PRODUCTIVEWATERMeeting with UK Irrigation Association (Melvyn Kay) Evening event at Oxford (David Grey) ISRAEL Friday, November 9 - Travel to Jerusalem Saturday, November 10 - Guided

WATERThe Journal for Irrigators in NSW

PRODUCTIVEISSUE. 05 | SPRING 2012

NEW NATIONAL METERING STANDARDS | IRRIGATION BY NUMBERS | SUB-SURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION | NATIONAL DROUGHT POLICY

MENINDEELAkES

TImE To AcT

�is issue of Productive Water has been mailed directly to 8500 of the largest Irrigators in NSW.

Contact us now to discuss the options and book youradvertisement in the next edition.

Joe [email protected] 386 413

Water Solutions for Irrigators

Providing customised water solutionsto meet the needs of your business

Water Solutions offer numerous options for accessing allocation in the short, medium and long term

Entitlement Leasing

Water Share Farm

Access the benefits of Victorian water entitlements• lease both High & Low Reliability Entitlement• no capital outlay required• access to Victorian carry over benefits

Receive a fixed volume of water for a fixed share of your crop• minimal up-front costs to access the allocation water• certainty of water supply• capacity to expand your production• payment on crop delivery based on yield

For more information contactRod Luke at Kilter on 0417 102 561

or [email protected]

Carry-over Capacity Securely store allocation water against Victorian water entitlement• a cost effective water storage solution – your own ‘virtual’ dam• preserve allocated water for use in later seasons• allocation water can be purchased when prices are low assuring water availability when required

Customisation Our staff work with you to build a Water Solution• meet with you on-farm• understand your annual seasonal needs and price points• provide you with a customised solution• provide water for the short, medium or long term

PRODUCTIVE WATER SPRING 201204

Editorial by Andrew Gregson, CEO of the NSW Irrigators Council

High-profile lobbyist, Andrew Gregson has headed up the New South Wales Irrigators’ Council since 2007. During this time he also served as founding CEO of the National Irrigators’ Council.

He is a fierce campaigner for the rights of his members and a daunting foe for anyone suggesting their water allocations should be cut.

Gregson has been a prominent commentator in the debate over the Draft Murray Darling Basin Plan.

A barrister and solicitor with qualifications in economics law, from The University of Tasmania and the University of New Mexico, Gregson has also worked as a the chief of staff and state director of the Tasmanian Liberal Party.

Productive WaterISSUE 05 SPRING 2012

EDITORAndrew [email protected]

EDITORIAL ASSISTANTMark [email protected]

NATIONAL SALES MANAGERMatt [email protected] 577 357

CLIENT RELATIONSHIP MANAGERJoe [email protected] 386 413

NSW IRRIGATORS COUNCILLevel 915-17 Young StreetSYDNEY NSW 2000

[email protected] 9251 8466

We’re at the pointy end of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. As I write, furious negotiations continue between the States and the Commonwealth to arrive at a position that they can support. There’s no guarantee that it will be reached, but Federal Minister Tony Burke is sufficiently confident as to have extended the timeframe in which the States can make comment. Inside this issue, we look at one of the longest running and most vexed issues in NSW water infrastructure - Menindee Lakes. There can be little doubt that this system is an engineering feat in the first instance, but more clearly needs to be done to ensure their efficient operation. Evaporation in that part of NSW can run as high as two metres per year resulting in whopping losses of water when they’re full - as they are now. Irrigators across the State have an interest in seeing that system managed efficiently. At the same time, focus on water recovery at Menindee brings into start contrast the absurdity of the entire Murray-Darling Basin Plan debate. As one irrigator put it to me recently, what’s the point of saving water from evaporating at Menindee only to send it off to evaporate in the lower Lakes of South Australia? I had the great pleasure not too long ago to attend the 100th birthday of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. Her Excellency, Professor Marie Bashir, the Governor of New South Wales, spoke

with such passion about the area in which she grew up that it was impossible not to be transported back to the time that our forebears carved such a magnificent agricultural area from so little. Their forethought, effort and sacrifice created a food bowl that sustained Australia’s growth into the modern democracy that it is today. As I drove through the area, appreciating it in a new light, I couldn’t help but marvel how far divorced Canberra is from this reality. What sort of mindset drives a policy maker to risk inflicting damage such as the Murray-Darling Basin Plan on the achievements our forebears made? Enjoy our Spring edition of the Journal. We’d love to receive your feedback, so please don’t hesitate to be in touch. You can contact our office on 02 9251 8466 or email us at [email protected].

Cheers, Andrew Gregson

ALL SUBmISSIoNS REmAIN THE PRoPERTY oF PRoDUcTIVE WATER mAGAZINE. ALL coNTENT IS coPYRIGHT To PRoDUcTIVE WATER mAGAZINE AND cANNoT BE REPRoDUcED IN WHoLE oR PART WITHoUT WRITTEN AUTHoRISATIoN oF THE PUBLISHERS. PRoDUcTIVE WATER makes no guarantees, warranties or representations of any kind, whether express or implied, as to the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of the information provided. PRoDUcTIVE WATER will not be liable for incorrect use of the information and will assume no responsibility for consequences that may result from the use of the information. PRoDUcTIVE WATER is not responsible of any kind arising out of use, reference to, or reliance on such information. The opinions expressed in PRoDUcTIVE WATER and PRoDUcTIVE WATER online do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or publishers.

05PRODUCTIVE WATER SPRING 2012

TOUR FOCUS: The tour sets out to understand all facets of water management and use in agriculture from a series of perspectives. The itinerary includes meetings with government officials, user representative groups and individual operators. We’ll blend our time in board rooms and academic halls with time on farm. Our discussions will range from global perspectives on water use efficiency to the latest technology in use in both delivery and on-farm use.

Some time is set aside for more general appreciation of sights - including a guided tour of Jerusalem and free time in London - but the tour itinerary sets a cracking pace to gain the most from the time available.

ITINERARY OVERVIEW: Events commence in London on November 5 with a briefing from the UK Government. Whilst in London we’ll enjoy a closed session with global though leaders at Kings College before an open session with academics and research students from across colleges of the University of London.

Leaving London, we head for East Anglia where National Farmers Union representatives and farmer-members will provide us an overview of irrigation in their area. We’ll visit farms in the Norfolk and Suffolk Brecks and a local groundwater abstractor group. A visit to the Denver Sluice Complex and a meeting with the Environment Agency shows us the delivery mechanism at use. We’ll staying in Cambridge and dining as guests at Robinson College, Cambridge University.

From Cambridge we travel to Cranfield to further discussions with the Cranfield University Water Science Institute and the UK Irrigation Association. We’ll then participate in a policy discussion at Oxford University.

Moving to Israel, we’ll enjoy a guided tour of Jerusalem followed by a trip to the south of the country, with highlights including the Yatir Winery, the Australian Light Horse Memorial and the Kibbutz Hatzerim. We’ll be meeting with large cotton and corn operators, considering greenhouse gas emissions across irrigation techniques and visiting irrigation equipment manufacturing facilities.

Travelling back to Tel Aviv, we’ll enjoy policy discussions with some of the leading government and academic figures in the country before moving to the north to view orchards, plantations (including view water efficient shade netting) and considering irrigation automation techniques. The tour will conclude back in Tel Aviv.

DATES: The formal program commences on Monday 5 November in London. Participants are free to arrange their own itinerary to that point or join others in departing Sydney on Saturday 3 November travelling with Qantas.

The tour moves from the UK to Jerusalem on Friday 9 November. Participants will travel on the same flight to ensure continuity of the program.

Departure from Israel is scheduled for Thursday November 15. Participants can make their own arrangements from here, although the formal tour will return to London before connecting to Sydney.

COSTS: As a guide only, total costs of around $6,500 should be anticipated. This figure includes allowances for all air travel (ex Sydney), all ground travel, all accommodation (twin share), all meals and all events on the itinerary. A full breakdown of costs will be provided to all intending participants. A final price will be determined subsequent to bookings - and should be lower than that quoted here.

ExPRESSION OF INTEREST: There is a limit on the number of participants to take account of transport logistics and to ensure adequate access to discussions and inspections for all. Invitations to participate will be issued to those who express interest early. Please contact Andrew Gregson ([email protected]) at your earliest opportunity if you wish to be considered.

NSWIC STUDY TOUR: UK AND ISRAELNSWIC Chief Executive Officer Andrew Gregson will be leading a study tour to the United Kingdom and Israel in November this year. As with a previous study tour to California, representatives of Members and stakeholders of NSWIC are welcome to join the tour.

UNITED kINGDOMMonday, November 5Morning: Meetings requested with DEFRA and Minister Jim Paice.Afternoon: Round table session with Kings College London.Evening: Cross-London seminar series with academics and research students from across London colleges.Tuesday, November 6Morning: Meeting with NFU - briefing on water management and farming in East Anglia with staff and farmers. Afternoon: Farm visit in Norfolk and Suffolk Brecks Meeting with local abstractor group (predominantly groundwater)Evening: Dinner at Robinson College, Cambridge University.Wednesday, November 7Morning: Farm visit south of Cambridge - surface water users.Afternoon: Denver sluice complex in the Norfolk fens Drainage and storage, diversion from Great Ouse River to Essex Environment Agency will discuss relationships in water and flood management.Evening: At leisure in Cambridge.Thursday, November 8 - Cranfield and OxfordMeeting with Cranfield University Water Science Institute (Dr Jerry Knox)Meeting with UK Irrigation Association (Melvyn Kay)Evening event at Oxford (David Grey)

ISRAELFriday, November 9 - Travel to JerusalemSaturday, November 10 - Guided sightseeing tour of JerusalemSunday, November 11 and Monday November 12 - Arava Valley, including: ᐧ Yatir Winery at Tel Arad ᐧ Visit to the Memorial of the Light Horse ᐧ Visit to Netafim Factory and Lunch in Kibbutz Hatzerim ᐧ Meeting with large cotton and corn operators ᐧ Overview of greenhouse technology ᐧ Greenhouse gas emissions across irrigation methods.

Tuesday, November 13 - Policy discussions and free time in Tel AvivWednesday, November 14 - Farm visits to Northern Israel, including: ᐧ Orchards ᐧ Banana plantations (including viewing water use efficiency netting) ᐧ Baha’i Gardens in Haifa ᐧ High level overview of automation in irrigation

Thursday, November 15 - Departure from Israel


06

IRRIGATION BYNUMBERS

WoRDS: STEFANIE SCHULTE

HOW IRRIGATION BUSINESS RESPONDED TO CHANGE

Irrigators in Australia have experienced many changes in their operating environment over recent decades. These changes are often driven by exogenous events like climate variability, movements in commodity prices, fluctuations in terms of trade, variations in investment levels, increases in water trading and productivity. Following a rapid expansion of irrigated agricultural production in the 1980s and 1990s, the first decade of the twenty-first century brought increased water scarcity and changes in federal and state water policies that severely impacted irrigators and caused considerable adjustments to water use and operational procedures in the irrigation industry.

Since 2007, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has surveyed irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin to analyse how irrigated horticulture, dairy and broadacre farms have responded to change. This article summarises the key results obtained through the surveys (2006-07 to 2010 -11).

SEASONAL CONDITIONS AND WATER AVAILABILITY

The seasonal conditions across the Murray-Darling Basin between 2006-07 and 2008-09 were one of the driest on record, with conditions improving only during the second half of 2009-10. Despite the late improvement in seasonal conditions, dam levels and irrigation water allocations remained low in most region until widespread rainfall occurred in the latter regions of 2010-11.

Rainfall is an important component for the availability of water for irrigation and water storages have allowed for an inter-temporal shift between rainfall events and water use. While inflows were low across the Murray Darling Basin in 2006-07, there was a less than proportional decline in the volume of water use as storage volumes were accessed. Conversely, inflows to storages were higher in 2007-08, however water use for irrigation remained low as storages were replenished.

COMMODITY PRICES

Irrigators across the Murray-Darling Basin produce a wide variety of products whose prices are often highly

variable between years and linked to international market developments. As the graph below indicates, cotton prices increased by 16% between 2006-07 and 2009-10 before rising sharply in 2010-11. Rice prices rose between 2007-08 and 2008-09 but subsequently declined in 2009-10. In comparison, wheat prices rose sharply in 2007-08 and declined in 2008-09 and 2009-10. The importance of commodity prices should not be underestimated, as changes in prices are often accompanied by modifications in individual’s production decisions.

123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012


AGRICULTURAL TERMS OF TRADE

The ratio of agricultural output prices to input prices, is often used as an indicator for profitability of agricultural producers. For Australia, irrigated and dry-land agricultural producers experienced input price increases that were stronger than output price increases over the survey period, resulting in declining terms of trade.

Changes in individual sector terms of trade are more complex to determine as output prices for individual commodities vary considerably over time.

NUMBER OF IRRIGATORS

There has been a long-term trend in Australia that shows a declining number of farms but increasing average farm size. In 2009-10 around 15,100 agricultural businesses used water for irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin, which was around 20% fewer than in 2005-06. Low or no water allocations in many regions are often suggested to be a reason for the reduction in numbers of irrigators. Additionally, changes in the price of water allocations/entitlements and charges in the availability has to the change.

FARM PERFORMANCE

At a Basin scale, farm business profit has improved between 2008-09 and 2010-11 with irrigated broadacre farms recording the largest positive change. Irrigated dairy farms have also shown improvement while irrigated horticulture farms recorded a decline in farm business profit over the same period.

FARM INVESTMENT

Land and permanent water access entitlements typically account for the largest components of total capital on farm. Such capital tends to be fixed in the short term, while livestock, plant and equipment are more variable.

The total value of capital for irrigated broadacre farms averaged around $5.1million per farm in 2009-10, of which land accounted for an estimated 58% and permanent water access entitlement for another 25%. In comparison with 2006-07, broadacre farms in 2009-10 had a higher proportion of their capital invested in land and on-farm irrigation infrastructure equipment and less in water entitlement.

For horticulture farms, the total value of capital averaged around $1.9 million per farm in 2009-10, of which an estimated 50% accounted for land and 27% for water access entitlements. The average total value of capital for dairy farms was around $2.4 million in 2009-10, of which land accounted for 49%, water access entitlement for 28% and livestock 8%. Compared with 2006-07, dairy farms in 2009-10 had more capital invested in land and relatively less in other types of capital.


08

FARM DEBT

Farm business rose on average by 3% per year between 2006-07 and 2009-10.

For horticulture farms, debt rose in 2007-08 and 2008-09 because of increased demand for working capital, before falling in 2009-10. The changes in debt for horticulture farms were partly related to water purchases and sales.

Farm business debt for dairy farmers rose substantially in 2006-07, largely because of increased purchases of fodder and water allocations, before falling in each of the subsequent years. Several factors contributed to dairy farm business debt falling over these years, including periods of increased farm incomes, sales of water allocations and sales of permanent water access entitlements.

Farm business debt for irrigated broadacre farms rose in each year, although the rate of increase declined slightly over time.

IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

An irrigator’s choice of system will depend on a variety of factors, including farm topography, crop type, water quantity and quality, on-farm water storage capacity, labour and financial resources, total area irrigated and existing infrastructure.

According to ABARES’ survey results, horticulture farms used the greatest variety of irrigation systems between 2006-07 and 2009-10, with drip/trickle systems and low-throw sprinklers being the most common. Most broadacre and dairy farms used flood/furrow systems to irrigated often considerable areas of crops and pasture and both industries also made use of travelling irrigators and moveable spray line systems.

WATER TRADING

Across the Murray-Darling Basin, ABARES’ survey results show that the proportion of irrigation farms trading water allocations ranged from 51% in 2007-08 to an estimated 6% in 2010-11. An estimated 47% of horticulture farms, 32% of broadacre farms and 40% of dairy farms traded water allocations during this time. The proportion of water allocation trading was highest in the Murray (49% Murrumbidgee (47%), Goulburn-Broken(47%) and Loddon-Avoca (41%) regions.

In 2006-07 an estimated 18% of irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin were net buyers of water allocations. This proportion rose to 29% in 2007-08 as some irrigators responded to reduced water allocations. The number of net buyers declined in each of the subsequent three years to an estimated 6% in 2010-11.

In most years, horticulture farms accounted for a large proportion of net buyers, particularly in those years with the most trading activity (2007-08 and 2008-09). By 2009-10, rice and cotton growers were also significant buyers of water allocations. In 2010-11 rice and cotton growers accounted for the majority of net buyers, although only 6% of all farms were net buyers in that year. Across the Murray-Darling Basin, an estimated 32% of irrigators traded water entitlements in the three years


Although water brokers have been around since 1991, they have played an increasingly important role in the irrigation industry over the last few years. The variability of allocations, continual changes to trading rules and increasing amounts of trade in allocation and entitlement markets has put the water broking into sharp focus.

Numerous groups participate in the water brokerage industry – real estate agents, lawyers, and full-time water brokers all trade on behalf of their clients. While the vast majority of water brokers represent their client’s best interests, it is important for irrigators to understand what they should be looking for and what protections are available when choosing a water broker.

WHAT SHOULD IRRIGATORS LOOk FOR WHEN CHOOSING SOMEONE TO TRADE THEIR WATER?

Irrigators have many options to choose from when selecting someone to trade their water, including the option to conduct the trade themselves. As water may be an irrigator’s largest or most important asset, it is important to understand what they should be looking for in a water trader/broker.

First, it is important to ensure that the water trader is experienced and has continuous training/professional

development in the industry. With changing rules and regulations, it is critical for traders to understand the policies and opportunities in the market.

Appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover should provide some assurance that irrigators are protected financially by suitable business structures. You should also check to ensure that your broker or trader uses a trust account.

Finally, irrigators should ensure that their chosen trader/broker has no conflict of interest when buying or selling water. A trader/broker should disclose all potential conflicts of interest such as owning a water asset in the same region.

DEVELOPMENT OF PROFESSIONAL WATER BROkERS

After obtaining feedback from key stakeholders and irrigators, the federal government is currently working in collaboration with industry brokers to develop a program for potential self-regulation in the water brokerage industry.

If you’d like further information, contact either the Australian Water Brokers Association (online www.awba.org.au / phone 1300 568 668) or NSW Irrigators Council.

WaterBroKerS

A CHANGING INDUSTRY

to 2010-11. An estimated 11% of horticulture farms, 11% of broadacre farms and 17% of dairy farms traded entitlements over that period.

The survey showed that an estimated 39% of farms traded water entitlements to the Australian Government, while a further 25% of irrigators sold entitlements to a state government environmental purchase program. The most common use of proceeds from selling water entitlements was to pay off debt (53%).

RESPONDING TO CHANGE..

As the ABARES survey result show, irrigators in the Murray Darling Basin have faced many challenges over the past decade but have continuously shown great flexibility and innovative strategies to address the often substantial changes in their operating environment.

Reference

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (ABARES)Responding to change: Irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin2006-07 to 2010-11 http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/9aaw_001/rtcimd9aaw_002/RR12.06_RtC_IrrMDB_v1.0.0.pdf

WoRDS: PHILLIP GRAHAME, PRESIDENT, AUSTRALIAN WATER BRoKERS ASSocIATIoN


010

As well as being an acceptable and sound policy, accurate water metering is already a strict requirement and responsibility of licence holders in the major regulated river and groundwater systems of NSW. The NSW Office of Water and State Water undertake regular checks and calibrations of metering equipment as part of their water management and compliance activities. Activities that are charged back to licence holders through the rural bulk water pricing system.

In line with these conditions, irrigators in the Macquarie Valley have invested significantly in modern metering and calibration technologies, which provide for in-field measurement accuracy of +/- 5%. It is, however, noted that the State and Commonwealth Governments now hold over 25% of general security entitlement in the Macquarie system and that usage against these licences is measured through river gauging stations. It is commonly recognised that measurement via river gauges is unlikely to provide the same degree of accuracy as metering on irrigator off-take pumps.

A NEW NATIONAL STANDARD FOR NON-URBAN WATER METERING

In line with a commitment under the National Water Initiative, the Council of Australian Governments approved a National Framework for Non-urban Water Metering in December 2009.

The primary objective of the national policy is to deliver a National Metering Standard that provides for in field measurement accuracy of +/- 5%. A degree of accuracy consistent with arrangements already in place for irrigators in the Macquarie Valley.

Meter add-on technologies, such as telemetry and data loggers, and government ownership may be additional state-based requirements but are not requirements to meet the national standards.

The national standards will, however, require all non-urban water meters to be:

• Pattern approved by the National Measurement Institute, and

• Installed, verified and maintained in compliance with a Pattern Ap-proval certificate

Pattern approval is essentially an assessment of the pattern, or design, of an instrument against a national or international standard. The National Measurement Institute has responsibility for pattern approval and appointment of testing authorities. It is then the responsibility of meter manufacturers to guarantee compliance with a pattern approval certificate, and the responsibility of the meter owner to demonstrate compliance of installation and commissioning.

Unfortunately the national standards and pattern approval process has so far met with several delays. In theory, licence holders are to comply with the new standards by 2016, however in practice, the national standards are not yet operational.

The NSW Office of Water has therefore developed the NSW Interim Water Meter Standards (2009) that are to apply to meter installations until the national standards become enforceable. Again, the primary objective is to ensure installation of meters with an in-field accuracy of +/- 5%. Irrigators needing to install or replace meters should ensure approval under the NSW interim standards to give confidence that the meter will not need to be removed at a later stage.

THE NSW METERING PROjECT

Even prior to finalising the national

mEETING THE NEW WoRDS: SUSAN MADDEN EXEcUTIVE oFFIcER, mAcQUARIE RIVER FooD & FIBRE

STANDARDSmAcQUARIE VALLEY

NATIONAL METERING

Consistent with NSW Irrigators’ Council’s Policy on Metering in Compliance with National Standards, irrigators in the Macquarie Valley fully support accurate and cost-effective water metering. As the saying goes, if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.

IN THE


metering framework and determining the new national standards, the previous NSW Government saw an opportunity to promote meter upgrades as a potential water savings project. In line with this idea, they began negotiations with the Commonwealth Government to obtain funding for meter installations and project management costs in exchange for a share of the so-called “savings”.

The NSW Sustaining the Basin Metering Project was first announced in 2008 as one of a number of State Priority Projects to be funded by the Commonwealth Government.

Macquarie River Food and Fibre was not alone in questioning the underlying premise of creating new entitlement, and therefore changing existing licence holder shares, in exchange for new and as yet undefined water meter technologies. Particularly given the NSW Government’s own policy at the time stated that “in the regulated rivers, extraction monitoring is generally at an acceptable level, with the vast majority of licences being measured using flowmeters”.

Despite pursuing the issue through various channels such as the NSW Irrigators Council, the Macquarie-Cudgegong Customer Service Committee and the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, requests for industry consultation in developing the business case for the metering project were continually ignored.

It took a Freedom of Information request from the NSW Irrigators’ Council before the details of the project eventually became known to stakeholders in 2011.

FLAWS IN THE BUSINESS CASE FOR THE NSW METERING PROjECT

Review of the estimates in the project business case further raised industry concerns regarding the implementation of the metering project.

The proposal, as outlined in the business case, involves the Commonwealth Government providing the NSW Government with $221 million in exchange for the creation and transfer of close to 75,000 ML of entitlement obtained from various NSW water sources.

At around $3,000/ML at the aggregate level, the project might not seem like a bad deal. Unfortunately, the business case does not provide for equitable distribution of project costs and benefits across water sources and water licence categories. This effectively means that installation of new meters in some water sources will be subsidised by creation of water licences in other areas.

Take for example the project estimates for the Macquarie Valley

as outlined in Table 1. The figures demonstrate the inequities across water sources as the new licences for the Commonwealth will mostly come from the Macquarie-Cudgegong regulated rivers, while over half of the new meters, and therefore project benefits, will go to water users in the unregulated and groundwater systems.In general, the business case provides unacceptably poor value for irrigators in the northern regulated river systems as the capital value of water being provided to the Commonwealth far exceeds the capital value of the proposed meter upgrades, as outlined in Table 2. That is, the Commonwealth would be getting entitlement in these systems at a level well below the current market value.

There are further inequities with the project proposal when considering that some users will already have met compliance through the interim standards at significant private cost. There is no provision for reimbursement or rebates to these water users in the business case.Macquarie River Food and Fibre also holds concerns around the

WoRDS: SUSAN MADDEN EXEcUTIVE oFFIcER, mAcQUARIE RIVER FooD & FIBRE

WATER SOURCES

NUMBER OF METRE UPGRADES BY SIzE (MM)

BUDGET

VOLUME OF NEW ENTITLEMENT TO BE CREATED FOR THE COMMONWEALTH

SMALL(0-150)

MEDIUM(150 - 500)

LARGE(500 - 750)

Regulated Rivers 58 132 30 $6,955,257 13,836 ML

Unregulated Rivers 95 28 12 $2,819,345 0 ML

Groundwater 118 184 0 $4,821,826 750 ML

Table 1: Project estimates for the Macquarie Valley from the NSW Metering Project Business Case


012

cost-effectiveness of the new meter installations when compared to existing meter technologies that provide for the same degree of accuracy. The cost estimates from Table 1 indicate an average cost for the new meters of over $30,000 per site. Further, the business case provides a substantial allowance for project management and contingency costs. At over 30% this allowance seems well in excess of industry benchmarks from similar commercially driven water infrastructure projects.

WHERE ARE WE NOW?

Given the issues identified in the business case Macquarie River Food and Fibre, along with the NSW Irrigators’ Council, has opposed the implementation of the metering project in its current form.

Responding to industry concerns, the now Minister for Primary Industries has agreed that the NSW Government will undertake consultation with irrigators in northern NSW prior to any project roll-out.Macquarie River Food and Fibre has advocated that this consultation must

inform the development of valley-based implementation plans that provide for transparent, equitable and cost-effective upgrades of water metering in the view to meeting the new national standards.

In the first instance these plans must establish the meter technologies that will be pattern approved and comply with the national standards. The plans must then determine the most cost-effective means of undertaking the outstanding upgrades and negotiate with affected water users the most appropriate and equitable cost-sharing arrangements.

REGULATED RIVER

CAPITAL VALUE OF REGULATED RIVER ENTITLEMENT TO GO TO

THE COMMONWEALTH(COST TO THESE RIVER SYSTEMS)

CAPITAL VALUE OF NEW METERS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE

REGULATED RIVERSEFFECTIVE DISCOUNT ON

MARkET VALUE

Border Rivers $15,274,600 $3,877,659 75%

Gwydir $29,179,400 $4,914,212 83%

Lower Namoi $13,963,900 $5,581,298 60%

Macquarie $18,472,800 $6,955,257 62%

Table 2: Capital value of water entitlement transfers against meter installation costs in northern NSW


Water delivery lead times have been reduced and evaporation losses minimised following completion of the $13 million Lake Brewster water efficiency project on the Lachlan River in western NSW.

The project improved the operational efficiency, water quality and wetland environment of the lake and was jointly funded by the Australian Government, State Water Corporation, Lachlan Catchment Management Authority and NSW Office of Water.

State Water Corporation CEO Brett Tucker said the works were completed on time and on budget, and will result in significant water savings and environmental outcomes.

“Prior to the project the lake experienced high levels of evaporation, serious water quality issues and environmental degradation, “ Mr Tucker said.

“Between 7,000ML and 10,000ML of water is expected to be saved each year over a long term average by the project which involved creation of the first ever Adaptive Environmental Water (AEW) Licence and Water Use Plan.

“Under the AEW licence, 60% of water savings will go to the environment with the remaining water to be returned to the system for improved reliability in dry years.”

The project also means Lake Brewster

will continue to function as an en-route storage which is critical to the security of supply for the Lachlan system.

“This is a great example demonstrating that well planned infrastructure works are able to provide environmental benefits, water savings, and local economic benefits without removing water from productive use“

The project involved constructing a series of embankments, channels and regulators as well as more than

1,000ha of wetlands to improve the operation and environmental performance of the water storage.

“By constructing a 5.5km embankment to divide the storage in half, the southern portion could be used as the main storage to reduce surface area and water lost through evaporation.

“Wetland plant and animal species are thriving since the storage was filled after project completion.”

John Williams, Member for Murray-Darling, will attend the Lake Brewster Completion Ceremony and said any project that shows significant water savings and environmental outcomes certainly has his support.

“The project shows how the Governments and communities can work together to achieve positive outcomes for the environment and the community.

“It is also pleasing to see that sub-contractors and suppliers were sourced

from the local area to make improvements to this important community asset.”

The storage was operated effectively to manage one of the largest pelican breeding events in NSW in August 2010.

The region also benefitted economically from the project, with suppliers and subcontractors sourced from Hillston, Lake Cargelligo and Griffith.

Aboriginal Cultural Heritage was preserved

throughout the works, with the Lachlan Aboriginal Natural Resource Management Group implementing a plan to find and protect heritage items.

The group surveyed above ground before the earthworks and monitored ongoing works.

Artifacts found have been reburied in a “keeping place “, a special fenced area.

BeNeFitSWoRDS: jANE URQUHART

FROM BREWSTER PROGRAM

COMMuNITY & ENvIRONMENTAl

State Water project manager Harry Herath, Lake Brewster Steering Committee Chair John Bruce, State Water CEO Brett Tucker, Member for Murray Darling John Williams MP, Lachlan CMA Acting Chair Mary Ewing, Local Aboriginal Elder Robert King

PRODUCTIVE WATER WINTER 2012

014

While the United States is currently suffering from one of the their worst droughts in over fifty years, Australia is recovering from the aftermath of the recent floods that left nearly three quarters of NSW inundated throughout the first half of 2012. These extreme weather conditions caused many to look at agricultural commodity prices and output levels - whilst pushing considerations for drought assistance policies to the sideline. This article discusses the current drought policy in the United States and asks whether we have progressed far enough in Australia to provide adequate drought assistance for agricultural producers here.

2012

After a severe and prolonged drought, most of Australia has received substantial rainfall over the last two years which has brought a well deserved break for agricultural producers. Australia’s forecasted winter grain crop production is expected to be 38.5 million tonnes in 2012-13 alone and if achieved will be around 24% higher than the average over the past five years. Additionally, the current adverse conditions in the United States and the associated impact on the summer crop production - in particular corn and soybeans - might have further positive effects

for Australian farmers through higher commodity prices.

Together with wheat, prices for soybeans and corn have risen substantially since 2010/11. This year alone, prices for corn are expected to reach US$7.59 to US$8.90, while soybean prices are expected to be between US$15 to US$17 a bushel. For Australian producers, who are greatly affected by world prices, these increases will be beneficial, although many will watch the volatility of the dollar closely. Whilst markets are currently looking favourable, many agricultural producers still remember the Millennium drought and the effect it had on agricultural production for most of the 1990s and early 2000s.

As the impact of the current U.S. drought is unfolding the Australian Government has been provided with an ideal opportunity to re-evaluate and finalise the current National

Drought Policy Review and put in place an adequate and flexible assistance program that supports agricultural producers in exceptional circumstances.

1995-2009

Beginning in the second half of 1991, a severe drought occurred throughout Queensland which intensified in 1994 and 1995. By October 1994, part of the upper Darling system and the Condamine River had reverted to a series of ponds and nearly 40% of Queensland was declared a drought zone. By 1995 the drought had spread to many parts of Australia and by 2003 was recognised as the worst on record. Despite slightly above normal rainfall in 2006, the late winter to mid-spring rainfalls failed to deliver adequate water supply, resulting in the 2006 annual rainfall being 40% - 60% below average. Across the Murray-Darling Basin, the 2006 season was the second driest

DROUGHTPOlICY

WoRDS: STEFANIE SCHULTE NSW IRRIGAToRS coUNcIL

NATIONAl

since 1900. Additional to low rainfall, the situation was exacerbated by temperatures being the highest on record since the 1950s.

Extremely low rainfall and associated small water allocations, combined with above average temperatures placed Australian agricultural producers under severe constraints and many exited the industry as it become financially unviable. On a greater scale, the nation’s wheat, barley and canola production decreased by 50% over 2006/07 alone.

In April 2007 then Prime Minister John Howard announced that ‘unless there was substantial rain in the next six weeks, no water would be allocated to irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin for the coming year’. Such a decision would have directly affected more than 50,000 farmers and regional communities in Australia.

The drought conditions did not ease until 2010 when widespread rainfall and below average temperatures swept across the southeast of the country. The Murray-Darling Basin had one of its wettest years on record which led to the recovery of water storages across the Basin. Storages started at 26% of capacity in 2010 and reached 80% at the start of 2011.

DROUGHT RESPONSE

Over the course of the Millennium drought, the Australian Federal Government provided $4.5 billion in drought assistance and commenced a review of the National Drought Policy in 2008 which is still not complete. What appears to be a common feature with the current drought assistance measures is the relatively short timeframes, the small funding amounts and low coverage. Also, the primary responsibility for managing the risk of climate variability is placed on agricultural producers through the adoption of ‘self-reliant approaches’, advocated by the Australian Federal Government.

New South Wales itself does not have a documented drought policy beyond the National Drought Policy. Despite this, the state has implemented a range of additional government support programs in response to drought - some of which were only for a limited timeframe and are no longer

operating. Some of the measures that were initiated included transport and input subsidies, business subsidies and grants and waivers for rates and government charges. Since 2002, around $396 million in drought assistance has been provided. Specific irrigation drought support measures were advanced in limited circumstances by both the State and Federal Governments.

On 27th April 2012, Federal Agricultural Minister Joe Ludwig declared that the two final areas in Australia that received access to the Federal ‘exceptional circumstances’ drought support would no longer be eligible. This announcement came in the midst of the National Drought Policy review and was heavily criticised.

While the current National Drought Policy remains under review, questions should be asked whether Australia is adequately prepared for another drought in terms of assistance mechanisms. Climate indicators used by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology suggest that Australia is likely to head towards drier and warmer conditions this year and uncertainty remains about future years.

UNITED STATES IN 2012

Drought has been declared in over 61 percent of the United State’s landmass (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) and those adverse conditions are expected to continue in the Corn Belt and Greater Plains according to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. The complexity of the current drought and the uncertainty about this year’s agricultural production is caused by an uneven persistence of dryness across the country, with varying conditions between areas and highly variable temperatures. It is estimated that nearly 80 percent of US corn and over 11 percent of U.S. soybean crops will be affected by the drought conditions this year. This will cause global availability of exportable grain to be lower with a direct effect on world prices. With the decrease in supply and the volatile climate conditions around the world, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated recently that food inflation could be as high as 3-4 percent in the United States with far reaching impacts around the world.

HIGHEST ON RECORD

VERY MUCH ABOVE AVERAGE

ABOVE AVERAGE

AVERAGE

BELOW AVERAGE

VERY MUCH BELOW AVERAGE

LOWEST ON RECORD

10

8-9

4-7

2-3

1


015

RAINFALL DECILE RANGES

AUSTRALIAN RAINFALL DECILES1 jANUARY TO 31 DECEMBER 2006Distribution Based on Gridded Data

Australian Bureau of Meteorology - Annual Climate Statement 2006

016 PRODUCTIVE WATER SPRING 2012

US FARM BILL

For the past 75 years, U.S. federal policy makers have played an active role in agriculture. In the United States the biggest and most influential farm policy tool is the Food, Conservation and Energy Act or simply - The Farm Bill. This Bill is considered by Congress every five to seven years and

governs federal farm and food policy programs and provisions - including commodity prices, income support, farm credit, trade, agricultural conservation, research, rural development, energy and food programs.

The breadth of the Farm Bill has steadily expanded in recent decades to include new and expanding

agricultural interests. The last Farm Bill (2008) added revenue based support to the commodity programs, permanent disaster assistance programs and extended the crop insurance measures.

When the 2008 Farm Bill was enacted, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the total cost of the Bill

ABNORMALLY DRY

DROUGHT - MODERATE

DROUGHT - SEVERE

DROUGHT - ExTREME

DROUGHT - ExCEPTIONAL

INTENSITY

DROUGHT IMPACT TYPESS= Short Term, typically < 6 months(eg Agriculture. grasslands)

L= Long Term, typically > 6 Months(eg. hydrology, ecology)

u.S. drought MoNitor AUGUST 21, 2012

National Integrated Drought Information System - Current U.S. Drought Monitor

THE 2008 FARM BILL CONTENT

Title 1: Commodities Income support to growers of selected commodities, including wheat, feed grains, cotton, rice, oilseed, peanuts, sugar and dairy. Support is largely through direct payments, counter-cyclical payments and market loans. Other support mechanism include government purchases of dairy and marketing quotas and import barriers for sugar.

Title 2: Conservation Environmental stewardship of farmlands and improved management practices through land retirement and working lands programs, among other programs geared to farmland conservation, preservation and resource protection.

Title 5: Farm Credit Federal direct and guaranteed farm loan programs, and loan eligibility rules and policies

Title 6: Rural Development Business and commodity programs for planning, feasibility assessments and coordination activities with other local, state and federal programs, including rural broadband access.

Title 7: Research Agricultural research and extension programs, including bio-security and response biotechnology and organic production.

Title 10: Horticulture and Organic Agriculture

A new farm bill title covering fruits, vegetables and other speciality crops and organic agriculture.

Title 11: Livestock A new farm bill covering livestock and poultry production, including provisions that amend existing laws governing livestock and poultry marketing and competition, country-of-origin labelling requirements for retailers and meat and poultry state inspection, among other provisions.

Title 12: Crop Insurance and Disaster Assistance

A new farm bill title covering the federal crop insurance and disaster assistance.

Title 15: Trade and Tax Provisions

A new title covering tax-related provisions intended to offset spending initiatives for some programs, including those in the nutrition, conservation and energy titles. The title also contains other provisions, including the new supplemental disaster assistance and disaster relief trust fund.


to be $284 billion over five years and $604 billion over ten years, including the continuation of existing programs and proposed changes. The overwhelming share of the estimated total cost in the 2008 Farm Bill was attributed to four areas: nutrition (67 percent), farm commodity support (15 percent), conservation (9 percent) and crop insurance (8 percent).

The majority of the programs administered through current Farm Bill

are due to expire in September 2012 - however a new Farm Bill is unlikely to be passed until after the U.S. election in November.

INTERIM DROUGHT ASSISTANCE

While a new Farm Bill is unlikely to be passed in the next few months the U.S. Federal Government has implemented short term drought mitigation policies that assist farmers in the interim. Across 32 states, farmers are now able to access low interest emergency loans, and have access to federal land for cattle grazing. Also, payment extension to the crop insurance program were granted and the U.S. government has recently announced an additional $30 million to provide more water to livestock and restore land affected by drought.

On August 12 2012, the U.S. president announced an emergency purchase of up to $170 million worth of meat and fish which will be transferred to food banks. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has so far spent $37

million on livestock purchases this year and with the additional proposed purchases, this would be more than twice what the agency spent on livestock purchases in 2011.

FUTURE

While a new U.S. Farm Bill is far from being finalised it is evident that existing drought assistance programs in the United States are broad and extensive. For decades, the U.S. government

has recognised the importance of agriculture in the economy and has continuously implemented measures to assist the industry in times of hardship. It is time for the Australian Government to do likewise and finalise the current review of the National Drought Policy so that an innovative and flexible drought support system can be put in place that assists agricultural producers in this country in case of future climate variability.

It should not be suggested here that the U.S. system is a perfect model for Australia, however given the long history and success rate of the Farm Bill in protecting agricultural producers in the United States, there are certain policies that are worthwhile considering. Two items worth investigating are an adequate and adaptable insurance system that allows agricultural producers in Australia to manage their risk exposure and a comprehensive social support system that provides a better safety net for family farms should be considered.

By prolonging the National Drought

Policy review further we risk finding ourselves in a situation where climate conditions are again less favourable and appropriate assistance is needed. We have to acknowledge that there hasn’t been enough progress on developing an adequate drought policy in Australia and without such a safety net in place, our agricultural producers will continue to remain exposed to the risk of climate variability.

References:

Australian Bureau of Meteorology - www.bom.gov.auAustralian Bureau of Statistics - www.abs.gov.auAustralian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry -www.daff.gov.au/abaresNational Integrated Drought Information System -http://www.drought.gov/portal/server.pt/community/drought_gov/202United States Department of Agriculture - Economic Research Service - http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1vh5dg3r/http://ers.usda.gov/FarmBill/2008/Overview.htmCongressional Research Service - www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RS22131.pdfMurray Darling Basin Commission - www2.mdbc.gov.au/NSW Farmers - www.nswfarmers.org.au/homeThe Australian - www.theaustralian.com.au/Washington Post - www.washingtonpost.com/Wall Street Journal - http://asia.wsj.comCNN World - http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/index.html

TITLE POLICY ISSUE 5 YEAR COST (USD BILLION) PERCENT SHARE

1 Commodity 41.6 15%

2 Conservation 24.1 8%

5 Credit (1.4) < 0.5%

7 Research 0.321 < 0.5%

10 Horticulture 0.402 < 0.5%

11 Livestock 0.001 < 0.05 %

12 Crop Insurance 21.9 8%

15 Disaster Assistance 3.8 1%


018

The last decade has brought dramatic change to the irrigation industry and increasingly, irrigators are being asked to do more with less and pay more for the privilege.

One irrigator determined to adapt is dairy farmer Chris Van Luenen who milks around 140 cows at Picola in the Murray Valley.

In 2008, at the height of the drought, Chris decided to take the plunge and install sub-surface drip irrigation on a twenty hectare block.

At the time water was expensive, lucerne was hard to come by and the freight component of any grain bought in made it unviable to feed his cows.

“Buying protein is very expensive and the biggest cost for our business so we thought if we could grow it ourselves we’d be in front” he says.

Four years later, despite good rainfall and cheaper water, the system is still reaping rewards.

Van Luenen says the farm is more self sufficient and no longer has to buy in the same quantities of hay, grain or lupins.

“It’s definitely paying off because the cows are in better condition and the young stock are being fed well and growing better too.”

“The big attraction is the amount of lucerne you can grow” says Van Luenen who gets an average of 900

rolls a year off 20 hectares from seven cuts.

“I can grow more on 20 hectares than the other 40 hectares of pasture I’ve got”.

His system was designed and installed

by irrigation and water solutions business Think Water which operates across Australia and New Zealand. It’s Echuca franchise has been working with sub-surface drip irrigation for many years.

In the early 90’s when its use was still only limited in Australia, owner Jon

Power travelled to the USA on a fact finding tour.

He says sub-surface drip irrigation was being used extensively in Californian vineyards and on higher value crops but he was keen to see how it would work for lucerne.

Back home he bought a block on the Murray River near Moama in New South Wales and installed twenty acres of sub-surface drip irrigation as a trial site with the help of leading irrigation manufacturers Toro and Netafim who were also keen to raise awareness of the potential of sub-surface drip irrigation on lucerne in southern Australia. Through a process of soil profile testing and analysis, Power arrived at a system of dripper spacings that worked well for summer active lucerne in that soil type and offered farmers a clear alternative during the drought when water shortages ruled other systems out.

“When the drought was in full grip it was the only way you could afford to water. Some irrigators were paying up to $600 a meg. Unfortunately the flood irrigators were the first guys out

of the market and there were guys with centre pivots who couldn’t afford to run them” he says

“The capital costs of a drip system seem high but they are relative to the end result and the payback period over a few years justifies the expense”.

WoRDS: kATE PATON

SuB-SurFace driP irrigatioN

Lateral pipe & drip being laid


Sub-surface drip irrigation capital requirements depend on paddock size, elevation, layout, soil types and distance from the pump all have a bearing on the installation price which ranges from $6,000 to $12,000 per hectare.

Using GPS for accuracy, tube is laid into prepared ground at a depth of around 250mm. The lateral drip tubes are put in between 800 and 1200mm apart depending on the soil type and drippers deliver water and fertiliser to a zone between 250-600mm below the surface.

“There are 20,000 drippers per hectare and that can put out 20,000 litres per hour so if you want to put on 10mm

it would take five hours to irrigate and 3.6 mm can be put on in under two hours. Try doing that accurately with common irrigation practices. The watering is fully automated and there is no need to get up in the middle of the night as some of the flood blokes do”.

Power says there are other benefits.

Sub-surface drip systems can be used on paddocks that aren’t suitable for either flood or spray systems. Yields are maximized with the plant receiving an optimum supply of water and fertiliser instead of being waterlogged or dry for days. There is no evaporation and limited weed germination.

Water delivery is more specific, accurate and uniform across a paddock than flood or spray and be used with more flexibility.

“You can cut your lucerne and then start watering straight away which you can’t do with the other systems. You don’t stress your plant and that’s how you can get a cut every 22 -23 days”.

So at the end of the day, sub-surface irrigation on lucerne uses less water to grow more and while the catchments may currently look in good shape, the reality is that with the water buybacks of recent years and those proposed in the Murray Darling Basin Draft Plan there’s going to be a lot less of it at the disposal of irrigators in future.

“We are going to pay more for it” says Chris Van Luenen “A third of the water has gone from the Murray Valley”.

“If there’s another drought, flood irrigating will be the first to drop out, then sprays and drip will be the last one left”.

To Van Luenen then it makes perfect sense to invest in an irrigation system that can still operate at times of water scarcity.

“I wouldn’t put your whole farm into it but for one or two paddocks it’s a pretty safe bet” he says.

“They told us during the last drought that it would never rain again. Who

knows what the weather is going to do but the efficiencies are there and if it gets dry in future then we’re well in front”.

Want to find out more? Give your nearest Think Water a call 1300 844 659 or click on www.thinkwater.com.au

Lucerne 23 days after cut, under sub surface drip Near Maps of Picola farm at height of the drought showing the only green area, which is the sub surface drip.


020

The Menindee Lakes system is the in far west of NSW around 100km south east of Broken Hill.

The closest town is Menindee, positioned between the Lakes and the Darling River.

They are located on the Darling River and effectively separate the northern and southern Murray-Darling Basin.

THE LAkES

There are 19 relatively shallow Lakes that form the group. They are naturally occurring but the storage system is a result of engineering intervention.

Prior to the development of the storage system, the Lakes connected to the Darling River via short creeks which generally only filled in flood conditions. As floods receded, some water would return to the Darling system whilst significant volumes would evaporate leaving a series of smaller pools. The Lakes did at times dry out completely.

STORAGE SYSTEM

Four of the Lakes - Wetherell, Pamamaroo, Menindee and Cawndilla - have been configured to provide water storage. That is, they are natural lakes that have been augmented by the construction of regulating works.

Small, interconnected Lakes - Tandure, Bijijie and Balaka - join with the main four to create the Menindee Lakes Water Storage Scheme.

Lakes Cawndilla and Menindee are within the Kinchega National Park.

State Waters website notes that the purpose at the time of construction was to:

• secure water for Broken Hill; • provide water for irrigation and farming in the Lower Darling down to Wentworth;

• meet the stock and domestic requirements of the Great Darling Anabranch; and

• supplement resources of the River Murray system, including supply to South Australia.

Average annual diversions, in megalitres, are:

• Town water supply of 6,600 (mainly Broken Hill)

• Irrigation supply of 46,000 • Stock supply of 250 • Domestic supply of 260 • Industry of 100 • South Australian Entitlement of 385,000

• Anabranch replenishment of 40,000 • Water quality flows of 105,000 • Evaporation of 460,000

Whilst average diversions are often meaningless, they are even more so in the context of the massive variation in flows in this part of the Basin.

TECHNICAL DETAIL

The Lakes lie in a semi-arid zone comprised mainly of grey clay and siliceous and calcareous sand. Their margins are studded with dead black box with the shores dominated by canegrass.

The Menindee Main Weir was commissioned in 1960, upgraded in 1968 and further upgraded (decking and electrical works) in 2007. It’s height is 11.5 metres with a crest length of 85 metres.

The system is comprised of a number of weirs, regulators, levees and channels.

The combined storage capacity of the Lakes is 1,730 gigalitres, but they can be surcharged to 2,050 during floods. The system covers some 463 square kilometres.

The outlet capacity is just over 7,000 megalitres a day, but release rates vary depending on storage height and location. The channel capacity of the Lower Darling River is 9,000 megs per day (after which overbank events will occur). This flow rate is targeted in low storage times to minimise transmission losses to the Murray.

OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT

Whilst built and owned by NSW, they are jointly managed by the NSW Department (currently NOW), the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and State Water. Control of releases is undertaken by the MDBA until the total water storage drops below 480 gigalitres. At this point, both control of releases and the volume in storage pass to NSW. It stays in that jurisdiction until storages increase to greater than 640 gigalittres.

ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE

The system is, in itself, a significant environmental asset. It is a particularly valuable area for birdlife and fish species as both a drought refuge and as a breeding location. NOW claims that, when full, the system supports more bird species than Kakadu.

The storage system has seen the Lakes dry out less than they would in a natural sequence, leading to a change in environmental conditions. A constant flow regime enabled by the storage has also materially changed the Lower Darling.

The Lakes are listed on the Directory

MENINDEEWoRDS: ANDREW GREGSON

LAkES Time to Act...


of Important Wetlands, water birds listed on the Commonwealth Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999) occupy several of the Lakes, six species listed in the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act (1995) are present and several migratory species listed under the Japan-Australian Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA) and the China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) have been sighted.

GREAT DARLING ANABRANCH

Around 55 kilometres south of Menindee, the Darling spills into the Great Darling Anabranch. As well as the bed of the Anabranch, some 16 lakes occur. During flood, the entire areas becomes a water bird and fish area. The Anabranch also receives backwater flows where it joins the Murray to the west of Wentworth.

WATER LOSSES AND POSSIBLE SAVINGS

Somewhere between 393 (Webb McKeown, 2007) and 426 (NOW website) gigalitres is lost in evaporation from the system annually. The difference stems largely from the length of the modelling period, with the latter being accurate past 100 years. When the Lakes are full, the figure can increase to 700. Monthly figures can peak at 110 gigs for January alone.

The NSW Government claims to have been investigating structural works and management changes since 1995. The issue is complicated by competing demands and considerations, including human needs both near and far, water users both upstream and downstream, environmental issues both near and far, cultural heritage values, recreation and regions tourism issues and political considerations.

BROkEN HILL

The system provides the water supply for the town of Broken Hill via a pipeline in excess of 100 kilometres. It draws from the pool between the Main Weir and Weir 32, which also serves the town of Menindee. The rules currently require 21 months of supply to be stored. When storage drops to below 18 months, extractions upstream are restricted to restore the requirement.

IDENTIFICATION OF OPTIONS

The NSW and Commonwealth Governments jointly funded a feasibility study to identify substantial water savings in the Darling River system, to include the Menindee Lakes. The outcome was to be a 20 year strategic plan to achieve savings “based on an integrated approach of structural works, river and storage operating strategies and water market activities”.

The project was to be in two parts - the first to generate and screen a large number of options and the second to develop a short list and preferred options.

Maunsell published what is known as “The Part A Report” in April of 2007). It identified 6 primary schemes for consideration:

(i) Reduced use of Lake Mendee: 120 gigs

(ii) Reduced use of Lake Cawdilla: 60 gigs

(iii) Reduced us of both Menindee and Cawndilla: 180 gigs (iv) Partition Menindee / reduce Cawndilla: 130 gigs (v) Partition Menindee: 70 gigs (vi) Rapid drawdown of Menindee: 60 gigs

Later that year, soon to be Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced some $400m would be made available to infrastructure works “to reduce evaporation and improve water efficiency at Menindee Lakes” which would “return up to 200” gigalitres.

In March of 2010, SKM published what is known as “The Part B Report”. It also considered 6 options (“schemes”), although they were marginally different to those in Part A. Each of the schemes involves storing water for a shorter period; keeping the Lakes lower for longer. The obvious implication is less loss through evaporation, but significant environmental impacts occur and the reliability of downstream supply is also eroded. 100 gigalitres was determined as a critical figure and, as such, the percentage of times total storage would be below this was used as a key determinative criteria. The current situation sees this at 2%

Note that each options required alternative storage of Broken Hill water supply. Further, rule changes and infrastructure

construction were considered as a requirement of several options.

The six schemes considered were:

1. Never Fill Menindee and Cawndilla • This option used existing structures. • 640/480 is reduced to 150/100. • Savings of 248 gigs are nominated with 165 gigs increase to Murray.

• Total storage drops below 100 gigs • 18% of the time. • Lifecycle cost is $2.9m

2. Reduce Use of Menindee and Cawndilla • This option used existing structures. • 640/480 is reduced to 210/200. • Savings of 125 gigs are nominated with 71 gigs increase to Murray.

• Total storage drops below 100 gigs 7% of the time.

• Lifecycle cost is $2.9m

3. Reduce Use of Menindee and Cawndilla • This option used new structures. • 640/480 is reduced to 210/200. • Savings of 125 gigs are nominated with 71 gigs increase to Murray.



4. Reduce Use of Cawndilla • This option used existing structures. • 640/480 is reduced to 210/200. • Savings of 61 gigs are nominated with 30 gigs increase to Murray.



5. Reduce Use of Cawndilla • This option used new structures. • 640/480 is reduced to 210/200. • Savings of 74 gigs are nominated with 27 gigs increase to Murray.



6. Reduce Use of Cawndilla • This option used new structures. • 640/480 is unchanged. • Savings of 34 gigs are nominated with 2 gigs increase to Murray.




022

Note that each involves drying of one or more Lakes. The report notes it is very likely that there would be some requirement for environmental filling of any lakes with reduced operational use. That is, environmental water would need to be diverted back to the Lakes.

On a cost/benefit analysis, the Report concludes that option 1 is superior and option 6 is inferior. The options are listed in cost/benefit preferential order.

Note that the report identifies that modelling runs on option 1 came perilously close to being unable to supply Lower Darling entitlements. The situation was resolved only through significant and timely inflows in the model run.

jULY 2010 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

The then-NSW Government and the Commonwealth signed an MoU in July 2010 indicating that they would jointly investigate preferred options. A number of caveats were inserted against further action;

i. An alternative storage for Broken Hill had to be found;

ii. “no directly attributable adverse impact on the water security of existing entitlement holders at Menindee Lakes and the Lower Darling River, or the Murray River”;

iii. Savings would be converted to entitlements and “if necessary” recognised in the Murray-Lower Daring WSP;

iv. Shepherding would be enabled;v. If the savings were less than 200

gigs, the funding would be propor-tionally released.

On the basis of “200 gigs savings”, it could be assumed the option 1 was the Commonwealth preference.

In June 2011 the new NSW Government withdrew from the MoU citing three reasons;

• the Broken Hill community opposed the aquifer recharge proposal to secure their water supply on the basis of cost and water quality;

• downstream reliability in dry years would have been affected; and

• shutting down two Lakes would have had significant environmental and social impacts.

CURRENT POSITIONS

A paper published by NOW in April 2012 is scathing of the Commonwealth and the impacts under option 1. The paper concluded:

The NSW Government will continue to work with the Commonwealth to progress these options, but it is not prepared to compromise the enormous water supply benefits provided to all states and the natural values of the Menindee Lakes, to meet unspecified environmental objectives downstream.

The Commonwealth contends that it has provided funds to progress work

on all options and that it has “moved on” from focusing on option 1.

SO WHAT TO DO?

“What to do at Menindee?” has been a question asked since not long after the diversion and storage scheme was completed in the middle of the last century.

The key issue is evaporation. How do we store it more efficiently to minimise losses?

NSWIC has had an interest in the discussion since its inception. Our position to date has been to

Following on from last month’s Productive Water journal article on Menindee there needs to be a broader lens applied to the frame under which we review Menindee, in particular the impacts of the current management processes from a northern perspective.

Menindee Lakes are naturally ephemeral lakes that in the natural state are disconnected from the direct flow of the Darling River. In the 1950s and 60s the New South Wales government attempted to create an agricultural industry and secure water supply for Broken Hill by diverting the Darling River into ephemeral Lakes. Over time that scheme through tripartite government agreement has also become the backup to attempt to relieve pressure on water delivery through the Murray.

This diversion of the Darling River included very little regulatory infrastructure and this alone has sealed the fate of Menindee as a credible piece of water infrastructure for the last five decades. No agricultural scheme has developed that would warrant the scale of the diversion and loss through evaporation of water that occurs annually. Equally Broken Hill does not have a secure water supply. The supply of water for Broken Hill is between 6 and 10 gigs, this requires around 300 gigs to be held in storage (or 18 months supply) (figures from Geoscience Australia).

Namoi Water wishes to highlight the absence of any consideration of the management impacts that evaporation losses in the Menindee lakes bring to the north-western NSW river systems. The Barwon- Darling, Namoi and Border River systems all have specific management processes included in their Water Sharing Plans aimed at delivering water to the Menindee system. This call on northern water through the North West Unregulated Flow plan is not included in the NSW IQQM model nor is its impact included in the MDBA Basin Plan modelling. Further to this there are specific rules and management

processes have not been included in any Menindee impact statement and these river systems have not been represented in any process that deliberated on the appropriateness of the original 1999 engineering proposals and subsequent proposals.

The Menindee Lakes evaporates an average of 420 gigs per annum; the Darling River below Menindee delivers an average end of system flow of 1137 gigs. There are many examples available of North-western river system management processes developed in the last five years aimed at delivering increasing amounts of water to Menindee lakes. To understand these impacts and provide detailed assessment for the consideration of options that meet the requirements of both Northern and Southern water users, there must be a thorough review of all studies into engineering and management proposals for Menindee Lakes. A critique of the terms of reference for each of these studies and proposals. A review of the impacts on the northern valleys of the current state-based management plans due to the lack of security of water supply to Broken Hill driven by the inefficiency inherent to the Menindee Lakes. A review of the impact to the northern basin of the proposals contained in the current draft basin plan relating to the delivery of water to Menindee Lakes and downstream of Menindee Lakes. Study into the impact both negative and positive to the northern and southern systems of different engineered improvements to the current Menindee lakes infrastructure.

Namoi Water commends the formation of the NSWIC Menindee Policy Reference Group. This issue is bigger than the sharing of reform credits between north and south. The issue of Menindee reform has been subject to 25 years of inertia of actual works being implemented on the ground and consideration of both up and downstream requirements/demand. We seek Menindee Lakes reform as a matter of urgent priority.

the vieW FroM here - NaMoi Water oN MeNiNdeeWoRDS: jON-MAREE BAkER EXEcUTIVE oFFIcER, NAmoI WATER


encourage infrastructure works to achieve greater efficiency whilst ensuring no negative third party impacts. As we approach the pointy end of the Basin Plan process, the need to get on with something becomes more pressing - as does the need for a more detailed position from Council. To that end, we led a group of 22 irrigation sector representatives on a ground and air tour of the system in late August. To fully understand it, you need to touch it, see it and smell it. Each and every one of the participants will happily report that they understand more of the challenges and opportunities the Menindee system represents subsequent to our time out there.

We started with an aerial inspection that covered Weatherill, Pamameroo, Menindee and Cawndilla (tracking north to south).

Photo 1 shows the channel from Copi Hollow into Menindee from around 2,000 feet. Photo 2 shows the connection between Menindee and Cawndilla from around 4,500 feet. That second photo also shows how flat the area is - and gives a vivid understanding of why evaporation rates are up to 2 metres a year.

Once on the ground, we tracked the system essentially from north to south. We started at the main weir that holds water in the Darling back into the Weatherill system and diverts to Pamameroo.

From there we headed to Copi Hollow, where water passes from Pamameroo into Menindee. This is also an important recreational site for the local area and out to Broken Hill. It was the quarry from which local road base was taken and is now a popular water skiing area. It’s one of the last places that would go dry - and didn’t during the recent drought. Photo 3 shows the tour group on the shore of Copi Hollow.

Just a bit south from there is the outlet from the Copi Hollow channel into Lake Menindee itself. The Lakes are currently surcharged to around 117% capacity. That is, they’re full beyond the brim. Photo 4 shows the water flowing into Menindee and gives you a good idea of the size of the Lake and the amount currently in it.

Photo 1

Photo 2

Photo 3

Photo 4


024

We travelled around the eastern shore of Menindee to the main outlet regulator. This lets up to 4,000 megs a day out of Menindee back to the Darling River. One of the widely supported proposals for infrastructure upgrade is to expand the capacity of this outlet regulator. In brief, the upper Lakes (Weatherill, Pamameroo) are more efficient storages. To get more than 4,000 megs a day down the Darling, you need to release from Menindee (the least efficient storage) and the upper Lakes. If you could get the full volume from Menindee, you’d be using your least efficient storage less and keeping water in your most efficient storage. That clearly makes sense. Photo 5 shows the outlet regulator looking back to Menindee.

We then travelled down to the bottom of Lake Cawndilla. There’s an outlet regulator here that can drop water into a channel connecting Tandou farm (providing their water) and also the Darling Annabranch. Cawndilla and Menindee are not separated by a regulator. If you run water into one, it runs into the other. You must therefore draw down in tandem, which means keeping a very large and very inefficient surface area. Cawndilla, whilst a more efficient storage than Menindee, is not connected to the Darling. You can only drop it through the regulator (in Photo 6) into the channel (in Photo 7) and down the Annabranch or run it back to Menindee and through the outlet regulator noted above. Photo 8 shows our group standing on the bank under which the regulator at the bottom of Cawndilla passes.

WHAT NExT?

NSWIC is in the process of formulating a detailed policy on infrastructure works and management rules at Menindee. If you’d like further information on that process, please don’t hesitate to be in touch.

Photo 5

Photo 6

Photo 7

Photo 8


The Australian Cotton Conference was recently held on 14-16th August at the Gold Coast. Held every two years, this year’s saw a record attendance; the industry currently buoyant after experiencing consecutive record crops in 2010-11 and 2011-12 following years of drought-affected production. Some 1600 delegates, 80 speakers, 48 scientific posters and 75 exhibitors were involved in this year’s event.

Sessions, trade displays and other break out events held over the three days covered broad ranging topics featuring the latest scientific innovations, sessions on industry and global economics as well as social concepts. Topics covered included the latest in weed control and resistance management, current cotton production economics, the impact of mining and coal seam gas, connecting young aboriginal people to the industry, the supply logistics challenges of record crops, a cotton growing ‘Masterclass’ and a very well attended session on dry-land cotton.

The Conference wound up after the premier screening of “A Life In Cotton - The Birth of the Modern Australian Cotton Industry”, with delegates then celebrating the

Australian Cotton Industry Awards Dinner and Presentation.

A strong belief in the future sustainability of the Australian agricultural industry was articulated by economists at the Conference. While the breaking of the drought has seen a rapid resurgence in the industry,

the cotton industry is conscious of not resting on its laurels (the Conference was aptly tagged ‘Growing Better all the Time’). Like other industries in the agriculture sector, the economics of cotton growing is under pressure, with rising input prices and declining terms of trade.

The cotton industry has almost completed its third independent

assessment of the industry’s environmental performance, which is setting the focus for continued improvement in RD&E (research, development and extension) in regards to the industry’s environmental programs. The initial findings were outlined at the Conference, in the context of major achievements but

also future challenges which acknowledge that the future operating environment will be more complex and demanding in terms of improving business productivity and profitability; global competitiveness and market expectations of environmental stewardship; the policies, programs and regulatory requirements of governments relating to the environment; the long-term pressures on Murray Darling Basin water resources and the prospective introduction of a Murray Darling Basin Plan; and public expectations for good environmental and social stewardship.

The Cotton Conference certainly set the scene for how the industry can manage and move forward. Competitiveness and success will continue to depend on effective RD&E strategies, innovation, adaptation and smart businesses.

The cotton industry is moving forward from a strong base, with the industry

groWiNgBetter

WoRDS: ANGELA BRADBURN

aLL the tiMe A REflECTION ON THE 16TH AUSTRAlIAN COTTON CONfERENCE WITH A fOCUS ON CARBON, WATER AND ENERGY PROGRAmS

Trade Display


026

having delivered major gains in water use efficiency, significant advances in land and water management on-farm and active engagement in landscape and catchment wide natural resource management. Achievements in water R&D were celebrated at the Conference with the launch of The Australian Cotton Water Story – a documentation of a decade of progress in irrigation research and implementation, which has seen a 40% improvement in cotton water productivity tied to cotton yields that are two-and-a-half times the world average for quality cotton.

More than ever though, farmers need to be able to be as efficient as possible, and cotton growers recognise that efficiency in the management of inputs and resources (water, fuel, and nutrients) are top priorities. Policies, programs and continued industry RD&E for managing carbon, water and energy in farming systems are a core part of this. Current industry farming systems RD&E strategies have a focus on equipping the industry to respond to escalating energy costs due to world fuel prices, the changing environment of climate change and a carbon economy.

The Carbon And Energy Costs – A Better Bottom Line Cotton Conference session brought together current industry work, as well as a national research and policy perspective on carbon farming, energy and input efficiency. Speakers included current industry and leading national researchers: Dr Jeff Baldock CSIRO, Francois Visser of University of QLD, Dr Lance Pendergast of Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Professor Snow Barlow of the University of Melbourne.

The following sections provide a snapshot of each of the speakers’ presentations.

CARBON FARMING AND CLIMATE MANAGEMENT TOOLSProfessor Snow Barlow, University of Melbourne

Professor Snow Barlow is the Convenor of the National Climate

Change Adaptation Research Facility (Agriculture), Executive Director of the Climate Change Research Strategy for Primary Industries, and chairs of Expert Assessment Panel of the DAFF Climate Change R&D Program.

Projected climate forecasts are key drivers for domestic and international policy. The Australian government has responded by having a bipartisan commitment to reduce GHG emissions, with the current government’s Clean Energy Package applying a market mechanism to achieve this, as well as supporting measures to foster innovation in carbon farming and emissions reduction. This includes the Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI), a voluntary mechanism to reward landholders for these activities.

In cotton growing areas, projected climate change sees temperature increases, potential increases in land to cotton, and moves south resulting. However, there is uncertainty around water availability scenarios – conditions could be drier, unreliable and variable, or wetter in some areas.

Production therefore needs to get smarter to be equipped for potential changes and variability, and gains will come from energy and production efficiency.

Under the CFI, five methodologies have been approved so far, with another 10 out for comment. For cotton farms, which can be quite diverse, Professor Barlow sees potential for farmers to be rewarded for optimising nitrogen fertiliser

inputs, a methodology for which is currently being developed which would recognise activities that maximise nitrogen available to the plant and minimise that lost to the atmosphere (‘emissions avoidance’). Other potential activities for mixed farms to consider could include activities for methane reduction in livestock and revegetation.

Prof Barlow is careful to remind farmers not to get distracted by the prospect of making big money from carbon credits; “see it within your farming business, working synergistically with productivity and input efficiency gains, with the potential for revenue from carbon credits as a bonus”.

SOIL CARBON IN FARMING SYSTEMSjeff Baldock CSIRO Land and Water

Dr Jeff Baldock has led a national research program aimed at defining the influence of agricultural management practices on the quantity and composition of soil organic carbon. He believes there is potential for carbon accounting in Australian soils and capacity to increase levels over time, but variability means there won’t be one solution.

The challenge is defining management options and estimating cost effective

measurements of the amount and certainty of soil carbon change, which needs regional specificity.

Maximising soil health for carbon is about maximising carbon retention and return - maintaining adequate nutrients, and potentially rethinking land use, e.g. shifting to alternative production systems (introducing perennial vegetation or alternative crops). However, management induced changes to soil carbon levels are typically small (in order of <0.5 Mg/C/ha), but with variability throughout, so potential will differ from system to system.

Trading soil carbon credits in a market requires rigorous data to provide confidence for the market. It is important for farmers to understand requirements of carbon

Speakers from the Australian Cotton Conference: Dr Jeff Baldock (CSIRO), Dr Lance Pendergast (QDAFF), Mr Francois Visser (University of QLD), Prof Snow Barlow (University of Melbourne), Mr Hamish McIntyre (Cotton Australia, grower St George).


farming under the CFI when thinking about carbon farming and engaging in carbon markets. Potential constraints and risks include future liabilities and implications on land values (given permanence requirements) and uncertainty in the value of carbon production.

The introduction of a carbon economy requires specific expertise, so access to appropriately trained and qualified people will be necessary, in helping to provide farmers cost/benefit information, options and the right support in auditing and reporting.

COTTON FARM CARBON FOOTPRINT ACCOUNTINGFrancois Visser, PhD student at the University of QLD

Mr Visser has been working on the development of an international carbon footprint calculator for the cotton industry, to explore ways that the industry can be recognised for using best practice cotton growing. This is particularly important given the rise of sustainability labelling globally; more and more this is being pushed back through the supply chain to the grower. The opportunity here lies with the industry’s ability to build on its BMP (Best Management Practices) system to take Australian BMP cotton to the market, as an alternative sustainable cotton source. In practice, the challenge is to ensure accuracy versus simplicity in carbon tools so that they can be applied.

IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ENERGY BENCHMARkINGDr Lance Pendergast, Field Extension Officer Agri-Science Queensland

Dr Pendergast has spent six years studying water and energy use efficiency on cotton farms. His current work is focused on energy use efficiency of pumping systems because in many irrigated farming systems pumping constitutes the major component of whole farm energy use - energy costs associated with pumping can often be the biggest ticket item on a cotton farmer’s energy bill, including diesel fuel and electricity.

Dr Pendergast sees potential for improvements through undertaking irrigation energy efficiency measurements and using benchmarks to help realise cost and labour savings – in the same way the industry has done so in achieving water use

efficiency gains.

The efficiency of any pumping system is dictated by the performance of both the pump and its drive system and it is not uncommon for pumps to be operating below their potential efficiency because of accumulated wear and tear or inappropriate impellers.

Significant savings can be achieved by optimising the performance of existing pumping facilities via modifications (even on new systems) or when necessary replacing them. Energy savings of 20-30% have been achieved through relatively simple and inexpensive changes and sometimes more efficient pumping systems have payed for themselves in just a couple of years, through reduced operating costs (including labour). One case study outlined at the Conference saw a grower make an annual saving of approximately $65,000 after investing in a pump efficiency upgrade of $50,000.

Lance recommends energy efficiency evaluations as a valuable first step which can help growers compare against a benchmark then identify problems and steps to improve the system.

Adjustments can include changing the revs on a motor to ensure its operating at the optimum efficiency range, which can sometimes provide significant fuel economies. There can also be a mismatch between the pump’s drive unit and the pump itself.

Lance’s current project “Optimising Energy Use in the Central Queensland Irrigation Sector” is funded by the Queensland Government and CRDC, and will eventually look at upwards of 10 case study cotton farms, large and small, located throughout the Emerald and the Dawson/Callide Irrigation Areas in Queensland.

CONCLUSION

The overall take-home message from the speakers reinforced that optimising inputs and managing cotton farming systems for productivity present ‘win win’ solutions for growers, in terms of cost savings, productivity and profitability, and potential benefits from the government’s new Clean Energy Package and voluntary Carbon Farming Initiative (CFI). It

is clear that more work is needed here though, particularly in providing information on the economics around changing practices, to help growers and industry decide on the potential for incorporating carbon farming into their systems.

As reiterated by Conference Session chair Hamish McIntyre, Director of Cotton Australia, the industry looks forward to future farming systems that incorporate carbon and energy management, and provide farmers with an ability to offset the cost of production and get recognition for good land stewardship. In the meantime, some practical and effective solutions are available that farmers can consider to improve energy use efficiency, and best management practices for improving soil health, and managing inputs.

This will build on existing development which has seen cotton farmers already make advances on farm, e.g. by placing nitrogen at depth in cooler times in wet soils to maximize nitrogen efficiency, upgrading tractors and machinery to newer, lower emissions models and reducing tillage requirements.

The industry’s well -recognised myBMP (best management practices program) will continue to be a key framework for growers and the industry to use to achieve further gains and help address further developments in carbon farming. myBMP is a framework that delivers priority industry R&D and extends this to growers through an online program and extension activities. Industry research focused on input and energy costs, emissions and carbon sequestration is generally channelled into myBMP chapters on ‘Water’, ‘Energy and Input Efficiency’, ‘Soil Health’, and ‘Natural Assets’.

For further information on the Cotton Conference, including speaker presentations, go to www.australiancottonconference.com.au

“The Australian cotton water story – A decade of Research and Development 2002-2012” can be found at:www.cottoncrc.org.au/industry/Publications/Water , or please contact Cotton Australia for a hard copy (02 9669 5222).


028

IT’S THE VIBE

The rhetoric from South Australia’s Government over the past few years has been nothing if not consistent - we either get our way or we’re taking you to the High Court.

To understand what SA proposes and their chance of success when wandering along legal avenues, it’s necessary to consider the background to the whole issue, the structure of the Australian Federation and the Constitution itself.

THE CONSTITUTION

Australia is a Federation, or a collection of what once were independent States. To join that Federation, each State was required to cede certain powers to a new Commonwealth Government. The powers to be ceded were specified in what became the Constitution, which is itself an Act of the Federal Parliament. A range of matters that were best dealt with as a collective were ceded, including defence, postal services, trade and the like. At this early point, it is important to note that water was not one of those powers ceded.

All other powers were reserved to the States. That is, any power not specifically granted to the Commonwealth remained with the individual States.

SO HOW DID WE GET A WATER ACT?

If power over water isn’t specifically granted to the Commonwealth, how did we end up with a Commonwealth Water Act? A good question - and one that goes to the interpretation of the Constitution itself.

Initially, the Act was to be based on a referral of powers from the States. Apart from the initial powers given in the Constitution, the States are able to refer further powers to the Commonwealth on particular matters. It was on this concept that the Water Bill (before it came to the Parliament the first time) was based. Each of the Basin States was to refer sufficient power to the Commonwealth to write an Act that covered water resources in the Basin. This approach was curtailed when States reviewed their positions and withdrew from it.

Under then Minister Turnbull, the Commonwealth was forced to consider its own position to acquire a head of power for the Water Act. Evidence of that consideration is now contained in Section 9 of the Act which lists the Constitutional basis of the legislation. In short, that section spells out which sections of the Constitution that the Act relies on to make it legal. Most of the powers in the Constitution are in Section 51, at is to that Section (and subsections) that the Water Act points;

(i) Trade and Commerce (v) Postal, telegraphic, telephonic services and the like (viii) Astronomical and meteoro- logical observations (xi) Census and statistics (xv) Weights and measures (xx) Foreign corporations (xxxix) Matters incidental to other powers.

This “grab bag” approach is reasonably common in establishing a head of power. The Commonwealth lists each possible power, no matter how apparently tangential, just in case one or another is found by a court to

be insufficient.

The primary power relied upon for the Water Act, though, is xxiv - External Affairs.

THE ExTERNAL AFFAIRS POWER

To a significant degree, the Water Act is based on the power that was defined in a legal context primarily by the Tasmanian Dams Case (Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 158 CLR1). In brief, the Tasmanian Government (Liberal) wanted to build a dam in the South Western corner of the State on the Gordon River below the junction with the Franklin. Then Federal Opposition Leader Bob Hawke campaigned on the issue, promising to halt the construction. Subsequent to winning the election, the new Hawke led Labor Government passed the World Heritage Properties Conservations Act, noting that Australia had signed the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage and the UNESCO had declared Tasmania’s South West a World Heritage Site.

The High Court was asked to consider if the External Affairs power was sufficient for the Commonwealth to legitimately pass the Act that it had done - and hence if they had the power to stop the dam. In a four to three decision, the Court determined that the power was, indeed, very wide - but was intended to be as such. Justice Lionel Murphy concluded that it is sufficient that a law implement an international law or treaty to give it character.

With that precedent, it seems relatively clear that the Water Act would ultimately also be considered legitimate, although we note the close

THE BaSiNTHE HIGH coURT AND THE coNSTITUTIoN

WoRDS: ANDREW GREGSON, cEo NSWIc


decision in Tasmanian Dams. There is some conjecture that the External Affairs power would not be so widely interpreted if reconsidered. Opinion in this respect from the Commonwealth Solicitor General may be a reason why Minister Burke did not release all legal advice surrounding the Basin Plan.

SO RAMSAR HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED TO THE FULL?

In the context of the Water Act, a number of external treaties and conventions are nominated although the most frequent is the Ramsar Convention (Ramsar is the name of the town in Iran where the treaty was negotiated).

It must therefore follow that reliance on Ramsar for Constitutional validity requires the Act to fully implement the treaty, doesn’t it? The answer is actually no - and it is here where you must suspend reality and think like a lawyer for the moment. As far as the law is concerned, the question of the validity of the Constitutional capacity of the Act and the requirements of Australia in implementing the treaty are two separate questions. In short, an Act can rely on External Affairs if a relevant treaty is identified. It is there that consideration ends. The question of enforcement of the treaty is a separate issue entirely - and is relevant to another Act entirely; the EPBC Act.

SO WHAT IS SOUTH AUSTRALIA’S “CHALLENGE” BASED ON?

South Australia has not lodged an action with the High Court, so it is speculation only as to what that challenge might be based on. To the best of our knowledge, it will be based on the concept of an interstate riparian right.

Most irrigators (and, indeed, farmers) will be familiar with the concept of a riparian right. Where a property surrounds a water course, a common law right to a reasonable volume of water from the course generally exists (although in some instances it is replaced by a statutory or regulatory right). We understand that South Australia may attempt to argue that a broader version of that right - a State based riparian right - also exists at common law. That is, a State that surrounds part of a water course that flows across borders has a right

to a certain volume. There is some precedent internationally to support the contention and, further, an early comment from High Court Justice Sir Isaac Isaac’s on the matter.

It won’t be an easy case for South Australia to make, though. In the first instance they will have to convince the Court (likely with opposition from a number of parties, including other States) that such a right exists. They will then likely have to convince the Court that this right survived the act of Federation. It would seem obvious that other parties will argue by joining the Federation, South Australia either ceded or terminated the common law riparian right. Finally, and on the assumption that South Australia has won the previous two issues, they will need to have the Court establish exactly what that right comprises - which would have to include volumes and flow patterns.

At this point - or possibly earlier - comes the difficult issue for the High Court; how on earth can they decide what volumes or flow patterns should exist? In legal terminology, this goes to the issue of whether a matter exists. If the Court cannot determine that a matter exists, it will not hear the case. One of the consideration of whether a matter exists if for the Court to determine if it is capable of resolving the dispute. In this case, it would be difficult for the Court to come up with a resolution - and hence they may not hear it in the first place. Alternately, they might note that the Murray-Darling Agreement exists (and has done for many years) to determine the rights, volumes and flow patterns of each party and they may affirm its position as the determining document.

WHAT ABOUT ALL OF THESE OTHER LEGAL CHALLENGES?

Of course, South Australia’s Premier is not the only one talking about the High Court. A number of parties have considered Section 100 of the Constitution as a potential avenue to confront the Basin Plan. Section 100 provides:

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of

rivers for conservation or irrigation.

Hang on - is the Constitution itself therefore giving a right to take water? Are the rights of States and residents in respect of water defined by the Constitution?

The answer is no - and again requires the thought pattern of a lawyer to decipher. Moreover, it requires Section 100 to be read in conjunction with the entirety of the Constitution. Section 100 does not create a power - it imposes a limitation on a power listed elsewhere. Recall that Section 51 sets out a range of powers granted to the Commonwealth. The first one of those listed is “Trade and Commerce”. Read Section 100 again:

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce...

So Section 100 is actually saying that the Commonwealth cannot use its Trade and Commerce power to limit the use of water. As we’ve discussed above, the Commonwealth isn’t using that power - it’s primarily using its External Affairs power.

SO IS THE COURT THE ANSWER?

Court is never an answer - Court is only ever a question. Any good Barrister will tell you the simple philosophy is this - never ask a question you don’t know the answer to.

The political process is the best option to pursue a Basin Plan that is fair, equitable and balanced. It is in that realm that NSWIC has concentrated its effort and resolve. We don’t rule out legal options but, unlike the South Australian Premier, we’ll continue to engage in good faith to get a Basin Plan that we can all live with without threatening to pack up our bat and ball.

Andrew Gregson is Chief Executive Officer of NSW Irrigators Council. He is Admitted to Practice as a Barrister and Solicitor in the Supreme Court of Tasmania. This article is not legal advice. It cannot and should not be relied upon in making any legal decisions. NSWIC takes no responsibility for any loss or damage incurred as a result of relying on this advice - particularly if you’re a Premier of South Australia.

THE HIGH coURT AND THE coNSTITUTIoN


030

A complete overhaul of the irrigation system at the University of Sydney’s Corstrophine Dairy, near Camden NSW, is expected to realise enormous savings in energy and labour, in addition to reducing water use and improving crop yields.

The dairy, which is part of the University’s Camden Campus, is 65km south west of Sydney and occupies 33 hectares of fertile flood plain on the banks of the Nepean River. Half of the site is split into feeding lanes for the cattle while the other half is used to

grow Lucerne, kikuyu and maize.

The five travelling irrigators which had been in use at the dairy were well past their used-by dates and had become a burden on operations. Inefficiencies in water and power added to a hefty labour demand and mounting repair bills.

To avoid breakages all five irrigators had to be operated together, regardless of need, in order to minimise the water pressure running through the old and brittle pipes. Running them independently frequently resulted in leaks and breakages. The waste incurred by irrigating in this fashion was compounded further by the fact that the dairy was an odd shape, which required some irrigators to travel further than others.

A combination of skill and experience had taught farm operators the right amount of time to set their pumps running to ensure that the irrigators on longer runs reached their destinations. While this method was developed and learned over time, it was grossly inefficient and unpractical.

With some parts of the dairy considerably shorter than others, several irrigators would sit idly watering one area while waiting for the longer runs to finish. This made it impossible for operators at the dairy to apply any measures of uniformity to their watering, with a trade-off between under and over watering the inevitable consequence.

The inflexibility of the system also impacted on their ability to trial new crops, or trial watering levels suited to the soil profile of particular areas. It was a one-size-fits-all approach and it was costing time, labour, efficiency, and serious dollars.

With funding available through the Nepean- Hawkesbury River Recovery Program, Catchment Management Authority, and the NSW Smart Farms Project, the University sought the expertise of independent consultants Total Irrigation Designers to audit the existing systems and conceive and design a new fully automated and highly efficient irrigation solution.

Total Irrigation Designers sought additional technical support and advice from Nelson Irrigation Australia to develop the design which was then tendered and installed by Hydro Technics Irrigation.

The project involved replacing the five travelling irrigators with a fixed fully automated irrigation system comprised of 104 Nelson Irrigation F100 21 degree Big Guns and 104 2” Nelson 800 Series Control valves spread

CASE STUDY:BIG GUNS DElIvER

WoRDS: ANDREW DOAkIN coLLABoRATIoN WITH ToTAL IRRIGATIoN DESIGNERS & THE UNIVERSITY oF SYDNEY

FORuNIvERSITY OF SYDNEY

BIG SAvINGS

One of the 104 F100 Nelson Big Guns used in the project


evenly across the site in a grid of 60m x 40m cells.

The new system is expected to relieve the dairy of countless hours in labour and maintenance, and allows watering of specific areas, at specific times, with just the touch of a button. It can be adjusted to suit soil profiles, crop types, undulations, and areas of high wind.

The real key to the greater efficiencies achieved is the renowned uniformity of the F100 Nelson Big Guns. The Big Guns will deliver an impressive 85% (DU) over their throw radius, meaning the wasted costs associated with under and over watering are now be a thing of the past for the dairy.

While the full benefits of the new system won’t be known until the end of this growing season, it’s expected labour will be reduced by over 60% and water efficiency will be increased by 89%. While not yet at the quantifiable stage, these proposed savings are remarkable.

Kim McKean, Dairy Manager at the University, is excited about what the project can deliver.

“The main advantage for us will be in the saving of labour and the running costs of a tractor, as depending on the areas we were trying to cover, it was taking five hours a day or more to move, check and set up irrigators around the dairy.

“The time and hassle trying to keep the irrigators running had become a real burden on our operations.”

Matthew Wilson of Total Irrigation Designers sees the project as an ideal test case for any irrigators battling with ailing equipment.

“The University was very restricted in what they could achieve with their old irrigation system and odd property shape,” Wilson stated. “There is always so much wastage with old systems and they were having to adjust their watering practices to suit the frailties of their equipment.

“The lack of control they had over uniformity, and the inflexibility of having to run all five travelling irrigators at once to avoid breakages

and leaks meant that their water and power usage were astronomical.

“The dairy will now use less water, less power, and less labour. With the greater control and uniformity of the Big Guns they’re also likely to see greater crop yields.

“They now have an irrigation system that can be tailored and operated according to their needs, rather than the other way around, and the benefits of this are already becoming apparent.”

Manual labour, which previously involved moving and repairing the travelling irrigators and averaged four to five hours a day, has been reduced to a mere 20 minutes which

primarily consists of operators simply checking that what is being displayed on the control panel screen is being replicated in the field.

The reductions in water usage won’t be as immediately obvious but an analysis at the end of the current season is expected to be impressive. The burden of hundreds of thousands of litres being wasted through leaks, breakages, and irrigators watering pointlessly to reduce pressure is no longer an issue.

The efficiency of the Nelson Big Guns combined with the Nelson 800 series valves and automated control system will now allow the whole area to be irrigated in just over 12 hours at night

for a cycle which used to take more than 24hrs previously.

Running pumps less often and for shorter periods of time will also see significant savings in energy costs, allowing funds to be redirected towards the vital research and development being conducted on the campus.

“The past 12 months have been kind to the dairy with regular rain and good growing conditions, and while we know this won’t last forever, they now have an irrigation system that will perform in all conditions to an optimum level,” Wilson added.

“The project is a real investment in the dairy’s future,” he concluded.

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Area Irrigated: 33ha

Pump Capacity: 55kw VFD - 11-45l/sec @750kPa to new 250mm MDPE mains.

Equipment: Big Guns - 104 x F100 Nelson Big Guns

Nozzle - 104 x F100 21° Taper Nozzles

Control Valve - 104 x Nelson 800 Control Valves

For more information on this project, please contact Nelson Australia on 1300 856 368 or visit www.nelsonirrigation.com.au

An F100 Nelson Big Gun in action, showing it’s uniform application rate

Documents

PRODUCTIVEWATERMeeting with UK Irrigation Association (Melvyn Kay) Evening event at Oxford (David Grey) ISRAEL Friday, November 9 - Travel to Jerusalem Saturday, November 10 - Guided