SELECT COMMITTEE ON SALINITY › committees...One purpose of the study tour was to gather information for the Committee’s inquiry into: Business opportunities created by salinity

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SALINITY

________________________________

REPORT ON THE STUDY TOUR TO THE USA AND UK

9 – 26 May 2002

November 2002

Report No. 7

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SALINITY

________________________________

REPORT ON THE STUDY TOUR OF THE USA AND UK

9 – 26 May 2002

November 2002

Report No. 7

New South Wales Parliamentary Library cataloguing-in-publication data:

New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Assembly. Select Committee on Salinity

Report on the Study Tour of the USA and UK / Select Committee on Salinity, Parliament NSW, LegislativeAssembly. [Sydney, N.S.W.] :The Committee, 2001. – XX, XX p. ; 30 cm.

Chair: Pam Allan.“October 2002”.

ISBN

1. Salinity—New South Wales.I. Allan. Pam.II. Report on the Study Tour of the USA and UK

DDC 631.416

Report on the Study Tour to the USA and UK

– i –

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MEMBERSHIP & STAFF ....................................................................................................................... III

TERMS OF REFERENCE...................................................................................................................... IV

FOREWORD ..........................................................................................................................................V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................VII

Biomass ...................................................................................................................................... viiEnvironmental Services Schemes ..................................................................................................ixEnvironmental Management Systems............................................................................................. xEngineering Works for Irrigated Farming .........................................................................................xiSalt Tolerant Plants ......................................................................................................................xiiProfitable Uses of Saline Water .....................................................................................................xii

1 BIOMASS..................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 REVEGETATION: THE NEED FOR LARGE MARKETS FOR WOOD................................................................. 11.2 BENEFITS OF USING BIOMASS............................................................................................................ 11.3 POLICY ON BIOMASS FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT FUELS IN THE USA................................................... 2

Policy ........................................................................................................................................... 3Market and Outreach..................................................................................................................... 3Technology ................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 THE NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY (NREL)................................................................. 31.5 RELEVANT US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECTS............................................................................ 41.6 ENERGY CROPS .............................................................................................................................. 7

Willow Trees ................................................................................................................................. 8Switchgrass .................................................................................................................................. 8

1.7 BIOFUELS .....................................................................................................................................10Ethanol ........................................................................................................................................11Methanol......................................................................................................................................11

1.8 BIOMASS IN THE UK .......................................................................................................................12Development of Biomass Power Stations .......................................................................................14Development of the Biomass Power Supply Chain..........................................................................14Growing Energy Crops..................................................................................................................14

2 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SCHEMES ...................................................................................16

2.1 UK POLICY CONTEXT ......................................................................................................................162.2 EUROPEAN POLICY CONTEXT............................................................................................................162.3 AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL SCHEMES .....................................................................................................172.4 EUROPEAN UNION: RURAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION......................................................................172.5 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FARMING AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA) PROGRAMS, UK ....................182.6 ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS .....................................................................................................252.7 DIRECTION OF REFORM ...................................................................................................................262.8 PAYING FOR THE REFORM ...............................................................................................................282.9 STATUS OF THE REFORM PROPOSALS................................................................................................282.10 LESSONS FOR NSW .......................................................................................................................29

3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ............................................................................30

3.1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF EMS..........................................................................................................313.2 EMS IN THE UK.............................................................................................................................333.3 LINKING ENVIRONMENT AND FARMING UK .........................................................................................333.4 SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS .........................................................................................................36

Certification..................................................................................................................................40Eurep Structures ..........................................................................................................................42Future Directions ..........................................................................................................................42

4 ENGINEERING WORKS FOR IRRIGATED FARMING...................................................................45


– ii –

4.1 ON SITE RETENTION OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WATER..................................................................454.2 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT.........................................................................................................454.3 SALINITY PROBLEMS......................................................................................................................454.4 INTEGRATED ON FARM MANAGEMENT OF DRAINAGE WATER................................................................454.5 REHABILITATION OF THE LAND..........................................................................................................474.6 THE INTEGRATED ON FARM DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .............................................................474.7 ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES ...........................................................................................................484.8 BUSINESS OUTCOMES .....................................................................................................................494.9 ADVANCES IN DRAINAGE ARRANGEMENTS..........................................................................................49

5 SALT TOLERANT PLANTS .........................................................................................................51

5.1 SALT TOLERANT GRASSES ...............................................................................................................515.2 HALOPHYTES.................................................................................................................................53

6 PROFITABLE USES OF SALINE WATER....................................................................................55

6.1 COMMERCIAL BRINE SHRIMP HARVESTING ..........................................................................................556.2 PRODUCING BIODIESEL FROM ALGAE USING WASTE CO2 FROM POWER PLANTS.......................................55

7 COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM AND YUMA DESALTING PLANT..............59

7.1 THE COLORADO RIVER SYSTEM .......................................................................................................597.2 MANAGEMENT OF SALINITY .............................................................................................................597.3 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ..........................................................................................................597.4 MINUTE 242 TO THE 1944 TREATY 1973 ...........................................................................................617.5 COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL ACT 1974......................................................................62

Yuma Desalting Plant ...................................................................................................................627.6 INSTITUTIONAL AND COST SHARING ARRANGEMENTS..........................................................................647.7 1995 AMENDMENTS OF THE SALINITY CONTROL ACT ..........................................................................65

Big Sandy River Unit.....................................................................................................................67Grand Valley Unit .........................................................................................................................67Lower Gunnison Basin Unit...........................................................................................................67McElmo Creek Unit.......................................................................................................................67Gravity pressure sprinkler systems and piped stock water delivery ..................................................67Land Retirement...........................................................................................................................68

7.8 RECLAMATION REFORM ACT OF 1982 --WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM ...........................................687.9 CURRENT SITUATION.......................................................................................................................69

References: .................................................................................................................................70


– iii –

MEMBERSHIP & STAFF

Chairman The Hon Pam Allan MP, Member for Wentworthville

Members Mr Jim Anderson MP, Member for Londonderry

Mr Peter Black MP, Member for Murray-Darling

Mr Kerry Hickey MP, Member for Cessnock

Mr Daryl Maguire MP, Member for Wagga Wagga

Mr Gerard Martin MP, Member for Bathurst

Mr Anthony McGrane MP, Member for Dubbo

Mr Donald Page MP, Member for Ballina

Staff Leslie Gönye, Committee Manager

Jim Jefferis, Committee Manager to Select Committees (from July 2002)

Christina Thomas, Project Officer

Roland Simpson, Project Officer

Chris Papadopoulos, Research Officer (to August 2002)

Cassandra Adams, Assistant Committee Officer

Contact Select Committee on SalinityParliament HouseMacquarie StreetSydney NSW 2000

Tel: 02 9230 3465Fax: 02 9230 3091E-mail: [email protected]


– iv –

TERMS OF REFERENCE

A select committee has been appointed to inquire and report with the following terms ofreference:

To examine:

(a) Business opportunities created by salinity that contribute to the improved management ofgroundwater recharge and discharge areas.

(b) The options for salinity management that are available to local councils, including but notlimited to, planning instruments, building codes, urban water management plans,differential rating, development of local council expertise and resource-sharing betweencouncils.

(c) Any barriers to adoption of salinity management strategies by local councils, and meansto overcome the barriers.

(d) The adequacy of the Commonwealth’s response and contribution to addressing salinity.

Report on the Study Tour of the USA and UK

– v –

FOREWORD

This report provides a public record of the study tour of the USA and UK undertaken by adelegation of the Committee from 9 – 26 May, 2002.

One purpose of the study tour was to gather information for the Committee’s inquiry into:

Business opportunities created by salinity that contribute to the improved management ofgroundwater recharge and discharge areas.

The delegation looked at business opportunities for recharge and discharge areas.

Recharge areas are the areas where rainfall, which is not used up by plants, enters thegroundwater system causing it to rise and bring salt to the surface. The challenge is to identifyways of supporting large-scale revegetation of catchments with perennial grasses and treeswhich will use up the annual rainfall. Most of the land in recharge areas in NSW is in privateownership as farms. Farmers can only convert to perennial grasses and trees if the incomethey receive from these plants is the same, or better than, the income they receive for thecurrent land uses.

There were three areas, which provide potential business opportunities, where the USA andUK are more advanced than Australia. These are:

• biomass for energy and transport fuels as a market for wood and perennial grasses(National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Colorado and Imperial ValleyResource Recovery Power Station, California);

• government programs which provide grants to farmers for land use change whichdelivers environmental benefits (Department of Environment, Farming and RuralAffairs, London and Marlborough Farm Lincoln);

• having accredited environmental management systems on farms which are becoming acondition of trade with supermarkets in Europe (Linking Environment and Farming andJ Sainsburys PLC, London).

Discharge areas are areas where saline water is close to the surface. The land in these areasis not productive. Saline water also corrodes and damages roads, houses and otherinfrastructure. Productive uses need to be found for saline land and water which will providefarmers with affected land with some income. Productive uses also need to be found for salinewater in salt interception schemes and saline water pumped from beneath affected countrytowns. Productive uses would off-set some of the costs of these expensive engineeringschemes. The delegation looked at the following business opportunities in discharge areas:

• advances in the disposal of saline agricultural drainage water in two irrigation areas(Red Rock Ranch and Tulare Lake Drainage District, California);

• productive uses of saline water including brine shrimp production and the production ofbiodiesel from microalgae (Tulare Lake Drainage District, California and NationalRenewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado);

• salt tolerant grasses being trialled as fodder for livestock (Red Rock Ranch and TulareLake Drainage District, California)


– vi –

The second purpose of the study tour was to look at the approach taken by the US FederalGovernment to managing salinity in the Colorado River. This relates to the Committee’s inquiryinto:

The adequacy of the Commonwealth’s response and contribution to addressing salinity.

This provides a comparison and contrast to how the Commonwealth Government managessalinity in Australia. The delegation was briefed on, and inspected, the Yuma Desalting Plantwhich is the world’s largest reverse osmosis membrane plant. The Committee was also briefedon the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program by David Trueman, Manager of theProgram.

This report is structured as outlined above. It is divided into the two terms of reference. Thematerial gathered on business opportunities is further divided into recharge and dischargebusiness opportunities.

A large number of useful reports were provided to the delegation at meetings. They providedbackground information and a level of detail which could not be covered in a meeting. Thisreport has been prepared using the notes of meetings as well as relevant material from all thedocumentation provided. Where further necessary clarification has also been sought with ourcontacts overseas. The Appendix includes an itinerary of the study tour and lists the agencieswith which, and individuals with whom, the delegation met.

This study tour would not have been possible without the hard work and generosity of manypeople who prepared presentations taking time out of their own schedules to do so. Thedelegation is indebted to many people but would particularly like to thank Larry Taylor, anassociate of NyPa International, for organising the inspections and briefings at Fresno andCorcoran and for his hospitality. The delegation would also like to thank Phillip Ashton ofAuborn Farming for organising the inspections and briefings in Lincoln and also for hishospitality.

The delegation would like to thank Helen Pike and Angela Lowrey of the Department ofForeign Affairs and Trade’s Los Angeles and San Fransciso posts for organising thedelegation’s appointments in the USA.

Lastly, we would like to thank the Committee’s Secretariat for research, executive support andorganising travel arrangements.

Mr Jim Anderson MP Mr Anthony McGrane OAM, MPMember for Londonderry Member for Dubbo


– vii –

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS SALINITY

♦ Part A: Business Opportunities on Recharge Sites

Biomass

Very large markets for wood and perennial grasses are required if Australia is to revegetatecatchments on a scale which can reduce salinity. Wood and grasses can be used to produceenergy in power stations and can also be used to produce methanol and ethanol which aretransport fuels. Energy and transport fuels are potential markets which are large enough tosustain revegetation on this scale. In the United States and UK there is a significantcommitment of resources by the governments to developing biomass.

In the USA, 350 biomass power plants have a combined capacity of around 8,000 MW. This isenough to power several million homes and supports 66,000 jobs. The USA expects to have13,000 MW of biomass power by 2010 and create 100,000 additional jobs. The USDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) has provided a total of $US150M to promote industrialconsumption of agricultural commodities by enhancing bioenergy production.

The Farm Bill passed by Congress in May 2002 refers to energy crops. Low interest loans,credits and incentives are being offered to farmers to bring down the capital costs ofestablishing switchgrass and other energy crops. This is in recognition of the risks ofestablishing a crop to supply an emerging market.

The US Government is encouraging power plants to cofire with biomass. Extensivedemonstrations have shown that biomass energy can provide up to 15% of the totalenergy input with only feed intake systems and burner modifications. The TennesseeValley Authority estimates that it will save $US1.5M per year by cofiring with biomass at itsColbert Plant.

The Alternative Motor Fuels Act 1988 requires an increasing percentage of USA governmentand private fleet vehicles from 1991 onwards to operate on alternative fuels, includingmethanol, starting in 1999. USDA also announced that government agency car fleets willincrease the use of biodiesel and ethanol fuels.

The State of California is rapidly expanding its ethanol production due to a phase out of MTBE,an octane-enhancing gasoline additive, which pollutes groundwater. Ethanol can be blendedwith gasoline to improve vehicle performance. In 2001, 44 ethanol companies with 57 facilitieswere producing 2 billion gallons per annum. Ethanol production will grow to 4-5 billion gallonsa year to replace MTBE. 13 new plants were under construction in 2001, with a further 33 inthe planning stages.

Ethanol costs $US1.20 – $US1.40 per gallon to produce. However, the Federal Governmentprovides a subsidy of $US0.50 per gallon for the reduction in carbon monoxide achieved bysubstitution of ethanol for petroleum. NREL manages the Biomass to Methanol Program. Thegoal of the program is to reduce the cost of methanol from biomass to $0.13 litre from itspresent estimated cost of $0.22 litre. At the reduced price it will be competitive with thewholesale price of gasoline from oil at $25 barrel.


– viii –

The development of biomass in the UK is in the early stages. However, what is noteworthy isthat the UK Government has set a mandatory target that 10% of the nation’s electricity will begenerated from renewable sources by 2010.

Similar commitments in Australia would provide the necessary impetus for the wide scalerevegetation of catchments with multiple environmental benefits including the reduction ofsalinity and greenhouse gases.

Of particular interest to the Committee, is the support being given by the US and UKgovernments to energy crops.

The NREL states that by 2020 30,000 MW of biomass power could be installed in the USA.About 60% of this fuel would come from more than 10 million acres of energy crops and theremainder from biomass residues. (Biopower Program Activities Overview)

In the Northeast USA, 20 corporations involved in industry, agriculture, government andresearch formed the Salix Corporation in 1994 to support the commercial development ofwillow trees. The Consortium aims to develop a reliable market for willow at a cost of less than$2M Btu by 2003. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation will cofire willow grown on 600 acresnear its Dunkirk Station. The energy input from biomass is expected to be 10 – 20% of thetotal.

The Chariton Valley Resource Conservation and Development, a consortium of public andprivate interests entered into an agreement with the Department of Energy in late 1996 to growswitchgrass on marginal land. Enough will be harvested to generate 35MW of power bycofiring with coal at the Alliant Energy Ottumwa Generating Station. This represents 5% of thepower plant’s capacity of 650MW. 200,000 tons of biomass will need to be harvested from40,000 to 50,000 acres of switchgrass. Farmers will receive around $US10 – $US20 per tonfor switchgrass. At $US10 per ton, assuming a yield of 2-3 tons per acre, farmers receive$US200 – $US300 per acre for growing switchgrass as an energy crop.

In the UK, the Department of Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) established theEnergy Crops Scheme in 2000. A total of £29M is available which must be spent by 2006. TheScheme provides establishment grants of:

• £1,000 or £1600 per hectare, depending on the land type, for establishing willow orpoplar for short rotation coppice; and

• £920 per hectare for miscanthus (perennial grass).

The Scheme also provides grants of up to 50% of the costs of establishing producer groups forshort rotation coppice.

One of the difficulties in the production of energy from biomass is the variable quality of theplant material (biomass feedstock). The quality of the feedstock affects the output of energy.The variable quality of the feedstock leads to fluctuations in power generation. Power plantsneed to make constant adjustments for this. However, currently it takes around two weeks toanalyse the quality of plant materials in a laboratory.

NREL is working on rapid biomass analysis through Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIR) whichproduces results in minutes rather than days. This means that milled feedstock could beanalysed on the conveyor belt in pre-treatment at the power plant and during the process offiring so that adjustments made instantly.


– ix –

The cost of analysis of the samples is around $US10 a sample compared with $US800 -$US1,000 for the wet analysis currently undertaken.

Environmental Services Schemes

Another way of bringing about wide scale revegetation on private land and improved on-farmmanagement practices is for the government to pay farmers for changed land uses whichdeliver positive environmental outcomes. The NSW Government has recently started a pilotprogram of this type. The Environmental Services Scheme is paying around 20 farmers forchanged land uses. The environmental outcomes from these projects will be closelymonitored. Schemes of this type have operated for many years in the USA and UK andAustralia can learn from them.

The UK ‘agri-environment schemes’ provide farmers with a payment for environmentalservices of benefit to the public. The services delivered under these schemes are creation andmaintenance of wildlife habitat, protection and restoration of heritage features, maintenanceand restoration of attractive landscapes and public access to farmland for recreation.

The schemes are voluntary and competitive. Farmers and non-farming land owners such aslocal authorities submit an application for a ten year agreement which is given a score. Thereis a different payment rate for each of the management options for each of the landscapetypes and features.

The UK has operated schemes of this type since 1985. Production subsidies under theEuropean Common Agricultural Policy are unsustainable and an increasing proportion of themoney is being diverted into agri-environment schemes. In 2001/2 the UK Government ismodulating 2.5% of direct payments into agri-environment schemes. This will rise to 4.5% by2006. This will increase the budget of the Countryside Stewardship Scheme from £66M to£126M and will double the number of agreements with landholders from 15,000 currently to30,000 in 2006/7.

The Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming in January 2002 released itsreport Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future which includes a review of the UK agri-environment model. It advocates that agri-environment schemes be significantly expanded butnot in their current form.

The two problems with the UK’s current approach are that:

1. it is administratively costly; and

2. unsuited to addressing broader environmental issues such as water quality.

Their critique is instructive for the NSW Government which appears to be embarking on amodel which is also tailored and focuses on high priority areas identified in CatchmentManagement Blueprints, in much the same way that the Countryside Stewardship Schemefocuses on county targets.

The Policy Commission has recommended what is being referred to as a ‘broad and shallow’scheme. This proposal would bring together environmental audits for all farms in Britain withagri-environment schemes. The aim of the model is to ensure that all farmers across Britainmeet minimum levels of natural resource protection and conservation required by existing andforthcoming legislation, as a foundation which can be built upon. Farms which meet the basiclevel would be eligible for a more basic stewardship scheme with a simpler range of options


– x –

and a flatter range of payments. The current schemes would be retained as an advanced levelof stewardship.

The Policy Commission recommends that the UK Government urges the European Union totransfer further resources from direct subsidies to agri-environment schemes. It alsorecommends that the UK Government diverts the maximum amount of production subsidiesinto these schemes. This would require the UK Government to find resources to matchCommon Market payments by 50%.

Environmental Management Systems

Australian state and Commonwealth governments are examining Environmental ManagementSystems (EMS) as a possible approach to addressing environmental problems at farm level.EMS provide a structured approach to addressing environmental problems which can beindependently audited. It may be possible to link EMS to market based incentives.

In theory, EMS can be a business opportunity through:

• market access;

• product differentiation; and

• premium prices.

EMS can also be a requirement of entry into schemes where the government pays farmers todeliver environmental services.

Product differentiation is assisted by the use of eco-labels such as logos which consumers canidentify. The Natural Resource Management Standing Committee’s Discussion Paper saysthat an eco-label is:

… designed to enable products to be differentiated as more environmentally friendly thanother similar products. If such an eco-label is to maintain market credibility, it needs aprocess that validates the claims made – a certified and audited EMS could provide thatassurance.(p 31).

As a consequence of food safety scares in Europe, many European supermarkets requirefarmers and organisations in their fresh produce supply chain to implement the EUREPprotocol for good agricultural practice (an EMS). Farmers who do not choose to implement theprotocol cannot do business with the supermarkets. Implementation of EMS, is therefore, acondition of access into that part of the market.

In theory, it is possible to obtain premium prices for goods which carry an ‘eco-label’. However,in the UK farmers are not receiving higher prices from supermarkets for implementing an EMS.This means that they are having to absorb the costs of implementing EMS on their properties.

The lack of premium prices and absorption of costs is a contentious matter. There has beensome concern by farmers, environmentalists and others that supermarkets are using theirmarket position unfairly.

Sainsbury’s supermarket confirmed that they do not pay farmers premium prices for complyingwith EMS and that compliance is costly. Sainsbury’s, however, argues that they are expectingno more than a good grower should do and that the implementation of their protocols is a duediligence exercise (Denise Lovett, notes of meeting). Sainsbury’s prefers to buy British and


– xi –

argues that by doing so it is already paying premium prices. Since British farmers cannotcompete with the cheaper prices offered by developing countries turning to intensiveagriculture, British farmers must compete on quality and environmental criteria if they expectSainsbury’s to continue to source products from them.

The experience in the UK suggests that there can be difficulties if EMS is left entirely to themarket because of the strong market position of supermarkets relative to farmers. Somedegree of government intervention in an umpire role may be necessary to ensure that ifsupermarkets receive premium prices some of the benefits do flow back to farmers. Thegovernment may also need to ensure that farmers are not expected to absorb costs beyondthose consistent with a basic environmental duty of care. An alternative approach may be forfarmers to form growers groups to negotiate with supermarkets.

Whilst in the UK, the delegation examined another possible model of EMS, the LinkingEnvironment and Farming (LEAF) program. LEAF is a non-government organisation which hasbeen established for ten years and adoption of its Integrated Farm Management (IFM) systemis entirely voluntary.

In 2001, LEAF represented over 2000 members, including farmers managing over 708 000hectares, key companies in the food and farming sector and a number of leadingenvironmental organisations. They all believe that IFM is the best way of helping farmersmaintain the competitiveness of their businesses whilst protecting and enhancing theenvironment in the production of safe food and fibre and countryside management.

LEAF combines the best of traditional farming practices such as crop rotations and soilmanagement with modern technology such as precision agriculture and detailed soil nutrientanalysis. Some of the practices encouraged are the use of plant varieties suited to the localarea and the use of a diverse range of plants to increase biodiversity and healthy croprotations to build up soil reserves. LEAF produces a number of decision-making and audittools to assist farmers to adopt the system.

LEAF has set up 29 demonstration farms across the UK to show farmers and other interestedpeople how IFM works. The delegation inspected Marlborough Farm near Lincoln whichproduces combinable crops and peas for frozen peas.

LEAF and the LEAF Audit are being adopted as industry standards. In 1997 it was adopted byBirds Eye Walls which now requires farmers to complete it as part of the UnileverSustainability Commitment. It has formed the basis for much of the self-assessmentdocuments for several retailers and for many farm assurance schemes, including AssuredProduce and Assured Combinable Crops Scheme.

LEAF farmers already comply with most of the requirements for crop protocols of the leadingsupermarkets and for international standards.

♦ Part B: Business Opportunities On Discharge Sites

Engineering Works for Irrigated Farming

The delegation was impressed with work by Red Rock Ranch owner John Diener inrehabilitating saline land on his property and putting in place a system which uses up all theirrigation drainage water on-site. Mr Diener is growing vegetables on land which waspreviously incapable of producing more than one and a half bales of cotton per acre and onwhich no wheat would grow because of salination of the soil due to lack of drainage.


– xii –

This is a system of managing saline agricultural drainage water which uses it as a resourcerather than as waste. It is an example of an opportunity to make a profit from salinised landwhilst reclaiming that land and protecting wildlife (because some saline water in Californiacontains selenium which is toxic to migratory water fowl).

The agricultural drainage water is collected and reused for irrigation repeatedly. Thisdecreases the amount of drainage water which must be disposed of. As the volume decreasesthe salinity level in the water increases. The farm is divided into four salinity zones. Threezones contain traditional salt sensitive crops and are irrigated with fresh water. The fourthzone is divided into three parts which are watered with saline drainage effluent. The first partcontains moderately salt tolerant plants, the second part contains halophytes (salt lovingplants) and the last part is a solar evaporator to produce sodium sulfate.

Mr Diener is making a profit and no saline drainage water is discharged from his farm. Thefinal report on his project states that:

The investment of $606 [USD] per acre has increased the land value by $1,656 [USD] peracre and the crop net return by $181 - $378 [USD] per acre per year. The salt will also bemarketed in the future. Finally, the farmer manages salt and drainage water on his farm,thus avoiding environmental expenses for the taxpayers of California (Vashek et al, p31).

The delegation also inspected the Tulare Lake Drainage District which is experimenting withthe design of tile drains to reduce soil salinity levels and drainage water output.

In the 1970’s, it was thought that 10 foot-deep tile drains were needed to remove saline waterfrom the root zone of plants. These drains were placed 400 feet apart when installed eight toten feet deep. The District has been experimenting with shallower and closer spaced drainagesystems by placing the drains 4 foot- deep at 100 feet spacing. This has reduced drainagewater output from ½ acre- foot to ¼ acre- foot reducing the need for evaporation basins.

Over a decade there was a 10% reduction in soil salinity with the use of 10 foot -deep drainsbut with the new drainage system there has been a reduction of 40% in one year.

Salt Tolerant Plants

The delegation was interested in the range of salt tolerant grasses and halophytes which arebeing trialed in California. The delegation inspected a trial at Red Rock Ranch near Fresnoand in the Tulare Lake Drainage District near Corcoran. A secondary purpose of the trials is toevaluate the forage quality of the grasses. Australia needs a range of salt tolerantcommercially viable crops to provide farmers with salinised land with an income stream.

Research by Dr Benes, from the Department of Plant Science at California State UniversityFresno, into a range of salt tolerant grasses concludes that Bermuda Grass has the highestforage quality The protein level of Bermuda Grass is greater than that of alfalfa (called lucernein Australia) grown in non-saline conditions and close to that of fescue, grown in non-salineconditions.

Three halophytes were trialled: salicornia, saltbush and saltgrass (NyPa Forage). The foragequality of all three halophytes trialled was found to be low. However, since this study tour, theCommittee has been advised by NyPa Australia, which hold the breeder’s rights to Saltgrass(NyPa Forage) that good forage quality is being achieved in trials in Western Australia,where an application of fertilizer has been used. The trials are on saline waterlogged land.

Profitable Uses of Saline Water


– xiii –

Since 1998, the Tulare Lake Drainage District has contracted Novalek Inc to harvest brineshrimp in its South Evaporation Basin, which has the highest levels of salinity. The brineshrimp is harvested and dried for use as fish food in aquariums.

Another possible productive use of saline water is growing microalgae. High oil producingalgae can be used to produce biodiesel, a chemically modified natural oil which performs inmotor vehicles as well as diesel. Biodiesel produced from rapeseed oil is a substantialcommercial enterprise in Europe.

Between 1978 and 1996, NREL, had a small research program to develop renewabletransport fuels from algae. The staff of NREL alerted the delegation to this research because itis a potential business opportunity that makes productive use of greenhouse gas from powerstations and saline water.

The Report on the research states that: microalgae are capable of producing 30 times theamount of oil per unit area of land, compared to terrestrial oilseed crops. (NREL, p3) Microalgaeare found in marine and freshwater environments.

Algae production is not competitive with the costs of petroleum diesel, even factoring in $US50per ton of CO2 as a carbon credit. However, it is competitive with other sources of biodieselsuch as from soybean oil. In 1997 crude soybean oil prices were $US2.25 - $US3.25/gal.versus lipids from algae at $US1.4/gallon (unextracted).(Kiran L. Kadam, 1997, Power Plant Flue Gas asa source of CO2 for microalgae cultivation: economic impact of different process options’ in Energy Conversion

Management, Vol 38 pS510.) Algal production would require a subsidy as an environmental service.

The NREL report also states that the genetic engineering tools established in the program area strong foundation for development of algae which produces more oil. The reseachers believethis development would be rapid. There are also opportunities to increase the photosyntheticefficiency of algae.

♦ Part C: Commonwealth Government Approach to Addressing Salinity:International Comparison

The Colorado River System is the Murray Darling Basin of the USA. It is the most regulatedand controversial river with fierce competition for the use of water. Like the Murray DarlingBasin, it is affected by secondary salinity with irrigated agriculture being a major cause. Of thesecondary salinity in the river in 2001, 37% was caused by irrigation, 12% by reservoirevaporation and 4% by municipal and industrial activities.

In 1973, Mexico and the USA agreed on targets for the quality of water crossing into Mexico.This is the equivalent of the salinity target at Morgan on the Murray River in South Australia.

In 1974, Congress passed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act It authorised anumber of engineering projects to reduce salinity. Title 1 projects ensure that the USA meetsits water quality obligations to Mexico. Title 2 projects apply to areas upstream of Imperial Damand address point sources of salinity to prevent the salt entering the river.

The Yuma Desalting Plant was the most controversial of the Title 1 projects. It was establishedto desalinate agricultural drainage water from 60,000 acres of irrigated farmland in the WelltonMohawk Division of the Gila Irrigation and Drainage Project. The Plant cost $US252M incapital costs and operating costs were projected to be more than $20M per year. Critics saidthat it would be cheaper to buy out the irrigation district or retire the saltiest farmland. In manyways, the Plant was a social and political settlement, rather than an economic decision.


– xiv –

Operating the plant is costly and the US Government are hoping to find cheaper alternativeswhich meet the water quality target with Mexico.

The Act of 1974 established the Colorado River Salinity Control Program. It authorisedtechnical investigations, planning and implementation of major projects to prevent salinity frompoint sources from entering the river system. These projects took place in designated areascalled Salinity Control Units. An important feature of the Act is that it required the Bureau ofReclamation to give priority to projects which remove the most salt for the least cost.

Like the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality in Australia, the Program is jointlyfunded by the Federal and State Governments. In Australia, however, the funding is matched50:50. In the USA, the seven Basin states contribute 30% of the funding for the SalinityControl Program and the Federal Government provides 70%.

Of the 30% States funding, Upper Basin States contribute 15% and the Lower Basin Statescontribute 85%. By law, the State share is collected as a surcharge on the cost of powerproduced at certain federally owned (Bureau of Reclamation) hydropower dams along theColorado River. The Federal share comes from federal income taxes allocated by Congress.The Program Manager, of the Salinity Control Program manages these funds in consultationwith the Salinity Control Forum

The Salinity Control Forum is a State's only organization formed by their governors. Like theMurray Darling Basin Ministerial Council, it is very much a political organization. Each of theseven Basin States has up to three members (typically head of water resources, head of waterpollution, and lawyer).

The Program’s Manager informed the delegation that since February 1996 there has been anannual competitive process for projects called ‘Requests for Proposals’ (RFPs). Privatecompanies bid for $US2M – $US10M projects. Projects are ranked according to the cost perton of salt removed but are now also examined for risks. Both financial and effectiveness risksare examined and a decision made on the trade-offs between costs and risks.

A major difficulty with the previous program was that the Federal Government bore theresponsibility and costs if a project was more expensive or less successful than anticipated.

An important part of the new approach is that proponents, rather than the FederalGovernment, bear the risk of cost over-runs through contractual limits on the Government’spayments.

The Salinity Control Program has developed a basin-wide approach which is also theapproach adopted in Australia.

Another important improvement in salinity control is the integration of on-farm projects underthe USDA programs with the off-farm approach by the Bureau of Reclamation. ProgressReport No 20 on the Quality of Water in the Colorado River Basin (January 2001) says:

Water conservation within irrigation projects on saline soils is the single most effectivesalinity control measure found in the past 30 years of investigations (p42)-

Gravity pressure sprinkler systems use the pressure of water coming down the mountains. It iscaptured in piped delivery systems which drive the sprinklers. This is much more efficient thanflood irrigation. In terms of the amount of salinity avoided, these projects in steep terrain are athird of the cost of continuing flood irrigation systems, costing less than $100 per to of salt


– xv –

removed. It is also cheaper to install piped delivery systems for stock water than continuing theuse of unlined canals which mobilise salts in the soil.

David Trueman, Manager of the Salinity Control Program, said that the integration of theseprograms was a key reason for the reduction in the cost of projects. Past projects averaged$70 per ton of salt removed whereas the new projects are averaging $20 – $35 per ton.

A limitation with this approach, however, is that farmers do not have an incentive to reducetheir water consumption. Many farmers are interested in selling their water rights and areconcerned that they will lose their rights to the water saved through efficiencies. Through theCouncil of Australian Governments Australia has been addressing water pricing and waterrights. The USA is also on the threshold of addressing these issues.

PART A

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES ON RECHARGE SITES

Report on Overseas Study Tour to USA and UK

Page 1

1 BIOMASS

1.1 REVEGETATION: THE NEED FOR LARGE MARKETS FOR WOOD

CSIRO Land and Water, in the report A Revolution in Land Use believes that salinity can onlybe addressed through extensive tree planting to bring leakage of rainwater below the rootzone of plants back to levels similar to that of the native vegetation. Extensive tree planting inlow rainfall (400 – 700mm) areas is seen as potentially the most effective way of addressingsalinity. The report points to the lack of markets of sufficient size and value for these productsas the major obstacle to tree planting.

The size of the markets needed are very large. John Bartle (Western Australia oil malleeproject), in his presentation to the Select Committee on Salinity, said that if it was possible forWestern Australia to invest $4 billion into oil mallee, and capture half the global activatedcarbon market, this would support revegetation of just 6% of the wheatbelt. It has beenestimated that up to 40% of the wheatbelt may need to be revegetated to even slow down therate of salinity. The real figure may be less but it would still require enormous markets forwood.

Energy and transport fuels are potentially markets large enough to support significantrevegetation. However, there would need to be a very significant commitment by governmentsto replacing the use of fossil fuels with biomass over a period of time. This would be on a‘nation building’ level. Production of trees for biomass would also have to be commerciallyviable for farmers. This would probably mean extracting products with higher value from thewood and having biomass as a secondary income stream.

1.2 BENEFITS OF USING BIOMASS

The use of biomass for energy and transport fuels has multiple advantages:

• Reducing salinity;

• Energy generated from biomass does not add to greenhouse gas levels;

• If biomass power displaced 1000 megawatts of electricity from coal-fired power stationsnet carbon dioxide emissions would fall by 7.4M tonnes a year nationally;

• Increasing energy security (ie less reliant on imports);

• Biomass residue contains no sulfur (cause of acid rain);

• The ash left is non-toxic and can be used as a soil conditioner;

• One of the lowest cost renewable energy sources;

• Trees planted for energy crops also reduce erosion and increase biodiversity;

• Waste wood can also be used in power plants reducing land fill and burning off;

• It would create regional jobs in construction, production harvesting and transportation ofthe fuel because growth in electricity demand can be better matched by small biomass


Page 2

plants than a centralised power station. The capital requirements of small plants areless, the need for transmission lines is reduced and so are electricity losses intransmission; and

• It produces valuable co-products such as resins, fertilisers and activated carbon whichcan improve the economic attractiveness of biomass (NREL, Biopower Fact Sheets,2001, Bioenergy Australia, Biomass Energy and Products, June 2000).

Currently biomass is less energy efficient and more costly than fossil fuels but the USA isworking on technological advances which may make biomass more competitive. Ultimately, asfossil fuel deposits decline and extraction becomes more expensive, biomass will becomecompetitive.

Barriers to the wider scale use of biomass energy are:

• competition with low cost natural gas;

• The need to develop dedicated energy crops; and

• concern that lack of energy crop diversity could make soil less fertile (NREL Facts,December 1998).

1.3 POLICY ON BIOMASS FOR ENERGY AND TRANSPORT FUELS IN THE USA

The USA has a high level commitment to the use of biomass for energy. 350 biomass powerplants have a combined capacity of around 8,000 MW. This is enough to power several millionhomes and supports 66,000 jobs. The USA expects to have 13,000 MW of biomass power by2010 and create an additional 100,000 jobs.

The electricity capacity of the largest biomass plants is around 80 MW. (By comparisonBayswater coal-fired power station in NSW produces 2,000 MW. Nevertheless, the scaling upof power plants in the USA is seen as significant).

Under the Bush Administration’s National Energy Policy there is a major push on non-depletable sources of energy including biomass because they:

…are domestically abundant and often have less impact on the environment thanconventional sources. They can provide a reliable source of energy at a stable price andthey can also generate income for farmers, land owners, and others who harness them”(website Special Feature: National Energy Policy Promotes Bioenergy and Biobasedproducts through biomass initiative)

♦ The National Energy Policy

The Biomass Initiative is a multi-agency effort to coordinate and accelerate all Federal bio-based products and bioenergy research and development. The Initiative is coordinatedthrough The Biomass Board, a cabinet level council chaired by the Department of Energy(DoE), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Advisory Committeecomprising 25 individuals from industry, academia, non-profits, the agricultural and forestrysectors.

The Initiative is managed by the National Coordination Office staffed by both DoE and USDA.

In 2000, a Biomass Research and Development Act was passed.


Page 3

Executive Order 13134 – Developing and Promoting Biobased Products and Bioenergy wasissued in August 1999 with an Executive Memorandum. Under this Order, a program wascommenced in 2000 by USDA to promote industrial consumption of agricultural commoditiesby enhancing bioenergy production. Bioenergy Program payments to a total of $150M aremade to commercial bioenergy producers in the USA that increase their bioenergy productionfrom eligible commodities between 1 October 2001 and 30 September 2002. Eligiblecommodities include short rotation trees.

The National Energy Policy has three parts: policy, market and outreach and technology.

Policy

• Reevaluating access to Federal lands to increase biomass production and looking atbetter use of forest thinnings;

• Considering expanding tax credits for electricity from biomass and consideringexpanding eligible biomass sources.

Market and Outreach

Activities to create a dialogue and expand working partnerships among industry stakeholdersand consumers of biomass products, fuels and powers. These groups will be educated aboutthe use of biomass technologies and the economic, environmental and national securitybenefits of these technologies.

Technology

The National Energy Policy supports expanded ethanol production and clean, efficient,affordable energy production. There are three research and development programs in place:

• A biofuels program focused on advanced ethanol production technology and feedstocksupply and collection systems;

• A biopower program focused on conversion of woody crops, agricultural residues, andother biomass feedstocks to electrical power. This includes R&D in co-firing,gasification and small modular systems designed to increase efficiency and competewith conventional systems; and

• A bioindustries program focused on conversion and processing of agricultural residuesto replace chemical and petrochemical feedstocks in industrial and consumer products.

1.4 THE NATIONAL RENEWABLE ENERGY LABORATORY (NREL)

This is the US Department of Energy’s premier laboratory for renewable energy research anddevelopment. Its mission is:

..to lead the nation toward a sustainable energy future by developing renewable energytechnologies, improving energy efficiency, advancing related science and engineering andfacilitating commercialization (NREL Facts- National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

NREL’s funding for 1998 was $US181M, 97% of which is provided by the Department ofEnergy. It has around 800 employees in eight facilities. Its programs include:

• basic energy research


Page 4

• photovoltaics

• wind energy

• advanced vehicle technologies

• biofuels

• biomass electric fuels utilization

• building technologies

• solar thermal electric

• hydrogen

• geothermal power and

• superconductivity

NREL works in partnership with industry. In 1998 it awarded $US113 in subcontracts andprocurements. It also uses Cooperative Research and Development Agreements to bringpromising technologies to the marketplace. In 1998, it had implemented 62 Agreements towhich it contributed $US27.3M, with industry partners contributing an additional $US67.7M.

The goal of NREL’s biomass power research program is to increase the use and efficiency ofbiomass power by:

• Increasing the variety of biomass resources power plants can use;

• Developing advanced technologies and equipment to increase the amount of biomassconverted to electricity;

• Developing technologies to keep boilers clean and running efficiently; and

• Conducting feasibility studies for different feedstock materials and monitoringdemonstration projects.

1.5 RELEVANT US DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECTS

NREL is helping industry to improve direct combustion technology but is also developingnewer technologies such as gasification and pyrolisis which are more efficient and use a widerassortment of biomass feedstocks. Another significant aspect of work in the USA is that thesize of biomass power stations are being progressively scaled up.

♦ Gasification

The world’s first demonstration biomass gasifier is operating at Burlington, Vermont generating8 MW from high quality fuel gas. Gas is produced from biomass feedstock and cleaned. Thegas can be used directly in unmodified gas turbines.

The Gasifier has three technological advances which reduce the capital and operating costs:


Page 5

• the gasification process uses steam instead of pure oxygen;

• it processes biomass much more quickly so that smaller equipment can be used for agiven amount of biomass; and

• it operates under low pressure.

The project aims to verify the design and operating characteristics of this intermediate sizeplant. The information will be used in the building of a commercial size gasifier. It will enablegeneration efficiencies nearly double those of today’s biopower industry.

The partners in the project are the US Department of Energy, Battelle, NREL, and FutureEnergy Resources Corporation. The gasifier is on the site of the Burlington ElectricDepartment’s Joseph C McNeil wood-powered electric generating facility.

(NREL Biopower Factsheets, June 2000, Project Update: The Vermont Gasifier; A BiopowerTriumph- The Gasification Story; Biomass Cofiring: A Renewable Alternative for Utilities)

NREL says that a consortium of five national laboratories indicates that if fully adopted, thistechnology could generate 40,000 GWh of electricity in the forest products industry alone whileavoiding 14 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year. By the year 2010, biomass gasifiersare projected to displace 14 trillion Btu of energy, saving $US2M in energy costs and reducingcarbon emissions by 0.24 m metric tonnes (website, ‘A Decade of Success’).

♦ Biomass Power Systems for Rural Areas

In 1998, NREL and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico began 10 projects to developsmall modular biomass power systems. These systems can supply electricity to villages andheat and electricity for industry.

Instead of using one large coal-fired power station where there is considerable loss of power intransmission, small power stations can be built close to where the consumers use theelectricity.

Small biomass power stations could be used to provide heat and electricity for regionalindustries providing regional jobs and paying local farmers to grow energy crops. NREL statesthat both applications have large potential markets in the USA and overseas.

The Project has three phases:

• studies of the feasibility of producing cost-effective technologies and identifyingpotential markets;

• developing prototype systems; and

• developing integrated systems.

Phase one is complete. Four systems of up to 100KW were examined for use in residential,institutional villages; Two systems of between 100 – 500 KW were examined for villages andindustries. Five systems of up to 100KW were examined as mini-grids for use in industries.

The feasibility studies addressed:

• system capacity (up to 5 MW);


Page 6

• load following ability;

• system fuel consumption;

• fuel flexibility;

• number of operators and required training;

• life cycle costs;

• environmental impacts (feedstock related issues, air, water and solid emissions);

• safety;

• load profile (proposed hours of operation etc);

• proposed fuel (including availability);

• system transportability;

• maintenance schedules and costs;

• water consumption; and

• capability for remote monitoring of unit performance and maintenance intervals.

Phase two has now commenced. Tenders have been awarded to:

• the Community Power Corporation Colorado to trial a 5-25KW gasifier system in thePhillipines, Alaska and Denver;

• External Power, Indiana to trial a combustor in North America and Europe. The trialinvolves 36 preproduction systems and 72 production prototypes; and

• Flex Energy, California to trial a 30KW FlexMicroturbine using to produce gas fromlandfill.

(NREL Biopower Factsheet, June 2000, Small Modular Biopower Systems and BiomassPower for Rural Development)

♦ Cofiring

Cofiring means that some of the coal used to fire boilers can be substituted with wood or otherbiomass feedstock.

During the 1990’s electric utilities across the USA conducted biomass cofiring demonstrations.In 2000, five power plants were regularly cofiring with coal and five more plants were planningtests.

The ten years of research have produced extensive technical and economic data on cofiring. Ithas been proven that all boiler types commonly used by electric utilities are suitable. NRELstates that there is little or no loss of boiler efficiency after adjusting combustion output for the


Page 7

new fuel mix. Extensive demonstrations have shown that biomass energy can provide up to15% of the total energy input with only feed intake systems and burner modifications.

Fuel supply is the most important cost factor. The power station must be close to the fuelsupply and to industries that handle and dispose of wood. Costs can increase significantly ifthe wood needs to be dried, size reduced or if the boiler requires a separate feeder. NRELstates that the cost of biomass fuels must be equal to, or less than, the cost of coal per unit ofheat for cofiring to be economically successful. The Tennessee Valley Authority estimates thatit will save $US1.5M per year by cofiring with biomass at its Colbert Plant.

The Department of Energy is close to resolving a number of technical issues about fuel feed,boiler chemistry and ash deposition and disposal. It is working to have the US Standard foruse of fly ash in portland cement changed to allow cofiring ash to be used.

As most power plants in the USA are coal fired there is ample opportunity for cofiring. Cofiringwith 15% biomass reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 18% and also reduces sulfurous gasemissions. If waste wood is used it also reduces land fill.

NREL suggests that cofiring be included in “green pricing” where consumers elect to pay ahigher price for renewable energy.

(NREL, Biopower Factsheet, June 2000, Biomass Cofiring: A Renewable Energy Alternativefor Utilities)

1.6 ENERGY CROPS

Until recently the biomass for power stations have been waste wood from forestry oragriculture that would otherwise have gone into landfill. In the future, an increasing proportionof biomass feedstock in the USA and UK will be purpose grown energy crops. Energy cropsare fast growing perennial grasses and trees.

The NREL states that by 2020 30,000 MW of biomass power could be installed in the USA.About 60% of this fuel would come from more than 10 million acres of energy crops and theremainder from biomass residues. (Biopower Program Activities Overview)

The Department of Energy began its research on energy crops in 1978. The research is led bythe Oak Ridge National Laboratory through its Bioenergy Feedstock Development Program.30 universities, 5 US Department of Agriculture research units and many private industries andbusinesses are also involved. Private firms often provide significant financial support forresearch. More than 125 plants were screened and the most promising have been developedas energy crops. The program aims to have 5.5 million acres of purpose grown energy cropsby 2020.

NREL managed 10 cost-shared feasibility studies conducted by industry partners on usingdifferent energy crops to produce electricity. NREL then sought industry partners interested inconducting demonstration projects with these energy crops.

Two such projects are the commercial development of willow and switchgrass as feedstock forcofiring with coal.

Energy crops need to be developed to suit the climate and soils of the region that supply them.These crops may not necessarily be suitable for Australia but provide an important example ofhow suitable plants can be commercially developed. Oil mallee (Eucalypt) has been developed


Page 8

in Western Australia and the Committee has been informed that there are hundreds of othermallee eucalypts which could be suitable for different regions of Australia.

Willow Trees

In the Northeast USA, 20 corporations involved in industry, agriculture, government andresearch formed the Salix Corporation in 1994 to support the commercial development ofwillow trees. The trees have been developed through genetic engineering to maximize growthand pest resistance. The trees can be coppiced every three years for biomass.

The Consortium aims to develop a reliable market for willow at a cost of less than $2M Btu by2003. It will demonstrate the environmental and economic benefits of cofiring with willow.Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation will cofire willow grown on 600 acres near its DunkirkStation. The energy input from biomass is expected to be 10 – 20% of the total. Other powercompanies are also interested in participating.

During 1999:

• 300 acres of willow were planted near Dunkirk Station and another 34 acres in centralNew York State;

• work was almost complete on retrofitting Dunkirk Station to cofire with willow;

• more than 1.5M willow cuttings were produced at the State University of New York;

• two willow planting devices were modified and tested at Cornell Unversity and used intest planting on 200 acres; and

• the campaign to create a successful market environment was expanded.

(NREL, Biopower Factsheet, June 2000, Project Update: Salix Consortium)

NREL states that: Projections indicate that such willow crops could be competitive with coal forproducing energy without government subsidies (NREL, Bipower Factsheet, June 2000,Biomass Power for Rural Development).

Switchgrass

Switchgrass is a deep-rooted, perennial grass native to the Great Plains in the Midwest USA.It grows 8-10 feet per year (pers comment NREL staff). It is primarily used for erosion controland as forage in summer. It is grown on dryland. It takes 4 – 5 years to establish a stand ofSwitchgrass. It can then be harvested every other year for several years before it must bereplanted. It can be used in rotation to improve the soil before planting other crops. It is nowbeing developed into an energy cash crop.

The Chariton Valley Resource Conservation and Development, a consortium of public andprivate interests entered into an agreement with the Department of Energy in late 1996. Theproject will grow switchgrass on marginal land. Enough will be harvested to generate 35MW ofpower by cofiring with coal at the Alliant Energy Ottumwa Generating Station. This represents5% of the power plant’s capacity of 650MW. 200,000 tons of biomass will need to beharvested from 40,000 to 50,000 acres of switchgrass.


Page 9

Farmers will receive around $US10 – $US20 per ton for switchgrass. At $US10 per ton,assuming a yield of 2-3 tons per acre, farmers receive $US200 – $US300 per acre for growingswitchgrass as an energy crop.

The Farm Bill passed by Congress in May 2002 refers to energy crops. Low interest loans,credits and incentives are being offered to farmers to bring down the capital costs ofestablishing switchgrass and other energy crops. This is in recognition of the risks ofestablishing a crop to supply an emerging market.

The Chariton Valley Project will demonstrate the use of switchgrass in gasification for cofiringapplications and use in fuel cells.

The switchgrass will also be grown to protect water quality in Lake Rathbun, South Iowa,which provides drinking water to 18 counties and 21 cities.

In 1999, a growers’ cooperative was established and 4,000 acres of Conservation ReserveProgram land was committed (This scheme is similar to the Environmental Services Schemebeing established in NSW but is much larger).

In 2000, modifications were made to the Ottumwa Generating Station to allow the cofiring ofswitchgrass with coal.

The following were planned for late 2000:

• the first tests of cofiring with switchgrass using 4,000 tons;

• development and application of agronomic practices to optimize the yield and fuelquality of switchgrass for fuel;

• helping cooperating farmers establish and manage the switchgrass;

• measuring the environmental benefits to water quality, soil erosion, wildlife habitiat andcarbon sequestration;

• researching and developing switchgrass gasification processes with Iowa StateUniversity and the Iowa Energy Center; and

• Informing and educating the public about the benefits of producing and usingswitchgrass as a source of renewable energy;

(NREL, June 2000, Biopower Factsheet, Project Update: Chariton Valley)

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory of the Department of Energy and USDA have a researchproject which aims to double the productivity of switchgrass.

♦ Rapid Biomass Analysis

One of the difficulties in the production of energy from biomass is the variable quality of theplant material (biomass feedstock). The quality of the feedstock affects the output of energy.The variable quality of the feedstock leads to fluctuations in power generation. Power plantsneed to make constant adjustments for this. However, currently it takes around two weeks toanalyse the quality of plant materials in a laboratory.


Page 10

NREL is working on rapid biomass analysis through Near Infrared Spectroscopy (NIR) whichproduces results in minutes rather than days. This means that milled feedstock could beanalysed on the conveyor belt in pre-treatment at the power plant and during the process offiring so that adjustments made instantly.

The cost of analysis of the samples is around $US10 a sample compared with $US800 -$US1,000 for the wet analysis currently undertaken.

The spectroscopic instruments will be available commercially for industrial use. There is abenchtop version being used by the USDA and also a field mobile NIR spectrometer whichruns on a battery pack. The instruments produce data on the following content of thefeedstock:

• carbohydrates;

• lignin;

• protein;

• moisture;

• cell mass;

• ethanol;

• other products;

• heating value; and

• ethanol production capacity.

It also means that the purchase base for the feedstock could be value not weight which wouldimprove the economics of biomass power plants. The low cost of sampling means that it willbe possible to analyse hundreds of samples of feedstock for suitability. Furthermore thespectroscope can be used to analyse living plants to work out which plants are most suitable,what parts of plants to use and when to harvest. The spectroscope does not damage plants.

42 laboratories in 26 countries are currently validating the NIR Spectroscopic methods.

1.7 BIOFUELS

Biofuels produced from plants are a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels which produce airpollution. In the USA, vehicle emissions account for 60% of urban air pollution. Biofuelsinclude: methanol, ethanol and biodiesel.

Security of resources is a major issue for the USA which is driving biofuels development. Thecost of placing defence personnel in the Middle East to safeguard petroluem supply can beviewed as a petroleum subsidy. The USA also wants to ensure that it has a strong bargainingposition if the cost of oil rises sharply. This means being able to switch to renewable energysources if the cost of oil rises to $US30 – $US40 a barrel.


Page 11

♦ Biofuels policy in the USA

The Alternative Motor Fuels Act 1988 requires an increasing percentage of USA governmentand private fleet vehicles from 1991 onwards to operate on alternative fuels, includingmethanol, starting in 1999. USDA also announced that government agency car fleets willincrease the use of biodiesel and ethanol fuels. Secretary Ann M Veneman stated:

Agriculture can help us solve our energy problems through the production of domestic liquidfuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel. Renewable energy is good for independence, good forfarmers and good for the environment.

The State of California is rapidly expanding its ethanol production due to a phase out of MTBEan octane-enhancing gasoline additive which pollutes groundwater. Ethanol can be blendedwith gasoline to improve vehicle performance. In 2001, 44 ethanol companies with 57 facilitieswere producing 2 billion gallons per annum. Ethanol production will grow to 4-5 billion gallonsa year to replace MTBE. 13 new plants were under construction in 2001, with a further 33 inthe planning stages. (www.bioproducts-bioenergy.gov/new.html, 14 February 2002)

Ethanol costs $1.20 – 1.40 per gallon to produce. However, the Federal Government providesa subsidy of 50c per gallon for the reduction in carbon monoxide achieved by substitution ofethanol for petroleum.

♦ Biofuels research

Ethanol

NREL aims to produce ethanol at costs competitive with gasoline by:

• developing technologies that improve process efficiency;

• taking advantage of cheap feedstock materials; and

• converting a greater percentage of biomass into ethanol.

Some of the accomplishments of the program are:

• increasing ethanol yield from corn stover;

• genetically engineering a microorganism that increases the amount of biomass materialconverted to ethanol by an additional 30%;

• analysis and development of a wide range of feedstock materials; and

• the development of Simultaneous Saccharification and Fermentation (SSF) which allowsthe break down of biomass into sugars and the process of fermentation to take place inone tank. This significantly reduces capital and operating costs.

Methanol

Methanol in the USA is mainly made from natural gas but cost-effective, efficient andenvironmentally sound processes for producing methanol from biomass are being pursued byboth USA government and industry researchers.


Page 12

Estimates of biomass resource available for US fuels production average 2.45 billion metrictons per year. One ton of feedstock can be converted to 721 litres of methanol.

NREL manages the Biomass to Methanol Program. The goal of the program is to reduce thecost of methanol from biomass to $0.13 litre from its present estimated cost of $0.22 litre. Atthe reduced price it will be competitive with the wholesale price of gasoline from oil at $25barrel.

The Program focuses on two areas:

• developing catalysts that can reduce the impurities formed during biomass gasificationwhilst simultaenously producing the desired hydrogen-carbon monoxide mix; and

• demonstrating a biomass to methanol pilot plant in Hawaii.

This plant will use sugar cane residue. Methanol can be made, however, with forage crops andshort rotation tree crops.

There are a number of engineering challenges in running cars on pure methanol These are:

• modifications are needed to achieve cold starts;

• car materials which can be corroded by methanol need to be replaced; and

• the energy density is only half that of gasoline. This means that a car with a tank full ofmethanol will only go half the distance before requiring further fuel.

Solutions to these problems are underway in the USA.

Ford, Chrysler and MGM in the USA all produce flexible fuel vehicles which run on neatmethanol or any methanol-gasoline blend. Ford in Victoria, Australia also produces flexible fuelvehicles for export to Brazil.

In 1994, federal and non-federal US car fleets were estimated to include 12,000 M85 fuelledvehicles. M85 contains 85% methanol and 15% gasoline. These cars do not have problemswith cold starts.

(NREL, January 1985, Biofacts, Methanol from Biomass)

1.8 BIOMASS IN THE UK

♦ Policy Environment

The development of biomass in the UK is in the early stages. However, what is noteworthy isthat the UK Government has set a mandatory target that 10% of the nation’s electricity will begenerated from renewable sources by 2010. Furthermore, farmers are being provided withgrants to establish purpose grown energy crops.

The development of biomass in the UK is driven by the need to meet the obligations of theKyoto Climate Change Protocol. The UK Government aims to reduce greenhouse gasemissions by 20% in 2010 relative to 1990 levels.

There are four policy approaches to meeting this target.


Page 13

1. Climate Change Levy

A Climate Change Levy was established by the UK Government as part of the Finance Act2000. The Levy of 43 pence per kWh, which commenced on 1 April 2001, is charged to non-domestic electricity customers. However, organisations that purchase electricity fromrenewable sources are exempt from the Levy.

2. Renewables Obligation

The Utilities Act 2000 gives the Secretary of State the power to make an order requiringelectricity suppliers to supply a given percentage of their electricity from renewable sources.Renewables Obligation Order 2002 requires electricity suppliers to source 3% of theirelectricity from renewable sources by 31 March 2003 rising to 10.4% by 2010/11.

The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness can impose financial penalties on electricitysuppliers that do not purchase sufficient electricity from renewable sources. There is no upperlimit on the fines that the regulator can impose. The Office of Gas and Electricity Markets(OFGEM) has been established as the regulator to monitor and enforce compliance with thisobligation.

OFGEM accredits electricity generators to verify that they are able to produce power fromrenewable sources. It issues generators with Renewable Obligation Certificates for thequalifying output. Each certificate is one Megawatt hour. The Certificates can be sold tosuppliers and brokers for the highest price. The Certificates can be sold separately to theelectricity. OFGEM keeps a register of the Certificates.

Electricity suppliers have a choice of three ways to reach the targets:

• buy the required percentage of electricity from renewable sources;

• pay 3 pence per Kilowatt hour for the shortfall from the target (buy out clause)

• use a combination of Renewable Obligation Certificates and buy out to meet the target.

3. Regional Targets

The UK Government has undertaken regional assessments of renewable energy and is settingregional targets for supplying electricity from renewable sources.

4. Grants and subsidies

The UK Government is providing support for the development of renewable energy in the UK.This is discussed in more detail below.

(www.ofgem.gov.uk, and www.dti.gov.uk/renewable/policy.html accessed 11 July 2002)

♦ Grants for the development of biomass power

Biomass is one of the renewable sources of energy for which the UK Government is providingdevelopment support. At 6.5 pence per kilowatt hour, biomass is currently more expensivethan other renewable energy sources. However, the UK Government expects the costs ofbiomass to reduce as the industry becomes established.


Page 14

There is a suite of grants provided by different government agencies for biomass powerdevelopment.

Development of Biomass Power Stations

The Department of Trades and Industry is establishing the Bioenergy Capital Grants Schemein 2006 with £66M. It will offer grants to project developers investing in heat or electricitygeneration fuelled by energy crops and other biomass feedstocks.

The grants are to foster the development of advanced technology biomass power stations.The grants pay up to 40% of the cost of equipment in completed working installations. Thefunding must be contractually committed within three years.

Currently, there is only one 35MW power plant operating in Ealey fuelled by straw. Agasification power station has been commissioned at Arborough in Yorkshire which will befuelled by short rotation coppice and forestry waste.

Development of the Biomass Power Supply Chain

From 2003, the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) will providegrants under its Bioenergy Infrastructure Scheme to develop the supply chain required toharvest, store and supply energy crops and forestry woodland fuel to energy end-users.

The UK Government would like to see cooperatives of farmers managing the supply ofbiomass to end-users to diversify their incomes. The grants will provide up to 50% of the costsof setting up producers groups, including administrative and equipment costs.

Grants will also be provided to new and existing businesses to diversify into supplyingbiomass. These organisations will be eligible for grants for the costs of specialist capitalequipment.

A total of £3.5M is available which must be contractually committed within three years.

Growing Energy Crops

DEFRA established the Energy Crops Scheme in 2000. A total of £29M is available and thismust be spent by 2006.

The Scheme provides establishment grants of:

• £1,000 or £1600 per hectare, depending on the land type, for establishing willow orpoplar for short rotation coppice; and

• £920 per hectare for miscanthus (perennial grass).

The Scheme also provides grants of up to 50% of the costs of establishing producer groups forshort rotation coppice.

To be eligible there must be evidence of an agreement to supply the harvested crops toenergy producers located within a reasonable radius of the growing land.

(DEFRA, 2002, Bioenergy: A Growing Energy Supply, Grants to help you harvest the benefits)


Page 15

Miscanthus

Like the United States, the UK has also developed a perennial grass, which is suitable for itsclimate and soils, as an energy crop.

Miscanthus is a woody, perennial, rhizomatous grass originating from Asia. It grows to 3.5metres in height and produces canes which can be harvested annually in winter. It is suitablefor lowland sites in the UK. The current yield is 7 – 10 tonnes per hectare. Power stations pay£30 per oven dried tonne. The energy value of 20 tonnes of dry miscanthus is equivalent tothat of 12 tonnes of coal.

DEFRA is supporting research into varieties with higher yields and better pest resistance andbelieves that yields of 13 dry tons per hectare per year are achievable.

Miscanthus can be successfully planted with a potato planter or specially designed machinery.A study found that potato planters achieved a work rate of 0.3 hectares per hour with anestablishment rate of 95%, The specially designed machine has a higher work rate of 1.25hectares per hour but a lower establishment success of 92%.

Miscanthus needs to be cut with a mower conditioner and then baled.

Two biodiversity studies comparing miscanthus and cereals have found that miscanthusprovides a habitat which encourages a greater diversity of species than winter sown cerealcrops (MAFF, March 2001, Planting and Growing Miscanthus, Best Practice Guidelines).


Page 16

2 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SCHEMES

2.1 UK POLICY CONTEXT

At the time of writing, the NSW Government is receiving expressions of interest fromlandholders for 20 trials under its Environmental Services Scheme. The Scheme is in itsinfancy and these trials are intended to provide data on the environmental outcomes ofdifferent types of land use changes in different landscapes. Reduction in salinity is oneenvironmental outcome being sought.

The environmental outcomes will help the NSW Government put a value on different types ofland use changes in different landscapes. In the future, the NSW Government hopes that therewill be buyers of these environmental services. Irrigator groups may, for instance, be willing topay for services higher in the catchment which improve the quality of water coming intoirrigation districts, thereby cutting their costs for salinity control.

Environmental services schemes, referred to in the European Community as agri-environmentschemes, have operated in the UK since 1985. The schemes are now part of theimplementation of European Commission policy and regulations under the CommonAgriculture Policy (CAP). The direction of the UK’s schemes has recently been reviewed aspart of the Report of the Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food. The Schemesare also set to expand as direct production subsidies from the European Union areprogressively dismantled and the funds redirected into rural development, including paymentsto farmers for environmental services. The UK experience is instructive to NSW.

2.2 EUROPEAN POLICY CONTEXT

Agri-environment schemes in Europe are a response to agricultural overproduction andenvironmental degradation related to intensive farming practices.

Agricultural overproduction is a consequence of the European Union policy of price subsidiesfor agricultural products. Food surpluses are causing farm incomes in the UK to fall, even withprice subsidies.

A further driver of structural reform of the CAP is that the level of price subsidies is financiallyunsustainable. There are up to thirteen countries which may join the European Union and theextension of subsidies to these countries, at the current level, would bankrupt the EuropeanUnion. (Financial Review 11 July 2002)

In 2002, European Union price subsidies were $69.75 billion, which is 50% of total EuropeanUnion budget. European Union subsidies are 35% of the total value of its agriculturalproduction, compared to 21% for the USA and only 4% for Australia 4%.

To respond to these challenges, the European Union is pursuing a policy of diversification offarm incomes to move away from a dependency on food crops and livestock.

The European Union from 1992 onwards has also been supporting sustainable farming andhas recognised the need to progressively dismantle payments to farmers based on productionlevels.


Page 17

2.3 AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL SCHEMES

Agri-environment schemes address environmental problems and provide farmers with asecondary income for providing environmental services.

Agri-environment schemes pay farmers for delivering a public benefit, as distinct from, and astep beyond, ‘duty of care’ or compliance with minimum environmental requirements. TheEuropean Union report Agriculture, Environment, Rural Development, Facts and Figures: AChallenge for Agriculture (July 1999) says:

The general idea underlying these considerations is that farmers should observe a certainbasic level of environmental practice as part and parcel of support regimes. But allenvironmental services beyond this basic level of good agricultural practice and compliancewith environmental legislation should be paid for by society through agri-environmentalprogrammes

The policy also recognises that farmers manage 50% of Europe’s land surface and have animportant role to play in managing the environment. The goal is to have semi-natural areasmaintained by human activity. The report argues that if farming ceased these semi-naturalareas would also disappear. In some areas, the land would be sold for development and inother areas it would be abandoned. Abandoned land is unlikely to return to its natural state,without land management it is more likely to be overrun weeds and pests. Environmentaloutcomes are also not likely to be achieved by having areas of intensive farming and areaswhich are ‘environmental theme parks’.

2.4 EUROPEAN UNION: RURAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATION

During 1999, there were a number of European Union decisions which increased the impetuson diversification of farm incomes and agri-environmental schemes.

In January 1999, the European Commission approved a communication to the Council andEuropean Parliament ‘Directions Towards Sustainable Development’. Introduction of RuralDevelopment Policy which is referred to as the “Second Pillar of the Common AgriculturePolicy”.

The ratification of the Maastricht Treay imposed a legal obligation on the European Union totake account of environmental protection in its policies and this was reinforced by the Treaty ofAmsterdam on 1 May 1999.

Also in May 1999, the European Council issued the Rural Development Regulation whichprovides financial support for implementation of rural development by the EuropeanAgricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

The regulation provides a framework for implementing the following changes:

• investment in more efficient farm businesses;

• support for early retirement of older farmers and entry of younger farmers into farming;

• payments to farmers for managing land which cannot be farmed due to environmentalconstraints;

• support for forestry on private land;


Page 18

• support for processing and marketing of agricultural products;

• support for agri-environment measures; and

• measures for the general development of rural areas.

The above measures are co-financed by the European Union and members states. TheEuropean Union contribution ranges from 50 – 75%.

Under the regulation member states are obliged to define the agri-environmental measures tobe undertaken by farmers. The regulation provides member states with the option ofredirecting a proportion of production subsidy payments to farmers to implement the abovemeasures, including agri-environment schemes. (This is referred to as ‘modulation’).

Member States were free to design their own programs but were required to prepare RuralDevelopment Plans for 2000 – 2007 for European Union approval. These Plans are jointlymonitored by the European Union and Member States and subject to mid-term and ex-postevaluations.

The agri-environmental measures provide payment to farmers who undertake an agri-environment commitment for at least five years. The commitment required can be longer undersome particular schemes. The aid is paid annually and calculated according to the income lostand additional costs of the undertakings, as well as the need to create a financial incentive.

Implementation of the regulation involves member states setting environmental objectives fordifferent landscape types and features.

In July 1999, the development of agri-environmental indicators was a priority for setting targetsand priorities and for monitoring of outcomes. The report ‘Directions Towards SustainableDevelopment’. Introduction of Rural Development Policy discusses the need for indicatorswhich can provide an easily understood picture of the state of, and trends in, the countrysideto assist politicians and the general public.

2.5 DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT, FARMING AND RURAL AFFAIRS (DEFRA) PROGRAMS, UK

The England Rural Development Program sets out how the UK is using the RuralDevelopment Regulation to protect and improve the countryside and to encourage sustainableenterprise and thriving rural communities. It provides the framework for ten schemes:

• Countryside Stewardship Scheme;

• Energy Crops (discussed earlier under Biomass);

• Environmentally Sensitive Areas;

• Farm Woodland Premium;

• Hill Farm Allowance;

• Organic Farming;

• Processing and Marketing Grants;


Page 19

• Rural Enterprise;

• Vocational Training; and

• Woodland Grant.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas, Countryside Stewardship, Farm Woodland Premium andWoodland Grant are discussed below.

♦ Characteristics of Environmentally Sensitive Areas and the CountrysideStewardship Scheme

These schemes provide farmers with a payment for environmental services of benefit to thepublic. The services delivered under these schemes are creation and maintenance of wildlifehabitat, protection and restoration of heritage features, maintenance and restoration ofattractive landscapes and public access to farmland for recreation.

The schemes are voluntary and competitive. Farmers and non-farming land owners such aslocal authorities submit an application for a ten year agreement which is given a score.

An interesting feature of these schemes is that they recognise that the landscape is not naturalbut has been shaped by land-use over the centuries. The schemes focus on the social valueof conservation. This means restoring and maintaining landscapes that the public value suchas hedgerows, dry-stone walls, fields, meadows and uplands. These landscapes have beencrafted by agriculture. Without agricultural management fields, meadows and uplands wouldrevert from grass to scrub and dense woodland.

Over 70% of the land in England is farmland so farming plays a major role in shaping thelandscape and maintaining wildlife habitat and heritage features. Another important factor inthe choice of objectives for UK agri-environment schemes is the proximity of the population tofarmland. Compared to Australia, British people live close to agricultural areas and made 1.25billion trips to the English countryside in 1998. The National Trust has estimated that 60 – 80%of rural employment in tourism depends on a high quality environment. The UK Governmentbelieves there is a strong demand for these environmental services delivered by farmers.

Agri environment (environmental services) schemes are often promoted as an alternative toregulation. However, in Europe both the level of environmental regulation and incentives areincreasing. Participation in agri-environment schemes may become compulsory in somecircumstances. New regulations introduced in the UK in February 2002 prevent land which iscurrently uncultivated or semi-natural from being intensively farmed where this would havesignificant impacts on the environment. The regulations cover land not currently subject toplanning permission. Where significant impacts are likely, farmers may have to participate inan agri-environment scheme to gain permission to cultivate the land. Agri-environmentschemes in the UK should be viewed as complementary to regulation (DEFRA, Guidelines:Environmental Impact Assessment for use of uncultivated land or semi-natural areas forintensive agricultural purposes, February 2002).

Environmental regulation is seen as setting a ‘duty of care’ or minimum standard for allfarmers, while incentive schemes pay farmers for public benefits beyond this level.

Land under agri-environment schemes is subject to a number of requirements to meetenvironmental standards. These are discussed below.


Page 20

♦ Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Under this Scheme, 22 areas of England, such as the Lake District and Dartmoor, have beendesignated for conservation as environmentally sensitive areas:

Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) are particular parts of the countryside where thelandscape, wildlife and historic interest are of national importance. Many features of ourcountryside – hedges, walls, ditches, field barns, hay meadows, heather moorlands andriver valley grasslands- have been created by traditional farming methods over hundreds ofyears. These features are highly valued, both for their scenic beauty and for the habitatsthey provide for plants and wildlife. (p2, MAFF Environment Matters: Our Living Heritage,June 1994)

This Scheme is an expansion of the highly successful Broads Grazing Marshes ConservationScheme of 1985. The Scheme sought to halt the increase in the drainage of marshlands forarable farming in the Norfolk Broads. This had been a farm stock grazing area but as thisbecame less profitable was being converted to arable farming with a resultant loss of plants,wildlife and scenic beauty. The scheme encouraged farmers to revert to pastoral farming. Itattracted 90% of farmers in the area.

Another ten areas were added to the Scheme and monitoring demonstrated by 1991 that theenvironmental objectives of the schemes were largely being met. In 1993 a further 12 areaswere designated, while the first ten schemes were improved and extended. Farmers were paidnot only to conserve, but also enhance and re-create traditional farming landscapes andwildlife habitat. They were also paid to create new opportunities for walking and other quietrecreation.

The Minister for Agriculture determines which areas will be designated as ESAs from ashortlist drawn up by government and non-government environment agencies. The criteria are:

• the area must be of national significance;

• conservation of the area must depend on adopting, maintaining or extending particularfarming practices;

• farming practices in the area must have changed, or must be likely to do so, in wayswhich pose a threat to the environment; and

• it must be a distinct area of environmental interest (MAFF, op cit, p4).

Farmers who wish to participate enter into a ten year agreement with DEFRA. They are paidaccording to the amount and type of land they enter into the Scheme. Under the objective ofcreating wildlife habitat, for instance, the types of land include:

• hay meadows;

• wet grassland and marshes;

• unimproved grassland;

• permanent grassland;

• field margins; and


Page 21

• lowland heathland.

The management practices which farmers in the Scheme must follow are tailored to suit theneeds of each ESA.

For example, under the goal of creating wildlife habitat one objective is to retain flower rich haymeadows and the nesting birds which depend upon them. Farmers with hay meadows as partof the land under agreement are paid to use traditional practices which allow meadow grassesand plants to flower and set seed before the hay is cut. It also requires restricting the use offertilisers.

Under the goal of restoring and maintaining scenic beauty, one objective is to maintain heathercover on moorlands. This involves controlled grazing and burning and the restoration ofdrystone walls and traditional farm buildings.

Under the goal of preserving historic heritage, farmers with ancient monuments, ancient fieldsystems or buried earthworks seek advice on the importance of these sites and agree tomanage them to avoid damage by ploughing or grazing.

Most ESAs have more than one level of entry. Farmers receive higher payments for acceptingthe requirements of higher tiers which impose stricter management conditions.

♦ The Countryside Stewardship Scheme

The Countryside Stewardship Scheme operates outside of ESAs. It has similar eligiblelandscape types and features to the ESA. However, each county has specific targets for thelandscape types and features that are important in their area.

Priorities for each area are agreed between government and non-government farming andenvironmental agencies and refined annually.

The objectives of the Scheme are to:

• sustain the beauty and diversity of the landscape;

• improve and extend wildlife habitats;

• conserve archaelogical sites and historic features;

• improve opportunities for countryside enjoyment;

• restore neglected land or features; and

• create new habitats and landscape, where appropriate.

DEFRA information sets out the management options for each of the landscape types andfeatures. There is a payment rate for each of the management options for landscape typesand features. For example for Arable land, £32 per 100 metres is paid for six metre uncroppedmargins around fields. In coastal areas, £50 per hectare is paid for managing vegetated sanddunes.

Land management payments are made annually and capital payments on completion of thework.


Page 22

Like the ESA, individuals who, and organisations which, have management control oversuitable land for ten years are eligible. The grants are competitive and successful applicantsare those that offer the best environmental outcomes for the money.

The Scheme is run from DEFRA’s regional service centres where a team of specialist ProjectOfficers advise applicants and assess applications. Applicants may need to seek other adviceand assistance. In many cases applications are prepared on behalf of landowners by theFarming and Wildlife Advisory Group. The costs are reimbursed if the application is successful.

DEFRA information emphasises that applicants are more likely to be successful if theapplication reflects regional targets, contains work of different types, if a whole farm approachis adopted and if the land contains special features such as rare birds.

Countryside Stewardship agreements are legally binding and detail all the work to beundertaken, dates by which it should be completed and deadlines for making claims.

Successful applicants are also subject to many other requirements. These are:

• the standards of an environmental management system called Good Farming Practice(GFP) which cover:

• overgrazing;

• undergrazing;

• supplementary feeding

• field boundaries

• sites of special scientific interest;

• silage and slurry stores;

• disposal of sheep dip;

• trimming of hedgerows;

• environmental legislation; and

• codes for the protection of soil, water and air.

• to maintain public access on the holding;

• not disturbing the land under agreement by ploughing or other cultivation, unlessspecified in the agreement;

• not applying organic or inorganic fertilisers, lime or slag;

• minimising any rolling or chain harrowing which can disturb wildlife;

• limiting herbicide application to the use of a weed wiper or spot treatment for the controlof specified weeds;


Page 23

• not modifying or installing new drainage systems, unless specified under theagreement;

• avoiding supplementary feeding which encourages trampling of vegetation by livestock;and

• requirements for the management of field boundaries which provide important wildlifehabitat.

Successful applicants cannot do anything which varies from the agreement without writtenpermission and there are penalties for breaches.

In 2002, there around 15,000 Countryside Stewardship agreements with landholders.

♦ Characteristics of the Woodland Grant and Farm Woodland PremiumSchemes

The goal of these schemes is to encourage the creation of new woodlands to improve thelandscape, provide new habitat for wildlife, increase biodiversity, offer opportunities forrecreation and sport, to provide a use for farm land instead of food production and to boostlocal economies.

The Woodland Grant Scheme offers grants towards the cost of establishing and maintainingwoodlands. The Farm Woodland Premium Scheme offers annual payments to farmers tocompensate for agricultural income foregone.

♦ Farm Woodland Premium Scheme

Farmers may apply for a grant for between 1 – 200 hectares of woodland (maximum of 40hectares on unimproved land). The land must have been in agricultural use for at least threeyears.

Annual payments are made for either 10 or 15 years depending on the trees planted and howthey will be managed.

To be eligible for payments for 15 years farmers must:

• plant more than 50% of the area with broadleaved trees; and

• not fell the trees for 30 years after the first annual payment.

Other woodlands will receive annual payments for ten years, providing that they are not felledfor 20 years following the first payment.

Farmers can generate income from the woodland through recreation such as creating coverfor game birds and charging shooting rents. Farmers may also make an income from forestthinnings and may harvest the wood after the 20 or 30 year period has elapsed. Farmers maybe able to return the land to agriculture after this time, the decision is made by the ForestryCommission.

In order to be eligible farmers must also comply with environmental and silvicultural standardsset out in the Woodland Grant Scheme.


Page 24

The rates of payment depend on whether the land is arable, improved or unimproved andwhether it is within, or outside of, ‘Less Favoured Areas’. In 1998, the rates of payment variedfrom £60 per hectare/year for unimproved land in Less Favoured Areas to £300 perhectare/year for arable land outside of Less Favoured Areas. Rates of payment are reviewedevery five years.

Woodland to be coppiced and agroforestry (tree planting combined with agriculture on thesame land) are not eligible.

♦ Woodland Grant Scheme

The Woodland Grant Scheme pays towards the costs of establishing and maintainingwoodland. Applicants for grants complete a scoring form which allocates points for meeting theobjectives and strategies of the England Forestry Strategy of December 1998. Higher pointsare awarded for proposed woodland areas which:

• are within a rural development area where there are high economic and social needs;

• are within economic regeneration priority area, such as former industrial or mining sites;

• are within the twelve Community Forests and National Forest areas;

• are within Parks or Areas of Outstanding Beauty defined by local authorities andNational Parks; and

• meet the National and local Biodiversity, Habitat and Species Plan targets.

Higher points are also awarded, for instance, for denser planting, larger plantings, greaterpublic access, proximity to a town and falling within various environmental and economicpriority areas.

The size of eligible woodland is quite flexible. Fixed rates of grant are paid for new woodlandup to 300 hectares. Negotiated grants are paid for woodland in excess of this size. In June2001, the following fixed rates applied.

Rates of Planting Grant

Rate of Grant Conifers Broadleaves

Wood less than 10 ha £700 ha £1350 ha

Wood more than 10 ha £700 ha £1050 ha

Source: DEFRA: A guide to the Woodland Grant Scheme, June 2001, p11

The grant is paid in two instalments: 70% when planting is finished and 30% after five years.The area must be maintained to DEFRA’s satisfaction for at least ten years after planting.

To qualify for grant, applicants must meet the standards of environmental protection andpractice set out in DEFRA guidelines.

They must also follow guidelines for the number of trees per hectare and spacing, to receivethe full rate of grant.


Page 25

Grants are payable for agroforestry but at a reduced rate if the trees at wide spacing.

It is possible to transfer the grant to a new owner if the property is sold.

Since the scheme began, 99,000 hectares have been converted into woodland in the UK.Farmers typically convert small areas of around four hectares into woodland.

2.6 ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

These schemes are popular with landholders because they provide a predictable income anda reasonable degree of flexibility through tailored agreements. The Countryside StewardshipScheme was 100% oversubscribed and even after a significant budget increase in 1999, it is30% oversubscribed. Early indications are that the pilot schemes being offered by the NSWGovernment will also be oversubscribed.

The Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming in January 2002 released itsreport Farming and Food: A Sustainable Future which includes a review of the UK agri-environment model. The Policy Commission states that:

These programmes…..have been effective in their purpose of enhancing and restoringspecial habitats and areas of envrionmental value. The stabilisation in some indicators ofenvironmental damage over the last ten years has been due in large part to them (p78).

The Policy Commission advocates that agri-environment schemes be significantly expandedbut not in their current form. The two problems with the UK’s current approach are that:

1. it is administratively costly and

2. unsuited to addressing broader environmental issues such as water quality.

The Policy Commission states: “If we were designing a system afresh we would not start fromhere” (p78)

Their critique is instructive for the NSW Government which appears to be embarking on amodel which is also tailored and focuses on high priority areas identified in CatchmentManagement Blueprints, in much the same way that the Countryside Stewardship Schemefocuses on county targets.

♦ Administrative Costs

The Rural Development Regulation grant funding for the UK for 2001/2 was £189.4M. Of this,around 25% was spent on administration. Around a third of the budget of the CountrysideStewardship Scheme is spent on administrative costs.

The schemes are costly because they are tailored to individual farms involved in them andinvolve extended site visits, intensive free advice and monitoring for the farmers involved.These services are delivered by the Rural Development Service from regional offices. TheService negotiates and manages agreements, deals with compliance issues and processesclaims for payment. There is a strong need for audit trails and regional offices must keeprecords of payments. Dealing with amendments to agreements is particularly time-consuming.

The Rural Development Service also provides technical advice to agreement holders. Thisconstant source of advice by familiar staff is popular with farmers.


Page 26

The Rural Development Service also runs a demonstration farm program.

♦ Intensive rather than broad focus

The Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming finds that the scheme, as currentlydesigned, is not suited to addressing broad environmental problems, like water quality.

Schemes like the existing stewardship programmes are probably the best way to targetspecific, tailored prescriptions at particular areas of value. But because of their invariablyhigh overheads they would be a very expensive way of handling a bigger throughput ofspend.

……we believe the case is strong for a more broadly based approach, which as it rolls outwill get much larger numbers of land managers involved and which can encourage goodenvironmental practice across a much wider area than those habitats and designated partsof the countryside that current schemes embrace. There are pressing environmentalproblems in the countryside, and some of them- poor water quality, general loss ordegradation of landscape features and archaelogical sites, loss of species like the brownhare in western England, the skylark everywhere and the cornflower almost to the point ofextinction- will not be solved by protecting isolated islands of countryside. (p79)

2.7 DIRECTION OF REFORM

The Policy Commission has recommended what is being referred to as a ‘broad and shallow’scheme. This proposal would bring together environmental management systems for all farmsin Britain with agri-environment schemes. The aim of the model is to ensure that all farmersacross Britain meet minimum levels of natural resource protection and conservation requiredby existing and forthcoming legislation as a foundation which can be built upon. There arethree broad levels under this proposal.

♦ Level One: Minimum Compliance

This would involve whole farm environmental plans and an audit. The audit would covernatural resource protection issues and conservation issues. It would examine the farm againstexisting and forthcoming environmental legislation on resource protection such as the EUwaste, nitrates and Water Framework Directives. It would provide farmers with informationabout their environmental obligations and would signpost farmers not in agri-environmentschemes to participate to their advantage. Farmers would be given a one-off payment for thewhole farm plan and audit.

Farmers who are already accredited under an environmental management system, forinstance, through membership of an assurance scheme could be exempted from all or part ofthe audit.

The Policy Commission recommends that the whole farm audit and plan is grafted ontoexisting reporting required by the European Community.

The audits would build up a picture of the environmental assets and compliance gaps acrossthe country as a whole. By identifying gaps in compliance the model could reduce the amountof regulation. The Environment Agency, as regulator, would be able to take a risk assessmentapproach, working with farmers whose audit showed they were likely to have difficultycomplying with environmental legislation and leaving the rest to self-regulate. Self-regulationwould be backed by a system of random audits to a proportion of farms with heavy penaltiesfor those who fail to meet the requirements.


Page 27

♦ Level Two: Basic Stewardship

Farmers who pass the audit will be eligible for a new basic tier of stewardship.

The Policy Commission advocated that the new entry level tier is:

• whole farm based;

• simper and less expensive to operate;

• has lower payment rates;

• has a simple set of targets which can be monitored without a huge bureaucracy;

• compliance, wherever possible, should be measured remotely such as through satellitetechnology; and

• not a competitive process as this is inappropriate for mass take-up, costly to farmersapplying and requires considerable administration.

Currently, income foregone and management costs form the basis for calculating the rate ofpayment to which an incentive is added. The rate of income foregone is unstable due tofluctuations in market prices and exchange rates. The Policy Commission recommends that atthe start of an agreement a floor is fixed below which payments will not drop.

The Policy Commission also recommends that the UK Government do not use the terminology“income foregone” or “profit foregone”. It states:

Talking about ”income foregone” or “profit foregone” is the wrong language to be using ifthe objective is to persuade farmers to see land management for environmental outputs asa worth role in its own right. The Government needs to look for a different language whichbetter reflects the fact that the provision of environmental public goods is not a substituteactivity for something else (p87)

Currently, farmers are paid different rates of management costs for different managementoptions on different landscape types. The Policy Commission recommends that a flat rate perhectare be paid. Although different rates could apply to different regions and farming sectors tobring a measure of targeting and recognising varying levels of cost.

In return for payment, farmers would have to engage for at least five years “in a menu ofsimple but effective environmental management practices across the farm” . (p83)

Details of the farmer’s chosen options would be marked up by the farmer on the map preparedas part of the audit. The decisions on how to implement the options on the ground would beleft for the farmer to decide in consultation with environment agencies.

High quality advice would be available to farmers to assist them.

Farmers who had already implemented the requirements of the basic stewardship level wouldbe eligible for payment. The Policy Commission says:

Such a scheme would reward existing good management, responding to farmers’complaints that the current stewardship schemes are biased against existing goodperformers by paying only for the creation or recreation of new features (p84.)


Page 28

As a condition of receiving payments, farmers would be expected to implement good practicesuch as that set out in the Codes of Good Agricultural Practice to prevent and control pollution.

The Policy Commission advocates that farmers who abide by the Codes of Good AgriculturalPractice would be eligible to have their produce “green labelled” under the “Red Tractor”scheme which would need to be amended to recognise the new requirements.

♦ Level Three: Advanced Stewardship

The existing agri-environment schemes, which focus on special environments, would form theupper tiers of the new single stewardship scheme.

The Policy Commission recommends that the current funding levels of the schemes aremaintained for the upper level tiers.

2.8 PAYING FOR THE REFORM

A proportion of the money provided for production subsidies can be capped by member statesand diverted into agri-environment schemes. This is referred to as modulation. In 2001/2 theUK Government is modulating 2.5% of direct payments into environmental services schemes.This will rise to 4.5% by 2006. This will increase the budget of the Countryside StewardshipScheme from £66M to £126M and will double the number of agreements with landholdersfrom 15,000 currently to 30,000 in 2006/7.

The Policy Commission recommends that the UK Government urges the European Union totransfer further resources from direct subsidies to agri-environment schemes:

As production subsidies decline, the Government’s objective should be instead to secure aprogressive transfer of resources in Europe towards wider social and environmentalobjectives under the so- called Pillar II of the CAP. Public funds should be refocussed onpublic goods, rather than subsidising overproduction. While we believe that a proportion ofthe funds freed up in this way should go to rural development measures, we want to see theCommunity’s budget for environmental programmes in the countryside substantiallyincreased, helping to encourage best practice and pay for environmental benefits which themarket will not provide. (p74)

The Policy Commission recommends that pending CAP reform, that the UK Governmentmodulates the maximum percentage currently allowed under the CAP into paying for a basicstewardship level. Direct subsidies are paid 100% by the European Community but any fundsmodulated must be match funded 50% by the member state. An increase in the fundsmodulated, means that the UK Government must find significant additional funds.

The Policy Commission states:

We recommend that the Government should increase rates of modulation to 10% from2004. If substantial CAP reform in not delivered in 2006-7 we believe the Governmentshould give serious consideration to a further increase in modulation at that point to themaximum 20%. (p77)

2.9 STATUS OF THE REFORM PROPOSALS


Page 29

The DEFRA journal Stewardship News (Spring 2002) states that the mid term review of theagri-environment schemes by the relevant Ministers will take into account therecommendations of the Policy Commission for a new ‘broad and shallow’ scheme. The reviewwill last until December 2003.

The Sydney Morning Herald and Financial Review for 11 July 2002 reported that the EuropeanCommission had released it’s reform blueprint for discussion in Copenhagen in December2002. The reform blueprint proposes that direct subsidies are reduced by 3% per annum forseven years and that the funds are shifted towards rural development. If accepted by memberstates, this would appear to open the way for negotiation on how the extra funds for ruraldevelopment will be spent, agri-environment schemes fall under the Rural DevelopmentRegulation.

2.10 LESSONS FOR NSW

The lessons from the UK are timely for the NSW Government which is currently piloting anEnvironmental Services Scheme. The Policy Commission’s recommendations to use wholefarm plans and audits as the foundation for environmental services payments is well worthnoting. The Policy Commission has found that highly tailored schemes are not suited toaddressing broad environmental problems like water quality. Salinity is a broad environmentalproblem.

The Commonwealth and State Governments are currently identifying what the role forgovernment should be in facilitating environment management systems. The EnvironmentalManagement Systems Working Group released a discussion paper, Towards a NationalFramework for the Development of Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture inNovember 2001.

Australia does not have the burden of high levels of agricultural production subsidies like theEuropean Community. However, the dismantling of the production subsidies provides theEuropean Community with a source of funding for agri-environment schemes. Australiangovernments would have to find a new source of funding if they wanted to establish a “broadand shallow scheme” like that proposed for the UK.


Page 30

3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Australian state and Commonwealth governments are examining Environmental ManagementSystems (EMS) as a possible approach to addressing environmental problems at farm level. Itmay be possible to link EMS to market based incentives.

In May 2000 the Sustainable Land and Water Resources Management Committee of theStanding Committee on Agriculture and Resource Management established the EnvironmentalManagement Systems Working Group. In November 2001, the Working Group released apublic discussion paper, Towards a National Framework for the Development of EnvironmentalManagement Systems in Agriculture.

The Working Group believes that EMS in Australia could lead to widespread implementation offarm management practices which could assist in reducing salinity. The report states:

Governments could provide incentives to support voluntary and industry led adoption ofEMS through a range of programs. For example, through the National Action Plan forSalinity and Water Quality, governments will establish national natural resource outcomeswhich will provide the context for setting of regional targets within accredited regional plans.Federal and State governments will invest in priority actions within the plans to achieve thetargets. This investment could be directed by regional bodies or other stakeholders to assistor encourage individual landholders in a catchment to adopt EMSs that lead to appropriatefarm management, which will in turn collectively lead to achievement of catchment targetsand broader national outcomes. (op cit, p 29)

Commonwealth and State governments are currently considering what role governmentshould play in facilitating EMS in Australia. The NSW Government’s Liverpool Plains PilotProject is looking at linking EMS with market based incentives in order to bring about landusechange.

EMS is much further developed in Europe, where major supermarket chains have cometogether to require that fresh food suppliers which want to trade with them implement EMS.Europe provides a case study of market based approaches to EMS.

Environmental Management Systems (EMS) provide a structured approach to addressingenvironmental problems which can be independently audited.

The Natural Resource Management Standing Committee Discussion Paper, Towards aNational Framework for the Development of Environmental Management Systems inAgriculture provides the following definition:

Environmental management system (EMS) is a generic term used to describe anysystematic approach used by an enterprise or organisation to manage its impacts on theenvironment. They system identifies environmental impacts and legal responsibilities, thenimplements and reviews changes and improvements in a structured way. An EMS providesa management framework that achieves continuous improvement through a ‘plan, do,check, act’ cycle …. within which best management practices can be integrated, and codesof practice upheld. An EMS can be externally audited and may be certified to international,ISO 14001 standard. An EMS may also be readily integrated with other existing activitiessuch as quality assurance. (p 6, November 2001)


Page 31

3.1 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF EMS

EMS can be a business opportunity through:

• market access;

• product differentiation; and

• premium prices.

EMS can also be a requirement of entry into schemes where the government pays farmers todeliver environmental services.

♦ Market Access

As a consequence of food safety scares in Europe, many European supermarkets requirefarmers and organisations in their supply chain to implement the EUREP protocol for goodagricultural practice (an EMS). Farmers who do not choose to implement the protocol cannotdo business with the supermarkets. Implementation of EMS, is therefore, a condition of accessinto that part of the market.

♦ Product Differentiation

Implementation of EMS by their producers, allows supermarkets to advertise their productsand their image as environmentally sound and safe for consumers. In Europe the focus is onproducts which are free from pesticides and genetically modified plants. Products may also bedifferentiated on the basis of ‘clean, green’ home brands or ‘clean, green’ regional products.

Banrock Station Wines from South Australia advertise that a percentage of their sales arespent on restoring the environment around their vineyards. The property with its restoredwetlands is also an eco-tourism destination.

Product differentiation is assisted by the use of eco-labels such as logos which consumers canidentify. The Natural Resource Management Standing Committee Discussion Paper says thatan eco-label is:

… designed to enable products to be differentiated as more environmentally friendly than othersimilar products. If such an eco-label is to maintain market credibility, it needs a process thatvalidates the claims made – a certified and audited EMS could provide that assurance. op cit,p 31)

Sainsbury’s argues that UK farmers need to establish product differentiation on the basis ofquality and the environment in order simply to maintain their market position (notes ofmeeting). China and former Eastern bloc countries are rapidly developing their agriculturalproduction and seeking markets. Britain will not be able to compete with them on economies ofscale. Developing countries looking for markets are willing to be compliant with Sainsbury’sEMS requirements.

♦ Premium Prices

In theory it is possible to obtain premium prices for goods which carry an ‘eco-label’. However,in the UK farmers are not receiving higher prices from supermarkets for implementing an EMS.This means that they are having to absorb the costs of implementing EMS on their properties.


Page 32

Sainsbury’s supermarket acknowledges that compliance is costly. Membership of the AssuredProduce Scheme alone is £250 for farmers in the UK and £1,000 for farmers overseas.Membership is required for an audit. Compliance may also involve costs such as building newpesticide stores.

The lack of premium prices and absorption of costs is a contentious matter. There has beensome concern by farmers, environmentalists and others that supermarkets are using theirmarket position unfairly.

The Green Party in its response to government consultation on farming says:

The agricultural sector is unique in that it has tens of thousands (billions worldwide) of smallproducers of raw resources, but extremely concentrated ownership of seed merchants,traders, processors and retailers. Only a very small slice of the value of the finished productends up in the farmer’s hands………Four British supermarket giants share between themsome 70 to 80% of the market in many products. The democratic and legal frameworks toregulate these giants in a globalised economy do at present not exist. (Green Farming in aGreen Land www.greenparty.org.uk/reports/2001/agriculture/greenfarm/htm accessed 29 May2002.

The Policy Commission on the Future of Food and Farming commissioned by the UKGovernment says:

Over 95% of people do their main shopping at a supermarket, and there are no signs thatthis is going to change in the near future. The trend to consolidation gives supermarkets,food service chains and major processors signficant influence both over consumers andfarmers. They will use this power to require higher, more consistent standards fromproducers- at lower prices. (Policy Commission, op cit, p 16)

The delegation was informed by Committee staff at the House of Commons that Britishsupermarkets had recently been investigated by the Competition Commission regarding theirpricing policies and their reluctance to enter into long term contracts with growers. This meansthat growers may have to plough in a field of vegetables because an order has beencancelled.

Sainsbury’s supermarket confirmed that they do not pay farmers premium prices for complyingwith EMS. Sainsbury’s, however, argues that they are expecting no more than a good growershould do and that the implementation of their protocols is a due diligence exercise (DeniseLovett, notes of meeting).

Sainsbury’s prefers to buy British and argues that by doing so it is already paying premiumprices. Since British farmers cannot compete with the cheaper prices offered by developingcountries turning to intensive agriculture, British farmers must compete on quality andenvironmental critieria if they expect Sainsbury’s to continue to source products from them.

The experience in the UK suggests that there can be difficulties if EMS is left entirely to themarket because of the strong market position of supermarkets relative to farmers. Somedegree of government intervention in an umpire role may be necessary to ensure that ifsupermarkets receive premium prices some of the benefits do flow back to farmers. Thegovernment may also need to ensure that farmers are not expected to absorb costs beyondthose consistent with a basic environmental duty of care. An alternative approach may be forfarmers to form growers groups to negotiate with supermarkets.


Page 33

♦ Payment for Environmental Services

Implementation of EMS can also be a criterion for eligibility of farmers to environmentalservices payments by government. This is, similar to the Policy Commission on the Future ofFood and Farming’s recommendation (discussed in the previous chapter) that whole farm planand audits form the basis of a revised stewardship scheme. Farmers who meet theserequirements will be eligible for entry into basic stewardship for which they will be paid perhectare for delivering a set of environmental benefits.

3.2 EMS IN THE UK

In the UK there are two forces driving the adoption of EMS.

A non-government organisation called Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) wasestablished in 1991 by David Richardson a farmer, writer and TV personality. He wanted tocombat the deteriorating public image of farmers by demonstrating that many farmers aregood environmentalists. He initially established a communication network Since this time,LEAF have developed their own EMS system called Integrated Crop Management (ICM).Farmers concern for the environment and desire to challenge the sometimes negative publicopinion of them is an important driving factor which is easy to overlook. Adoption of ICM isentirely voluntary and attracts no grants or subsidies yet has attracted farmers managing over708,000 hectares.

The other driving force is supermarkets. Europe has experienced many scares over the safetyof food and farming such as BSE (mad cow disease) and the recent outbreak of foot andmouth disease. These issues of food safety and sustainable farming have been picked up byenvironmental groups in the UK and have received a great deal of media coverage. There is ahigh level of concern amongst the public in Europe about the safety of food. Whilst Sainsburysdoes not believe that there is any reason to be concerned about the safety of produce treatedwith pesticides under existing regulations or from genetically modified food, they acknowledgethat one cannot rule out future scientific evidence. (Denise Lovett notes of meeting)

Sainsburys also see that the demand for food free from pesticides and genetically modifiedingredients provides an opportunity for product differentiation which gives them a competitiveedge. For this reason, Sainsbury’s has made ICM a requirement of fresh food producers ifthey want to trade with Sainsburys. This initiative is supported, and driven by, the Board ofDirectors.

Many European supermarkets have joined the EUREP group which has developed aconsistent protocol of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) which all their producers and suppliersmust meet. This is discussed in detail later in this chapter.

3.3 LINKING ENVIRONMENT AND FARMING UK

ICM is about total resource management based on whole farm plans and tools for makingmanagement decisions. In particular, ICM addresses soil, water and air protection caused byinappropriate use of inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides and inappropriate choices ofcropping. It also assists farmers to establish or protect wildlife habitat on areas that aremarginally profitable.

LEAF is working towards minimum tillage practices which minimise soil disturbance.


Page 34

LEAF combines the best of traditional farming practices such as crop rotations and soilmanagement with modern technology such as precision agriculture and detailed soil nutrientanalysis. Some of the practices encouraged are the use of plant varieties suited to the localarea and the use of a diverse range of plants to increase biodiversity and healthy croprotations to build up soil reserves.

Philip Ashton, in his presentation for the EMS in Agriculture Workshop in Queensland in May1999 says that:

ICM is a whole-farm approach that assesses all the decisions made on the farm with greatattention to detail and ensures that the best option is adopted within the constraints of thefarm site, resources and climactic factors (p180).

LEAF emphasise that ICM is site specific and does not aim for targets that are beyond thescope of the farm’s climate, topography and soil type or beyond the capital commitment orexpectations of the farmer involved.

LEAF works on a building block approach using the LEAF Audit, records, conservation plan,soil map, policy documents and schedules. It is a progressive system and allows farmers tostart at different levels, with different priorities and objectives and to build up.

Philip Ashton emphasises that ICM is cost neutral and can even increase profitability:

I see being a member of LEAF and practising Integrated Crop Management as being a way ofachieving maximum margin with minimum environmental impact. It helps to take away a blinkeredapproach and to keep an open mind, to continually ask ourselves the question “could it be donebetter?” I believe that I am staying ahead of the game by being management intensive rather thaninput intensive. Maintenance of profit margin has got to be a priority and, through the betterattention to detail demanded from a fully integrated approach, it is possible to maintain and inmany situations improve profitability (p 182).

LEAF has set up 29 demonstration farms across the UK to show farmers and other interestedpeople how ICM works. The delegation inspected Marlborough Farm near Lincoln whichproduces combinable crops and peas for frozen peas.

LEAF produces information to assist farmers to implement ICM on their own properties,including a guide and an audit. The audit is a set of self assessment modules which allowsfarmers to assess their farming practices against the principles of ICM. It addresses:

• the site;

• crop rotation;

• variety choice;

• crop husbandry;

• organisation and planning;

• management of wildlife habitat and landscape features;

• animal husbandry;

• energy efficiency;


Page 35

• crop nutrition; and

• crop protection.

Philip Ashton says:

From the information given in the LEAF Audit it is then possible for a performance profile tobe made. This profile is personal and confidential to the specific farmer. It is not a way tocompare different farms but a way to monitor and prioritise targets and action for the future(EMS in Agriculture Workshop, p181).

The LEAF Audit is available as software for the computer and in hard copy.

The management practices under ICM are regularly up-dated to include new technology andthe results of research.

LEAF farmers see that concern about the environment and safety of food is creating anincreasingly regulatory environment. However, by pro-actively adopting ICM farmers candemonstrate that their practices are environmentally sound and avoid regulation which theyfear may be draconian, expensive and create impractical restraints on farming systems.

LEAF and the LEAF Audit are being adopted as industry standards. In 1997 it was adopted byBirds Eye Walls which now requires farmers to complete it as part of the Unilever sustainabilitycommitment. It has formed the basis for much of the self-assessment documents for severalretailers and for many farm assurance schemes, including Assured Produce and AssuredCombinable Crops Scheme.

LEAF farmers already comply with most of the requirements for crop protocols of the leadingsupermarkets and for international standards.

LEAF is developing a “LEAF Marque Standard” which is a logo for eco-labelling. To supportthis LEAF is identifying elements of ICM which can be externally verified.

♦ Advice on the Role of Government in Facilitating ICM

As Australian governments are currently discussing what their role should be in facilitatingEMS, it is useful to note LEAF’s advice. In March 2001, LEAF made a submission to the PolicyCommission for the Future of Farming and Food. They proposed the UK Governmentundertake the following action plan.

PROPOSAL ACTION TIMESCALE

Financial Support

Capital Grants To make available grants to purchase equipment or make otherimprovements for environmental protection including wastehandling and storage techniques

1-3 years

Loan Programme To consider loans to farmers to support the transition tosustainable practices to purchase equipment or make otherimprovements to enhance profitability and the environment.

3-5 years

Demonstration Grants To provide funds for farmers, agricultural researchers, educatorsand non-profit groups to explore innovative and creative ways toenhance the sustainability of a wide range of farming systems.

3-5 years


Page 36

PROPOSAL ACTION TIMESCALE

Agri-environmental support

Whole Farm Planning To consider a process for decision-making that takes all aspectsof the farm into account. This includes planning for the farm’sprofitability, the natural environment, family members, society andregulations in particular, to facilitate office operations and easetime pressures. For example the development of existing toolssuch as the LEAF audit and the FWAG Landwise plans.

3-5 years

Development of optionsavailable

To consider options that are not based on income foregone andlook to reward, develop and recognise environmental good.

1-2 years

Developing Systems

Integrated FarmManagement

To facilitate the uptake of IFM through supporting research,development, demonstration and marketing strategies.

1-5 years

Organic Farming To facilitate the uptake of organic farming through supportingresearch, development, demonstration and marketing strategies.

1-5 years

Communication Strategies

On-Farm Research To develop on farm research programmes for practical farmingalternatives in collaboration with agricultural professionals,researchers and participating farmers by conducting farm-scaleresearch

3-5 years

Field Days, Workshopsand Speakers

To facilitate information to farmers through a programme of fielddays offering a first hand look at successful, working, sustainablefarms and workshops and forums to provide opportunities forinformation gathering and an exchange of ideas.

3-5 years

Farmer PlanningMeetings

Developing support for farm planning on a variety of topics suchas soil health, soil building, farming systems, environmentalprotection, succession planning, compliance with legislation etc toprovide a platform for farmers to share experiences.

1-3 years

Training and Education

ProfessionalQualifications

To explore training and recognised qualifications for the farming,conservation and food sector

3-5 years

(source: www.leafuk.org/sources/4000134/4001069/4023167/leafpol.htm accessed 13February 2002.

3.4 SAINSBURY’S SUPERMARKETS

♦ Sainsbury’s Environmental and Social Policies

The Sainsbury Group (J Sainsbury PLC) comprises 4 major businesses:

• Sainsbury’s Homebase;

• Sainsbury’s bank;


Page 37

• Shaws Supermarkets in the USA; and

• Sainsbury’s Supermarkets in the UK.

Sainsburys also has 195 petrol stations.

Sainsbury’s has a policy of reducing its impact on the environment:

We recognise that virtually all the activities of the organisation or an individual have someimpact on the environment. Our aim is to reduce the impact of our organisation through aprogramme of continuous improvement.” (Working Towards a Better Environment, October2001)

ICM is part of a broader EMS approach by Sainsbury’s which addresses other topical issues ofconcern including:

• emissions to air (eg eliminating CFC from refrigeration units);

• water discharges (eg reducing oil spillage at petrol stations);

• waste (eg composting waste produce);

• energy (eg reducing energy use in stores by 10%);

• transport (eg improve miles per gallon on company cars);

• land (eg sites chosen for building ‘grey’ land);

• nuisances (eg lighting in car parks); and

• natural environment (eg pesticides on fresh produce).

(Ian Finlayson, ‘EMS and Fresh Produce’, EMS in Agriculture Workshop, Queensland, May1999)

Sainsbury’s also has policies on worker health and socially responsible trading which checksthe source of products to avoid purchasing any made using child labour.

Sainsbury’s Board takes a keen interest in its environmental performance as it believes thatthis has an impact on share prices.

Sainsbury’s has a Board Environment Committee which represents all of Sainsbury’s businessinterests. Sainsbury’s also has an environmental management department which undertakesaudits and reviews and determines future priorities.

Sainbury’s is aiming to improve its accountability and transparency for this reason it has itsreport on its environmental performance verified by Price Waterhouse Cooper.

Sainsbury’s has 17% of the total UK supermarket shopping market. In 1999, nine millioncustomers a week were served at its 392 UK stores. (Ian Finlayson, op cit, p1)

Sainsbury’s therefore has a strong market position and its policies are able to make asignificant impact.


Page 38

♦ Integrated Crop Management

Sainsbury’s Booklet, Raising the Standard, suppliers guide to reducing environmental impacts,describes ICM in the following way:

Emphasis is placed on preventative methods of pest and disease control and conservationof natural resources (such as fertilisers, pesticides and fuel, water and energy andapproaches include:

• reducing the impact of pests and disease through site knowledge and analysis;

• maximising ideal growing conditions and optimising site selection;

• using naturally resistant varieties wherever possible;

• use of diagnostic and predictive techniques to optimise pest and disease control; and

• pest and disease control through natural methods eg biological control.” (p23)

♦ Assured Produce Scheme – National Suppliers

Sainsburys supermarkets were one of the first to develop EMS with producers and suppliers.In the late 1980’s Sainsburys developed environmental standards for production of tomatoes.

Sainsbury’s initially produced a policy or guideline on ICM which it issued to suppliersworldwide. However, a need for a more detailed document to guide best practice wasidentified. The documents which resulted from this process were crop protocols.

A concern about the duplication of standards by different retailers in the UK led to thedevelopment of the “Assured Produce Partnership” involving seven retailers, the NationalFarmers’ Union and farmers.. This group has produced crop protocols for all the major crops inthe UK.

The protocols are designed for use by farm advisers and farmers. In 2002, the scheme is in itsfifth year. It covers 87% of all fresh food produced in the UK. Sainsbury’s will only buyassured produce. To sell produce to Sainbury’s farmers must be members of the scheme andbe certified (farm assured).

Sainsbury’s believes that in order to satisfy their customers that their concerns have beenaddressed, adherence to crop protocols must be verified. This means that they must besubject to public scrutiny and carried out in a way which is independent from the food industry.It has taken two years for Sainsbury’s to develop a self assessment document, confirm howscheme will work and appoint a verifier.

Denise Lovett from Sainsbury’s informed members of the Committee that Sainsbury’s isencouraging the National Health System, a major purchaser of fresh food, to require itssuppliers to be farm assured under the scheme.

Industry driven EMS schemes can be powerful tools for broad scale environmentalimprovement.

♦ EUREP GAP – Overseas Suppliers


Page 39

In 1999, Sainsbury’s worked with over 200 suppliers in more than 40 countries who suppliedover 450 fruit, vegetable and salad lines.

Again, there was concern about possible duplication of standards and processes by Europeanretailers. A need for a common standard was identified. In 1998 a guideline for GoodAgricultural Practice (GAP) was produced by a group of European retailers cooperating onICM. This group is called the European Retailer Produce Working Group.(EUREP).Sainsbury’s has adopted the EUREP GAP Protocol and has required all its global suppliers tobe compliant with it by the end of 2003.

The EUREP GAP Terms of Reference require members to:

Respond to consumer concerns on food safety, animal welfare, environmental protection andworker welfare by:

• encouraging adoption of commercially viable Farm Assurance Schemes, whichpromotes the minimisation of agrochemical inputs, within Europe and world wide.

• Developing a Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) Framework for benchmarking existingFarm Assurance Schemes and Standards including traceability.

• Providing guidance for continuous improvement and the development andunderstanding of best practice;

• Establishing a single recognised framework for independent verification; and

• Communicating and consulting openly with consumers and key partners includingproducers, exporters and importers (www.eurep.org/sites/statutes.html, accessed 13February 2002).

By September 2001, 118 companies world-wide had agreed to abide by terms of reference.

Partners from the entire supply chain for fruits and vegetables agreed upon the GAP Fruitsand Vegetables document and procedures after three years of consultation. The consultationincluded meetings by a committee and two annual conferences in 1999 and 2000 attended by600 people from the broader stakeholder groups in 25 countries. The development of thedocument also involved technical input from certification bodies on compliance criteria andanalysis of practical experience from field trials carried out by various organisations around theworld.

The EUREP GAP Protocol for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables describes its purpose in thefollowing way:

“This document sets out a framework for Good Agricultural Practice (GAP) on farms whichdefines essential elements for the development of best practice for the global production ofhorticultural products (eg fruits, vegetables, potatoes, salads, cut flowers and nurserystock). It defines the minimum standard acceptable to the leading retail groups in Europe.

The Protocol incorporates integrated pest management with integrated crop managementpractices within the framework of commercial agricultural production. EUREP regards this asessential for the long-term sustainability of agricultural production.

The Protocol is divided into “major musts”, “minor musts” and “recommendations”. It covers:


Page 40

• Traceability (all the product is traceable to the farm where it has been grown);

• Record Keeping;

• Varieties and rootstocks;

• Site history and site management;

• soil and substrate management;

• fertiliser usage;

• irrigation;

• crop protection;

• harvesting;

• post-harvest treatments;

• waste and pollution management, recycling and reuse;

• worker health, safety and welfare;

• environmental issues;

• complaint form; and

• internal audit.

Four documents form the basis of the administration of the scheme:

• The EUREP GAP Protocol which sets the standards with which growers must comply;

• EUREP GAP General Regulations which set out the rules by which the scheme isadministered;

• EUREP Control Points and Compliance Criteria which gives specific details on how thegrower complies with each of the scheme requirement; (There are 254 control points foreach farm); and

• EUREP GAP checklist which the grower fills in annually to meet internal auditrequirements and which forms the basis of external audits (EUREPGAP, Partnership2001 Plus).

Certification

EUREP intends to develop an accredited certification system. Currently it has contractedcertification bodies in over 25 countries to develop a non-accredited certification system. Acertification structure is being developed in the organisation.

EUREP’s philosophy is:


Page 41

…to work in a consultative and supportive way so that primary producers will findcompliance with EUREPGAP easier than the imposition of a plethora of differing standardswith all the associated additional burdens and costs. (EUREP, Partnership 2001 Plus, p 7)

In some countries, EUREP members have formed technical working groups that look atspecific requirements and support tools for growers to achieve EUREPGAP certification.EUREPGAP will be supporting regional conferences on other continents to give better accessto growers worldwide. Australia is not currently involved.

EUREP points out that certification strikes a balance between government regulation and freecompetition. If industry wants to avoid the external imposition of standards by government it isessential that industry developed standards are made credible and transparent throughindependent certification.

The rules must be implemented as similarly as possible but must also recognise that growersgroups and countries may have their own EMS. To maximise adoption of the EUREP GAPprotocol farmers and growers groups must be able to adopt it at least cost and it mustharmonize with other schemes.

The certification scheme EUREP is developing will work in the following way:

EUREP will provide a choice of three broad options for certification:

1. An Individual farmer can be audited and provided with a EUREPGAP certificate.

2. A grower’s organisation can be granted a EUREP GAP certificate.

3. This recognises that growers groups may already have a quality management systemcertified under another standard which can facilitate an easy application of EUREPGAPand reduce the costs of certification. This allows quality issues and environmental issuesto be integrated into one system.

Granting of a EUREPGAP Certicate involves:

• the certification body auditing a sample of growers;

• the certification body checking the organisation’s quality management system;and

• the grower’s organisation conducting inspections of all its registered growersusing EUREPs “Farm Grown” Quality Management Systems and GoodAgricultural Practice Manual”.

4. Individual farmers or growers groups in existing EMS schemes may have these schemesbenchmarked against EUREPGAP standards.

EUREP will benchmark that scheme against EUREP GAP for equivalence and provide farmersor growers groups with a “Farm Grown Certificate” This involves:

• the certification body checking the quality management system of the organisation;

• the certification body conducting audits on a sample of growers;

• the grower organisation conducting inspections of all of its registered growers; and


Page 42

• EUREPGAP conducting physical visits of experts to check implementation.

All certification bodies must be accredited by the accreditation body to be eligible to conductaudits against EUREP GAP standards. The auditors are provided with training. Privateauditors are not allowed to provide advice. Certification companies therefore establishthemselves in two parts: a consultancy and audit section. Often consultants will be used toprovide advice on whether the farmer is likely to meet the requirements of an audit. Farmerswho are found not to meet compliance criteria have the right of appeal.

Eurep Structures

EHI Euro Handelsinstitute, a non-profit making private reasearch and education institutie inGermany acted as international secretariat while the scheme was developed. Since March2001 EHI have formed an independent company Foodplus Gm to manage EUREP.

In January 2001, EUREP set up a formalised representative decision making structurecomprising:

• an elected Steering Committee of six supplier and six retailer members, with anindependent chairman, which guides the policy of EUREP GAP and Foodplus;

• a Technical and Standards Committee which develops standards and generalregulations; and

• a council representing the wider stakeholder group which advises the SteeringCommittee and Technical and Standards Committee.

Retail and supplier members form the governing partners and are advised by associatemembers (eg certification bodies, consultants, crop protection industries)

Future Directions

EUREP is positioning itself to undertake global harmonization of EMSs for fresh produce.EUREP states:

The prospect for growth of EUREPGAP by providing international verification frameworksacross a wide range of agricultural production sectors is by any estimation quiteoutstanding. EUREPGAP is in the pole position to become the global player in agriculturalproduction standards and verification frameworks for fruits and vegetables. Retailers areresourcing globally and are facing increasing competition, pressure on profitability and anever tighter regulatory environment. Food safety has lately become a top priority for manyretailers. At the same time producer organisations from all continents have applied forEUREP GAP membership and look for integrated and cost effective solutions deliveringreassurance on food safety. (www.eurep.org/sites/statutes.html, accessed 13 February2002)

As the number of certification bodies increases and organisations are audited, the volume ofapproved products will increase. When the supply volume of approved products reaches asuitable volume, EUREP will be encouraging retailer members to buy only EUREPGAPapproved or equivalent products (EUREP, Partnership 2001 Plus, p10).

The EUREP process is gathering considerable momentum in Europe. In future Australianfarmers and grower organisations may need to participate in EUREP or have their own EMS


Page 43

recognised as equivalent in order to sell fresh fruit and vegetable products in the Europeanmarket.

♦ Issues

Denise Lovett from Sainsbury’s informed Committee members of the following challenges.

Sainsbury’s cannot require suppliers to comply with EUREPGAP where the quantity of theharvest that they purchase is small. On the other hand the products may be in high demand byconsumers who would not support Sainsburys if they decided not to purchase them. Anexample is nuts at Christmas time. Sainsbury’s buys less than 5% of what farmers in the USAproduce but consumers want to have nuts available at Christmas.

Another challenge to compliance with EUREPGAP is the legal status of pesticide use in othercountries. Chile, for instance, does not have its own regulation system on pesticide use.EUREP cannot condone use of chemicals which are less strict than those in Europe. This isnot a safety issue because all produce is tested for minimum residue levels, but it is notacceptable to European consumers. Sainsbury’s would like to see the global harmonisation ofpesticide legislation.

PART B

BUSINESS OPPORTUNITIES ON DISCHARGE SITES


Page 45

4 ENGINEERING WORKS FOR IRRIGATED FARMING

4.1 ON SITE RETENTION OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WATER

Some simplistic answers (to the salinity problem) are to retire the land and I say that’s asimplistic answer because its really not an answer, its acknowledging failure in our jobs asfarmers and as citizens in the United States in being good stewards of the soil andpreserving what we’ve been entrusted with. The 600 acres I have in this project is the firstattempt by anyone to manage the water on-farm and do it in an environmentally safe aswell as economically feasible way. We are proving that it can be done.

John Diener, Owner of Red Rock Ranch

(California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October 1998)

4.2 WESTLANDS WATER DISTRICT

Red Rock Ranch is in the Westlands Water District one of the large, high-technology irrigationareas in California. Westlands Water District is the largest agricultural water delivery system inCalifornia covering one thousand square miles. The climate of the District is semi arid withsummer temperatures in excess of 38 degrees celesius. Annual rainfall averages six inchesand occurs from October to April. There are periodic freezing temperatures in winter. (WestlandsWater District brochure)

The District produces 64% of California’s garlic, 28% of the tomatoes and more than 14% ofthe State’s’ lettuce. Other important crops are cotton, onions, beans, almonds, cantaloupes,lucerne (called alfalfa in the USA) hay and seed and wheat. (Westlands Water District brochure)

Westlands Water District was established under State law in 1952 to supplement undergroundwater supplies which were being rapidly depleted.

4.3 SALINITY PROBLEMS

A consequence of the irrigation of this semi arid land is the development of salinity problemson the West side of the Valley. A perched water table of highly saline water is accumulatingunder 150,000 acres in the Westlands Water District. Many acres are already salt affectedand thousands of acres are at risk. (Westlands Water District brochure)

The Westlands Water District is facing significant challenges in disposing of saline agriculturaldrainage water because it contains selenium which can be toxic to wildlife. A project toconstruct an 82 mile long concrete lined canal to convey and dispose of subsurfaceagricultural drainage water was shelved after the discovery, in 1978, of serious wildlifemaladies at an evaporation basin at Kesterson. (Westlands Water District brochure)

John Diener owner of Red Rock Ranch has been developing a method of rehabilitating salineland and managing drainage water, salt and selenium within his own farm boundaries.

4.4 INTEGRATED ON FARM MANAGEMENT OF DRAINAGE WATER

The delegation inspected the ‘Integrated On Farm Drainage Management’ system on RedRock Ranch. This is illustrated in the following diagram.


Page 46

Integrated on Farm Management of Drainage Water at Red Rock Ranch

Eucalyptus Trees

Broccoli

First Water Use

Tiled 1995

Salt sensitive crops

Alfalfa

First Water Use

Tiled 1997

Moving toward salt sensitive crops

Safflower

First Water Use

Tiled 1996

Moving toward salt sensitive crops

Sugar beets, Canola, Cotton, Alfalfa Seed, and othersalt tolerant crops

Second Water Use

13 1-acre blocks

Third Water Use

Halophytes

Fourth Water Use

Solar Evaoprator

(Source: California Vegetable, op cit, p4)

This is a system of managing saline agricultural drainage water which uses it as a resourcerather than as waste. It is an example of an opportunity to make a profit from salinised landwhilst reclaiming that land and protecting wildlife.

The agricultural drainage water is collected and reused for irrigation repeatedly. Thisdecreases the amount of drainage water which must be disposed of. As the volume decreasesthe salinity levels in the water increases. The farm is divided into four salinity zones. Threezones contain traditional salt sensitive crops and are irrigated with fresh water. The fourthzone is divided into three parts (see diagram). The first part contains moderately salt tolerantplants, the second part contains halophytes (salt loving plants) and the last part is a solarevaporator. to produce sodium sulfate. The system is discussed in more detail later in thischapter.

The benefits of the System, according to a handout provided to the delegation are that it:

• conserves about 20% of irrigation water;

• utilizes from 90 – 95% of drainage water to grow saline crops;

• does not require discharging salt and selenium into rivers and ocean;

• sustains farming on irrigated land;

• removes salt and selenium from drainage water;

• adds commercial value to drainage water, salt and selenium;

• focuses on marketing salt as a new farm commodity;

• adds selenium to crops utilized in selenium deficient areas; and

• separates and stores salt on a very small farm area.


Page 47

Basically, the system transforms the liability of drainage water, salt and selenium into aneconomic opportunity.

4.5 REHABILITATION OF THE LAND

In the mid 1980’s John Diener purchased a 640 acre parcel of land with no drainage whichwas too badly salt affected to grow crops. It had a saline perched water table 10 feet below thesurface. The soil in the area is very rich and John Diener believed that once rehabilitated itwould grow four bales of cotton or 50 tons of tomatoes per acre. He sees the project as beingas much about stewardship as it is about productivity. (California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October 1998)

The rehabilitation program commenced with mapping of the perched water table andmonitoring of the effects of seasonal flows for several years. He found that an impervious soillayer was directing water down a slope onto the farm. (California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October 1998)

Three 150 acre fields were rehabilitated by installing tile drains (see diagram). The tile drainswere installed 2 feet shallower than the traditional pattern (ie 6 feet deep) to decrease theamount of drainage water produced. The tile drains produce free running water only 30% oftime. Mr Diener planted the fields with lucerne which has a deep root structure. This helped tolower the groundwater level.

Three years later the field was planted with Broccoli-a testament to the rehabilitation of theland. The soil in the field now measures only one unit of EC. (California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October1998)

4.6 THE INTEGRATED ON FARM DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

♦ First use water areas

The three tiled fields are planted with traditional crops that are salt sensitive. They are irrigatedwith fresh water (1st use water) (See Diagram) The three fields comprise 75% of Red RockRanch (California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October 1998).

♦ Second Use water area

Cisterns at the low end of the three fields collect irrigation runoff which at this stage of theprocess contains 3000 ppm salts. Submerged pumps in the cisterns pump the water to a 120acre field divided into 40 acre blocks (See Diagram). This area comprises 20% of Red RockRanch (California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October 1998).

Here traditional crops with some salt tolerance are grown including: sugar beets, cotton,lucerne seed, some grains and members of the mustard family. Mr Diener says that hismanagement system is about manipulating the water to grow the crops that farmers wouldnormally grow. Nevertheless, Mr Diener does use experimental crops. He has imported avariety of salt tolerant canola from India which he is using to absorb selenium on the secondwater use area of Red Rock Ranch.

These crops also absorb selenium. Ruminant animals, like cattle, sheep and goats needselenium in their diets. Bacteria around the plant roots also volatilize some of the selenium(California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October 1998).

♦ Third use water area


Page 48

Drainage water from the 120 acre field is collected. At this stage the salinity is 15- 20,000 ppm.The water is applied to 13 one acre fields containing a variety of salt tolerant plants. This areacomprises 2.9% of Red Rock Ranch. (California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October 1998)

Mr Diener is experimenting to find commercially viable salt tolerant plants. An important part ofthe management system is to ensure that no pools of standing water form on this area whichwill attract wildlife which may be affected by the selenium in the water. The irrigation system isset up with solenoid timers which move the water from field to field.

♦ Fourth use water area

A small plot contains halophytes irrigated with fourth use water which is almost as salty as seawater. This area comprises 1.5% of Red Rock Ranch. (California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October 1998)

♦ Solar Evaporator

Finally the water which is as salty as sea water is sprayed onto black plastic covering a 2 acrefield. This area comprises 0.6% of Red Rock Ranch.

The water is sprayed in short bursts to facilitate evaporation and leave no standing water toattract birds. Mr Diener is considering commercial use of the residual salt (Sodium Sulfate).60% of the Sodium Sulfate used in the USA is imported. (California Vegetable, Vol 3, No 6, October1998)

The University of California, Davis are researching the use of a solar still to produce bottleddrinking water from the saline water (pers comment Vashek Cervinka).

In 1994, Mr Diener received a $400,000 grant from the Bureau of Reclamation which funded$100,000 of infrastructure and provided $300,000 to the researchers and consultantsassociated with the project.

In 1998 Mr Diener won the Calfornia Vegetable Journal/Centre for Irrigation TechnologyIrrigator of the Year Award.

4.7 ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES

Data collected by the project’s researchers demonstrate that salt is being leached deep intothe soil profile, away from the surface where it can damage crops.

Soil samples Ece (dS/m)Depth

1995 1996 1997 1998

0-1 feet 11.3 2.3 1.5 0.8

1-2 feet 8.8 7.1 5.7 4.4

2-3 feet 8.6 8.9 7.6 4.8

Cervinka, Diener, Erickson, Finch, Menezes, Peters and Shelton, Irrigated System forAgricultural Drainage management on Irrigated Farmland, October 1999, Final project report)

There are water savings of 22 percent on the farm and no drainage water is released into theenvironment.


Page 49

4.8 BUSINESS OUTCOMES

The Final Report on the Project provides the following summary of the economics.

The total RRR project investment was $376,000 [USD] ; this is $606 [USD] per acre of land.This investment included the installation of drains in the 620 acre field, six sumps, a waterdistribution system, materials for a the solar evaporator on 2 acres, automatic irrigationsystem, the purchase of salt tolerant grasses and trees and the establishment of salttolerant grasses and trees and other expenses…….

The net return from growing low value crops was between $150 to $200 [USD] per acre;that is between $93,000 and $124,000 [USD] for this 640 acre farm. A net return from theproduction of vegetable crops grown on 470 acres is between $400 to $700 [USD] per acre.It is assumed that the net return from salt-tolerant crops, grown on 120 acres, will remainbetween $100 and $200 [USD] per acre. The total net return will be between $205,000 and$362,000 [USD] from the production of vegetables and salt tolerant crops. This representsan increase of the net return between $116,000 and $242,000 [USD] per year or between$181-$378 [USD] per acre/year.

The investment of $606 per acre has increased the land value by $1,656 [USD] per acreand the crop net return by $181 - $378 [USD] per acre per year. The salt will also bemarketed in the future. Finally, the farmer manages salt and drainage water on his farm,thus avoiding environmental expenses for the taxpayers of California. (Vashek et al, op cit,p31)

♦ Regulatory Constraints on Progress

Mr Diener hopes his system will be used by other local farmers. Much of the land adjoiningRed Rock Ranch is incapable of producing more than one and a half bales of cotton per acreand no wheat will grow there because of salt intrusion.

He believes that farmers should work together to reclaim 2,400 acre blocks which wouldprovide more manageable parcels of land for secondary and tertiary uses of irrigation waterand allow for economies of scale.

However, Californian environmental policies may be limiting the up-take of Integrated On FarmDrainage Management by farmers. This is because the environmental policies provide noincentive to farmers to improve ground water quality whilst at the same time imposing a host ofregulations on farmers who manage salt on their farms (Handout provided to delegation). Thisregulation requires a large amount of paperwork and high costs and in the absence ofincentives, acts as a deterrent.

The issue of bureacratic regulation has been raised in evidence to this Committee byGeoprocessors, an Australian company, working with local councils to remove salts fromgroundwater pumped from beneath towns.

The regulatory constraints on Integrated on Farm Drainage Management in California are apity as the benefits of the system meet the objectives of the Toxic Pits Cleanup Act of 1984which regulates the management of drainage water, salt and selenium to protect the quality ofwaters of the state.

4.9 ADVANCES IN DRAINAGE ARRANGEMENTS


Page 50

Tulare Lake Drainage District, in Kings County, California, is another area where irrigationfarming has caused secondary salinity problems. Like the Fresno area, discussed earlier, thesaline agricultural drainage water contains selenium which can be toxic to wildlife. The area isunder the pacific flyway for migratory birds and the Drainage District has had to put in placecostly measures to deter birds from evaporation basins. Compensatory habitat has also beenestablished at considerable expense.

Farmers pay for the installation of tile drains and pay the full cost for the disposal of drainagewater.

It is also in Australia’s interests to reduce the amount of saline agricultural drainage waterdischarge from Australian farms. There is not a problem with selenium in Australia, rather theproblem is with the high levels of salt in the water. Evaporation basins are costly and have alimited life span because of the build up of salts. It is also in the interests of State governmentsin the Murray Darling Basin to reduce salt loads in the river system to meet the mandatorysalinity target at Morgan in South Australia. The innovations in the USA are, therefore relevant.

The Tulare Drainage District comprises 234,602 acres, of which 24, 617 acres are drained.Irrigated farms use flood irrigation. 8,000 gallons per minute are pumped into the fields. Tiledrains take the water to the tail water pipe at the end of the field where the water is collectedand recycled. Eventually it is released into drainage channels managed by Tulare LakeDrainage District. Drainage water is conveyed through 14 miles of sub-surface pipeline and 17miles of open ditches. 11 pumping stations connect the pipelines to three evaporation basinswith a combined surface area of 3,165 acres.

The District is experimenting with the design of tile drains to reduce soil salinity levels anddrainage water output.

In the 1970’s it was thought that 10 foot-deep tile drains were needed to remove saline waterfrom the root zone of plants. These drains were placed 400 feet apart. The District has beenexperimenting with shallower and closer spaced drainage systems by placing the drains 4foot- deep at 100 feet spacing. This has reduced drainage water output from ½ acre- foot to ¼acre- foot reducing the need for evaporation basins.

Over a decade there was a 10% reduction in soil salinity with the use of 10 foot -deep drainsbut with the new drainage system there has been a reduction of 40% in one year.


Page 51

5 SALT TOLERANT PLANTS

The delegation was interested in the range of salt tolerant grasses and halophytes which arebeing trialed in California. These grasses are watered with saline agricultural drainage water.This reduces the quantity of drainage water to be discharged and the plants also remove someof the selenium from the water. A secondary purpose of the trials is to evaluate the foragequality of the grasses. The delegation inspected a trial at Red Rock Ranch near Fresno and inthe Tulare Lake Drainage District near Corcoran.

Australia needs a range of salt tolerant commercially viable crops to provide farmers withsalinised land with an income stream. In Australia their potential use if different. Halophytescould be used on saline waterlogged sites to rehabilitate the land and provide extra land forgrazing in summer. Salt tolerant plants would be for use in dryland farming and would not beirrigated.

5.1 SALT TOLERANT GRASSES

There are 14 test blocks of perennial salt tolerant grasses on Red Rock Ranch. They are partof the Integrated On-Farm Drainage Management System discussed earlier. Dr Sharon Benesfrom the Department of Plant Science at California State University, Fresno is conducting trialson Red Rock Ranch using drainage lysimeters in a recirculating closed system. The plants aregrown in sand and irrigated five times a day. She is evaluating the grasses for theirevapotranspiration (ET) which means their ability to use up the saline drainage water. She isalso evaluating the likely economic return from the forages and halophytes (forage quality,other products).

Dr Benes is evaluating three salt tolerant forage plants:

• Jose Tall Wheatgrass;

• Creeping Wild Rye; and

• Bermuda Grass.

Dr Benes et al have found that Bermuda Grass has the highest rate of evapotranspiration.Jose Tall Wheatgrass and Creeping Wild Rye were found to have greatly elevatedevapotranspiration rates if allowed to reach 12 – 20 inches high rather than being cut down toa turf height (Benes, Grattan, Goorahoo, Robinson and Froh, Evaluation of Halophytes and Salt Tolerant Forages forDrainage Water Re-use Systems , California State University, Fresno and University of California, Davis).

Dr Benes et al concludes that Bermuda Grass has the highest forage quality (see tablesoverleaf). The protein level of Bermuda Grass is greater than that of alfalfa (called lucerne inAustralia) grown in non-saline conditions and close to that of fescue, grown in non-salineconditions (Benes et al, op cit).

Dr Benes comments that the grass has high levels of nitrates which would be potentially toxicif fed undiluted. This is probably because it is being irrigated with agricultural drainage effluent(Benes etal, op cit). This would not be the case, if the grasses were suitable for dryland farming inAustralia.


Page 52

Forage Quality Lysimeter Trials

Forage

Eciw

(dS/m)

Ece

(dS/m)

ME

Mj/kg

TDN

%

Protein

%

NDF

%

Ash

%

Bermuda grass 12.2 sand 8.8 (0.1) 61.6 (0.5) 24.6 59.6 9.7

JT Wheat grass 12.9 sand 7.8 (0.3) 51.8 (1.7) 10.9 64.5 10.6

Creep. Wild Rye 13.5 sand 6.4 (0.1) 44.0 (0.3) 9.7 68.7 9.4

Fescue (nonsaline)

1.5 sand 8.6 (0.2) 60.5 (1.0) 26.9 52.6 11.4

Alfalfa (non saline) - - 9,1 (std) 67.9 (std) 24.2 33.2 10.5

Source: (Benes et al, op cit)

Mjoule/kg = Metabolic energy (Rumen fluid gas test +CP+fat = ME)

TDN = Total Dissolved Nutrients (gas test)

CP = Crude Protein & Nitrate

NDF = Neutral Detergent Fibre

Ash

Selenium

Shaded rows = non saline control groups

Tulare Lake Drainage District is also examining the forage quality of salt tolerant grasses. Therange of salt tolerant grasses being trialed which are:

• Giant Bermuda Grass;

• Common Bermuda Grass;

• Kikuyu; and

• Jose Tall Wheatgrass.

The delegation was informed that Jose Tall Wheatgrass can be used as forage for rangecattle. It needs water to establish but thereafter requires little water. The Wheatgrass on thesite was planted with a vegetable planter. The roots reach 3 to 4 feet into the solid clay layerbeneath the site.

Kikuyu (used in Australia as lawn) requires irrigation but is salt tolerant and can be used as aforage for dairy cattle.

♦ Other productive uses of the grasses


Page 53

As some grasses, which are promising in their use of saline drainage water, such as TallWheatgrass and Creeping Wild Rye, have nutritional values which are not competitive forforage, other productive uses are being evaluate

Mr Vashek Cervinka, Agricultural Engineer with the California Department of Water Resourcesinformed the delegation that the grasses are being considered as energy crops for biomasspower stations because they produce a high volume of biomass. Creeping Wild Rye has beenfound to be the most promising salt tolerant perennial grass for this purpose.

Another possible use of salt tolerant perennial plants is in particle board. Mr Cervinka showedthe delegation some samples of a particle board made from saltbush which the project teamassociated with Red Rock Ranch are considering for further commercial development.

5.2 HALOPHYTES

Halophytes are plants which need salt to survive.

Dr Benes has evaluated three halophytes:

• Salicornia;

• Saltgrass (NyPa Forage); and

• Saltbush.

Of these, Salicornia has the highest evapotranspiration rate under irrigation with 20-30 dS/mdrainage water. It was found to tolerate high salinity and boron Salicornia also has potential asa ‘green tips’ vegetable, vegetable salt, cooking oil and particle board. However, the foragequality of all three plants was found to be low. (Benes et al, op cit)

The Tulare Lake Drainage District had also trialled saltgrass (NyPa Forage). The trial hasfound that the grass must be grazed young because it gets brittle and then the nutrient leveldrops. The delegation was informed that if managed properly it could be used as forage forsheep or used to feed horses. (Since this study tour, the Committee has been advised byNyPa Australia, which hold the breeder’s rights to Saltgrass (NyPa Forage) that good foragequality is being achieved in trials in Western Australia, where an application of fertilizer hasbeen used.)

Doug Davis, District Manager of Tulare Lake Drainage District, informed the delegation thatNyPa Forage is a remarkable plant for remediation of land.

Distichlis takes air from the surface. Its sharp roots cut through rock hard soil. It can penetratean 18 inch layer of hard soil which a 220lb man cannot penetrate with a shovel. The roots godown 6 – 8 feet and open up the soil profile. A single plant can fill out one square metre within2-3 months but can also be killed with Roundup.

The plant is grown on salt flats in Den Jing (between Shanghai and Beijing) During a flood inthe area it was inundated with three feet of ocean water. The plants had a 30 – 70% survivalrate.

The plant may be useful in dryland farming areas of Australia where saline water is close tothe surface. Its roots will search out the salt water below the surface. Since the study tour, the


Page 54

Committee has taken evidence from NyPa Australia. This information will be included in theParliamentary report on business opportunities which can address salinity.


Page 55

6 PROFITABLE USES OF SALINE WATER

6.1 COMMERCIAL BRINE SHRIMP HARVESTING

Saline water in California contains selenium which can be toxic to birds. The Tulare LakeDrainage District is working on many approaches to reducing drainage water and seleniumand protecting wildlife.

Since 1998, the Tulare Lake Drainage District has contracted Novalek Inc to harvest brineshrimp in the South Evaporation Basin, which has the highest levels of salinity. The brineshrimp is harvested and dried for use as fish food in aquariums. The brine shrimp take up theselenium, and harvesting it removes it from the evaporation pond. In 1999-2000 206,000pounds (net weight) of shrimp were estimated to have removed 134,000 ppm of selenium. Theshrimp have been tested in aquariums and have no adverse affect on fish.

The activity of harvesting the shrimp also serves to deter waterbirds from foraging and nestingin the evaporation basin.

Australia does not have problems with selenium. It is, however, looking for productive uses forsaline water. Brine shrimp are one possible use of saline water.

6.2 PRODUCING BIODIESEL FROM ALGAE USING WASTE CO2 FROM POWER PLANTS

Another possible productive use of saline water is growing microalgae. High oil producingalgae can be used to produce biodiesel, a chemically modified natural oil which performs inmotor vehicles as well as diesel. Biodiesel produced from rapeseed oil is a substantialcommercial enterprise in Europe.

Between 1978 and 1996, NREL, had a small research program to develop renewabletransport fuels from algae. The main focus of the program was production of biodiesel fromhigh-lipid content algae grown in saline ponds, utilising waste CO2 from coal fired plants. TheProgram was reluctantly terminated due to budget cuts. The delegation was briefed on theproject and given a copy of a Draft Report from July 1998, A Look Back at the US Departmentof Energy’s Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae. The staff of NREL alerted thedelegation to this research because it is a potential business opportunity that makesproductive use of greenhouse gas from power stations and saline water.

The Report states that: microalgae are capable of producing 30 times the amount of oil perunit area of land, compared to terrestrial oilseed crops. (NREL, op cit, p3) Microalgae are found inmarine and freshwater environments.

The South Western USA was considered to be a suitable area for this enterprise as it has awarm climate, shallow saline aquifers and abundant land in areas where there are nocompeting uses from agriculture. The Report states:

The unique ability of algae to grow in saline water means that we can target areas of the country inwhich saline groundwater supplies prevent any other useful application of water or land resources.If we were to draw a map showing areas best suited for energy crop production (based on climateand resource needs), we would see that algae technology needs complement the needs of bothagriculture and other biomass-based energy technologies. (NREL op cit, p10)


Page 56

A source of CO2 (greenhouse gas) is also required. Every operation that involves combustionof fuel for energy is a potential source. The NREL program used the CO2 emitted by powerstations as the flue gas is rich in CO2

A 1,000 metre square pond system was built and tested in Roswell, New Mexico and operatedfor one year.

The open shallow ponds are the shape of a racetrack and have motorised paddles that keepthe algae, water and nutrients circulating around it. The aim is to maximise the exposure ofalgae to sunlight.

CO2 from the stack of the power station is bubbled through the water. The trial proved thatoutdoor ponds could utilize up 90% of the CO2. The average production was 17 gms oil persquare metre per day. However, the production of oil did reach the target of 50 gms persquare metre per day on hot sunny days. Low night temperatures hampered production andthe report comments that some form of temperature control with enclosure of ponds may wellbe required.

Perhaps the process heat from a solar pond which also utilizes saline water could beconsidered. The Committee inspected a solar pond at Pyramid Salt in Northern Victoria whichwas used to produce process heat and electricity.

Algae production would be a large operation on the scale of a farm. It is not competitive withthe costs of petroleum diesel, even factoring in $US50 per ton of CO2 as a carbon credit.However, it is competitive with other sources of biodiesel such as from soybean oil. In 1997crude soybean oil prices were $2.25 - $3.25/gal (USD). versus lipids from algae at $1.4/gal(unextracted).(Kiran L. Kadam, 1997, Power Plant Flue Gas as a source of CO2 for microalgae cultivation: economic

impact of different process options’ in Energy Conversion Management, Vol 38 pS510.) Algal production wouldrequire a subsidy as an environmental service.

Like the USA, Australia has long term deposits of coal and burning of coal requiresenvironmental mitigation. There are no control technologies for greenhouse gas emissions andcoal is the most carbon intensive of the fossil fuels. The Report states:

Consumption of coal, an abundant domestic fuel source for electricity generation, will continue togrow over the coming decades, both in the US and abroad. Algae technology can extend theuseful energy we get from coal combustion and reduce carbon emissions by recycling waste CO2from power plants into clean-burning biodiesel. (NREL, op cit, p10).

At a greenhouse gas mitigation cost of $30/t (USD), algal biodiesel is also competitive withother options for the capture and disposal of greenhouse gas emissions from power stations.(Kiran L. Kadam, op cit, pS510.)

The NREL report also states that the genetic engineering tools established in the program area strong foundation for development of algae which produces more oil. The reseachers believethis development would be rapid. There are also opportunities to increase the photosyntheticefficiency of algae.

The research looked at algae that grow in extreme temperatures, pH and salinity as well asproducing a lot of oil. The collection, which is at the University of Hawaii, is still available toresearchers. (NREL, op cit p11). The researchers advise that local native strains of algae provedto be the best starting point in field trials.


Page 57

Algae can also be used as a fuel in other ways:

• to produce methane gas via biological or thermal gasification;

• to produce ethanol via fermentation; or

• used as a fuel extender in coal fired power stations.

There are other uses for algae besides as a fuel. The staff of NREL said that algae was beingfarmed commercially in the USA in New Mexico and Southern California for neutraceuticals.

PART C

COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT APPROACH ANDCONTRIBUTION TO SALINITY: INTERNATIONAL

COMPARISON

Report on Overseas Study Tour to USA & UK

Page 59

7 COLORADO RIVER SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM AND YUMA DESALTINGPLANT

7.1 THE COLORADO R IVER SYSTEM

The Colorado River System is the Murray Darling Basin of the United States of America. It isthe most regulated and controversial river with fierce competition for the use of water. Like theMurray Darling Basin it is affected by secondary salinity with irrigated agriculture being a majorcause. Unlike Australia, the USA does not have a significant problem with dryland salinity.

The similarities between Australia and the Lower Basin States of the Colorado River are notsurprising. Both areas have semi-arid climates and low rainfalls. Large scale irrigation wasseen by both countries as the way to make arid land productive and to populate the inland. Infact, the Australian government closely monitored and learnt from the development of irrigationin California.

7.2 MANAGEMENT OF SALINITY

The Colorado River is naturally very saline. The flow of the river dilutes the salt. River flow issensitive to climactic conditions so in any one year salinity may be half or double that of theyear before.

47% of the salinity in the Colorado River occurs naturally through the leaching of salts. TheColorado Plateau contains salt bearing shale beneath the topsoil, from a historic inland sea.Salt bearing shale is washed into the Colorado River through erosion. This is a natural processas the River has little riparian vegetation. The 11 million acre feet of water flowing annually intoLake Powell, bring 7.5 million tons of salt into the Lake.

In 1961 salinity in the Colorado River significantly increased. Loss of water through extractionsconcentrated the salt by reducing river flows and return flows from agricultural drainage addedsaline water to the river.

River flows reduced due to water development and reservoir building. Salinity in the riversystem rose sharply after 1-2M acre feet per year of water were used to fill Lake Powell(reservoir) At the same time, the Wellton Mohawk Irrigation and Drainage District beganpumping saline ground water from underneath farmland into the Gila River, a tributary of theColorado River.

Of the secondary salinity in the river in 2001, 37% was caused by irrigation, 12% by reservoirevaporation and 4% by municipal and industrial activities.

7.3 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

During the 1960’s the USBR had constructed drainage facilities for the Welton MohawkIrrigation District and very saline drainage water was discharged into the Colorado River justabove the Mexican border.

In November 1961, Mexico formally protested to the USA that the water delivered to itsboundary was harmful to the purposes stated in the Mexican Water Treaty of 1944 andtherefore a violation of the Treaty.


Page 60

(An on-going under supply of water to Mexico was resolved in 1944 with the signing of theTreaty. It guarantees Mexico 1.5 million acre feet per year of water and provides for the supplyof 1.7 million acre feet of water when surplus water is available.)

Following the protest, the USA began removing the drainage water from the water reachingMexico. However, this meant that 50,000 acre feet of water could not be credited to theamount delivered to Mexico. In 1971, due to the levels of salinity in the water, Mexicorequested that a further 40,000 to 75,000 acre feet of drainage water be removed from thesystem. It was clear that measures needed to be taken to improve the quality of water in theColorado River.

The State Department brought the states into the discussions by reactivating a grouppreviously used by the State Department called the Committee of Fourteen. It was composedof two representatives from each state nominated by the state governors to the StateDepartment (Email, Jack Barnett, Executive Director, Salinity Control Fourm).

State and federal representatives were also meeting together to talk about technical solutionsunder authority given to the Water Pollution Control Administration to create advisory groups(Email, Jack Barnett, Executive Director, Salinity Control Fourm).

In 1972, a broad water quality target was agreed at a joint Federal-States conference on thepollution of interstate waters of the Colorado River. The parties agreed to maintain salinityconcentrations in the lower main stem of the Colorado River at, or below, the flow-weightedaverage annual salinity of 1972.

The commencement of the Clean Water Act abolished the authority for the advisory group.The states noted that they were under pressure to set water quality standards and that nolonger were they being called together by federal agencies to talk about issues. The Statesthen determined that they should create their own organization that they controlled, hence, theSalinity Control Forum was created exclusively by the states in 1973. Each governor wasrequested to appoint up to three members.

The states were in uncharted waters and they soon were to have their hands full. (Email, JackBarnett, Executive Director, Salinity Control Fourm)

The states took the position that if Congress acted only to ratify the commitments under theproposed Minute 242 (to set a salinity target for water being delivered to Mexico) that thelarger problem, that is, the water quality issues within the United States, would not beaddressed. The states and those representing them in Congress held to this position until theSalinity Control Act, P.L. 93-320, had two strong titles in it. Title I addresses measures andprograms in the United States to solve the international water quality problem. Title IIaddresses water quality issues in the U.S. (The titles are discussed below in detail) At thatpoint, the Basin States agreed to cost-share. This was the birth of a basinwide program,unheard of for water quality control for a basin the size of the Colorado.

Next, the states determined that the accepted model for river basin water quality control ofstateline standards did not fit the needs of the salinity program for the Colorado River Basin.They proposed the three downstream measuring points with numeric criteria. The standardsproposed by the Forum were maintenance of average annual flow-weighted salinityconcentrations of 723 milligrams per litre below Hoover Dam, 747 mg/L below Parker Dam,and 879 mg/L at Imperial Dam.


Page 61

The EPA objected. After much persuasion, the EPA came around to the states' view andpublished the accord as water quality standards in the Federal Register. Hence, the firstofficial setting of the basinwide program was by the EPA. Soon, however, through the triennialreview process, the seven states adopted the standards. (Email, Jack Barnett, Executive Director,Salinity Control Fourm)

At that point, environmental groups entered the fray saying that this notion of downstreammeasuring points was not what the Clean Water Act contemplated, that the proposed programwas flawed and that the plan was not going to work. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)felt strongly enough to take the issues to federal court and the Basin States jumped into theaction on the side of the EPA. The EDF lost on every count. This court action furthervalidated the program and the role of the Forum. (Email, Jack Barnett, Executive Director, Salinity ControlFourm)

The standards were adopted by the basin states in 1975. Water quality is monitored by 20stations on the Colorado River system and every three years the Forum reviews and reportson compliance with the water standards. Part of this review involves evaluating whethersufficient salinity controls are in place to offset the effects of development. The Forum adjustsits implementation plan accordingly.

The 1999 Review reported that salinty control measures were preventing half a million tons ofsalt from entering the river system but in future needed to prevent 1.5M tons from entering thesystem.

7.4 MINUTE 242 TO THE 1944 TREATY 1973

In 1973, Mexico and the USA agreed on targets for the quality of water being delivered. This isthe equivalent of the salinity target at Morgan on the Murray River in South Australia.

Minute 242 sets water quality targets at the two points where the River enters Mexico, asfollows;

• The 1.36 million acre feet of water per year delivered at the Northern InternationalBoundary must not have gained more than 115 ppm (+/- 30 ppm) of salt after leavingImperial Dam; and

• The salinity levels of the 0.4 million acre feet per year of water delivered at theSouthern International Boundary must not be greater than 1500 ppm which was thelevel of salinity when the Minute took effect.

The target permits the salinity levels of water entering Mexico to vary if the level of salinity inImperial Dam rises. The target at Morgan in South Australia does not provide this flexibility asit requires salinity in the Murray River to be no more than 800 EC 95% of the time. Thedifferences in the nature of the targets reflect the differences in the landscapes. Salinity levelsin the Colorado River would naturally have been highly variable.

Minute 242 also provides for the highly saline (3,000 ppm) drainage water from the WelltonMohawk Irrigation and Drainage District to bypass the river through a canal so that it can betreated.


Page 62

At the time, Mexico was extracting water from a ground water aquifer at an unsustainable rate.The Minute limits the pumping of groundwater, within 5 miles of each side of the Arizona-Mexico border, to 160,000 acre feet annually.

In the USA, salinity control is underpinned by legislation.

Congress passed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974 authorising theSecretaries of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to start programs to ensure thatwater quality complied with Minute 242. The Secretary of the Interior is also required to reportbiennially on the progress of the program.

7.5 COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL ACT 1974

The Act authorised a number of engineering projects to reduce salinity. Title 1 projects ensurethat the USA meets its water quality obligations to Mexico. Title 2 projects apply to areasupstream of Imperial Dam and address point sources of salinity to prevent the salt entering theriver.

♦ Title 1 projects

Title 1 projects are for the Lower Colorado Basin and include:

• Construction of a bypass drain to the Santa Clara Slough (Cinega) which dischargessaline drainage water into the Gulf of California;

• Construction of the Yuma Desalting Plant to take the drainage water from the WelltonMohawk Canal to desalinate it to a level which meets the water quality requirements forMexico; and

• Construction of a well field in the US 5 mile zone to salvage underground flows anddeliver the water at the South Boundary with Mexico.

Yuma Desalting Plant

The delegation inspected the Yuma Desalting Plant and was briefed by its staff.

The Yuma Desalting Plant was the most controversial of the Title 1 projects. It was establishedto desalinate agricultural drainage water from 60,000 acres of irrigated farmland in the WelltonMohawk Division of the Gila Irrigation and Drainage Project. The drainage water is pumpedfrom the shallow aquifer beneath the farmlands. The desalinised water is blended back intolower Colorado River upstream of Morelos Dam to ensure that the water being delivered to theNorthern International Boundary with Mexico meets the water quality standards.

Before the Plant was built, the saline drainage water was discharged untreated into the Gulf ofCalifornia and could not be credited towards the volume of water which the USA must deliverto Mexico. Now 80,000 acre feet of desalinised water can be counted towards the volumetarget for delivery.

There are different methods of desalinating water. The Yuma Desalting Plant is the largestreverse osmosis membrane desalination plant in the world. The Plant cost $US252M in capitalcosts and operating costs are projected to be more than $20M per year. Critics said that itwould be cheaper to buy out the irrigation district or retire the saltiest farmland. In many ways,the Plant was a social and political settlement, rather than an economic decision.


Page 63

The Plant treats 100 million gallons a day of 3,000 ppm drainage water which prduces 73million gallons a day of desalted water at a salinity of 300 ppm. The plant produces 360 tons aday of calcium carbonate sludge. The sludge has been transported for disposal which is costlybut there are companies interested in buying it.

The Plant has not been operating for several years. It is on standby at a cost of $US1.4M peryear. The flooding of Gila River in 1992 means that there is sufficient low salinity water to meetthe water quality standards to Mexico without desalination. The Plant’s staff expect that theYuma Desalting Plant will have to become operational again in the next few years unless othercheaper salinity control measures are adopted. As the Plant is expensive to run a number ofother options are being considered for dealing with the agricultural drainage water such asinjecting it deep into the ground.

When the Plant is operational, the reject water that has been separated by the desalinationprocess is conveyed to the coast through a 53 mile long concrete-lined bypass drain where itis discharged into the Santa Clara Slough in the Gulf of California, Mexico. Concerns wereraised about the impact of the water on wildlife. If the Plant becomes operational again it islikely that an alternative would have to be found which may also increase the costs.

♦ Title 2 Projects

Title 2 projects apply to areas upstream of Imperial Dam.

In 1968, the Bureau of Reclamation undertook a study of the feasibility and cost of salinitycontrol measures in the Upper Colorado Basin. The Act of 1974 established the ColoradoRiver Salinity Control Program. It authorised technical investigations, planning andimplementation of major projects to prevent salinity from point sources from entering the riversystem. These projects took place in designated areas called Salinity Control Units.

Much of the salinity in the river is from diffuse sources but these are more difficult to control.The point sources include saline springs, seepage of agricultural discharge water from drainsand mining exploration wells.

An important feature of the Act is that it required the Bureau of Reclamation to give priority toprojects which remove the most salt for the least cost. Millions of dollars have been spentanalyzing technical options and assessing their cost.

The cost effective portions of Salinity Control Units have all been completed. Title II projectsthat were implemented are:

• Grand Valley Unit in Mesa County, Colorado

Agricultural drainage canals were lined with concrete to reduce seepage into the groundwatersystem.

• Las Vegas Wash Unit in Clark County, Nevada

A pipeline was constructed to prevent industrial wastewater from coming into contact withhighly saline soils.

• Lower Gunnison Basin Unit in Delta and Montrose County Colorado. Piped water wasprovided for watering of livestock during winter to eliminate the use of unlined canal andlateral systems.


Page 64

• McElmo Creek Unit -- Dolores Project in San Juan and Montezuma Counties of Utahand Colorado

Measures were put in place to reduce seepage from agricultural drainage canals in theMontezuma Valley Irrigation area.

• Meeker Dome Unit in Rio Bianco County, Colorado

Four wells used for oil exploration were found to be conveying saline water from deepgeological formations into the White River. The project plugged these deep wells.

• Paradox Valley Unit in Montrose County, Colorado is formed by a collapsed salt domeand was the most concentrated point source of salinity in the Colorado River,contributing 205,000 tons of salt annually. The briny river water is now collected andinjected 3 miles down into the earth through deep well injection. There have beennumerous technical problems which have had to be addressed on the site.

• Price-San Rafael Unit in Emery, Carbon, Wayne, and Garfield Counties, Utah. Theproject put in place improvements in irrigation systems to prevent runoff. Waterpressure developed by piped laterals is used to run sprinkler irrigation systems. A ruraldomestic water distribution system has also been installed to replace the use of thecanal system for watering livestock in winter.

• San Juan River Unit in San Juan County, New Mexico covers 23,000 square miles andcontributes one million tons of salt annually to the river. The principal sources are theHammond and Hogback Navajo Indian Irrigation Projects. Unlined canals and lateralshave been replaced.

Although a large amount of funding has been spent on feasibility studies, this has avoidedeven larger amounts being spent on projects which are not the most cost-effective ways ofreducing the overall salinity in the river system. Projects planned for eleven Salinity ControlUnits have not proceeded after the research demonstrated that they were not the most cost-effective options.

7.6 INSTITUTIONAL AND COST SHARING ARRANGEMENTS

♦ The Salinity Control Forum

The Salinity Control Forum is a State's only organization formed by their governors. Like theMurray Darling Basin Ministerial Council, it is very much a political organization. Each of the 7Basin States has up to 3 members (typically head of water resources, head of water pollution,and lawyer).

Through a cost sharing agreement between the states, they hire an Executive Director (privateconsultant) to manage their interests, lobby for funds, give testimony before Congress(federal), interact with Federal agencies, arrange tours and meetings. The Forum works byunanimous consent.

The Forum has a separate work group made up of technical specialists that have moved intolower to mid management positions. The Forum and Work Group have no direct powers overthe Federal Agencies .It does, however, have influence with members of Congress for theseven basin states. Congress creates US legislation and appropriates funds for federalagencies to operate.


Page 65

♦ Cost Sharing

The seven Basin states contribute 30% of the funding for the Salinity Control Program and theFederal Government provides 70%.

Of the 30% States funding, Upper Basin States contribute 15% and the Lower Basin Statescontribute 85%.

By law, the State share is collected as a surcharge on the cost of power produced at certainfederally owned (Bureau of Reclamation) hydropower dams along the Colorado River. TheFederal share comes from federal income taxes allocated by Congress. The ProgramManager, of the Salinity Control Program manages these funds in consultation with the Forum(States).

♦ Federal/State Relationship

Federal employees are not permitted to lobby Congress, their role is to provide advice. Statesand private interests can lobby Congress. There is, therefore, a mutual interest in workingtogether. Congressmen must advance the interests of their state and its local governments.

David Trueman, Program Manager informed the Committee that it is vital that all partiesoperate by unanimous consent. He stated that his major accomplishment in 12yrs has been tobring the program from a period of poor compromises into a win-win situation. The USBR triesvery hard to make the program fair, practical and beneficial to all interested parties (taxpayer,irrigator, end users, wildlife).

7.7 1995 AMENDMENTS OF THE SALINITY CONTROL ACT

By 1994, the most cost-effective portions of salinity control units were completed and theallocation of $300 M (USD) had been spent.

However, there is continuous pressure for development requiring water extractions and thesedevelopments increase salinity. This means that there is also a continuous need to identifyand implement ways of reducing salinity to offset the increases.

The Bureau of Reclamation identified innovative directions for the Salinity Control Program butthese were constrained by legislation and the design of the Program.

♦ A basin wide approach

The legislation restricted salinity control to particular areas defined as salinity control units.The Bureau of Reclamation was interested in adopting a ‘basin-wide approach’ to salinitycontrol and needed the flexibility to work jointly with other agencies to achieve this. TheBureau of Land Management and the USDA were implementing their own salinity controlprograms from 1987. However, the requirement that the Bureau of Reclamation gainCongressional approval for projects made the process too slow to enter into joint fundingarrangements with other agencies, when they had funding available.

In 1994, there was a public review of the Salinity Control Program which found that a futureprogram should:

• consider alternatives to Government planned projects;


Page 66

• allow non-Federal construction;

• consider proposals to control salinity anywhere in the Colorado River Basin;

• consider non-traditional methods;

• Be competitive (consider cost and performance risk in its ranking criteria); and

• continue to be voluntary (rather than regulatory)

(US Department of the Interior, Quality of Water, Colorado River Basin, Progress Report No 20, January 2001, p40)

The legislation was amended and the current program reflects these changes. Congressauthorised a further $US250M for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue the Program for afurther 10-15 years. The USDA has its own program of $US8M per year to continue its salinitycontrol work for a further ten years.

Congress has fiscal oversight of the program but its management is left to the Bureau ofReclamation. This has freed the Bureau from requiring congressional approval of projects andmade it possible for the private sector to carry out all of the projects through an annualcompetitive tender process. It has also prevented Congressmen from being drawn intodisputes between the Bureau of Reclamation and contractors who have not met the standardsrequired for the projects.

♦ Annual tender process

David Trueman informed the delegation that since February 1996 there has been an annualcompetitive process for projects called ‘Requests for Proposals’ (RFPs).

Private companies bid for $2-10 M (USD) projects.

Projects are ranked according to the cost per ton of salt removed but are now also examinedfor risks. Both financial and effectiveness risks are examined and a decision made on thetrade-offs between costs and risks.

A major difficulty with the previous program was that the Federal Government bore theresponsibility and costs if a project was more expensive or less successful than anticipated.

An important part of the new approach is that proponents, rather than the FederalGovernment, bear the risk of cost over-runs through contractual limits on the Government’spayments. If cost overruns occur the proponent has three options:

• terminate the project; or

• cover the overrun with their own funds or funds borrowed from the State; or

• reformulate the project costs and resubmit the project through the competitive process.

The projects are now ‘owned’ by the proponent not by the Bureau of Reclamation.

On a recent project, the pipeline split and added significant costs to the project to replace it.The project managers and the pipe manufacturer agreed to split the costs and cover itthemselves to maintain their high reputations.


Page 67

♦ Integration of on and off farm approaches

Another important improvement in salinity control is the integration of on-farm projects underthe USDA with the off-farm approach by the Bureau of Reclamation.

Progress Report No 20 on the Quality of Water in the Colorado River Basin (January 2001)says:

Water conservation within irrigation projects on saline soils is the single most effectivesalinity control measure found in the past 30 years of investigations (p42)-

These achievements are:

Big Sandy River Unit

Progressive implementation of a plan to convert existing surface irrigation systems on 15,700acres to low pressure sprinkler systems with an estimated reduction of 52,900 tons of salt.

Grand Valley Unit

Replacement of off-farm laterals by the Bureau of Reclamation combined with the installationby farmers of underground pipelines, gated pipe, concrete-lined ditches, land levelling and dripsystems. This is projected to save 132,000 tons a year of salt from entering the river system.

Lower Gunnison Basin Unit

Replacement of off-farm laterals by the Bureau of Reclamation combined with installation ofunderground pipelines, ditch lining, land levelling, irrigation water control structures, sprinklersystems, gated pipe and surge irrigation systems on 135,000 acres of farmland.

McElmo Creek Unit

Since 1990, sprinkler irrigation systems have been installed on 21,550 acres and 270 miles ofon-farm ditch and lateral lining has been undertaken. The coordinated efforts of Reclamationand the USDA have ensured that the design and installation of laterals by the Bureau ofReclamation complements the on-farm irrigation systems. Joint planning actions withReclamation have made it possible to install gravity pressure sprinkler systems on anadditional 9,000 acres.

Gravity pressure sprinkler systems and piped stock water delivery

Gravity pressure sprinkler systems use the pressure of water coming down the mountains. It iscaptured in piped delivery systems which drive the sprinklers. This is much more efficient thanflood irrigation. In terms of the amount of salinity avoided, these projects in steep terrain are athird of the cost of continuing flood irrigation systems, costing less than $100 per ton. It is alsocheaper to install piped delivery systems for stock water than continuing the use of unlinedcanals which mobilise salts in the soil.

David Trueman, Manager of the Salinity Control Program, said that the integration of theseprograms was a key reason for the reduction in the cost of projects. Past projects averaged$70 per ton of salt removed whereas the new projects are averaging $20 - $35 per ton.


Page 68

A limitation with this approach, however, is that farmers do not have an incentive to reducetheir water consumption. Many farmers are interested in selling their water rights and areconcerned that they will lose their rights to the water saved through efficiencies.

Land Retirement

The option of land retirement has been examined in the Grand Valley Unit. The costs would becompetitive with other measures except for the impact on wildlife. Irrigation provides habitat forwaterbirds and other fauna not normally found in these dry areas. With the costs of protectingwildlife factored in, the cost per ton of salt removed is not competitive with water conservationpractices.

Another problem with the concept, is that under existing US water laws the saved waterreturns to the appropriation system. The existing water rights can create complex problems. Ifthe land in Grand Valley which has “senior water rights” was retired the upper basin woulddeplete the water in the river through transbasin diversions to Denver, Colorado . This maychange as States enact water conservation and marketing laws.

7.8 RECLAMATION REFORM ACT OF 1982 --WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAM

Mark Niblack, Water Conservation Coordinator, briefed the delegation on the WaterConservation Field Services Program.

The Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 requires the Bureau of Reclamation to encourage waterconservation in Federal Government Irrigation Districts.

Water Districts in Western USA are required to develop water conservation plans with:

• definite goals;

• appropriate measures; and

• a time schedule.

From 1982 – 1996 there was limited progress in the implementation of the plans.

The cheap cost of water to irrigators in the USA has made it a challenge to interest farmers inwater conservation. The Federal Government provides water to the districts free of charge.Districts received interest-free loans for the construction of water distribution systems. Thedistricts levy a charge on farmers to recoup the cost of distributing the water.

Concerned at the lack of progress, the NRDC produced the “Gathering Dust” report and tooklegal action against the Bureau of Reclamation.

The Bureau of Reclamation issued its Policy for Administering Water Conservation Plans inDecember 1996. In 1997, the Bureau of Reclamation created the Water Conservation FieldServices Program to assist water agencies to conserve water through implementing waterconservation plans. Program staff work with the management of water districts rather thanindividual farmers. The plans are approved by the boards of water districts. There are around1,000 farmers in the area covered by the Yuma Area Office of the Program.

The program is:

• voluntary and cooperative;


Page 69

• local sponsor owned;

• acts as a catalyst;

• makes technical assistance available; and

• provides limited financial incentives of up to 50% for demonstration projects.

There are four strategies involved in implementing improved irrigation systems:

• water measurement;

• canal modernization;

• on-farm irrigation water management; and

• soil salinity management.

Mark Niblack emphasised that accurate measurement of the water used in irrigation and levelsof salinity underpin the success of more effective control of that water to reduce salinity. Thesalinity levels across farmland can be highly variable and the application of water needs totake this into account

A mobile mapping unit is being used to measure soil salinity. It uses electromagnetics todetect the salt and a global positioning satellite and computer software to record the exactlocation. This can be used to predict yield loss for crops and to work out more appropriatewater application rates.

The Bureau of Reclamation has a partnership with the USDA and the Salinity Laboratory atRiverside, California to implement soil salinity mapping. Seeding money for the equipment hasbeen provided by sponsors. The USDA is providing the technical leadership.

On-farm irrigation water management involves installing automated irrigation systemsoperated by remote control that deliver the required amount of water, at the required time onthe required location. The Yuma Area Office would like to improve the canal system so thatwater order and delivery are as easy as turning on a tap. Currently, it takes 3 days to deliverthe water ordered.

There is a statutory requirement to review the Water Conservation Plans every 5 years. MarkNiblack, Water Conservation Coordinator has seen an improvement in the quality of plans overtime.

7.9 CURRENT SITUATION

In spite of the measures put in place, salinity remains a serious problem in the Colorado Riversystem. In 1998, the annual costs to the lower basin states of high salinity levels wereapproaching $1 billion (USD) due to smaller harvests and the higher costs of treating tapwater.

There remains fierce competition for the allocation of water. There has been a populationexplosion in South West USA. The State of California is allocated 4.4m acre feet of water butis using 5.2 million acre feet. California was given 15 years to reduce its consumption back to


Page 70

its allocation but its population is still growing. Its population is estimated to increase from 32to 48 million by 2020.

Nevada and Arizona are using all their apportionment and their populations are predicted todouble in 25 years. There is a very real possibility that the Lower Basin will not have adequatewater unless significant conservation efforts are made.

The Los Angeles Times reported on 19 August 2002, that with population growth and reducedwater from the Colorado River that water districts from Los Angeles to San Diego are hopingto build seawater desalination plants. The scarcity of water and a new generation of super-finefilters is making desalination more economically viable.

The Los Angeles Times reports:

In California, hundreds of millions of dollars will be available for desalination projects ifvoters in November approve Propostion 50, a $3-4-billion [USD] water-quality bondmeasure.

Assemblyman Bob Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) has proposed the creation of a state task forceto assess seawater desalination throughout California.

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Los Angeles Department of Waterand Power, the West Basin Municipal Water District and Long Beach Water Department allhope to build desalination plants.

In Australia, the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Australiahas recently released two reports which examine the economic viability of desalination inAustralia in salinity affected areas.

The delegation found that there were many areas where Australia and the USA couldexchange information on salinity management. Many agencies and individuals expressed adesire for more formal links between the two countries to exchange information and expertiseon salinity management.

References:

Notes of briefings.

E-mails from David Trueman, Program Manager, Salinity Control Program and Jack Barnett,Executive Director, Salinity Control Forum.

The following material provided to the delegation:

• Water Education Foundation, 1998, Layperson’s Guide to the Colorado River;

• US Government Printing Office, 1991, Desalting Complex Unit, Title 1 Division, (underconstruction);

• History of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project (www.primenet.com);

• Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program Overview (www.rsgis.do.usbr.gov);

• US Department of the Interior, January 2001, Quality of Water, Colorado River Basin,Progress Report No 20; and


Page 71

• US Department of the Interior, Water Conservation Field Services Program (booklet).


Page 72

APPENDIX – ITINERARY

Friday 10 May 2002

The delegation arrives in Eureka.

A briefing from the Eureka Farm Service Agency, United States Department ofAgriculture on the Conservation Reserve Program scheduled for Friday had to becancelled. The delegation left a day late as their flight was cancelled due to mechanicalproblems.

Saturday 11 May 2002

Inspection of forestry conservation projects, Humboldt Redwoods State Park with theJohn O’ Rourke, Senior Ranger.

Sunday 12 May 2002

Call on the California State Legislature, Sacramento.

Monday 13 May 2002

Meeting with Larry Taylor, NyPa Associate; California Department of Water Resources,San Joaquin District (Jose Faria, Vashek Cervinka and Kathleen Buchnoff); and JohnDiener, owner, Red Rock Ranch, Inc.

Inspection of measures to address salinity on Red Rock Ranch.

Meeting with Dr Benes, Department of Plant Science, California State University, Fresno.

Meeting with Calvin Dooley, Member of Congress, 20th District, California.

Tuesday 14 May 2002

Briefing by Doug Davis, Manager, Tulare Lake Drainage District, Corcoran.

Inspection of salinity mitigation measures in Tulare Lake Drainage District.

Meeting with Mr Prieto, Agricultural Commissioner, Fresno County.

Wednesday 15 May 2002

Briefing by Manuel Perez, Operations Manager, Imperial Valley Resource RecoveryPower Station, Imperial, California.

Inspection of the power plant.


Page 73

Thursday 16 May 2002

Briefings on the salinity issues of the Lower Colorado River, salinity management anddesalting by staff of the Yuma Desalting Plant, Bureau of Reclamation (Jack Simes, MarkNiblack, Cindy Hoeft, Paul McAleese and Donald J. Young).

Inspection of the Yuma Desalting Plant and Water Quality Improvement Centre researchfacilities.

Friday 17 May 2002

Briefing on the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program by David Trueman,Manager, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, US Bureau of Reclamation,Salt Lake City, Utah.

Monday 20 May 2002

Inspection of flexible fuel vehicle and overview of the work of the National RenewableEnergy Laboratory, James Bosch.

Briefings on the development of biomass for energy by Bonnie Hames and JohnSheehan, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colorado.

Briefings on the development of ethanol from biomass as a transport fuel by Kelly Ibsen,and John Ashworth, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, Colarado.

Inspection of the ethanol production plant, National Renewable Energy Laboratory,Golden, Colorado.

Tuesday 21 May 2002

The delegation arrives in the UK.

Wednesday 22 May 2002

Inspection of environmental management measures on Marlborough Farm Lincolnshire(demonstration farm, Linking Environment and Farming).

Briefing by Philip Ashton, Farms Manager, Auborn Farming Ltd.

Briefing by Hans Vestbirk, Director, Advisory Services, Auborn Farming Ltd.

Meeting with Trevor Robinson, Business Development Manager, Banks Cargill,(Agriculture).

Thursday 23 May 2002

Briefings by staff of the England Rural Development Program, Department forEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, on:

Country Stewardship Scheme by Neil Witney, Peter Ogden, Will Prior and Mark Bayliss;

Farm Woods and Forestry Scheme by Mia Jones and Energy Crops Scheme by SueFirley.


Page 74

Briefing on environmental management requirements of suppliers to SainsburysSupermarkets and the EUREPGAP global partnership for safe and sustainableagriculture, Denise Lovett of Sainsbury’s Supermarkets, London.

Friday 24 May 2002

Call on the House of Commons, Parliament, London (Jacqy Sharp, Clerk, OverseasOffice).

Meeting with officers of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee (KateTrumper), Science and Technology Committee (Dr Alun Roberts) Parliamentary Office ofScience and Technology (Gary Kass) and Environment Specialist, House of CommonsLibrary (Elena Ares).

Documents

SELECT COMMITTEE ON SALINITY › committees...One purpose of the study tour was to gather information for the Committee’s inquiry into: Business opportunities created by salinity