The NSW Legislative Council Industry and Transport Committee Inquiry report would not go so far as to recommend damming and diverting water from the Clarence River catchment and, the Berejiklian Government would only go as far as "noting' the fallback position held by the water raiders from the Murray-Darling Basin.
Showing posts with label water policy politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water policy politics. Show all posts
Thursday 22 November 2018
Update on attempt by water raiders from the Murray-Darling Basin to get NSW Government agreement to dam and divert water from the Clarence River system
The NSW Legislative Council Industry and Transport Committee Inquiry report would not go so far as to recommend damming and diverting water from the Clarence River catchment and, the Berejiklian Government would only go as far as "noting' the fallback position held by the water raiders from the Murray-Darling Basin.
NSW LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL, Portfolio
Committee No. 5 – Industry and Transport Augmentation of water supply for rural
and regional New South Wales,
14 May 2018:
Recommendation 40
That the NSW Government
consider establishing a stormwater and/or flood harvesting pilot program for
flood mitigation in the Northern Rivers.
6.89 The committee heard
evidence from some inquiry participants that there may be potential benefits of
diverting the Clarence River to the west. These inquiry participants were of
the view that there is merit to any strategy that seeks to mitigate floods and
flood damage in the Clarence Valley and provide additional water for
agriculture in the Barwon region. The committee acknowledges that stakeholders
were divided on the issue of water diversion. However, some inquiry
participants held strong views against diverting waters from the Clarence River
to the west.
6.90 We also acknowledge the work of local
councils in undertaking repair work for public assets and infrastructure and
the strain that such labour has on council resources, finances and staff. The
committee acknowledges that stakeholders called for the National Disaster
Relief and Recovery Arrangements to undergo a review in order to compensate for
council resources and staff, the committee supports this idea and recommends
the NSW Government pursue this through the Council of Australian Governments.
Government Response - Water Augmentation, 14 November 2018:
Sunday 28 October 2018
On past performance it will only take state and federal National Party politicians and their mates a couple of years to drain Morrison's $5 billion Drought Future Fund
On 26 October 2018, in the face of ongoing allegations of financial gouging of the public purse and mismanagement of water resources in the Murray Darling Basin, Prime Minister and Liberal MP for Cook Scott Morrison unveiled his $5 billion Drought Future Fund at a summit attended by farmers, economists, industry bodies and state and federal ministers in Canberra....promising measures to drought-proof the nation's agriculture sector. The first $3.9 billion of the scheme, which would operate similarly to the Medical Future Fund, is to be paid for out of a pool of money originally intended for the National Disability Insurance Scheme.
What a brilliant idea.
Rob an already underfunded disability sector and the vulnerable people who depend on its services in order to beef up a proposed drought future fund,
What can possibly go wrong?
Well, on past history it will likely take National politicians and their mates about two years to empty this new fund - with little to no drought-proofing to show for the taxpayer dollars they manage to redirect towards their own businesses.
The
Age, 26
October 2018:
The Nationals' federal
treasurer Peter Schwarz is accused of gouging much of the $850,000 he was
paid by Australia’s largest drought-proofing project and calling
in favours when pressed to account for the taxpayer cash.
As Prime Minister Scott
Morrison launches his drought summit, leaked government files reveal that Mr
Schwarz banked the taxpayer subsidies in November 2011 and then spent years
resisting efforts from water officials to get him to or use it for its intended
purpose – saving water.
The frustration of the
Goulburn-Murray Water authority with the conduct of Mr Schwarz – who as well as
being the Nationals key federal fundraiser is also running in next month’s
Victorian election – is exposed in dozens of damning leaked authority files.
The files provide a case
study of issues which are front and centre at Mr Morrison’s drought summit and
which are being examined by drought envoy and Nationals MP Barnaby Joyce: using
taxpayer funds to help farmers deal with drought, and, questions about whether
backroom favours or mismanagement are undermining drought-relief efforts.
Among the leaked files
is a July 15, 2016 memo from a water authority lawyer summing up his view of Mr
Schwarz’s conduct after he joined hundreds of other farmers given cash incentives
as part of Australia’s largest water saving initiative, the Connections
Project. The project aims to help restore the Murray Darling water system.
The lawyer stated that
after Mr Schwarz received $850,505 in 2011 – divided into $473,000 for on-farm
water-saving measures and $300,000 to buy a neighbouring property – he ‘‘failed
to perform any of the obligations despite having received the payment … in
full.’’
‘‘The Schwarzes have
spent much of the ensuing period attempting to make a case that, notwithstanding
they entered into the agreement and received payment, they should not be bound
to perform,’’ the July 2016 legal memo states.
The leaked files also
reveal that Mr Schwarz sought to call on his personal relationship with a
controversial high-ranking water official, Gavin Hanlon, and an unnamed
‘‘minister’’ to ‘‘support [his] cause’’.
Mr Hanlon was a senior
Victorian water official who was headhunted by the NSW government as its
irrigation chief. He quit his NSW post in 2017 after revelations of questionable
dealings with farm lobbyists, sparking an ongoing
investigation by the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption……..
In a statement to
Fairfax Media, the water authority said that seven years after it gave Mr
Schwarz the funds, the stand-off over with him has been "substantially
resolved." It is understood that Mr Schwarz and Goulburn-Murray Water have
finally agreed that he will use the funds for water savings, but no work has as
yet been done.
The files reveal intense
frustration inside Goulburn-Murray Water not only about Mr Schwarz’s conduct
but the authority’s inability to recoup taxpayer funds.
A note written by an employee
in April 2014 states that: ‘‘Peter told me on a number of occasions he would
prefer to deal with higher GMW management and would not be accepting the
agreement he had previously signed.’’.......
BACKGROUND
SBC
News, 1
December 2018:
The NSW public has a
right to know whether a senior government executive, fired over her alleged
involvement in the Murray-Darling water theft scandal, received a six-figure
payout, the opposition says.
A report into water
theft in the Murray-Darling Basin, released on Thursday, confirmed that along
with top bureaucrat Gavin Hanlon's public resignation, a second executive was
fired for her role in the alleged misconduct.
AAP understands the
senior executive is a former National Party staffer and irrigation lobbyist,
who was appointed to a senior job within the Department of Primary Industries
in 2015.
Opposition water
spokesman Chris Minns said the Berejiklian government should confess whether
the executive had received a golden handshake on her way out the door......
In September, NSW
Minister for Primary Industries Niall Blair said misconduct proceedings had
started against Mr Hanlon.
Mr Hanlon was forced to
resign as the Department of Industry director general in September following
allegations of misconduct, including promising to share internal government
documents with irrigation lobbyists in 2016.
Thursday's independent
investigation into NSW water management and compliance report, authored by Ken
Matthews, said the second senior executive is alleged to have also been
involved in the teleconference.
According to her
LinkedIn profile, the executive was a policy officer for lobby group Southern
River Irrigators between 2011 and 2013 before becoming an advisor to federal
senator Simon Birmingham for a year......
Thursday's report comes
less than a week after both NSW and Queensland were slammed by a Murray-Darling
Basin Authority (MDBA) review into water theft and regulation.
That inquiry found both
states regularly failed to make sure irrigators complied with the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and weren't transparent about their failures......
The
Guardian, 27
September 2018:
A former water industry
lobbyist preselected by the New South Wales National party to
lead its Senate ticket in the next federal election has suggested examining
Barnaby Joyce’s proposal to release more water for irrigators.
Once a lobbyist for
Murray Irrigation, Perin Davey won the No 1 spot on the NSW National party’s
Senate ticket earlier this month, after the longtime Nationals senator and bank
campaigner John “Wacka” Williams retired and the former Nationals deputy leader
Fiona Nash resigned over her dual citizenship.
Davey was part of the
teleconference with NSW government water official Gavin Hanlon, when he
allegedly offered documents stripped of the department logo to help irrigators
lobby against the Murray-Darling basin plan.
Hanlon resigned
following the revelations, which were referred to the NSW Independent
Commission Against Corruption. The former water minister Kevin Humphries was
also referred to the state watchdog. Icac makes it a practice not to
comment any current investigations. Davey said she had not been interviewed by
Icac and Guardian Australia does not allege any wrongdoing.
The meeting was exposed
in the 2017 Four
Corners episode that reported allegations
that water was being harvested by some irrigators in the
Barwon-Darling region of the Murray-Darling
basin to the detriment of the environment and downstream communities.
Joyce, the former
agriculture minister, had nominated
Davey to the board of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority but, as a
result of the fallout from the program, Davey
asked Joyce to withdraw her nomination.
Davey, who now runs her own government
relations company, said she was simply participating in a teleconference
and that it was not unusual......
North Coast Voices:
13 MARCH 2018
Only
a handful of NSW landowners to face court over Murray-Darling Basin water theft
allegations? The NSW Government will prosecute several people over alleged
water theft on the Barwon-Darling, eight months after Four Corners investigated
the issue. WaterNSW has named the people it is taking to the Land and
Environment Court over alleged breaches of water management rules.
13 APRIL 2018
Alleged
irrigator water theft heading for the courts? A
cousin by marriage of the current Australian Minister for Agriculture and
Water Resources David Littleproud, John Norman, finds his agricultural
business practices under scrutiny...
30 APRIL 2018
What
the Australian Government didn’t want the UN to publish During Nationals
MP for New England Barnaby Joyce’s disastrous sojourn as Australian Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources the federal
government began a successfull campaign to have the United Nations delete
all criticism of Australia’s $13bn effort to restore the ailing Murray-Darling
river system from a published study.
Sunday 30 September 2018
Adani Group has Morrison, Price, Littleproud & Taylor wrapped around its little finger
Since September 2013 the Australian Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government has been a rolling national disaster.
This latest episode appears to have its roots in the hard right's commitment to dismantle environmental protections.
Especially replacing Labor's "water trigger" amendment to the ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 with a band-aid which fooled no-one.
ABC
News, 25
September 2018:
A farmer has been denied
access to a river system Adani plans on drawing 12.5 billion litres of water
from in what activists are calling a "double standard", documents
obtained under freedom of information laws show.
The mining giant plans
to take 12.5 billion litres of water from the Suttor River every year, nearly
as much as all local farmers combined.
Despite this amount, the
documents show at least one irrigator had their application for a water licence
rejected in 2011, leading activists to claim farmers were assessed more harshly
than Adani.
The documents also show
the modelling used by the company to predict the impacts of the water usage
ignored the past 14 years of rainfall data and, despite planning to take water
until 2077, it did not take into account the impacts of climate change.
The revelations came a
week after the Federal Government decided to assess the environmental
impacts of Adani's water take without a full environmental impact statement.
"Altogether, this
underscores how poor the decision was last week to allow 12.5 billion litres to
be taken without assessment," Carmel Flint from anti-mining group Lock The
Gate Alliance said. The group obtained the documents under Queensland's Right
To Information laws.....
Thursday 13 September 2018
Blatant water theft by miners being allowed under Berejiklian Government rules?
IMAGE:
Ros Druce. Maules Creek Mine, January 2016 in New Matilda
ABC
News, 10
September 2018:
A New South Wales coal
mine is being accused of inappropriately taking more surface water than it is
entitled to.
A review of Whitehaven
Coal's Maules Creek Mine near Narrabri by the campaign group Lock the Gate
showed it captured 1,800 million litres (ML) of surface water in 2016, despite
being licenced to take 30 million litres.
Surface water is water
that is collected from rainfall and run off.
An examination of
surface water licences in New South Wales has been unable to find any other
surface water licences held by the mine to justify the additional water.
"It does appear
that the take is much higher than the licence they have explained to the
community," Maules Creek farmer Lochie Leitch said.
Whitehaven Coal declined
to be interviewed.
The company issued a
statement saying it was in compliance with its water licences, and the use of
rainfall and runoff is permissible under legislation.
Farmers whose properties
neighbour the mine have joined forces with the campaign group, Lock the Gate
Alliance, to lodge a complaint with the state's new water watchdog, the Natural
Resources Access Regulator.
The NRAR was set up in
April 2018 following a review of water management and compliance which was
prompted by a story
by the ABC's Four Corners.
The farmers are worried
that the alleged collection of this extra surface water is affecting the
environment.
"[It's] simply
capturing too much water that would otherwise be recharging groundwater and
flowing into surface water systems," Maules Creek farmer Sally Hunter
said.
Labels:
mining,
sustainability,
water wars,
water policy politics
Saturday 26 May 2018
Tweets of the Week
Note: Cr Keith Williams is deputy mayor of Ballina Shire Council on the NSW Far North Coast.
An employer took money from DHS to pay an employee’s maternity leave, didn’t pay her the money, and then forged her signature on records to hide his actions from FWO.— _robcorr (@_robcorr) May 22, 2018
FWO brought a civil case.
It’s time to make wage theft a crime. pic.twitter.com/KH5AnVPFzk
Monday 21 May 2018
Water raiders are eyeing the Clarence River - again
In 2007 Clarence Valley communities saw off an Australian prime minister (John Howard) and his water minister (Malcolm Turnbull) - telling them "Not A Drop".
The issue of inter-basin water transfer became an election issue that year and the National Party lost the seat of Page and the Liberal-Nationals Coalition Government lost the federal election.
Having learnt nothing from the commitment of local people in the Clarence Valley, including traditional owners, once again the water raiders have raised their heads above the parapet.
The Daily Examiner, letter to the Editor, 19 May 2018, p.14:
Clarence diversion
On April 18, 2018,
Toowoomba Regional Council in south-east Queensland resolved to submit a motion
to the National General Assembly of Local Government in June this year.
This motion calls for
the Assembly to amend Resolution 77 (Griffith City Council) which was carried
the previous year.
Resolution 77 called on
the “Federal Government to carry out a further feasibility study on David
Coffey’s “Scheme to Divert Tributaries of the Clarence River to the Murray
Darling Basin” to gather up-to-date information for investigation into this
scheme”.
The Toowoomba amendment
seeks to incorporate a pipeline from the Clarence River to Toowoomba and the
Darling Downs region into that request for federal government investigation.
Hot on the heels of this
latest push to dam and divert water from the Clarence River system comes the
NSW Legislative Council Portfolio Committee No. 5 “Augmentation of water supply
for rural and regional New South Wales” report, released on May 14.
Although informed by
Clarence Valley Council that it has resolved six times not to support diversion
of the Clarence River, this Upper House report clearly favours damming and
diverting water from the Clarence River system.
The wording may have
been slightly watered down via a motion by Mick Veitch MLC but it is still of
considerable concern: ”Resolution 40 - 6.89 The committee heard evidence from
some inquiry participants that there may be potential benefits of diverting the
Clarence River to the west.
“These inquiry
participants were of the view that there is merit to any strategy that seeks to
mitigate floods and flood damage in the Clarence Valley and provide additional
water for agriculture in the Barwon region. The committee acknowledges that
stakeholders were divided on the issue of water diversion. However, some
inquiry participants held strong views against diverting waters from the
Clarence River to the west.”
However, the draft
version of 6.89 which indicates the extent of support the dam and divert
proposal enjoys within this Upper House committee was quite frankly alarming:
“The committee notes that there may be potential benefits of diverting the
Clarence River to the west.
“There is merit to any
strategy that seeks to mitigate floods and flood damage in the Clarence Valley
and provide additional water for agriculture in the Barwon region.
“The committee
acknowledges that stakeholders were divided on the issue of water diversion.
However, the committee believes that further investigation into water diversion
schemes is warranted to consider their feasibility as a strategy to mitigate
floods.
“The committee therefore
recommends that the NSW Government investigate the feasibility of water
diversion schemes as a flood mitigation tool.”
If these sentiments are
echoed by the Berejiklian Coalition Government down in Sydney then Clarence
Valley Council, the people of the Clarence Valley and communities whose local
economies depend on a healthy Clarence River will have a fight on their hands.
Because the calls from
communities and vested interests who have managed to reduce their region’s
rivers to a series of mud puddles will grow louder and more insistent over
time.
This time around the
call is spearheaded by Griffith, Toowoomba and the shadowy lobby group,
Australian Water Exploration Company Ltd, which is apparently looking to
benefit from any infrastructure spend on a Clarence Valley dam and pipeline.
At the June National
Assembly of Local Government they will be speaking to a sympathetic audience.
Hopefully Clarence Valley Council is sending a representative to this gathering
that will strongly counter their arguments.
Judith M. Melville,
Yamba
Sunday 6 May 2018
Problems with the Murray-Darling Basin plan just keep mounting and the NSW Northern Rivers needs to make sure these problems don't become ours
When it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin river systems there is never any really good news - we go from reports of town water shortages, pictures of permanently dry river beds and allegations of widespread water theft to the possibility of a fundamental legal
error in the master plan circa 2012.
The
Guardian, 2
May 2018:
One of Australia’s
foremost lawyers has issued an extraordinary warning that the Murray-Darling
basin plan is likely to be unlawful because the authority overseeing it made a
fundamental legal error when it set the original 2,750-gigalitre water recovery
target in 2012.
Bret Walker QC, who
chairs the South Australian royal
commission into the Murray-Darling basin plan, issued the warning
in a
second issues paper. He also spelled out the far-reaching implications of
the plan being unlawful.
Not only does it mean
that the original water recovery target of 2,750GL was likely to have been set
too low to deliver the environmental goal of the Water Act and
could be challenged in court, but it also means that amendments to the plan now
being debated by the Senate are likely to be invalid as well.
These include a
plan to trim 70GL from the northern basin water recovery targets and a suite
of projects, known as the sustainable
diversion limit adjustment projects, which would be funded in lieu of recovering
605GL in the southern basin.
Both are being strongly
criticised by scientists and environmentalists because they believe that they
further undercut the environmental outcomes of the plan.
The Murray-Darling
Basin Authority (MDBA) says it has relied on the best available
science in recommending the changes.
The new uncertainty over
the validity of the amendments will make it difficult for crossbenchers to
support them as the Coalition government has urged.
Walker has provided a
roadmap for environmental groups or an individual affected to challenge the
plan in court.
At the heart of his
advice is his view that the Water Act directs the MDBA to ensure environmental
outcomes are achieved when it set the environmentally sustainable level of take
(ESLT) from the river system. This is the flipside of setting the water
recovery target.
But instead of
considering the environmental outcomes only, the MDBA applied a triple bottom
line approach, giving equal weight to social and economic impacts of water
recovery.
“The MDBA also appears
to have approached the word ‘compromise’ in the definition of ESLT in a manner
involving compromise between environmental, social and economic outcomes rather
than in relation to the concept of ‘endangering’ or ‘putting in danger’
environmental criteria such as key environmental assets, and key ecosystem
functions,” the SA royal commission said.
“The commissioner is inclined to take the view
that this approach to the word ‘compromise’ in s4 of the Water Act is not
maintainable, or alternatively that he is presently unable to see how it is
maintainable,” the paper says.
“There is also evidence
that recovering an amount of water for the environment of 2,750GL does not, as
a matter of fact, represent an ESLT in accordance with the definition of that
term under the Water Act.”
Walker pointed to
numerous reports, including a 2011 CSIRO report which said modelling based on a
2,800GL recovery target “does not meet several of the specified hydrological
and ecological targets”.
There is also evidence
that the MDBA received legal advice on more than one occasion, consistent with
the commissioner’s concerns.
The issue of
water sustainability in the Murray-Darling Basin affects not just those living
in the basin and the economies of the four states this large river system runs
through – it also affects the bottom line of the national economy and those
east coast regions which will be pressured to dam and divert water to the Basin
if its rivers continue to collapse.
One such
region is the Northern Rivers of New South Wales and in particular the Clarence
River catchment area and the Clarence Valley Local Government Area.
Almost every
year for the past two decades there have been calls to dam and divert the
Clarence River – either north into south-east Queensland or west over the
ranges into the NSW section of the Murray Darling Basin.
The latest
call came last month on 18 April from Toowoomba Regional Council in south-east Queensland:
The response came on 24 April via NBN News and it was a firm NO:
NO TO CLARENCE WATER DIVERSION via @nbnnews https://t.co/w6DcTaIt4M— no_filter_Yamba (@no_filter_Yamba) May 1, 2018
However, because
communities in the Murray-Darling Basin have for generations refused to face
the fact that they are living beyond the limits of long-term water
sustainability and successive federal governments have mismanaged water policy
and policy implementation, such calls will continue.
These calls for water from other catchments to be piped into the Basin or into SE Queensland are not based on scientific evidence or sound economic principles.
They are based on an emotional response to fact that politicians and local communities looking at environmental degradation and water shortages on a daily basis are still afraid to admit that they no longer have the amount of river and groundwater needed to maintain their way of life and, are wanting some form of primitive magic to occur.
These calls for water from other catchments to be piped into the Basin or into SE Queensland are not based on scientific evidence or sound economic principles.
They are based on an emotional response to fact that politicians and local communities looking at environmental degradation and water shortages on a daily basis are still afraid to admit that they no longer have the amount of river and groundwater needed to maintain their way of life and, are wanting some form of primitive magic to occur.
The Clarence
River system is the most attractive first option for those would-be water
raiders, but experience has shown the Northern Rivers region that once a formal
investigation is announced all our major rivers on the NSW North Coast become
vulnerable as the terms of reference are wide.
The next National General Assembly of Local
Government (NGA) runs from 7-20
June 2018.
If Toowoombah
Regional Council’s motion is placed on the assembly agenda it is highly likely
that a number of councils in the Murray-Darling Basin will announce their support of the proposal.
Northern Rivers
communities need to watch this NGA closely.
Monday 30 April 2018
What the Australian Government didn’t want the UN to publish
During Nationals MP for New England Barnaby Joyce’s
disastrous sojourn as Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for
Agriculture and Water Resources the federal government began a successfull campaign
to have the United Nations delete
all criticism of Australia’s $13bn effort to restore the ailing Murray-Darling
river system from a published study.
It seems the Turnbull Government did not want the
world to know, or Australian voters to be reminded, that it had placed long
term water sustainability in four of its eight states and territories in jeopardy.
The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United
Nations draft report in question was the following:
C.J. Perry and Pasquale
Steduto, (25 May 2017), DOES IMPROVED IRRIGATION TECHNOLOGY SAVE
WATER? A review of the evidence: Discussion paper on irrigation
and sustainable water
resources management in the
Near East and North Africa
Abstract
The
Near East and North Africa (NENA) Region has the lowest per-capita fresh water
resource availability among all Regions of the world. Already naturally exposed
to chronic shortage of water, NENA will face severe intensification of water
scarcity in the coming decades due to several drivers related to demography,
food security policies, overall socio-economic development and climate change.
Irrigated agriculture in the Region, which already consumes more than 85
percent of renewable fresh water resources, will face strong challenges in
meeting augmented national food demand and supporting economic development in
rural areas. Countries of the NENA Region promote efficient and productive
irrigation as well as the protection and sustainable management of scarce and
fragile natural resources, particularly water, in their national plans. Through
the Regional Initiative on Water Scarcity, FAO is providing support and focus
to efforts in confronting the fast-widening gap between availability and demand
for fresh water resources. A key question to address is: how can countries
simultaneously reduce this gap, promote sustainable water resources management
and contribute effectively to food security and enhanced nutrition? The
traditional assumption has been that increasing irrigation efficiency through
the adoption of modern technologies, like drip irrigation, leads to substantial
water savings, releasing the saved water to the environment or to other uses.
The evidence from research and field measurements shows that this is not the
case. The benefit at the local “on-farm” scale may appear dramatic, but when
properly accounted at basin scale, total water consumption by irrigation tends
to increase instead of decreasing. The potential to increase water
productivity— more “crop per drop”—is also quite modest for the most important
crops. These findings suggest that reductions in water consumption by irrigated
agriculture will not come from the technology itself. Rather, measures like
limiting water allocation will be needed to ensure a sustainable level of water
use. The present report provides the evidence needed to open up a discussion
with all major stakeholders dealing with water resources management on the
proper and scientifically sound framework required to address jointly water
scarcity, sustainability and food security problems. A discussion that has been
disregarded for too long.
C.J.
Perry stated at Research
Gate on 25 April 2018 that:
Government representatives from the Australian Embassy in Rome disagreed
with the research findings for the Australia section summarised in the original
report. FAO, in response, welcomed the opportunity to improve the report.
Dissemination was put on hold and the report was removed from the FAO website
pending inclusion of additional material relevant to the Australian section. In a series of exchanges, no empirical evidence was presented to support
the Australian authorities’ claim that the investment program in the Murray
Darling Basin has generated substantial water savings and environmental
benefits. This left the global principles
and conclusions set out in the original report unchallenged, while the results
from Australia remained contentious. Therefore, it was decided that the best
solution to the matter was to withdraw the Australian section from the
publication and let the Discussion Paper to be available again on the web. The
original and current versions of the report both invite submissions of additional
case studies, information and analysis to WSI@fao.org. Cases documenting technical or policy interventions
where irrigation water has been released to environmental or other uses will be
particularly valuable.
The
suppressed section in the original draft of this UN report would have been
identical or very similar to this version of the text:
4.1 AUSTRALIA
Document(s)
System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water (SEEA-Water)
(United Nations Statistics Division, 2012); Water Account Australia 2004–05,
(Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006); Droughtand the rebound effect: A
Murray–Darling basin example (Loch and Adamson, 2015); Understanding irrigation
water use efficiency at different scales for better policy reform: A case study
of the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia (Qureshi et al., 2011); Water Reform and
Planning in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia (Grafton, 2017)
…………………………………...........................................................................................
Context
Australia
has led the world in the introduction of water rights in a context of extreme
resource variability.
This in turn
has provided the basis for managed trading between sectors and locations, and
valuable lessons regarding potential problems as previously under-utilized entitlements
are sold and used, and of “stranded assets” if significant volumes of water are
traded out of an area. More recently, evidence suggests that subsidy programmes
to “save” water seem to have been ineffective, poorly conceived and
un-prioritized.
…………………………………...........................................................................................
Highlights
The Murray
Darling Basin (MDB) is widely recognized for its advanced standards in water
resources management—in particular the system of tradable water rights that
allows transfer of water on short term or permanent leases subject to
evaluation of third party impacts by the regulatory authorities.
Australia
participated in the formulation of the United Nations (UN) System of
Environmental-Economic Accounting for Water. This framework accounts for water
withdrawn from “the environment” (rivers, aquifers), use of that water in
various sectors, including transfer between sectors (for example a water utility
supplying a factory or town), consumption through ET, and direct and indirect
return flows to the environment and to sinks. Trial implementation of the
framework was planned in Australia, and the Australian Bureau of Statistics had
already in 2006 issued guidelines referencing the System of Environmental-Economic
Accounting for Water (UN- System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for
Water
(SEEAW) system), which was to be applied to the reporting of the 2004-5
national water accounts.
However, the
following statement from the introduction to Chapter 4 of the 2004-5 National
Water Accounts for Australia5 is apparently at variance with one critical
element of the SEEAW approach—namely the distinction between consumptive and
non-consumptive uses:
This chapter examines the use of water within the AGRICULTURE industry
in Australia. Water used by this industry includes livestock drinking water and
water applied through irrigation to crops and pastures. Since the AGRICULTURE
industry does not use water in-stream, or supply water to other users, total
water use is equal to water consumption.
Elsewhere in
the Accounting Standards it is stated that:
It is believed that leakage to landscape from surface water resources
such as rivers and storages occurs in the MDB region; however, reliable volumes
are not available, and currently there is no suitable quantification approach
to estimate these volumes.
Does this
assumption of zero return flows matter? Indeed it does: Australia is now
embarked on a massive (AUS$ 10bn) programme to save water for the environment,
including subsidies to farmers for hi-tech on farm investment. Savings are
estimated on the basis of typical application efficiencies (e.g. flood irrigation
50 percent, drip 90 percent), so a farmer with a water entitlement of 100 water
units, switching from flood to drip would be assumed to consume 50 units at
present, which would require a delivery of only 50/0.9 (55.5) units after
conversion. The “saving” of 44.5 units are then divided between the farmer and
the environment. Of the 22.25 units going to the farmer, he consumes (with the
new technology) approximately extra 20 units. So on-farm water consumption is
expected to increase from 50 units to 70
units (and return flows are diminished by approximately the same amount), in
apparent direct contradiction to the programme objectives. In some cases, such
return flows will be non-recoverable outflows to saline groundwater; in other
cases, where irrigation is close to rivers or where groundwater is usable, the
return flows are recoverable and cannot be counted as “savings”. However, the
current evaluation of investments includes no apparent basis for assessing whether
subsidized introduction of hi-tech systems will actually release water to
alternative uses, or simply increase consumption by the extra amount allocated
to the farmer. A more comprehensive implementation of UN-SEEAW—where return
flows to the environment are specifically accounted for—would have addressed
this problem.
Other
authors have identified the issue. Qureshi et al. (2011) point to the problem
of ignoring return flows, and the danger of focussing on local “efficiency”,
while Loch and Adamson (2015) go on to identify the “rebound effect” whereby
when water deliveries to the farm are more valuable, the demand for water
actually increases.
Most
recently, writing in a Special Issue of Water Economics and Policy that
addressed many of the complexities of managing water scarcity in the Murray
Darling basin, Grafton (2017) made the following key observations regarding the
Australian experience with providing subsidies for on-farm improvements in
irrigation technology:
* About USD 2.5 billion of taxpayers’ funds used for improving farm irrigation
has primarily benefitted private individuals;
* These investments have had no discernible impact in terms of reduced
water use on a per-hectare basis, or release of water to alternative users;
* The buyback of water rights from willing sellers was the most effective
use of taxpayer funds to release water to alternative uses;
* Investments in irrigation to raise “crop-per-drop” productivity
had failed to deliver water savings on a basin scale.
NOTE: Full draft report Does
improved irrigation technology save water.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)