Murray-Darling Basin Commission Report Précis: hard right ideology, ignorance, politics and greed have all but killed the largest river system in Australia

The Guardian, 29 January 2019: The fish kill near Menindee in NSW on Monday left the Darling River carpeted in dead fish. A South Australian royal commission is likely to find the Murray Darling Basin Plan to be in breach of the federal Water Act. Photograph: Graeme McCrabb

ABC News, 30 January 2019:

The Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission has found Commonwealth officials committed gross maladministration, negligence and unlawful actions in drawing up the multi-billion-dollar deal to save Australia's largest river system.

Commissioner Bret Walker SC recommended a complete overhaul of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, including reallocating more water from irrigation to the environment.

The report found the original plan ignored potentially "catastrophic" risks of climate change….

Commissioner Walker accused the original architects of the multi-billion-dollar plan of being influenced by politics, with the report finding "politics rather than science" drove the setting of the "Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL) and the recovery figure of 2,750 GL".

"The [water] recovery amount had to start with a 'two'," he said.

"This was not a scientific determination, but one made by senior management and the board of the MDBA……

Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission Report, 29 January 2019, excerpts:

Triple bottom line myth

The most pernicious of the polemical uses to which the slogan of the triple bottom line has been turned is to argue, in various forums and with varying approaches to frankness, that the triple bottom line requires the volume of reduction in consumptive take (sometimes called the water to be ‘recovered’, ie for the environment) somehow to be less than it would be on solely the environmental grounds stipulated in the Water Act, whenever it can be seen that recovering less would benefit farming, therefore the economy and therefore society. It is, admittedly, hard not to travesty the argument, so bereft as it is of a serious purposive reading of the actual enacted text.

No-one, in or out of this Commission, has explained how this triple bottom line is meant to work, directed as it must be to a numerically designated ‘limit’ of take. If all three dimensions are operating equally and simultaneously, as the slogan and the statutory term ‘optimises’ might at first sight suggest, how does a statutory decision-maker adjust — up or down — the recovery target by reference to each of the three dimensions? They are, at least partially, incommensurables. And what is the real difference, when it comes to irrigated agriculture, between economic and social outcomes? How far does one project in order to assess the best available outcomes?

None of these imponderable puzzles exists on the plain reading of the Water Act, by which the environmental threshold level (no ‘compromise’ of key environmental values) is set — and then as much irrigation water as can sensibly be made available is made available, in order to optimise the economic and social outcomes generated by the continuation of modern and efficient irrigated agriculture. Of course, from time to time, not least because of the inter-generational ecologically sustainable development principles, social outcomes — and even economic outcomes — may well come to be seen as mandating less rather than more (or the same) volume of consumptive take. But the true, single, bottom line is that no more water may be taken than at the level beyond which the key environmental values would be compromised.

The late Professor John Briscoe, whose distinguished career culminated at Harvard, was a doyen of international water resources management studies. His insights and eminence were acknowledged by, among many other weighty assignments around the world, his selection to play a leading role in the 2010 High-Level External Review Panel convened by the MDBA to scrutinize and critique the beleaguered draft Guide to the proposed Basin Plan (Guide) (see Chapter 4). In 2011, he corresponded with the Senate’s Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which has published his notable letter dated 24 February 2011, by way of a submission by him to the Committee’s inquiry into provisions of the Water Act. The whole letter is instructive, as might be expected. The following extracts pungently address the triple bottom line myth, expressing conclusions which command agreement. (As opposed to some other conclusions expressed in his letter, where Professor Briscoe is arguably too pessimistic, concerning in particular the aptness of the Water Act itself. 

The letter, to repeat, deserves re-reading.)

The substance of the Act 2: Balance between the environment and human uses

There are claims that the Water Act of 2007 was not an environmental act but one that mandated balance between the environment and human uses. Digging deep into the turgid 236 pages of the Water Act for confirmatory phrases, the Honorable Malcolm Turnbull claims, now, that the Act was all about balance.

To a disinterested reader this is poppycock. The National Productivity Commission’s interpretation of the Water Act (2007) is that “it requires the Murray-Darling basin Authority to determine environmental water needs based on scientific information, but precludes consideration of economic and social costs in deciding the extent to which these needs should be met”. Similarly, the High-Level Review Panel for the Murray Darling Basin Plan (of which I was a member) stated that “The driving value of the Act is that a triple-bottom-line approach (environment, economic, social) is replaced by one in which environment becomes the overriding objective, with the social and economic spheres required to “do the best they can” with whatever is left once environmental needs are addressed.”

This interpretation was also very clearly (and reasonably, in my view) the interpretation taken by the Board and Management of the MDBA in developing the Guide to the Basin Plan. This was transmitted unambiguously to the members of the High-Level Review Panel for the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

(As an aside, I have wondered whether this logic is derived from (a) a belief that this is the right thing to do or (b) an understanding that this was the only constitutionally-defensible approach given that state powers were being abrogated in the name of meeting the Commonwealth’s Ramsar obligations.)

The substance of the Act 3: The roles of science and politics

The Act is based on an extraordinary logic, namely that science will determine what the environment needs and that the task for government (including the MDBA) is then just to “do what science tells it to do”. 

In the deliberations of the High Level Review Panel, we pointed out that, taken literally, this would mean that 100% of the flows of the Basin would have to go to the environment, because the native environment had arisen before man started developing the basin. The absurdity of this point was to drive home the reality — that the Murray is one of the most heavily plumbed river basins in the world, and that the real choice was to decide which set of managed (not natural) environmental (and other) outcomes were most desirable.

The job of science in such an instance is to map out options, indicating clearly the enormous uncertainties that underlie any scenario linking water and environmental outcomes. In its final report, the High-Level Review Panel stated: 

Far from being “value neutral”, a set of value judgements are fundamental to the aspirations of all Acts, including the Water Act. … It is a fundamental tenet of good governance that the scientists produce facts and the government decides on values and makes choices. We are concerned that scientists in the MDBA, who are working to develop “the facts”, may feel that they are expected to trim those so that “the sustainable diversion limit” will be one that is politically acceptable. We strongly believe that this is not only inconsistent with the basic tenets of good governance, but that it is not consistent with the letter of the Act. We equally strongly believe that government needs to make the necessary tradeoffs and value judgements, and needs to be explicit about these, assume responsibility and make the rationale behind these judgements transparent to the public.

A basis in science The crucial steps of setting a SDL, which governs its localized component parts, and observing its mandatory reflection of the ESLT, are among the most important decisions called for by the Water Act. They are forbidden to be politically dictated, say, by Ministerial directions (eg para 48(5)(b)). Their nature is ‘factual or scientific’, and so they are to be addressed as the Water Act requires for such matters.

That is, both the MDBA and the Minister, who between them are statutorily responsible for making the Basin Plan, ‘must … act on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge’ (para 21(4)(b)). As appears throughout this report, this is a serious and fundamental requirement that it appears has most regrettably not been consistently obeyed (see Chapters 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 10). It is most certainly not some obscure technical point that could excite only administrative lawyers.

To the contrary, the invocation of science, with the strong epithet ‘best’ to qualify it, brings in its train the demanding and self-critical traditions of empirical enquiry. It definitionally recognizes the provisional and improvable quality of the state of art. It proceeds by testing, and thus needs exposure and debate. Above all, it shuns the ipse dixit of unexplained, unattributed, blank assertions, such as too often emanate at crucial junctures from the MDBA.6 Perhaps the MDBA was not entirely responsible for this ‘aberration’, as Professor Briscoe described it in his letter to the Senate Committee. He suggested it resulted from the ‘institutional power concentration’ created by the Water Act.

Leaving blame aside, it can be readily accepted that Professor Briscoe described in 2011 what he had experienced, and what has continued far too much and for far too long. That is, the highly secretive ‘we will run the numbers and the science behind closed doors and then tell you the result’ MDBA Basin Plan process that Professor Briscoe scorned as ‘the Commonwealth-bureaucrats-and-scientists-know-better-than-states-andcommunities-and-farmers-do model’. He deplored the excessive MDBA ‘confidentiality’ process, which meant ‘there was very little recourse in the process to the immense worldleading knowledge of water management that had developed in Australia during the last 20 years’. He wrote, ‘time and again I heard from professionals, community leaders, farmers and State politicians who had made Australia the widely acknowledged world leaders in arid zone water management that they were excluded from the process’……. [my yellow highlighting]

Recommendations

1. New determinations of the ESLTs, and SDLs for both surface water and groundwater that reflect those ESLTs, should be carried out promptly. Those determinations must be made lawfully — that is, according to the proper construction of the Water Act as outlined in Chapter 3. Those determinations must:

a. be made on the basis of a proper construction of the Water Act, rather than using a triple bottom line approach

b. ensure that each water resource area’s ESLT is correctly determined based on the best available science, including for floodplains, and accordingly is reflected in the Basin-wide ESLT

c. result in an ESLT that ensures Australia fulfils its obligations under the treaties referred to in the Water Act

d. ensure there is no ‘compromise’ to the key environmental assets and ecosystem functions of the Basin — it must restore and protect those that are degraded

e. be made on the basis of the best available scientific knowledge, and by taking into account ESD, including climate change projections

f. be made in such a manner that all of the processes, decision-making and modelling that underpin the determinations are fully disclosed and subject to scientific peer-review and consultation with the broader public.

2. Those determinations will require a greater recovery amount than that which has already been recovered. In order to achieve a higher recovery amount, additional water will need to be purchased by the government and held by the CEWH. That water should be purchased through buybacks.

 3. The MDBA — or some other appropriately funded body — should be required to urgently conduct a review of climate change risks to the whole of the Basin, based on the best available scientific knowledge. This should be incorporated into the determination of the ESLT. 4. A Commonwealth Climate Change Research and Adaptation Authority should be established. This Authority must be independent of government. It should be appropriately funded so that it can properly conduct research into climate change, and formulate plans and give guidance on how the Basin (and other) communities can best adapt to climate change.

There are 44 recommendations in the Commissioner’s report in total and the full report cane be read here.

BACKGROUND

Hard right ideology, ignorance, politics and the greed of irrigators on display over the years.

The Courier, 15 December 2011:

Opposition Leader [and Liberal MP for Warringah] Tony Abbott has given his strongest indication yet he will block the Labor government's Murray Darling Basin plan, telling a rowdy meeting of irrigators near Griffith the Coalition would "not support a bad plan"…...

The meeting, for which most businesses in Griffith shut down for the morning so workers could attend, was the fourth public consultation meeting for the Murray Darling plan, which aims to return water from irrigation back to the ailing river system to boost its environmental health….

The scale of irrigators' anger was made clear by a string of speakers who said towns such as Griffith would be battered by the basin authority's plan to return 2750 gigalitres of water to the river system from irrigators.

 Farm Online, 2 November 2012:

NATIONALS Riverina MP Michael McCormack [now Deputy Prime Minister of Australia] says he's prepared to cross the floor and vote against the Murray-Darling Basin Plan if it takes away 2750 gigalitres from primary production for environmental purposes.

Rural communities and farming stakeholder groups have demanded a final Basin Plan that balances economic and social outcomes in equal consideration with environmental concerns….

"I won't be voting in favour of 2750GL coming out of the (Murray-Darling Basin) system, given the amount of water that's already been bought out of the system.

"I won't be abstaining - I'll be voting against it."

The Guardian, 27 July 2017:

Barnaby Joyce [Nationals MP for New England and then Deputy Prime Minister] has told a pub in a Victorian irrigation district that the Four Corners program which raised allegations of water theft was about taking more water from irrigators and shutting down towns.

The deputy prime minister, agriculture and water minister told a gathering at a Hotel Australia in Shepparton that he had given water back to agriculture through the Murray Darling Basin plan so the “greenies were not running the show”. 

“We have taken water, put it back into agriculture, so we could look after you and make sure we don’t have the greenies running the show basically sending you out the back door, and that was a hard ask,” he said in comments reported by the ABC.

 “A couple of nights ago on Four Corners, you know what that’s all about? It’s about them trying to take more water off you, trying to create a calamity. A calamity for which the solution is to take more water off you, shut more of your towns down.”

Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, November 2017:

Winter rainfall and streamflow in the southern Basin have declined since the mid-1990s and the Basin has warmed by around a degree since 1910. The Basin is likely to experience significant changes in water availability due to human-caused climate change, particularly in the southern Basin where annual rainfall is projected to change by -11 to +5% by 2030. Any reduction in precipitation is likely to have significant impacts on water flows in rivers, in some cases driving a threefold reduction in runoff, with implications for water recovery under the Basin Plan.

Farm Online, 27 November 2017:

PRIME Minister [and then Liberal MP for Wentworth] Malcolm Turnbull says the SA government’s Royal Commission into the Murray Darling Basin Plan is picking an “expensive fight” with the federal government and upstream Basin States while examining ground that’s already been “very well tilled”.

Mr Turnbull - the acting Agriculture and Water Resources Minister in Barnaby Joyce’s absence - spoke to media yesterday after SA Premier Jay Weatherill and the state’s Water Minister Ian Hunter revealed they would forge ahead with the Commission inquiry into water monitoring and compliance issues in the $13 billion Basin Plan.

News.com.au, 8 March 2018:

A MAJOR cotton grower is among five people charged for allegedly stealing water from the Murray-Darling Basin.

Prominent irrigator Peter Harris and his wife Jane Harris, who farm cotton in NSW’s north-west have been accused of taking water when the flow did not permit it and breaching licence conditions.

WaterNSW on Thursday said it had begun prosecutions after investigating water management rule breaches.

Three other members of a prominent family have also been accused of theft.

WaterNSW alleges Anthony Barlow, Frederick Barlow and Margaret Barlow were pumping during an embargo and pumping while metering equipment was not working.

The maximum penalty for each of the offences is $247,500.

The prosecutions were announced only moments before the NSW Ombudsman released a damning report saying the WaterNSW had provided the government with incorrect figures on enforcement actions.

In a special report, the NSW Ombudsman said WaterNSW had wrongly claimed to have issued 105 penalty infringements notices and to have initiated 12 prosecutions between July 2017 and November 2017. In fact, no prosecutions had begun nor penalty notices issued during the period.

The Weekly Times, 19 December 2018:

Cohuna irrigator Max Fehring said a push to recover another 450GL would simply mean having to shut down some irrigation areas.

“The environment push is out of control, with no connection to the community impacts,” Mr Fehring said. “You just can’t keep taking water.”

Finley irrigator Waander van Beek said draining water from the Riverina had reduced the reliability of supply from about 85 per cent down to 55 per cent.

Mr van Beek’s wife, Pam, said the district’s irrigators were also angered to see their South Australian colleagues gaining 100 per cent of their allocations, while they got nothing in NSW.

Others were angered by what they see as a waste of water flowing down the Murray to fill South Australia’s Lower Lakes.

ABC News, 29 January 2019:

Recent fish kills in western New South Wales have put Australia's Murray-Darling Basin Planback in the headlines.

However, it has been at the forefront of some of Australia's top legal minds for the past 12 months, with the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission putting it under the microscope.......

What is the Murray-Darling Basin Plan?

Management of Australia's biggest water resource has been contentious since before federation.

History was made in 2012, when Queensland, New South Wales, the ACT, Victoria and South Australia signed up to the national plan, but it remains controversial.

Some believe it does not provide enough flows to protect the environment, while communities dependent on irrigation say it threatens their economic future.

Why did SA decide to hold a royal commission?

In 2017, an ABC Four Corners investigation uncovered irrigators in New South Wales were taking billions of litres of water earmarked for the environment.

A subsequent report found poor levels of enforcement and a lack of transparency surrounding water management in New South Wales and Queensland.

That sparked outcry in South Australia, at the very end of the system and often the first place to feel the impact of low water flows.

Then premier Jay Weatherill said the report did not go far enough, and needed more detailed findings about individuals who had committed water theft.

He announced the Labor government would launch a royal commission.

Key players didn't give evidence

The SA Government came out swinging with its royal commission, but it didn't take long for it to beencumbered.

The Federal Government launched injunction proceedings in the High Court to prevent any Commonwealth public servants from giving evidence.

That included Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) staff, who are responsible for implementing the plan.

The Federal Government argued it was a longstanding legal precedent that state-based royal commissions did not have the power to compel federal witnesses.

Evidence of mismanagement and fraud revealed

While the royal commission could not hear evidence from current MDBA staff, it did hear from some former senior employees.

They included David Bell, who at one stage was responsible for setting an environmentally-sustainable level of water extraction.

He told the inquiry the amount of water set aside for the environment became a political decision, rather than a scientific one.

The 2010 'Guide to the proposed Basin Plan' recommended 6,900 gigalitres of water would need to be returned to the system for there to be a 'low uncertainty' of achieving environmental outcomes.

In the final 2012 plan, 2,750 gigalitres were allocated.

It also heard from Dr Matt Colloff, a now retired CSIRO scientist who was part of a team that worked on a report into the plan.

He told the commission his report was altered by CSIRO management, under pressure from MDBA staff.

In his closing submission to the royal commission, counsel assisting Richard Beasley SC said that by taking social and economic factors into consideration when setting environmental flows, the MDBA had erred.

"The Murray-Darling Basin Authority has misinterpreted the Water Act, not in a minor way, not in an unimportant way, in a crucial way," he said.

"That's not only error, or worse than error, it's a massive one with regrettable consequences for the lawfulness of that part of the Basin Plan."

>

Read the full article here.

Murray-Darling Basin irrigator has cotton farm asset frozen under Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act - required to pay back $15.7 million

People living along the major rivers on the NSW Far North Coast, particularly those on the Clarence River, will remember that it was irrigators in southern Queensland as well as other areas within the Murray-Darling Basin who made repeated calls to dam and divert one of more of these coastal rivers to fill heir greedy maws with additional water.

The Courier Mail, 25 January 2019, p.27:

Authorities have gone to court to force an award-winning Queensland cotton farmer to pay $16 million to the state’s Public Trustee after a “covert source” told them the accused water fraudster had sold his farm for more than $100 million.

John Douglas Norman, 43, a former Australian Cotton Farmer Of The Year, from Toobeah in southern Queensland, has been charged with defrauding the Murray-Darling Basin water program of $20 million.

The charges are before the Brisbane Magistrates Court.

Last week the State Government was granted an urgent court order, forcing Norman to pay $15.7 million to the state’s Public Trustee, after the police received a tip that his company had sold its Queensland cotton and grain farms to a global corporate giant.

Norman must pay the $15.7 million once his deal with the $43 billion Canadian giant Manulife Financial Corporation settles, a Supreme Court judge has ruled. The order was made under the Criminal Proceeds Confiscation Act.

The mega-deal was due to settle last week, court documents state. Until the $15.7 million is paid, Norman’s share of the giant farms, west of Goondiwindi, will remain frozen by the Supreme Court.

The remaining share of the business is owned by his mother Aileen Joan Norman. She has not been charged with any crimes and has not had her assets frozen.

The farms, spread over 18,000ha, are mostly irrigated and run along or close to the NSW-Queensland border, the court heard. They are in “a core crop production region” and with “significant water entitlements”.

The farms and a $2 million riverfront Southport mansion, owned by Norman’s wife Virginia, were raided and searched by police during the probe, court documents state.

BACKGROUND

The Land, 30 August 2018:

Meanwhile in Queensland, a major alleged fraud in the cotton industry was uncovered by police, with two executives from Queensland's cotton group Norman Farming charged over an an alleged $20 million fraud involving federal funds earmarked for Murray-Darling water savings.

Norman Farming CEO John Norman, 43, and his chief financial officer Steve Evans, 53, were granted bail after appearing in Brisbane Magistrates Court over the alleged fraud.

Police allege the director of the company submitted fraudulent claims, including falsified invoices related to six water-efficiency projects on a property near Goondiwindi, called Healthy Headwater projects.

Police allege the fraud occurred over seven years.

In NSW, the Natural Resources Access Regulator (NRAR) has issued a number of charges in the north and south-west of NSW for various alleged water offences.

The NRAR is the new independent water regulator in NSW. It started operations on April 30, after an outcry over alleged water deals in northern NSW exposed by the ABC's Four Corners program….

NRAR said it was pursuing the following cases:

● A Moree company has been charged with water theft offences. It is alleged the company, involved in irrigation, took water from a river while metering equipment was not working, an offence against section 91I(2) of the Water Management Act 2000. It is further alleged they constructed and used a channel to convey water without approval.

● A Carinda man has been charged with using a channel to convey water without approval, an offence against s91B of the Water Management Act 2000.

● Two men have been charged with water theft offences on properties in Walgett and Mallowa.

● A 35-year-old man from Carinda in Northern NSW alleged he provided false and misleading information to water investigators.

● Two men have been charged after they allegedly carried out controlled activities on the Murray River near Corowa.

ABC News, 13 February 2018:

The Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) is powerless to prevent upstream farmers harvesting overland floodwaters desperately needed to flow through the river system for the benefit of all users, the authority's head has admitted.

It comes as details emerge of massive earthworks built to enable upstream farmers to carry out "floodplain harvesting"…..

Last week, MDBA head Phillip Glyde travelled to Mr Lamey's farm to see first hand what was happening.

"I've learnt a lot," Mr Glyde told 7.30.

"For people like the Lameys, it's very hard to negotiate through and find what's the best way to make sure the problems they're experiencing don't occur."

Although he admitted floodplain harvesting was a serious issue, he acknowledged there was nothing the authority could do in relation to the approval and regulation of irrigation earthworks.

"There's overlapping responsibilities: local, state, different departments," he said.

"Then you've got the Commonwealth, then you've got the Murray Darling Basin Plan."

On Wednesday, the Senate decides whether to pass a proposed reduction in the amount of water Queensland irrigators give back to the ailing Murray Darling River system.

"We don't want the irrigators to be keeping even more water, we want the banks pulled down in Queensland," Mr Lamey said.

"We want the river to run like it should."

Tweets of the Week

Yep, they stopped the boats in Tilpa.#MurrayDarlingBasin #auspol #watertheft #fishKill pic.twitter.com/YQ2vmwwDt5

— River Country (@RiverCountryFoE) January 18, 2019

Believe it or not, when the rivers full the need a levee bank at the top of this ramp.

Tilda, NSW#FishKill #MurrayDarlingBasin pic.twitter.com/5dSboH3WyN

— River Country (@RiverCountryFoE) January 18, 2019

State of Play: Australian Water Wars in 2019

Lake Menindee in 43 images pic.twitter.com/bHCn06EXfN

— Chris Rawlins 🚙 (@ChrisBH011) January 16, 2019

Time lapse images of part of the Lake Menindee system in the Murray Darling Basin drying up through mismanagement, 2016 to 2018.

It won't be long before multiple talking heads from the Liberal and National parties will be penning opinion pieces in national newspapers and popping up as guests on radio or television accusing those who are acutely concerned, about water sustainability and the plight of the Murray-Darling Basin, of bashing the poor hardworking farmer and telling us that all irrigators are ethical individuals who are only trying to feed the nation.

Now that may be true of some, it probably isn't true of many and it is definitely not true of all irrigators.

The amount of water being taken from Murray-Darling Basin rivers is eye watering.

According to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA); Irrigated agriculture in the Basin consumes about 60% of Australia’s available water.¹

Again according to the MDBA, by 2017-18 this 60% was being harvested by only 9,200 irrigated agricultural businesses. 

In 2017 the National Water Account stated that total surface water and groundwater entitlements in the Basin equalled 19,374 gigalitres.

The whole Murray-Darling Basin receives just 6.1 per cent of Australia’s distribution of water run-off and the MDBA admits that approximately 42% of this surface water run-off is diverted from Basin river systems primarily by irrigators.

Professor Sheldon of the Australian Rivers Institute at Griffith University states that more than 50% of average water inflows into the Murray and Darling rivers are extracted for irrigation.

Overall, the Murray-Darling Basin contains 77,000 km of rivers, with flows said to total some 35,000 gigalitres on average.²  A figure which now appears unreliable. 

At the beginning of the 2017–18 water year, the total volume of held water for the environment was nominally about 2,871 gigalitres (in long-term available water terms).³

Science has been telling the Federal Government and the governments of Qld, NSW, Vic and SA that Murray-Darling Basin rivers cannot sustain the rates of water extraction they have been experiencing since the second half of last century and more water needs to be returned to the rivers as environmental flows.⁴ 

Government does not appear to be listening. Probably because implementing an effective response to years of mismanagement of Basin water resources would mean reducing the over allocation of water rights by commencing a policy of permanently buying back at least 7,000 gigalitres of water entitlements from irrigators and reducing the annual amount of water their remaining water entitlements represent.

Here are just three examples of excessive water consumption in the face of declining national water security.

WEBSTER

Webster Ltd (WBA): “Webster owns a diverse portfolio of over 200,000 megalitres of water entitlements, stretching from southern Queensland, through New South Wales to northern Victoria and Tasmania. It’s also fundamental to our strategy of streaming water to areas where we can generate greatest return for each megalitre of water applied…..  we are able to extract further value by exploiting opportunities in water markets. A significant component of this entitlement holding resulted from the acquisition of Kooba along the Murrumbidgee and the subsequent acquisitions of Tandou and Bengerang with significant water entitlements in the Murray Darling Basin. Our portfolio is a complementary mix of high and general security water with supplementary and groundwater entitlements. This scale, diversity and surety of our water holdings underpins our competitive advantage…”

Webster states that its “primary crop focus is on cotton, using technology and expertise to maximise yield and water efficiency, with capability to produce over 200,000 bales of cotton annually”.

Chris Corrigan is the Chairman Webster Ltd and Joseph Corrigan is the Alternate for Chris Corrigan.

Corrigan (formerly Managing Director of Patricks Corporation Ltd who colluded with the Howard Government's attempt to break a union) became chairman of the ASX listed agribusiness in March 2016, soon after it had completed a major takeover. In that play, Webster bought land and water company Tandou, assembling the nation’s top private water rights portfolio, according to Irrigation Australia.

Webster Ltd landholdings include 40,000 irrigable hectares as well as extensive grazing farmland. 

Webster holds its most of its water rights in perpetuity. As at 30 September 2018 the company listed the value of its water rights as $161.9 million.

In 2017 the company sold the water rights at its Tandou property to the Turnbull Government for $78 million which was reportedly almost twice the recommended value of the water.

Current WBA share price is in the vicinity of $1.565. In 2018 the company listed its assets value as $760.44 million. Combined salary & fees received by Webster directors exceeded $1.49 million in that year.

Its substantial shareholders in 2017-2018 were: AFF Properties No 1 Pty Ltd ATF The AFF Operations Trust (14.41%), Verolot Limited (8.92%), Mr Peter Robin Joy (8.43%), Belfort Investment Advisors Limited (5.89%) and Mr Bevan David Cushing as trustee of the KD Cushing Family Trust (5.60%).

CUBBIE

Cubbie Station is an aggregate of three properties owned by CS Agriculture Pty Ltd, which in turn is 20% owned by RF CSAG & 80% Chinese-owned through Shandong Ruyi Technology Group Co.⁵

Cubbie Station is 93,000 ha in size and sources its water from the from the Condamine and Balonne river systems in the upper reaches of the Murray-Darling Basin. 

Cubbie has annual water entitlements of 460,000 megalitres. In addition it holds back in off-river storage up to 45,000 megalitres of surface water from the flood plain. 

Its water storage area covers 12,000ha configured in a cell arrangements with an estimated capacity of 540,000 megalitres. It is reportedly the largest irrigation property in the Southern Hemisphere.

The company’s water storage dams are said to stretch for more than 28 kilometres along the Culgoa River.

Cubbie's principal crop appears to be cotton.⁶

In 2017 the Australian Taxation Office listed the company’s total annual income as $161,911,344.

The value of the Cubbie Station aggregate is est. $350 million.

NORMAN FARMING

Norman Farming Trust trading as Norman Farming has a combined land area of over 18,000 ha across two properties in the Macintyre River delta of the Border Rivers region.

The company has an entitlement of 76,000 megalitres of annual water diversion capable of being pumped at 7,000 megalitres take-per-day, with the potential for 500 megalitres per day of additional water harvesting from rainfall/runoff without an annual limit. An est.1,218ha are used for water storage.

Norman Farming's principal crop is cotton.

Estimated value of the company is $100 million. 

The owner is currently charged with defrauding the Australian Government of $20 million in Murray-Darling Basin water funding.

Webster, Cubbie and Norman Farming between them have annual water entitlements which exceed the volume of water in Sydney Harbour.

Footnotes

1. MDBA, Water markets and trade:

Water in the Murray–Darling Basin can be bought and sold, either permanently or temporarily.

This water is traded on markets – within catchments, between catchments (where possible) or along river systems. This form of trading allows water users to buy and sell water in response to their individual needs. Water trading has become a vital business tool for many irrigators.

The majority of water traded in the Murray–Darling Basin is surface water, however some groundwater also changes hands.

Irrigated agriculture in the Basin consumes about 60% of Australia’s available water….

There are more than 150 classes of water entitlement in the Basin….

Water trading in the Basin is worth about $2 billion annually.

The New South Wales, Queensland, South Australian and Victorian governments are primarily responsible for managing water markets, and each state has its own process and rules for allocating water.

Irrigation infrastructure operators create and maintain trading rules within their networks.

In November 2018 in the NSW section of the Murray-Darling Basin est. 2,988 megalitres of water was transferred between trading parties.

2. For comparison Sydney Harbour is estimated to hold 500 gigalitres.1 giglitre of water equals 1,000 megalitre. 

3. Water theft appears to be an ongoing issue. In 2018 one NSW irrigator pleading guilty to the theft potentially involving billions of litres at a Mungindi property near the NSW-Queensland border, while another at Brewarrina has been charged with taking water when the flow conditions did not permit it, and breaching licence and approval conditions.

4. Initially a scientific assessment by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority identified that 6,000-7,000 GL per year would be required to return the environmental assets of the Murray-Darling Basin to sustainable ecological health. This was reduced by almost half to 3,000-4,000 GL per year in the Basin Guide. Eventually, the Australian Government considered 2,800 GL, even lower than the minimum proposed, was a reasonable target. This was further reduced to 2,750 GL before the Queensland Government agreed to sign up to the Basin Plan, a reduction from the Northern Basin. Reduction of the target by another 70 GL represents a further significant reduction in environmental flows which will exacerbate environmental decline. [Professor Richard Kingsford, Director of the Centre for Ecosystem Science, UNSW, submission]

In 2018, the Turnbull government won support from Labor to amend the amount of environmental water allocated to the system, while the Greens and some senators were opposed. The amendments cut 605 billion litres a year that were allocated from the southern basin's environmental water flows, and 70 billion litres a year from the northern basin's flows. [ABC News, 17 January 2019]

5. The volume of water entitlements owned by businesses with some level of foreign ownership was 1.9 million megalitres at 30 June 2016 or 12.5% of the total volume of water entitlements for agricultural purposes in Australia. Of the water entitlements with some level of foreign ownership, the majority (1.6 million megalitres or 83%) was held by businesses that were more than 50% foreign owned. [Australian Bureau of Statistics, 7127.0 - Agricultural Land and Water Ownership, 2015-16] 

In 2016 in New South Wales in 847,250 megalitres of water entitlements were 100% foreign owned and in Queensland 744,957 megalitres were totally foreign owned.

6. According to the Dept of Agriculture and Water Resources ABARES, the Murray–Darling Basin accounts for around 91 per cent of Australia’s total cotton farms and cotton area. It is estimated that the total area in the Basin under cotton production is 490,000 hectares.If all of this land was planted for cotton in a given year then it is likely that the crops would require somewhere between 2.19 million to 3.82 million megalitres of water.