Leaks from the Murray-Darling Basin Authority draft paper indicate that today it will call for water-allocation cuts from 27% to 37%, a move that has the backing of conservation groups and select researchers.
This also has echoes of the Australian fishing industry restructure through quotas, quota cuts and trading, which has led to the fleet being reduced by two thirds, the doubling of the price of fish and the loss of thousands of jobs in coastal towns.
Cuts in water allocations has similarly been predicted to raise the prices of agricultural products and to even more rural job losses.
Over the past two decades, with the support of the environment movement, federal and state managers have been privatising the allocation of water in the Murray-Darling system. The theory behind it is straightforward: by allocating water shares or quotas and then allowing them to be traded, the most efficient farmers would end up with the most water and provide the best return for the taxpayer from their once-public resource. The flows to the environment would also be guaranteed — but not during droughts as we have just seen.
Water quotas, however, unlike fish quotas, are not variable. When Canberra decides a species on quota is over-fished, the catch available for each unit of quota is simply cut. To reduce the amount of water used, it can be regulated so that cuts of 90% mean you keep all your quota but can only access 10% of it to sell or use — and many sell profitably.
The proposed buyout of water allocations, however, does not translate litre-for-litre back to the river system — nothing like it. When the Commonwealth, on behalf of the taxpayer, buys out all the quota in a given area, only the allocated flow — in many cases 10% or less — actually makes it way back into the river and only then is there is flow to be used. Great if you are a water trader but not so good if you are a taxpayer trying to get water back into the Murray-Darling.
The assumption that the stream flow is relative only to the amount of rainfall — less that taken up by irrigators — is a very rough calculation. Forested parts of the Murray-Darling catchment absorb rainfall and release that water for longer after rain. They provide a large percentage of the rivers’ dry-time flow for their area compared to agricultural land. The quality of the water is vital to its useable volume, too — blue-green algal blooms in river systems can effectively “remove” all the available water in those parts of the system affected.
This water quality in the Murray-Darling Basin has been improved by planting of millions of trees across thousands of kilometres of streams and roads. There has been a restoration of wetlands throughout the system over the past three decades, but the positive effects of this investment by farmers and taxpayers remain disconnected from the market. Presently such land management cannot be traded — despite its obvious additional benefits for the environment, stream flow and sequestering carbon. (Swamps are where coal is made after all.)
Whatever the environmental benefits of more water for the Murray-Darling, they will be small when compared to its greatest environmental compromise caused by locks and dams. Lake Alexandrina was once Australia’s largest estuary, which fed the rich fisheries of Adventure Bay. Seals went hundreds of kilometres up river to the Darling River and beyond. Dolphins still access the Murray as far as Murray Bridge in South Australia until the barrages cut this river system from the sea. The sea eagles of the Hume Weir are testimony it this recent connection. The tourism value of seals in the Murray would be significant.
Another investment of $2 billion-$4 billion — rumoured to be committed for water quota purchase — would be to put in the bank and the 4% interest annually then used to pay farmers to grow bush and restore wetlands and manage their water production. This could generate $80 million-$150 million annually and would secure the management of 20,000-60,000 hectares of land forever. This way the market would select the best farmland for agricultural production and the worst for water management and carbon sequestration.
There appears to be additional market-driven opportunities to integrate better land management for water production and carbon sequestration, which keeps farmers on their land and timber workers in the forest with their skills and invaluable local knowledge.
“Lake Alexandrina was once Australia’s largest estuary, which fed the rich fisheries of Adventure Bay.”
‘Adventure Bay’?? Don’t you mean Encounter Bay?
In any case, I wasn’t aware that the ocean off Lake Alexandrina was a particularly rich fishery.
Excellent piece Lionel. Now is the time for some futuristic, holistic ideas for the Murray-Darling basin.
Lionel, I suggest that you carefully re-read your contributions prior to publication. Two instances of “is” instead of “are” and another missing word “it” in the second last para make this somewhat less fluent to read.
That said, it is clearly correct that there are many ways to tackle salt levels, river flows, algae and the ecological effects of weirs and dams, apart from simply buying back water from the irrigators. Keep it up.
It ain’t necessarily so?
Do 40% cuts in water allocations spell doom for the irrigation industry
The release of the Murray Darling Guide to future water allocations in the Murray Darling Basin has led to widespread predictions of the decimation of the irrigation industry, with the loss of thousands of jobs and millions of dollars of production. The experience of the Rural Water Use Efficiency program in Queensland suggests that it ain’t necessarily so. On the contrary it is an opportunity to transform our irrigation industry into a shining example of world’s best practice, matching consumptive, productive use with the sustainable yield from the Basin catchments.
The key question, which can be expressed in economic terms, is, can a 40% reduction in resource use by offset by increased productivity so that output remains the same or even improves? Statistics from the irrigation industry suggest that 40% improvements in productivity (water use efficiency) are achievable.
Productivity gains, the economists tell us, arise mostly from the adoption of more efficient technologies, investment in human capital and “know how” and the development of new more efficient technologies. So what evidence is there that indicates that such gains are possible.
Currently in Australia irrigation systems of all types are designed, installed and operated as the irrigator sees fit. In spite of the fact that standards and codes exist for all of these aspects of irrigation there is no requirement for the water user to maintain even the most basic efficiencies. We have a building code, water use labelling scheme for domestic appliances but no constraints are placed on the way in which we use 70% of our national fresh water resources.
Standards exist for example which describe the efficiency of irrigation drippers. Drippers are classified in International Standards into Class A, B and unclassified categories. An irrigator buying a Class A dripper knows within 5% how much water they will be applying through that dripper. By contrast a dripper that cannot be classified may vary in its discharge by over 20%. Standards exist for almost every component of irrigation systems. Just by requiring irrigators to buy and install system comprising equipment that meets these standards will yield significant productivity gains.
One of the key irrigation management decisions is deciding when to water. The most recent data collected indicates that over 70% of irrigators make this decision on the basis of their “experience and knowledge”. This is in spite of the fact that Australia is one of the world leaders in developing and manufacturing scheduling equipment which we export to irrigation industries around the world. Changing the timing and duration of each irrigation event has been shown to lead to productivity improvements of 20% in water use efficiency.
A critical requirement to achieving these potential gains is by investing in the people who make these decisions. This means not only supporting training for irrigators but also supporting the commercial industry that supports them. The public sector that used to provide farm extension services scarcely exists and rebuilding this capacity through the public or private sector, with a commitment to long term ongoing support is necessary. Without this support productivity gains through the use of improved practices are unlikely to happen.
The Queensland Rural Water Use Efficiency program, which ran from 1999 to 2004, was independently evaluated and was found to have achieved a 10% improvement in productivity over a 4 to 5 year period. The review found it was a good return on the public investment and that it contributed to significant improvements in water use efficiency. Importantly the program involved a comprehensive interaction of research, training and industry development.
These gains resulted from a relatively modest investment of $40 to $50 million dollars for the whole program, compared with the money currently set aside for the buy back schemes.
Water efficiency initiatives in other states tell the same story and provide the MDA with a blue print to follow. The report of a national workshop held to evaluate these programs describes a blue print for how to introduce and maintain such water use improvements schemes.
Rather than generating headlines that describe the issue in win-lose terms, that describe a battle between the environment and the irrigation sector we should examine the implications of the plan by looking at the evidence. Appeals to emotion make good headlines but they do not advance a solution to a problem that all sectors acknowledge exists. Our challenge is to take the gains that have already been made by irrigators and link them with better use of technology, with building human capacity to cement Australia’s role as the world leader in irrigation practice.