Murray-Darling crisis: learning what not to do
Figure out how much water can go to irrigation, so taxpayers don’t have to buy it back, says Darla Hatton MacDonald
THE Murray-Darling Basin Royal Commission report is an outstanding piece of work that gathers expert insights on legal frameworks, the economics of water and the biophysical science.
While Tasmania is not subject to the same extremes of drought and flooding, there are important lessons for us. Many of these are, frankly, lessons in what-not-to-do in managing water sustainably. Let’s not wait for a crisis to get the fundamentals in place to manage this important resource.
Kneejerk political reactions to vocal groups makes for bad implementation of a great piece of legislation.
Let’s get the economic signals right from the start so that landholders are able to make investments which are profitable for them and water is managed for the good of society.
Resource planning takes time and the mistakes in the Murray-Darling Basin have been costly. Irrigators in the Basin have invested based on government policy and the taxpayer has footed the bill for some expensive water-saving infrastructure. The environmental outcomes are nowhere on the horizon.
The report and the crisis in the Darling River underlines the importance of getting the science right in the first place — we need to understand what can be sustainably extracted, now and in a future with looming climate change.
The Water Act 2007 sets out that the sustainable diversion limits of surface water and groundwater must be based on science. The Royal Commission points out that this is where the 2012 Water Sharing Plan came undone.
In particular, the Royal Commission identifies the “Triple Bottom Line myth” that has been used to justify recovering less water than the science would suggest if in so doing would benefit farming, therefore the economy and therefore society. We got into this mess because we allocated too much water to everything but the environment.
The sections of the Royal Commission report on Aboriginal consultation, engagement and involvement are refreshing and long overdue. The report points out that Water Resource Plans are an opportunity to provide recognition and involvement of Aboriginal people in managing water resources. This is relevant for Tasmania.
For economists, the call to repeal the legislative cap of 1500GL through buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin is a welcome recommendation.
Economists have been saying for a long time that buying water from willing sellers is the best way to assemble water from the environment.
Acknowledgment of the cost efficiencies of buyback versus infrastructure came through clearly — the Royal Commission heard the message from economists that there is no justification for the additional public expense of water-savings efficiency measures. The report suggests that the negative impact on communities of water buybacks has been overstated and the non-market benefits to society of restoration have been ignored.
The lesson for Tasmania is to figure out how much water can be reasonably diverted to irrigation, so the taxpayer doesn’t have to buy it back later.
The report calls for transparency and disclosure of information and modelling — this is all very welcome.
Likewise, independent oversight and auditing of the implementation of the Basin Plan and the development of water resource plans remain important issues.