Windsor Inquiry
Reports
The Windsor-chaired Inquiry into the socio-economic impacts of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was announced in the aftermath of the release of the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan last October. In a bid to calm irrigator hysteria (who could forget the books burning in the streets?) Minister Simon Crean announced the Inquiry, with a committee made up of a cross-section of government, opposition and independent MPs.
The Committee members reached what’s been presented as a unanimous conclusion and handed down its report last week.
The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, however, say Windsor’s plan won’t save the Basin. Other commentators say the Windsor report heralds the risk of a broken election promise on the part of the Gillard government.
Politics and the Plan
The Australian has described the Windsor Report as “a political circuit-breaker in the fight to fix the Murray-Darling Basin and deliver a reform package that will survive a hung parliament.”
Survive a hung parliament?! Possibly, but the real question remains: will the Basin Plan save the Murray-Darling – which is its raison-d’etre in the first place.
Bernard Keane reflects in Crikey that the Windsor report shows why politicians can’t be trusted with serious policy-making. And elsewhere in Crikey, economics academic John Quiggan is quoted as saying “There’s not much point in analysing the economics as long as it’s going to [turn into a] political decision.”
At the end of the day, the most important test for the Basin Plan is whether it will restore the rivers system to health by giving them a fair share of water.
Climate Change
Light on detailing socio-economic impacts of the Guide to the Draft Basin Plan as set out in the TOR, the report did however recommend that the Murray-Darling Basin Authority apply greater rigour in forecasting the impacts of climate change, taking into account regional variability (see Recommendation 2). This was something we discussed with the Committee when we gave evidence to the Inquiry – we’re pleased they’ve listened. Now the Authority needs to take up this recommendation.
Water Buybacks
Another of the recommendations of the Windsor report is to suspend all ‘non-strategic water buybacks’. However we believe that voluntary water buybacks must continue as they are the most effective and efficient way of returning water to the environment.
At the press conference last week while committee members Sharman Stone and Susan Ley were big on how terrible they think water buybacks are, inquiry chair Windsor struggled to describe what a ‘strategic’ buyback would look like saying that was a bit of a “grey area...”
On Tuesday’s Bush Telegraph program he kinda side-stepped the question again, only to say that one needs to have an understanding of all irrigation districts. We agree, but not at the risk of ending up with an “ad-hoc community approach” as recommended by the Windsor Inquiry, that “is open to pork-barrelling and is not necessarily more strategic than a buy-back regime”, as The Australian points out.
Windsor has also said that the dreaded ‘Swiss cheese’ effect should be avoided. (We agree). But the question remains: how to do that, and what would strategic buy-back of water look like?
And what exactly makes the current buybacks are un-strategic anyhow? Sure improvements could be made, but buying water from willing sellers remains the most efficient and cost-effective way of returning water to the environment. Not to mention that here in Victoria, at any rate, people are queuing up to sell their water entitlements.
And the Commonwealth Government knows this, announcing another water buyback tender for this month (water trading offers being accepted from the Goulburn, VIC Murray, SA Murray, Loddon and Campaspe regions). No doubt this tenders will be well-subscribed, if not over-subscribed, because as irrigator head Danny O’Brien said earlier this week, irrigators are not supportive of the suspension of water trading, either.
We think that a strategic approach requires integration across and between governments, and a proper ‘plan for the Basin’.
A truly strategic approach would involve a considered evaluation, as to which areas have a long-term future in irrigation in terms of soil suitability and adequate water supply and which areas are better suited to other uses such as dryland agriculture, ecosystem service provision, carbon sequestration or something totally different – for example a new TAFE college, rural residential use or solar power generation.
In the meantime, what is so non-strategic about buying water for the environment from willing sellers in stressed catchments? It provides water where it’s critically needed and gives irrigators flexibility to sell entitlements.
Proficient Efficiency?
Another recommendation in the Windsor report is to invest heavily in irrigation efficiency, with some media coverage stating that the report “found the health of the Murray-Darling Basin can be restored without massive cuts to irrigation water.” Windsor refers to this as a win-win situation. He thinks that if irrigation systems are modernised, enough water can be returned to the environment through pipes and pumps.
Problem is that modernisation projects alone can’t return enough water to rivers. In fact, they haven’t got a great track record of returning water to the environment at all.
And it’s a very expensive way of obtaining water with water saved through efficiency measures costing up to $24,000/ML whereas water allocations can be purchased for around $2,000/ML – that’s quite a difference in price!
What’s more, arguing that the Basin can be restored to health by delivering water through and pipes and pumps (engineering works and measures) not by reconnecting floodplains.
There are instances where environmental water can be delivered by pipes and pumps with a positive outcome – look at the watering at Hattah Lakes – but this kind of environmental watering is no substitute for allowing rivers to flood safely, for floodplains to operate as floodplains, nor for wetlands to connect to rivers as would occur naturally.
Put plainly, fish can’t migrate through pipes and pumps, but can and do swim through flood runners, billabongs and wetlands.
The Murray-Darling Basin is a complex, interconnected river system. We’re dealing with the effects of over one hundred years of water diversion, channel and dam building, locks, pumps and weirs. The last thing we need is to rely on yet more engineering works to fix the problem they’ve caused.
Towards a decent Basin Plan
In the Windsor Inquiry’s video, our rivers campaigner Juliet has the last word, reminding us all that what’s needed is a Basin Plan that addresses the environmental impacts, is based on sound science and takes environmental needs into account – you can watch it here
While the Windsor Inquiry Report has plenty of recommendations, and has generated yet more debate about the future of the Murray-Darling Basin, its unclear what its contribution will be to achieving a Plan that’s based on sounds science and that addresses the impacts of over-extraction across the whole Basin.
Comments
Post new comment