43
whole MDB system. Accordingly, WSP reviews need to address excessive water
abstractions if ecological integrity is to be respected and crises such as fish kills,
are to be averted.
5.2 The SDL
Beyond WSPs, another means of reducing extractions is to adjust the SDL. The
SDL is ‘the ultimate quantitative control imposed by the WA’ (Walker 2019, p. 19)
and is ‘is intended to cap the volume of Basin water taken for consumptive use, such
as for irrigated agriculture’ so as to reflect ‘an environmentally sustainable level of
take’ (ESLT) (Walker 2019, p. 19). According to the South Australian government
and others, a level of take equivalent to a water recovery of 2750 gigalitres is inadequate to properly support key environmental values (Walker 2019, p. 383). That
figure was the result of political compromise, not legitimate scientific evidence. A
level of 3200 gigalitres had been previously mooted (also probably inadequate) but
after irrigator protest, the MDBA revised the figure down. Some former MDA officials even told the South Australian Royal Commission they were instructed that the
number ‘had to have a ‘two at the front’ (Middleton 2019b).
Further, the scientific evidence that was used was not the best available. The SDL
projections did not incorporate climate change. Consequently, the SDL was arrived
at in an unlawful manner (Walker 2019, p. 247; WA). The SDL needs to be adjusted
on the basis of best science, which would result in reduced water-take.
6 Conclusion
6.1 Legal and Non-Legal Tools
It is difficult to uphold ecological integrity if finite resources, such as water are used
in a profligate manner. Hence, most countries have implemented systems of water
sharing or allocation. In Australia, the system involves the licensing of water access.
That system is challenged when some parties ‘steal’ water and take water outside
the regulatory system.
Water theft, by definition, involves a party taking water to which he/she is not
entitled. As a consequence, other actors (including the environment) will be unable
to benefit from that same water. Yet, theft is likely to continue if parties believe that
they will not be caught and if they are unconstrained by moral or ethical considerations. Effective monitoring (especially via metering), compliance and enforcement
through the use of civil and criminal penalties (see Castilla-Rho et al. 2019, relying
on Gelcich et al. 2006, Jones and Andriamarovololona 2008, and Ostrom and
Walker 2005), is therefore important, while significant public condemnation and
disapproval are also likely to act as a deterrent.
‘Thieves, Shady Deals and Murder’: Water Theft, Buy-Backs and Fish Kills in…
whole MDB system. Accordingly, WSP reviews need to address excessive water
abstractions if ecological integrity is to be respected and crises such as fish kills,
are to be averted.
5.2 The SDL
Beyond WSPs, another means of reducing extractions is to adjust the SDL. The
SDL is ‘the ultimate quantitative control imposed by the WA’ (Walker 2019, p. 19)
and is ‘is intended to cap the volume of Basin water taken for consumptive use, such
as for irrigated agriculture’ so as to reflect ‘an environmentally sustainable level of
take’ (ESLT) (Walker 2019, p. 19). According to the South Australian government
and others, a level of take equivalent to a water recovery of 2750 gigalitres is inadequate to properly support key environmental values (Walker 2019, p. 383). That
figure was the result of political compromise, not legitimate scientific evidence. A
level of 3200 gigalitres had been previously mooted (also probably inadequate) but
after irrigator protest, the MDBA revised the figure down. Some former MDA officials even told the South Australian Royal Commission they were instructed that the
number ‘had to have a ‘two at the front’ (Middleton 2019b).
Further, the scientific evidence that was used was not the best available. The SDL
projections did not incorporate climate change. Consequently, the SDL was arrived
at in an unlawful manner (Walker 2019, p. 247; WA). The SDL needs to be adjusted
on the basis of best science, which would result in reduced water-take.
6 Conclusion
6.1 Legal and Non-Legal Tools
It is difficult to uphold ecological integrity if finite resources, such as water are used
in a profligate manner. Hence, most countries have implemented systems of water
sharing or allocation. In Australia, the system involves the licensing of water access.
That system is challenged when some parties ‘steal’ water and take water outside
the regulatory system.
Water theft, by definition, involves a party taking water to which he/she is not
entitled. As a consequence, other actors (including the environment) will be unable
to benefit from that same water. Yet, theft is likely to continue if parties believe that
they will not be caught and if they are unconstrained by moral or ethical considerations. Effective monitoring (especially via metering), compliance and enforcement
through the use of civil and criminal penalties (see Castilla-Rho et al. 2019, relying
on Gelcich et al. 2006, Jones and Andriamarovololona 2008, and Ostrom and
Walker 2005), is therefore important, while significant public condemnation and
disapproval are also likely to act as a deterrent.
‘Thieves, Shady Deals and Murder’: Water Theft, Buy-Backs and Fish Kills in…