The Rural News 21 November 1997
The other stakeholders
It must be understood that the following comments are not setting out to disenfranchise individual or efficient irrigators within the Murray or Murrumbidgee valleys. The comments are driven by general trends and assessment of documented material, mostly obtained through the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC).
One can only assume from this material that there is an inevitability that significant changes are required in society's attitude and response to the maximisation of river regulation as the 'protector' of agricultural productivity. Whilst it is hard to ignore the human benefits associated with river regulation, it is clear that a single use value (a monopoly) on its control is likely to under-estimate the importance of how inter-connected nature is, with a resultant breakdown in the natural processes that provided the conditions which attracted human occupation in the first instance.
In relation to water we have all heard the saying "it's just running wastefully into the sea" or the catch cry "we live on the driest continent on earth". It's obvious now that these over-simplified criteria, used as an excuse for maximisation of river regulation, ignores the complex relationships between land and water. The Snowy Scheme was essentially conceived on these two statements.
Decisions on water resource management that do not take into account the complex relationship of land and water are doomed to fail, regardless of any expectations.
Whilst access and rights to water are controversial topics, there is now ample evidence to suggest that water quality and land degradation pose the most significant threats to the future of irrigation and the productive use of land within the basin. In fact the evidence suggests that in part, these threats are created and exacerbated by the excesses of water use, ground water accessions, deforestation and changed vegetation. All of these have affected vast areas of land, ultimately threatening whole regions.
The Snowy River Alliance acknowledges the obvious importance of our agricultural industries and their communities in the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys, but it is wrong to suggest that our Snowy River communities and the values and roles they expect from their natural resources are any less important or contribute less to the wealth of this country than irrigation communities.
We believe that the Snowy Water Inquiry must have regard to the following questions in establishing the impacts to irrigators and to associated communities:
[Some of these are expanded in detail below.]
COAG(4)
4 says no and so do we.
The following sections are to highlight that any impact on irrigators' ability to sustain current production, and even to increase production through a small reduction in minimum notification from the Snowy Scheme will, in most years, be insignificant or non-existent.
Snowy River Expert Panel recommendations
According to the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE)(5)
5, the impact on minimum notification transfers from the Snowy Scheme would be an overall average impact of, a maximum of less than one per cent to the Murray, and a maximum of two per cent for the Murrumbidgee if 25 per cent of average natural flows were released into all the streams affected by the Scheme. The report makes mention that a simulated one year in thirty scenario, would result in a possible 11.7 per cent reduction in water being available from the Scheme.
System losses and water use efficiency in irrigation.
Losses of water from the irrigation supply system (storages, rivers and primary canals) are the result of evaporation and seepage. The figures obtained from MDBC(6)
6, state that total system losses in the River Murray and Lower Darling are 3,036 gigalitres per year. This data did not include the figures for the Murrumbidgee River system which would share in any reductions in transfers from the Scheme. This quantity of water alone relates to almost three times the whole Snowy River's annual flow prior to it being dammed. Obviously large quantities are irretrievable, however, there are also significant quantities of water that can be harnessed or saved.
According to information obtained from the MDBC(7)
7 all the system losses impact upon the future use of irrigation areas. Evaporation from storages and the supply system increases the salinity of the river systems. For example, it is estimated that some 411,000 megalitres are evaporated from the Menindee Lakes system each year. This is more water than has been scientifically identified necessary for restoring the Snowy River. Modification of the operating regime for the Menindee Lakes system can result in a reduction in evaporation losses over summer.(MDBC(8)
8)
Seepage losses from the supply system adds pressure to regional aquifers potentially raising groundwater levels across a broad area. Rising groundwater levels result in water logging and (likely) salinisation of soils. Accessions from on-farm structures such as channels and storages and agricultural activities also contribute significantly to local groundwater levels.(MDBC(9) 9)
A stark example is the seepage losses estimated to occur in the Mulwala Canal system, off the Murray, estimated to be 80,000 megalitres per year. This quantity of water is almost the amount of water recommended to supply the Snowy River's annual 'flood event'. Significant efficiency gains can be achieved through the application of new supply infrastructure and/or through the adoption of new technology.(MDBC(10) 10)
It has always been the belief of the Snowy River Alliance that any impact to irrigators' livelihoods would not be as a result of water redirected down the Snowy River for environmental flows. The very survival of the Murray Darling Basin's agriculturally productive areas depends in part on significant improvements in efficiency for off-stream water use. According to information contained in documents and publications from the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) there is significant opportunity and a desperate need for the more efficient and better managers of water. The problems associated with unsustainable practices within the Basin is now very widely publicised.
Leakage losses on-farm may be addressed through the adoption of best management practices (BMP's) for a particular agricultural activity. The level of savings in water use, on the basis of current technology, can be quite significant. On the basis of a number of studies, on average, current on-farm water use in the irrigation regions of the Southern Basin could be reduced by at least 20 per cent without any reduction in overall agricultural productivity. On balance, if the water resources were managed more effectively through a reduction in leakage and adoption of best management practices on farm, the same level of production could be achieved with significantly smaller volumes of water, improving the long term sustainability of the whole irrigation industry and the quality of the riverine environment. (MDBC)(11)
11
The Murray Darling Basin Commission has put out a book called the Murray-Darling Basin Resources and is essential reading for the Snowy Water Inquiry. It contains ample evidence to suggest that opportunities for greater efficiency are not only available but necessary. For example, it states that there is little doubt that broadacre irrigation for grazing needs careful examination if its large scale continuation is to be justified. It identifies large discrepancies when comparing water use between similar agricultural activities. It suggests that costs for irrigation water do not cover or necessarily reflect the real costs, including salinisation, rising water tables, river health and other environmental problems. It questions whether or not some methods of irrigation are sustainable. The increasing demands for water from various users, quite apart from the urgent demands of the river systems themselves, inevitably mean that supplies for irrigation will have to be reduced. Significant reductions in irrigation water use are possible now, simply by increasing efficiency with known technologies.
The Rural News 21 November 1997
Salinity, land degradation, water logging
It is no secret that past and current irrigation and land practices all over the world, in ancient times and modern, have rendered vast areas of fertile land useless for agriculture, due to water logging and rising salt (salinity).
A recent estimate from the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies (CRES) at the Australian National University indicates that around 45.4 million hectares, one-fifth of the world's irrigated land, are 'salt affected'. According to a 1990 study quoted by the World Bank, around two to three million hectares become so badly affected by salinity each year that they have to be abandoned. CRES calculates that the salinisation of irrigated soils world-wide is costing some $11.4 billion a year in lost income due to reduced yields. The associated salinisation of water resources, CRES believes, costs an additional two billion dollars more in damage to industrial water users and water distribution systems.
Killing the land: Irrigation and soil degradation
"On one side, we carry out irrigation works and put more and more water for fresh areas, while on the other side, land goes out of cultivation due to water logging. This is a curious state of affairs and it is far better to stop every irrigation work than allow water logging. It seems to me the height of folly that while we advance on one side we retreat from another side."
Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru 1958 (Silenced Rivers)
Information supplied by the MDBC(12)
12 states that virtually all of the irrigated lands in the southern Murray Darling Basin are under threat of rising water tables and salinisation. The total area covers some 1.2 million hectares.
According to an environment report, produced by one of the Murray irrigation regions, it is made very clear the area of land with a water table within four metres of the surface continues to increase, indicating the underlying problems that face the region. This rise has occurred in all four regions, with a rapid rise occurring in areas characterised by historically deep water tables and increasing irrigation intensity. The report goes on to say, the changing water table conditions reinforce the urgency to implement the Land and Water Management plans, developed by irrigation areas, both at a farm level and district drainage works.
Continuation of past policies on in-stream and off-stream values associated with the water resources of Australia, and past practices, will severely and adversely affect just about every aspect of contemporary life. It is clear that, in many of our surface and ground water systems, the over-commitment and over-extraction of the resource for off-stream use is threatening the environmental and productive values of water.(Managing Australia's Inland Waters(13)
13) However, it is also perhaps inevitable that some land will have to go out of irrigation, because it will not be viable to rehabilitate some infrastructure. Its future sustainability is the most critical issue facing irrigation.(MDBC(14)
14, MDBR(15)
15)
The main points to highlight are:
1) All our water resources, rivers and land are under great stress from, in part, unsustainable irrigation practices, an over-allocation of supply and a less than best infrastructure. Whilst this inquiry is not focused on providing solutions for the Basin, it must have regard to the inefficient and unsustainable water use and delivery particularly in the areas linked to Snowy water transfers.
Point: That Snowy River environmental flows should not be compromised to prop up less than best water use or poor water allocation decisions.
2. The Snowy Water Inquiry must have regard to the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council's (MDBMC's) Irrigation Management Strategy objective, which is:
to achieve a self sufficient economically and environmentally sustainable irrigation industry in the southern part of the basin by the year 2010.
Given that the Snowy Mountains Scheme harvests and transfers significant quantities of water from the Snowy catchment to these areas, it is conceivable this strategy will never be achieved whilst the environmental principles do not apply to the Snowy River catchment. If the achievement of these principles for the Southern Basin is at the expense of the environment for the Snowy River, communities now, and especially in the future, will regard that strategy as neither honest nor sustainable.
Point: That there is a need for equity in resource sharing.
3. The investment of public and private funds to pursue best practice is now paramount for the longevity of our agricultural areas, communities and our natural environment. It is obvious that the irrigators and communities in the Murray and Murrumbidgee valleys cannot be held responsible for historically poor decisions.
It is our view, any opposition from irrigation interests to Snowy River environmental flows will stem from a lack of confidence that governments responsible will deliver a constructive adjustment if any decision adversely impacts on them or their communities. We believe there is an acknowledgement from irrigators that there has been an over-allocation of the available water. The various governments must acknowledge the major role they historically played in setting up these irrigation districts and must provide suitable assistance if any decision is deemed to have an adverse impact which cannot be sustainably and fairly absorbed through some other means.
Point: That irrigators cannot be held responsible for earlier poor decisions.
4. The costs associated by providing extra water from other catchments, (inter-basin transfers) such as the Snowy, are realised far from the receiving properties and it is neither fair nor equitable to deny access to water and resources for the original catchments. The values to be protected for the Snowy catchment are little different to the aims and values that will be protected for the Murray and Murrumbidgee catchments by the policy objectives of the MDBC(16)
16 and the MDBMC(17)
17.
Point: That the rights of Snowy River communities and of irrigation communities (the social and economic factors) are the same.
5. The Snowy Scheme's function essentially makes it part of the Basin and any cost-sharing of efficiency gains/losses and who gets the water savings, should also take into account the costs within the entire Snowy catchment. The Snowy River Alliance does not believe the policy should simply be whoever pays gets the water. The inefficient use of water could realistically be viewed as pollution, given the enormous environmental problems it has created. Arguably the whole Snowy River transfer does little more than help counteract enormous losses and inefficiencies in the system and in some ways the luxury of the Scheme and the extra water it has made available has encouraged a less than efficient use of water.
Point: Stop making the Snowy catchment pay for a flawed distribution system.
6. The Snowy River Alliance believes it desirable that any policy relating to water savings sufficiently acknowledges the costs to the Snowy catchment and that it should give a priority of allocating saved water to the maintenance of river systems.
Point: That water saved from improved irrigation efficiency should be returned to the Snowy, and other river systems first.
7. The Snowy River environmental flow allocation must be consistent with COAG(18)
18 recommendations. The allocation should not be reduced as an option for minimising the impact to irrigators' water security under the current rules. We also believe the individual irrigators should not suffer unfairly due to their investments made on their historical water usage. If required the stakeholder governments should implement an acceptable adjustment mechanism. Anything else could evoke community outrage, be inconsistent with Government policy, and hinder future moves to create a better balance in water sharing.
Point: That the Snowy River environmental flow recommendations should not be reduced below 28 per cent of the original flow.
Suggestions for the minimisation of impacts to irrigators should their water allocation be reduced (which more often than not would only apply in a drought):
The bad news
The original and current water sharing obligations for the Snowy Scheme have had a devastating impact on the Snowy River virtually eliminating all human social and cultural values, as well as the environmental values. The water release obligations did not include any obligation to release an adequate flow of water to maintain the river. Subsequently an obligation to maintain less than one per cent of the original flow at Dalgety (approximately 30 kilometres downstream of Jindabyne Dam) was the result.
The Siphon Pipe on Jindabyne Dam that maintains the required less than
one per cent of the original flow at Dalgety.
It is a terrible shame that it took the proposed corporatisation of this public utility in 1997 to make governments aware of their responsibility for the damage they have caused.
Whilst the construction of the Scheme is seen by some as a valuable contribution to this country, there are two sides to this coin. Some examples of the other side are that the Snowy Mountains Scheme:
The Snowy Scheme's lack of releases into the Snowy River has virtually made 500 kilometres of our highly celebrated river worthless. Now if an electricity production company on the coast had a similar output to the Scheme and its operations destroyed 500 kilometres of coastline populated or not, would it still be operating? The only difference here, is that the damage is hidden between the hills. In fact if every industry impacted as heavily on the environment as the Snowy Scheme, there wouldn't be much left of value in Australia for the next generation.
The Snowy Scheme could not in your wildest dreams be regarded as 'green' or a 'renewable' producer of electricity. It can only be regarded as a very heavy polluter.
Another issue raised is the possible increase in green house gas emissions due to less availability of water. This clutching at straws response is amusing as it has become not only the catchcry here but is also common around the world as other unsustainable hydroelectric schemes try to justify their slaughter of rivers. It is interesting to consider how suddenly these organisations can become sympathetic to the needs of the environment.
The Snowy Scheme does not have to be pulled down. Snowy Hydro can reverse a significant amount of its impacts by simply changing its water release rules, including the release of adequate environmental flows into the affected rivers. It can be renewable and acceptably 'green'. The opportunity now exists to reverse these impacts and put Snowy Hydro on a sustainable and more acceptable footing.
In the main it will continue to produce enough electricity and divert water for irrigation. The Snowy River Alliance acknowledges the role Snowy Hydro has in producing electricity even if it is a relatively small amount, currently five per cent of the south east grid. According to the March 1997 edition of Australian Commodities, ABARE reported that the Snowy Hydro would still produce approximately 92.5 percent of its current electricity output with 25 per cent flows allocated to the Snowy River. This did not include putting a generator on Jindabyne Dam and was also based on some basic assumptions. We believe there are other opportunities to develop increased output as well.
Canada has one of the biggest hydroelectric schemes in the world. At an ABARE(19)
19 conference a few years ago a spokesperson for the company said "we spend $500 million dollars each year on the downstream environment to ensure other river users including fisheries are managed". The expenditure included foregoing $250 million dollars per year in electricity revenue in order to spill water for down stream requirements.
Licensing arrangements in many other countries including New Zealand have for years now imposed significant obligations on Hydro companies with water release rules for the environment and for other users.
Norway started introducing legislation in 1962 to protect and reverse degradation caused by over-exploitation of their rivers, before Jindabyne Dam was built.
It is now thirty-five years later and the communities in this country are still fighting for the very basic entitlements.
Governments in Australia are so far behind the world in best practice that it is frightening.
Other countries recognise that hydroelectric schemes can have very significant impacts on other values and users therefore cannot control the river system just for their own ends. The river is not theirs. It is essential that Australia must catch up with more progressive nations in this thinking.
Recommendations for Snowy Hydro
Everyone must keep in mind that regardless of its high employment past and the out of date multi-cultural, engineering rhetoric, the future of the Scheme is a cold, calculated, remote controlled and unemotional industrial user of precious water to make money.
Therefore decisions about the water licence should take due regard for the future welfare of the communities impacted on by the Scheme. The way of life to the near stakeholders of the Snowy River should not be unnecessarily compromised to put money in the pockets of the Scheme's distant stakeholders.
History has shown us that we should always apply a precautionary principle. We got it wrong before and we can get wrong again.
The Snowy Hydro is seen as having a marginal value on the water compared with other opportunities. The creation of employment and good integrated environmental management between the Snowy and Murray catchments over the next 75 years could be hampered or discounted if an unnecessary amount of control was given to the midway station (the Scheme).
It is obvious the more control the Scheme has on the water within the impoundments the more valuable the Scheme is. Apart from maximising the sale price of the Scheme the current agenda has been to maximise the Scheme's control because it is difficult for it to realise its expected returns on asset value. This has been influenced by very low electricity returns in an over-supplied electricity market.
We believe this has resulted in a lack of integrity in the information that was given to the irrigators by particular consultants in the corporatisation process. This information was later criticised in the New South Wales parliament.
The point here is that whilst it is not uncommon to engage the services of professional consultants, the executive responses are to meet the end goal, in this case a saleable electrical generating asset. In the flurry to meet government time lines and desired outcomes, the proposals can often deal only superficially with other stakeholders.
The inquiry must make it clear to government that the Scheme is not a stand alone generator and that their decision could impact negatively or positively on thousands of kilometres of rivers and hundreds of thousands of people, in both catchments.
Careful consideration should be given to an integrated management system that maximises the broader environmental, social and economic worth of the water captured by the Scheme. The Snowy River Alliance believes the Scheme can be corporatised or even privatised in some form, but that it is necessary that we look beyond just maximising the sale price of the Scheme.