not only created a direct role for the Federal Government to manage water resources
in the Basin, but it also comprised of a ten-point Plan (the Plan) to improve water
efficiency on- and off-farm as well as address overuse of water in the MurrayDarling Basin (Parliament of Australia 2018b). The corresponding legislative instruments relevant to achieve these objectives were the Water Act 2007 (Cth) and the
Basin Plan 2012 (Cth). Whilst the Act provided the broad parameters of the water
reform process and established several new Federal agencies (including the MurrayDarling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder) that
were tasked with developing, monitoring, managing and reviewing the water reform
process and the Commonwealth’s water entitlement portfolio, the Basin Plan
established quantitative targets for reduction in water use. The Plan specified that
the basin-wide baseline diversion limit (BDL) was 13,623 GL (reference year 2009)
and a corresponding sustainable diversion limit (SDL) should be 10,873 GL (MDBA
2018). The SDL is defined as the maximum long-term annual average quantities of
water that can be taken on a sustainable basin from Basin water resources in a
particular SDL resource unit (e.g. to protect and restore valuable ecosystems). As the
SDL was set below the BDL, long-term average water use had to be reduced by
2750 GL (MDBA 2018). To achieve this reduction, the Federal Government recovered water entitlement ‘from willing sellers’ via direct water entitlement purchases or
infrastructure funding to improve water efficiency in exchange for water entitlements
(Australian Government 2018b). For QLD and NSW, the impacts of these buy-backs
have been mixed. However, direct entitlement purchases have generally led to
greater social and economic impacts in irrigation-dependent communities due to
lower agricultural production, lower employment and hence reduced economic
activities (MDBA 2017). These irrigation-dependent rural communities in QLD
and NSW are heavily reliant on the MDB for (irrigation and domestic and stock)
water (Gell and Reid 2014) and to adjust to previous operational, technological and
market changes which have increased demographic and social pressures. These
communities are also experiencing other challenges, such as exponential increases
in the cost of electricity which flow through as losses of essential local welfare
services. As such, community vulnerability to further water buy-backs, either willing
or mandatory, is high. Peak advocacy groups (QLD Farmers Federation 2017) have
called for the need for communities to be appropriately informed and equipped with
the right tools and assistance to be adaptive and resilient to these changes. They have
also called for the adoption of non-flow, complementary measures into the assessment procedure to meet the ‘sustainable development limit’ and improve overall
environmental conditions which include the control of pest species such as carp
which reduce water quality or through to cold-water pollution mitigation through the
installation of thermal curtains on major headwater storages. More work must be
done by the QLD, NSW and Australian Government to understand the environmental improvements and water equivalence of these non-flow measures. Particularly
where the future of the buy-back of water entitlements from ‘willing sellers’ is in
doubt with many of the willing sellers now removed from the market. In these cases,
prime agricultural land has been taken out of production. Farm businesses are also
now buying water to simply ‘give back’ later so that they can assure their future
7 Water Security: Challenges to the Irrigation Water-Energy Nexus in Australia
101
in the Basin, but it also comprised of a ten-point Plan (the Plan) to improve water
efficiency on- and off-farm as well as address overuse of water in the MurrayDarling Basin (Parliament of Australia 2018b). The corresponding legislative instruments relevant to achieve these objectives were the Water Act 2007 (Cth) and the
Basin Plan 2012 (Cth). Whilst the Act provided the broad parameters of the water
reform process and established several new Federal agencies (including the MurrayDarling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder) that
were tasked with developing, monitoring, managing and reviewing the water reform
process and the Commonwealth’s water entitlement portfolio, the Basin Plan
established quantitative targets for reduction in water use. The Plan specified that
the basin-wide baseline diversion limit (BDL) was 13,623 GL (reference year 2009)
and a corresponding sustainable diversion limit (SDL) should be 10,873 GL (MDBA
2018). The SDL is defined as the maximum long-term annual average quantities of
water that can be taken on a sustainable basin from Basin water resources in a
particular SDL resource unit (e.g. to protect and restore valuable ecosystems). As the
SDL was set below the BDL, long-term average water use had to be reduced by
2750 GL (MDBA 2018). To achieve this reduction, the Federal Government recovered water entitlement ‘from willing sellers’ via direct water entitlement purchases or
infrastructure funding to improve water efficiency in exchange for water entitlements
(Australian Government 2018b). For QLD and NSW, the impacts of these buy-backs
have been mixed. However, direct entitlement purchases have generally led to
greater social and economic impacts in irrigation-dependent communities due to
lower agricultural production, lower employment and hence reduced economic
activities (MDBA 2017). These irrigation-dependent rural communities in QLD
and NSW are heavily reliant on the MDB for (irrigation and domestic and stock)
water (Gell and Reid 2014) and to adjust to previous operational, technological and
market changes which have increased demographic and social pressures. These
communities are also experiencing other challenges, such as exponential increases
in the cost of electricity which flow through as losses of essential local welfare
services. As such, community vulnerability to further water buy-backs, either willing
or mandatory, is high. Peak advocacy groups (QLD Farmers Federation 2017) have
called for the need for communities to be appropriately informed and equipped with
the right tools and assistance to be adaptive and resilient to these changes. They have
also called for the adoption of non-flow, complementary measures into the assessment procedure to meet the ‘sustainable development limit’ and improve overall
environmental conditions which include the control of pest species such as carp
which reduce water quality or through to cold-water pollution mitigation through the
installation of thermal curtains on major headwater storages. More work must be
done by the QLD, NSW and Australian Government to understand the environmental improvements and water equivalence of these non-flow measures. Particularly
where the future of the buy-back of water entitlements from ‘willing sellers’ is in
doubt with many of the willing sellers now removed from the market. In these cases,
prime agricultural land has been taken out of production. Farm businesses are also
now buying water to simply ‘give back’ later so that they can assure their future
7 Water Security: Challenges to the Irrigation Water-Energy Nexus in Australia
101