Farmers in the Murray Darling Basin are sweating over the prospect of big cuts in water entitlements by as much as 37%. The details were leaked from the guide to the Murray Darling Basin plan, which will be officially released tomorrow by the Murray Darling Basin Authority.
The release of the plan will signal the beginning of a detailed consultation process, but the community is already deeply divided over the issue.
Australian Farmers’ Federation CEO Ben Fargher says a reduction in water entitlements of 27%-37% would be completely unsustainable for farming communities.
“We’re concerned about these numbers. Those levels would have a devastating affect on the whole regional community. We’re really worried we’re not going to see balance,” he told Crikey.
“We want to make sure that the numbers are a draft and that the consultation process is genuine because there’s absolutely no way these numbers can be final.”
The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has taken a strong stance in favour of the proposed changes. ACF’s Healthy Rivers campaigner Dr Arlene Harris-Buchan says irrigation of the basin has increased by 500% in the past century.
“We need to restore the balance between irrigation and the environment by putting more water back into the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin,” she said, calling for the plan to address the river’s long-term health and include sustainable diversion limits.
“All interested parties will have the opportunity to comment, improve, consolidate and add to the information underpinning the plan. This will be the time for making the proposal as good as it can be,” she said.
Cotton farmer Michael Egan has worked the land around Warren in NSW for 30 years. He’s concerned about the proposed limits and says the flow-on effects cannot be underestimated.
“The direct human cost of reducing irrigation on farms is about one man for every thousand mega litres,” he told Crikey. “Then there’s the multiplied effect of what isn’t produced — work in packing sheds and cotton gins.”
Egan says most farms are mortgaged, and there will be a direct correlation between financial loss and further irrigation limitations.
“They’ve gone way too far towards the environment. The federal government’s already bought one or two thousand gigalitres, and we’re down to 18% limits on irrigation,” he said. “With the drought just broken, we’re only just getting runs on the board this year, and now we’ve got this to deal with.”
Farmers have been using water inefficiently and had high levels of evaporation. If this causes grief to those who have been reluctant to upgrade then this is an inevitable consequence of their inaction and waste in the past.
[TOM JONES Posted Thursday, 7 October 2010 at 3:56 pm]
You beat me to it. This is the only sensible plan we have seen for years and years that might actually bring meaningful change. It counters the absurd over-allocation of water licenses (claimed to be about 120% but probably a lot more) and brings some economic forcing to farmers who expect BAU, especially cotton and rice farmers (where “world’s best practice” may still be unsustainable for our fragile river ecosystem). Their bleatings that the recent rains changes everything just shows they are willing to continue short-termist BAU.
But the government is going to come under intense pressure. I hope they stick to this plan. If a farmer cannot improve his water efficiency by 37% he needs to sell out to someone who can.
How about the farmers that are complaining try growing something that doesn’t require so much water? Rice and cotton farmers, I’m looking at you!
Meski, whilst it might make you feel clever to tell a farmer to “try growing something that doesn’t require so much water”, it’s not as if your point is not bleeding obvious. It’s about as obvious as telling someone in the new urban subdivisions to ‘try living without the air conditioner running all day’ (you’ve just spent $500,000 buying the new house which is unlivable without AC) or to the young rev-head ‘try getting a fuel efficient car’ (after you’ve just bought a V8 grunt ute). People have their lives and livelihoods and don’t think it’s going to be possible to change when no one else is changing.
We have to listen to the farmers, empathize with them, maybe listen some more, and then lead by example. Australians, all of us, are going to have to cut electricity use. We just have to do it. We will whinge till the cows come home but we have to do it. Instead of opining at length about how obvious it is what OTHERS have to do, let’s try to show what WE will do when our turn comes. We’re all in this together.
I’m not opposed to empathising with the farmers, even compensating them to change crops and irrigation methods, Hugh. But the current attitude of some of them seems to be that they are opposed to making that change. And yes, energy, and all the trickle-down costs from goods produced from energy will cost more.