had been there for immense stretches of geological time.

The crisis emerged because the water balance changed.

Deep-rooted native vegetation had once intercepted enough water to keep the groundwater below the salt-bearing layers. When millions of acres were cleared and replaced with shallow-rooted crops, the hydrology changed.

The groundwater rose.

The salt moved.

The surface failed.

The problem was therefore not one villain and not one mistake.

It was a chain.

Geology supplied the salt.

Climate concentrated it.

Clearing altered the water balance.

Agriculture increased recharge.

Groundwater rose.

Salt entered the root zone.

Plants failed.

Economic losses spread from fields into roads, railways, towns, and wetlands.

The first large-scale response tried to reverse the chain by putting trees back.

That worked where the seedlings could survive.

But in the worst places, the solution arrived too late for its own biology. Young trees could not establish themselves in soil already hostile to their roots.

That was the cruelest part of the billion-tree story.

The principle behind the trees was not foolish.

Deep-rooted vegetation really had helped regulate groundwater.

Revegetation really could help lower water tables in appropriate areas.

But the most damaged ground had crossed a threshold where simply planting more trees was no longer enough.

The land required intervention before it could support the organisms intended to repair it.

Pumping supplied that intervention.

And once the brine reached the surface, Australia faced a choice that would define everything that followed.

Treat it only as waste.

Or examine it.

The examination changed the story.

The water resembled seawater closely enough to suggest marine aquaculture.

Then the dying barramundi forced a second examination.

The brine lacked potassium.

Correct the potassium.

The fish lived.

The prawns exposed magnesium deficiency.

Correct the magnesium.

See more on the next page