Murray Darling

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
For the thousand or so farmers in Canberra in the past week venting their anger at the federal government, it’s the<a href="https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6522046/convoy-calls-to-can-murray-darling-plan/" target="_blank"> Murray-Darling Basin Plan to blame</a> for destroying their livelihoods and forcing them off the land.
We can’t comment directly on their claims about the basin plan. But our research, looking at the years 1991 to 2011, suggests little association between the amount of water extracted from the Murray-Darling river system for irrigation and total farmer numbers.
That’s not to say there aren’t fewer farms in the basin now than a decade ago – there are – but our analysis points to the more important drivers being the longer-term influences of changing climate, economics and demographics.
Indeed our study predicts another 0.5℃ increase in temperature by 2041 will halve the current number of farmers in the basin.
Hostility to water recovery
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283224/original/file-20190709-51312-1bmd1r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283224/original/file-20190709-51312-1bmd1r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The waters of the northern basin run to the Darling River and the waters of the southern basin run to the Murray River. <a class="source" href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/discover-basin/landscape/geography" target="_blank">MDBA</a>
Over many decades state governments in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia licensed to farmers more entitlements to water than the river system could sustain. The basis of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, enacted in 2012, was to rectify this through buying back about a quarter of all water licences to ensure an environmental flow.
A water entitlement, despite its name, does not guarantee a licence holder a certain amount of water. That depends on the water available, and that is determined by the states, which make allocations to each type of licence based on its type of security and current conditions.
With drought, farmers have seen their allocations severely cut back, sometimes to nothing. And partly because they see there’s still water in the River Murray, some are <a href="https://thenewdaily.com.au/news/politics/australian-politics/2019/12/03/farmers-drought-protest-canberra/" target="_blank">very angry</a>.
Hostility to water recovery in fact predates the plan’s enactment, to when the federal government began buying back water entitlements in 2008. The Commonwealth now holds about 20% of water entitlements across the basin. More than two-thirds of these licences were recovered between <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-resource-100517-023039" target="_blank">2008 and 2012</a>.
Lack of correlation
Our research thus covers the period of most significant water buybacks. It also covers the period of the Millennium Drought, from 2001 to 2009, when the amount of water extracted from the river system dropped by about 70%.
Yet we see little evidence reduced water extractions led to more farmers exiting the industry.
As a very broad overview of the situation, the following graph illustrates the lack of correlation between measured water extraction in the Murray-Darling Basin and decreasing farmer numbers.
<hr>
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/306067/original/file-20191210-95111-mzuk3r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
<hr>
Water extractions have varied significantly between years, with a big decline over the decade of the 2000s even while farmers’ need for irrigated water increased due to lack of rain. La Niña brought record rains in 2010-11. The current drought across the basin took grip from about 2017.
Yet farmer numbers have declined at a relative steady rate. Within the basin in the time-period we modelled, they fell from about 90,000 in 1991 to 70,000 in 2011. This can be seen as part of a wider trend, with total farmer numbers in the four basin states falling from more than 230,000 in 1976 to barely 100,000 in 2016.
It might be argued that because irrigated farms make up only a quarter of all farms, the overall numbers might mask a greater correlation between water extractions and decline in irrigated farms. While the specific impacts on irrigation farming in recent years warrant further study, there’s no signal in our data pointing to extractions making a discernible contribution to farmer numbers throughout the basin.
Modelling farmer movement
Our <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-019-02601-8" target="_blank">findings</a> are based on a specialised data set of population and agricultural census information from <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/bb8db737e2af84b8ca2571780015701e/23d04985e1786824ca25720b0002bb18!OpenDocument" target="_blank">statistical local areas</a> from 1991 to 2011. We used climate risk measures from 1961 onwards.
The following infographic shows the exit pattern of farmers by local area between 1991 and 2011.
We included as many climate, economic, farming, water and socio-demographic characteristics as possible to capture historical farmer movements and create a model able to predict movements based on variables such as average temperature.
Need for a multifaceted response
Overall our modelling results suggests the most significant and largest influences on farmer exit are rising temperatures and increased drought risk, followed by the economic factors that have have been reducing the proportion of the population engaged in farming for more than a century.
Declining commodity prices, higher unemployment and urbanisation are strongly associated with farmer exit. Urbanisation, for example, has made it attractive for farmers on city fringes to sell their land to property developers and exit the industry.
Research suggests irrigators in <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0743016717302000?via%3Dihub" target="_blank">psychological distress</a> are more likely to want the basin plan suspended. Our research suggests their distress is probably not primarily driven by the federal government buying water entitlements from licence holders who sold them willingly. Water recovery and the basin plan is simply an easier focal point of blame than the longer-term trends making the farming lifestyle less viable.
Nothing will be gained by focusing on short-term “fixes” at the cost of longer-term environmental harm. The problems facing all farmers cannot be addressed in isolation from longer-term global climate and economic trends.
As a society we have to decide what we value: do we want to see such a mass exodus of farmers from the land in the face of a drying climate? If not, future policy for the Basin must consider the real long-term drivers of farm exit and take a multi-faceted approach to climate change, water, land, drought and rural development.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128048/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Sarah Ann Wheeler, Professor in Water Economics, University of Adelaide.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/dont-blame-the-murray-darling-basin-plan-its-climate-and-economic-change-driving-farmers-out-128048" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Don’t blame the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It’s climate and economic change driving farmers out

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Water prices in the southern Murray-Darling Basin have reached their highest levels since the worst of the <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a010-southern-rainfall-decline.shtml#toc1" target="_blank">Millennium drought</a> more than a decade ago.
These high water prices are causing much anxiety in the region, and have led the federal government to call on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to hold <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-05-30/new-water-minister-ready-for-accc-inquiry/11161730" target="_blank">an inquiry</a> into the water market.
Inevitably, whenever an important good becomes more expensive – be it housing, electricity or water – there is a rush to identify potential causes and culprits. In the past few years high water prices have been blamed on <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-03-25/foreign-owned-water-entitlement-register-reveals-key-countries/10923384" target="_blank">foreign investors</a>, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/29/water-investment-companies-score-bumper-year-as-farmers-hit-by-drought" target="_blank">corporate speculators</a>, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2019-03-09/irrigators-signal-electoral-challenge-in-safe-liberal-farrer/10852828" target="_blank">state government water-sharing rules</a>, <a href="https://www.afr.com/real-estate/commercial/development/murraydarling-water-scarcity-bites-almond-citrus-grape-growers-20190301-h1bw1n" target="_blank">new almond plantings</a> and the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://amp.abc.net.au/article/10931366" target="_blank">Murray-Darling Basin Plan</a>.
While some of these factors have had an effect on the market, they are in many ways a distraction from the simpler truth: that high water prices have mostly been caused by a lack of rain.
Supply drives the market
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283224/original/file-20190709-51312-1bmd1r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283224/original/file-20190709-51312-1bmd1r9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The waters of the northern basin run to the Darling River and the waters of the southern basin run to the Murray River.<a class="source" href="https://www.mdba.gov.au/discover-basin/landscape/geography"> </a>
Market reforms <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/publications/insights/snapshot-of-australian-water-markets#australian--water-markets-why-where-who-and-how" target="_blank">in the 1980s and 1990s</a> enabled water trading in many parts of Australia. By far the most active market exists in the southern Murray-Darling basin, which covers the Murray River and its tributaries in northern Victoria, southern New South Wales and eastern South Australia.
The market allows users – mostly irrigation farmers – to trade their water allocations (effectively shares of water in the rivers’ major dams). This trading helps ensure limited water supplies go to the farmers who value them the most, which can be crucial in times of drought.
Historical data shows the main driver of water market prices in the southern basin is <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/Documents/SnapshotOfAustralianWaterMarkets_v1.0.0.pdf" target="_blank">change in water supply</a>.
The following chart shows storage volumes (in orange) and water prices (in red) in the southern basin since 2006. Prices peaked at the height of the Millennium drought in 2007. During the floods of 2011, they fell near zero. Prices have increased again during the latest drought, and are now at their highest levels in a decade.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283617/original/file-20190711-44497-ddror9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Water allocation prices and storage volumes in the southern Murray-Darling Basin. State government trade registers, BOM, Ruralco Water, ABARES estimates.
Lower rainfall, higher temperatures
While water prices have always been higher in dry years and lower in wet, we’ve been getting a lot more dry years in recent decades.
Over the past 20 years, rainfall, run-off and stream flow in the southern basin has been far less than historical conditions.
The below chart shows modelled flow data for the Murray River, assuming historical weather conditions and no water extraction, over the past century. It shows that average water flows this century are about 40% below the average of the 20th century.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283618/original/file-20190711-44497-1uafl1g.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Modelled ‘without-development’ annual Murray River flow, 1900 to 2018. Murray-Darling Basin Authority.
We know these reductions are at least partly <a href="http://www.seaci.org/publications/documents/SEACI-2Reports/SEACI_Phase2_SynthesisReport.pdf" target="_blank">related to climate change</a>, driven by both <a href="http://www.mssanz.org.au/modsim09/G5/cowan.pdf" target="_blank">reduced winter rainfall and higher temperatures</a>.
Lower rainfall and higher temperatures also make crops thirstier, increasing demand for irrigation water. This was evident in January, when temperatures <a href="https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/irrigation-demand-lower-murray-river-nearly-parched/news-story/4e1368e376e270c57ac58e09f4bc5c3a" target="_blank">exceeded 35℃ for 14 days</a> and irrigators’ demand for water spiked from about 4.5 gigalitres to 7 gigalitres a day.
The basin plan in perspective
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan seeks to improve the environmental health of the river system by recovering water rights from irrigation farmers. To date, more than <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/water/mdb/progress-recovery/progress-of-water-recovery" target="_blank">1,700 gigalitres </a> of water rights – about 20% of annual water supply – have been recovered in the southern basin.
By reducing supply, water recovery was <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">always expected</a> to increase water prices. However, the effects of water recovery on supply – while significant – are still small relative to the effects of climate over the same period, as shown in the below chart.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283619/original/file-20190711-44432-12kxnau.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Water allocation use in the southern basin with and without water recovery. State government agencies, Department of Agriculture, ABARES estimates.
Measuring the precise effect of water recovery on prices is difficult. Water buybacks are straightforward and have been modelled by <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">ABARES</a> and <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/water/markets/supply-side-drivers" target="_blank">others</a>. But the effects of infrastructure programs – where farmers return a portion of their water rights in exchange for funding to upgrade infrastructure – <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">are harder to estimate</a>.
‘Carryover’ rule changes
Historically farmers had to use water allocations within a 12-month window. The introduction of “<a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer" target="_blank">carryover</a>” – most recently in Victoria in 2008 – means users can now hold their unused water in dams. This rule change was a good thing, as it encourages farmers to conserve water and build up a buffer against drought.
But it might also have contributed to anxiety about the water market’s operations.
Since water allocations can be bought and held for multiple years, information about future conditions can have a big effect on prices now. For example, we see large jumps in price following news of worse-than-expected <a href="https://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/news/national/murray-darling-basin-water-prices-surge-to-550-a-megalitre/news-story/89b12d32d2136d11f48cbbf0f9c8ed0c" target="_blank">supply forecasts</a>. This may have helped fuel concern about “speculators”.
Over the longer-term, the ability to store water helps to <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/Documents/SnapshotOfAustralianWaterMarkets_v1.0.0.pdf" target="_blank">“smooth” water prices</a>, with slightly higher prices in most years offset by much lower prices in drought years. Again this is a good thing, but it may have added to the perception of higher prices in the market.
Water demand is rising
When a profitable new irrigation activity is willing to pay more for water – as is the case with <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/may/26/tough-nut-to-crack-the-almond-boom-and-its-drain-on-the-murray-darling" target="_blank">almond farms in the southern basin</a> – competition for limited supplies can potentially drive up prices.
ABARES’ research shows that <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/water/future-scenarios-smdb" target="_blank">between 2003 and 2016</a> there was little change in irrigation demand (aside from that linked to rainfall). Growth in demand from expanding activities such as almonds and cotton was offset by reductions in others including dairy, rice and wine grapes. However, there is evidence since 2016 that demand for water has started to increase, <a href="http://www.agriculture.gov.au/abares/research-topics/water/water-market-outlook" target="_blank">contributing to higher water prices</a>. Longer-term projections suggest this trend <a href="https://waterregister.vic.gov.au/images/documents/Water_availability_fact_sheet.pdf" target="_blank">may continue</a>.
With drought and climate change reducing water supply, and demand for both environmental and irrigation water increasing, high water prices are only likely to become more common in the basin in future.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119993/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/neal-hughes-360453" target="_blank">Neal Hughes</a>, Senior Economist, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-bureau-of-agricultural-and-resource-economics-and-sciences-abares-3697" target="_blank">Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES)</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/drought-and-climate-change-are-driving-high-water-prices-in-the-murray-darling-basin-119993" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Drought and climate change are driving high water prices in the Murray-Darling Basin: Neal Hughes

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Amid the politics, it’s sometimes easy to forget that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was originally designed primarily to restore the rivers’ environment. While questions have been raised over the plan’s governance, economics, and political commitment by the states, it is important to note that, more than five years after the plan’s adoption, the environmental benefits are slowly but surely being seen.
The Long-Term Intervention Monitoring Project began in 2014 to monitor and evaluate environmental outcomes from Commonwealth environmental water – the water being delivered into the Murray-Darling Basin by the plan.
We are leading independent teams of researchers and consultants in monitoring seven selected areas across the Murray-Darling Basin, and then scaling up those results to deduce the health of the basin as a whole.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216603/original/file-20180427-175047-1mbewa4.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The seven monitoring sites. Author provided
Three and a half years into an initial five-year program, we are generally seeing environmental changes of the types and magnitudes expected at this stage of the plan.
Plans, predictions and possibilities
It’s not widely known what environmental water can and cannot do, and how different environmental indicators will respond at different rates. The Basin Plan’s objectives focus on fish, bird and vegetation communities – and in all of these areas, the changes will take time.
Under the plan, we expect that it will take more than a decade from the start of flow delivery before large-scale changes become evident. Detecting these changes will require both time and high-quality data.
What’s more, Commonwealth environmental water is a relatively small proportion of what once flowed through these systems. The government currently holds entitlements to 1,836 billion litres, which is less than 6% of average system inflows (the rainfall that makes it into the river system).
This is not enough water to restore natural flow patterns. Along with other constraints, such as the pressure to keep water off floodplains, this means that managers need to be extremely selective about where, when and how water is delivered for environmental benefits.
What are we monitoring?
While we are monitoring fish, birds and vegetation to allow us to measure progress towards the Basin Plan’s objectives, we are also monitoring shorter-term responses. These responses provide data on environmental processes that will allow us to predict whether we can expect the Basin Plan ultimately to deliver on the promised long-term improvements.
A good example of this is golden perch, a threatened and iconic native fish species in the Murray-Darling Basin. Long-term changes in the adult population will only be seen if shorter-term processes, such as migration and spawning, occur. Environmental water should help these processes, and we are monitoring those outcomes.
Adult fish respond to high flows in spring, moving downstream to spawn. Eggs and larvae are washed further downstream, so to bring new fish into the local population, high flow events in autumn can be used to attract juvenile fish back into a river. Golden perch move over very large distances, and as adults they may end up living in a different river from where they were spawned.
If environmental water is used to achieve all these processes, then over years to decades, we will see an increase in adult golden perch numbers.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216605/original/file-20180427-135538-17ka5au.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Adult golden perch fitted with a tag to track its movements. Wayne Koster/Arthur Rylah Institute, Author provided
Quicker results
Not everything takes decades, however. We have already been able to detect some shorter-term benefits from the plan. Here are some examples from around the Basin:
<ul>
<li>
Lower Murray: environmental water has reduced salinity in the Coorong and increased salt export through the Murray mouth
</li>
<li>
Edward-Wakool: environmental water has provided refuges for aquatic fauna during low-oxygen “black water” events caused by floods in 2010 and 2016, reducing impacts on fish populations
</li>
<li>
Murrumbidgee: environmental water has been crucial in helping endangered populations of the vulnerable southern bell frog to recover
</li>
<li>
Gwydir: environmental water allowed the production of 1,000 tonnes of zooplankton over 90 days, in turn providing food for fish and higher predators
</li>
<li>
Warrego-Darling: environmental water has maintained flows in a system that would have otherwise dried to a series of isolated pools, maintaining food webs and stimulating fish breeding.
</li>
</ul>
Alternative outcomes
Besides reporting progress, our monitoring program also allows us to make predictions of what the system might have looked like with different environmental flows, or with no environmental flows at all.
In the Lachlan River in New South Wales, environmental water has been used to support a major bird breeding event by extending the period of flooding. Without this water, nests would have been abandoned, leaving thousands of fledglings to die.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216607/original/file-20180427-175077-1rwhx2l.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Straw necked Ibis chicks from the Lachlan River. Mal Carnegie/Lake Cowal Association, Author provided
We also share our results with environmental water managers to help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of environmental water delivery – a process called adaptive management. In the Goulburn River in Victoria, we have learned that the release of environmental water to help riverbank vegetation is more effective if delivered earlier in spring. Riverbank vegetation has now improved so much that metal pins being used to monitor erosion and sediment deposition can’t be found without a metal detector.
In it for the long haul
One criticism of the Basin Plan is that there is no evidence yet of basin-wide improvements. For some indicators this is to be expected because of the long time frames of response of the Basin Plan objectives. However, we have already reported on basin scale changes of other indicators, such as vegetation.
Also, the assessment of Commonwealth environmental water delivery shows that across the basin, we are creating the types of flow events expected to lead to beneficial environmental outcomes at broad scales.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/216606/original/file-20180427-137525-1mj0jlf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Environmental water release to improve water quality in the Edward-Wakool system. Photo: Commonwealth Environmental Water Office, Author provided
The politics of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will probably always be fraught. But as the group charged with assessing environmental progress, we want the debate on its effectiveness to be underpinned by sound evidence from independent experts.
The Long-Term Intervention Monitoring Project, along with other research and monitoring, is providing that evidence.
So, while the Basin Plan’s objectives will take a long time to be realised, there are positive signs that it is slowly achieving its major goal of improving environments in the Murray-Darling Basin, underpinning more sustainable social, environmental and economic outcomes into the future.
Angus Webb, Senior Lecturer and quantitative ecologist, University of Melbourne
Darren Ryder, Professor of Aquatic Ecology and Restoration, University of New England
Fiona Dyer, Associate professor, University of Canberra; Michael Stewardson, Professor, University of Melbourne
Mike Grace, Associate Professor, Monash University
Nick Bond, Professor, La Trobe University
Paul Frazier, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, University of New England
Qifeng Ye, Principal Scientist, Inland Waters and Catchment Ecology Program
Rick Stoffels, Senior Scientist, CSIRO; Robyn J Watts, Professor of Ecology, Charles Sturt University
Samantha Capon, Research Fellow in Ecology, Griffith University
Skye Wassens, Associate Professor in Ecology, Charles Sturt University
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93568/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">This article was coauthored by Mark Southwell, Geomorphologist, Eco Logical Australia; and Shane Brooks, Director, LitePC Technologies.
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/it-will-take-decades-but-the-murray-darling-basin-plan-is-delivering-environmental-improvements-93568" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

The Murray Darling Basin Plan is starting to deliver environmental improvements

<html><body>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
The newly established Murray Darling Food Company has purchased the landmark Lachlan River holding, Burrawang West Station in central NSW.
It has relisted the property's luxury resort building which is redundant to its needs.
Inglis Rural Property Sydney assisted in the recent sale with Sam Triggs advising Fairfax Media the new owners would now sell of a 65 hectare parcel which included the Burrawong Homestead and Resort.
"The $1.95 million price tag for the resort is hugely under replacement value," Mr Triggs said.
 "The Kajima Group spent over $8 million planning, building and landscaping the whole facility in 1991."
</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-media section">On offer is the substantial Burrawang Homestead and retreat, which comprise four self-contained bungalows, two staff bungalows along with an entertaining quarter that has been built as a representation and tribute of Australian pastoral history.</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-media section"> </div>
<div class="cq-article-content-media section">The retreat offers lodgings for 24 guests across 12 luxury guest rooms along with facilities including tennis courts, 20-metre in ground swimming pool, media room and bar and sauna and golf driving range.</div>
<div class="cq-article-content-paras section">
The decision to sell the homestead and retreat fits in with the Murray Darling Food Company's focus on agricultural production.
The Burrawang West Dorper Stud is widely regarded through NSW for its high quality stud stock producing commercial and Stud Dorper and White Dorper sheep.
</div>
 
</body></html>

Burrawang West resort back up for sale

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/81613/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A recent expose by the ABC’s Four Corners has alleged significant illegal extraction of water from the Barwon-Darling river system, one of the major tributaries of the Murray River. The revelations have triggered widespread condemnation of irrigators, the New South Wales government and its officials, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Basin Plan itself. 
If the allegations are true that billions of litres of water worth millions of dollars were illegally extracted, this would represent one of the largest thefts in Australian history. It would have social and economic consequences for communities along the entire length of the Murray-Darling river system, and for the river itself, after years of trying to restore its health.
Water is big business, big politics and a big player in our environment. Taxpayers have spent A$13 billion on water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin in the past decade, hundreds of millions of which have gone directly to state governments. Governments have an obligation to ensure that this money is well spent. 
The revelations cast doubt on the states’ willingness to do this, and even on their commitment to the entire Murray-Darling Basin Plan. This commitment needs to be reaffirmed urgently.
<h2>Basic principles</h2>
To work out where to go from here, it helps to understand the principles on which the Basin Plan was conceived. At its foundation, Australian water reform is based on four pillars.
1. Environmental water and fair consumption
The initial driver of water reform in the late 1990s was a widespread recognition that too much water had been allocated from the Murray-Darling system, and that it had suffered ecological damage as a result. 
State and Commonwealth governments made a bipartisan commitment to reset the balance between water consumption and environmental water, to help restore the basin’s health and also to ensure that water-dependent industries and communities can be strong and sustainable.
Key to this was the idea that water users along the river would have fair access to water. Upstream users could not take water to the detriment of people downstream. The Four Corners investigation casts doubt on the NSW’s commitment to this principle.
2. Water markets and buybacks
The creation of a water market under the Basin Plan had two purposes: to allow water to be purchased on behalf of the environment, and to allow water permits to be traded between irrigators depending on relative need. 
This involved calculating how much water could be taken from the river while ensuring a healthy ecosystem (the Sustainable Diversion Limit). Based on these calculations, state governments developed a water recovery program, which aimed to recover 2,750 gigalitres of water per year from consumptive use, through a A$3 billion water entitlement buyback and a A$9 billion irrigation modernisation program. 
This program hinged on the development of water accounting tools that could measure both water availability and consumption. Only through trust in this process can downstream users be confident that they are receiving their fair share.
3. States retain control of water
Control of water was a major stumbling block in negotiating the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, because of a clash between states’ water-management responsibilities and the Commonwealth’s obligations to the environment. 
As a result, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority sits outside of both state and Commonwealth governments, and states have to draw up water management plans that are subject to approval by the authority. 
The states are responsible for enforcing these plans and ensuring that allocations are not exceeded. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority cannot easily enforce action on the ground – a situation that generates potential for state-level political interference, as alleged by the Four Corners investigation.
4. Trust and transparency
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan was built on a foundation of trust and transparency. The buyback scheme has transformed water into a tradeable commodity worth A$2 billion a year, a sizeable chunk of which is held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office. 
Water trading has also helped to make water use more flexible. In a dry year, farmers with annual crops (such as cotton) can choose not to plant and instead to sell their water to farmers such as horticulturists who must irrigate to keep their trees alive. This flexibility is valuable in Australia’s highly variable climate. 
Yet it is also true that water trading has created some big winners. Those with pre-existing water rights have been able to capitalise on that asset and invest heavily in buying further water rights, an outcome highlighted in the Four Corners story. 
More than A$20 million in research investment has been devoted to ensuring that the ecological benefits of water are optimised – most notably through the Environmental Water Knowledge and Research and Long Term Intervention Monitoring programs. What is not clear is whether water extractions and their policing have been subjected to a similar degree of review and rigour.
<h2>What next for the Murray-Darling Basin?</h2>
The public needs to be able to trust that all parties are working honestly and accountably. This is particularly true for the downstream partners, who are the most likely victims of management failures upstream. Without trust in the upstream states, the Murray-Darling Basin Plan will unravel.
State governments urgently need to reaffirm their commitment to the four pillars that underpin the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and to reassure the public that in retaining control of water they are operating in good faith.
Finally, rigour and transparency are needed in assessing the Basin Plan’s methods and environmental benefits, and the operation of the water market. The Productivity Commission’s review of national water policy, and its specific review of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan next year, will offer a clear opportunity to reassure everyone that the A$13 billion of public money that has gone into water reform in the past decade has been money well spent. 
Only then will the fragile trust that underlies the water reform process be maintained and built.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ross-m-thompson-392674" target="_blank">Ross M Thompson</a> is Chair of Water Science and Director, University of Canberra and author for <a href="https://theconversation.com/au" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>.
</body></html>

Murray Darling

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Murray Darling

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News