Why the Murray Darling Basin Plan Is Not Fulfilling It’s Original Goals
Why the Murray Darling Basin Plan Is Not Fulfilling It’s Original Goals
Source: 4 Corners TV Program
The following is a summary of what the 4 Corners Program revealed about the Murray Darling Basin Infrastructure program.
1. Government Buy Back Scheme: the original aim of this program was to try and buy back unused water licenses that farmers owned in order to return more water to the Murray Darling basin for the sake of the environment. However this return of water seems to be also important to provide basic water needs for communities who live at the lower end of the Murray Darling Basin.
2. A Water Access License: The State of NSW has the right to the control, use and flow of all water in rivers, lakes and aquifers in NSW. In water sharing plan areas, water access licences permit the licence holder to take water from specified water source in accordance with the licence.
3. Problem with Buy Back Scheme: people who were not necessarily farmers began to buy and sell water licences like shares just for the purpose of making a profit. For instance it has generally been much cheaper to buy water licenses from the Murray Darling Basin. In the meantime the Government were buying back water licences at a much higher price. As a result many people would sell their Murray Darling Basin licences back to the government to make a profit. As a result the Government is forking out extra money to profit traders and not really “getting ahead” in terms of water licences to return water to the river.
4. Incentive for Farmers: in order to motivate farmers to sell some of their water access licences back, the government offered a “sweetener” for them. In exchange for licences the government offered to give them monetary grants to irrigate their land in such a way as to become more efficient in their water usage.
5. Problem with these “Incentives”: it caused farmers and even non farmers to irrigate more VACANT land for farming. This in turn creates the planting of more crops which then ends up using MORE water in the long run. This has especially been the case as big corporations have used these “irrigation incentives” to plant and expand into crops like nuts and cotton which need exponentially HUGE amounts of water to grow. As a result these “irrigation grants” have had the opposite effect of what the original goals of the Government Buy Back scheme were; ie to SAVE or RETURN water to the Murray Darling basin.
It is also said that irrigation methods have become so advanced now that they are already efficient and very little water runs off in a wasteful way now. Hence the reason for these “irrigation grants” can be rather vacuous.
6. Earth Moving Companies : are greatly profiting because they are paid by these farmers to irrigate more land.
7. Water Theft: another problem with these Water Access Licenses is that the Government has not always been able to enforce the rules of each licence adequately. For instance some farmers or corporations have been known to steal more water at the top of the river then their licences allow them to. Often water meters have been broken or tampered with so that authorities have no way of knowing how much water has been stolen at the top of the river at the expense of those people at the bottom of the river who may need their share as well.
8. Negative Result: a very damaging negative result of this whole scheme is that many ordinary communities can often face water shortages for their basic living requirements. This consequence I would strongly object to. The reason is that only a handful of big corporations may be profiting greatly at the expense of ordinary local people who need water for showers, cooking and basic cleaning. This to me is grossly unfair. I know that big business can provide jobs for local workers which is a good thing but I don’t believe it should be at the expense of depriving the basic needs of ordinary people in their own communities reducing them to near third world conditions in this affluent country.
9. Huge Cost: The whole Murray Darling Basin Plan is said to come at a cost of $13 billion by the government through tax payer dollars, although not all of this has been spent as yet. Also the infrastructure scheme consisting of “irrigation grants” to farmers or non- farmers (earth moving companies) is costing about $5.6 billion. One has to consider whether such a huge slice of the budget is being used wisely and meeting the original goals of the plan. If the answer is no, then new strategies need to be found to save and conserve water so it is evenly and fairly distributed to the relevant stake holders and communities so that we can be wise stewards of one of the most important resources for our living and farming needs.
10. Recommendations: the 4 corners program suggests that :-
a) The whole scheme should be stopped until further investigation
b) The Auditor General should investigate the entire scheme as to
– who is getting the water &
– what water (if any) is actually being saved?
• Other questions to consider:-
c) What other strategies can be implemented to better save water so there is enough to meet the needs of ordinary communities as well as existing farmers and their crops?
d) For the hectares of extra land being irrigated by large corporations, how many new jobs are being created by this process and what are the actual benefits to the Australian economy? (Harvesting cotton for instance is largely mechanised today and not labour intensive anymore). Also does it just result in a large amount of wealth going to just a handful of private owners? If the benefits to the Australian economy and it’s workforce are very minimal, then it may not be worth all the extra water these irrigated areas are using. The scheme may really be throwing good money after bad.
12. It’s OK to Admit Our Mistakes: in the adult world I believe it is OK to admit our mistakes or even fail at times. Some of the most successful businesses and successful people have failed up to 10 times or more before they found success. The thing is, we never know if something will succeed unless we give it a try. I’m sure the government had the best intentions when they proposed the Murray Darling Basin Scheme. The policies were a good strategy at the time. However it is often impossible to predict all the real outcomes and repercussions during the time of implementation. It is not a failure when governments sit down to re-assess a program and analyse if a scheme is indeed reaping the correct benefits to the country and if not if there are other ways, original goals may be reached more effectively.