Opinion - Denis Tinkler, RGA Member
It's not only the Basin Plan
In the
perplexing water management debate in the Southern Connected Basin (SCB)
discussion often ends with “well it is really complicated”. This is my attempt to explain some of the
complications.
Water
policy and management has been subject to constant change over the last 30
years and the present dire situation is the culmination of all of those
changes. The Murray Darling Basin Plan
is not the major cause of the current lack of water for irrigation, but its
lack of flexibility does deepen the problem.
When
Sussan Ley stated recently that “the rules haven’t changed since 1972” she
failed to recognise there is more to water policy than the interstate water
sharing rules. When David Littleproud
stated that “the Basin Plan will be delivered in full and on time” he failed to
recognise that sometimes the law is an ass.
Our
current anger is well placed but not well targeted. To find a solution we must first determine
the true causes and they are complex. They are not simply the Basin Plan.
A quick
list of causes includes, but is not limited to:
• Extra
dilution flows to SA
• Irrigation
development throughout the basin since 1970
• Water
trading
• Water
carryover
• Snowy
Hydro corporatisation and rule changes
• Living
Murray removal of 489 GL
• Barmah
Millewa allocation
• Return
of Snowy River water
• Millenium
Drought – new low inflow base
• Over
extraction in the Northern Basin
• Basin
Plan buy backs etc.
• NSW
Water Sharing Plans which embedded reduced allocations, albeit for some
increase in security
All of
these have led to a new mind set for not only the authorities but also
irrigators. There is now a stronger desire for water security; and more
security always means less yield.
The
evolution of water policy change means that owners of Victorian Low Reliability
Water Shares (LRWS) and NSW General Security (NSW GS) allocations are carrying
almost the entire burden. The real
danger is that this burden is to be set in stone as the Basin Plan unfolds,
particularly the Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDL) that now replace the Cap
accounting.
The
Murray Darling Cap on Diversions (the Cap) was set at 1993/94 levels of
extractions. Since 2009 the SCB has underused by around 1000GL annually for a
total 8,000,000 ML. One reason is a
change in usage patterns and the greatest of these is more carryover. Increased carryover is a result of irrigators
acting sensibly, seeking more security and so irrigators themselves are a major
cause of the present situation.
Another
reason is that water that is not allocated cannot be diverted. Over this period there has been an
increasingly mean spirit towards irrigation allocations by state authorities.
We must
then look at the other side of the ledger. If irrigators are not using this
water, where is it? Initially it sits in
the dams, we see it there and think it will be allocated to us. But it is already owned by someone, if they
chose to then carry it forward they also risk losing it. In this new scenario more water spills. It
flows downstream to the benefit of the environment, especially SA.
Adding to
the uncertainty is the erratic nature of Snowy Hydro releases. The once clearly
defined annual releases of 1062 GL to the Murray and 1026 GL to the ‘Bidgee are
now much more variable. Releases can be at a time when the water is lost to
regulation and the resource pool. This is also to the benefit of the downstream
environment.
The
effect of new minimum inflows in 2006 is yet another factor. The raw numbers do call for a more
conservative approach setting reserves aside, but it appears that these
reserves are being regularly exceeded by the authorities. The deepening
concerns in the northern basin appear to be strengthening this attitude.
Concerns
that the water market is driving water scarcity is putting the horse before the
cart. It is water scarcity that drives
the market. That scarcity has is driven by weather, state attitude to water
allocation, usage patterns and removal of productive water.
A Way Forward
The
present situation cannot be allowed to go on.
The environment and SA are double dipping, perhaps even triple dipping.
The MDBA’s Cap accounting shows 1000 GL is flowing downstream annually in
addition to Basin Plan recovery of water. The environment is taking 600 GL
downstream of the Barmah Choke that for 50 years was diverted onto crops and
pastures upstream. The associated losses
in delivering that water up to 1000 extra river kms are then being worn by LRWS
and GS irrigators; this is intolerable.
The large
irrigation communities of northern Victoria and southern NSW have been
sacrificed at the altar of the green movement. This has happened using
erroneous science to justify a fresh water solution for the lower lakes; an
equally intolerable situation.
It must
also be said that the change in water use pattern is most likely here to stay.
It therefore follows that without a change to water allocation policy, the
under usage is firmly embedded. Even
increased allocations would most likely see a 30% or more carryover factor,
meaning that authorities can be safe that “over-allocation” is unlikely to
result in over-diversion.
There is
also a well justified concern in irrigation communities that water accounting
processes and procedures leave much to be desired. This is a major reason for
the inordinately high loss allowance for this season. It is a work in progress,
but it is not acceptable that one sector of the irrigation community is
suffering the consequences.
The real
danger now is that the under diversion shown in Cap accounting is to be
perpetuated in the new SDL rules. Action must happen immediately to avoid this
injustice to irrigation communities in southern NSW and northern Victoria.
Governments Must Act
The Basin
water ministers must recognise the imbalance and injustice in present water
distribution policy. Ministers Neville, Pavey and Littleproud must stand up for
common sense. The damage to northern Victoria and southern NSW irrigation
communities must stop.
The first
step for these 3 ministers is to recognise and publicly acknowledge the cause
and extent of this problem. This needs to happen immediately to give some heart
to these communities.
Their
next step is to claw back some of the water for the upstream communities. The
SA dilution flow is not needed there, it is double dipping. Its original intent
was a justifiable water quality need.
That no longer exists. This could allow up to 400 GL for productive use
this season. Perhaps a similar amount could be found by apportioning river
losses upstream of SA to the environmental reserves; the environment is the
major beneficiary of the additional losses.
Equally
important is that state ministers be able to instruct their departments to
prioritise irrigation allocations; it appears the reverse is the case today.
The concern is that state water managers do not understand these problems and
are therefore unable to report adequately to their ministers.
These
actions will give short term relief and set a must needed precedent. They must
be followed by positive action regarding the new SDLs. The new Water Sharing
Plans must not perpetuate the current situation. This is critical for the
future of our communities.
The
longer term must see a new Basin Plan 2.0.
The existing Plan is so flawed it cannot stand, but the Basin must have
a plan. A proper rule of law must evolve from the present dire scenario.
Basin
Plan 1.0 has been a fresh water solution for the lower lakes; a fundamentally
flawed plan. Plan 2.0 must be a return to the natural estuarine lower lakes,
the Basin Plan we should always have had.