« November 2006 | Main | January 2007 »
Governing Large Water Bodies: How to Do It Better If We Started Over |
December 21, 2006 |
|
Posted by Don Dunnington at 09:56 AM | Comments (0) |
|
This is the fourth in a a series of "Droplets" by Mike Young, The University of Adelaide, Australia. Droplets explore ideas and propositions which, if developed further, might improve water use. Ideas are explored from a fundamental perspective. They search for the building blocks and concepts that one might consider using if one was able to start without being constrained by prior decisions.
Governance of Large Water Bodies
By Mike Young
“Since changes are going on anyway, the great thing is to learn enough about them so that we will be able to lay hold of them and turn them in the direction of our desires. Conditions and events are neither to be fled from nor passively acquiesced in; they are to be utilized and directed."
— John Dewey, American philosopher and education reformer (1859-1952)
The issue
In a recent tour through part of the Murray Darling Basin, people indicated to us that they wanted a water management and allocation system that is more consistent, more responsive, more transparent, more communicative and better able to adjust to change.
Rivers and aquifers have little respect for jurisdictional boundaries. Starting from first principles and ignoring inter-jurisdictional complexity, how would one go about designing an administrative system for any large water resource? What elements should be administered nationally, what at basin level, and what at the catchment or regional level?
National level
Arguably, administrative arrangements that seek to increase the productivity and efficiency of water use at the national level are best decided at that level. Examples, such as those in the National Water Initiative signed by the Australian and State/territory governments, include commitments to water sharing rules that ensure maintenance of river and aquifer health; definition of entitlements to provide certainty to investors; and use of water trading to facilitate adjustment; and full cost pricing to ensure efficient investment and use of infrastructure.
Well prescribed and underpinned by arrangements that ensure compliance, the role of national water policy is to set the general rules and drive the processes necessary to ensure excellence in water management.
Basin level
As a general principle, connected water bodies are better managed as a single inter-dependent system. Without such an arrangement, administrative processes tend to be slow and cumbersome; can fail to recognise critical system wide changes; and may incur unnecessarily high costs.
A single entity could be given responsibility for making all water allocation decisions, as well as managing entitlement registers and setting trading rules.
Management of storages and the primary water distribution system by a single entity is likely to produce a better outcome than management by separate institutions.
Catchment/Regional level
By unbundling water licences into water entitlements and allocations from land use approvals, state governments, local governments and catchment boards could remain responsible for land-use control and development control. To ensure adequate control of system-wide impacts on water quality and water supply, the entity could be empowered to issue directions to these departments and boards.
Objectives
To set up a single, highly responsible and independently accountable entity, it is necessary to tightly specify the objectives against which performance can be assessed. Objectives would need to be outcome-focused and relatively few in number. A requirement to manage by objectives makes it easier to cope with pressures from competing interests.
Independence with accountability
Once objectives are agreed, a connected water system could be governed by an independent group of people appointed on the basis of their collective experience, knowledge and communication skill. Empowered to manage apolitically, appointees could be made accountable and subject to the same disciplines as directors of private companies.
A Ministerial process could be used to appoint people to the entity and to approve operational plans and major changes to infrastructure.
An independent revenue source
Independent governance would be easier if the entity has direct access to funds. One option, worthy of serious consideration, is an arrangement requiring each water entitlement holder to make an annual payment directly to the entity. A case can be made for a matching payment from governments to fund environmental management. Substantial rationalisation of existing fees and charges may be possible.
Application to the Murray Darling Basin
While co-operative and collective management of the Murray Darling Basin has taken us a long way. there may be advantages in continuing to search for opportunities to make the system better. One of the best times to do this, is in a time of stress. The National Water Initiative commits Australia to a review of the Murray Darling Basin Agreement and governments have begun internal review processes.
Section 100 of the Constitution is not a barrier to a decision by all to transfer powers to a new independent entity. Conceptually, it is possible for States, Territories and the Commonwealth to transfer any or all of their water management responsibilities to a single entity. Groundwater and surface water throughout the MDB could be managed as a single connected system.
At the same time, responsibility for all dams, weirs, storage lakes and barrages could be transferred to a joint government enterprise.
Transformation from the existing system to a new more independent system of governance that manages the Murray Darling Basin system as one is a daunting task. If desired, implementation in the highly regulated Southern Connected River Murray System could be separated from implementation in the summer rainfall driven Darling System where consumptive use is regulated as much by rules about when water can be pumped from passing flows, as by rights to take volumes of water.
Within two years, it is likely that all water users will hold both a water entitlement and a separate licence authorising use. Unbundling will make it possible to transfer water entitlement registers to a single basin-focused administrative entity. The entity could also be made responsible for setting trading rules and making all supply and allocation decisions. States, working through catchment boards and local government, could remain responsible for land-use control and development control.
Issues such as responsibility for managing environmental water, financing new infrastructure and system reconfiguration, managing the impacts of land-use change, ground-surface water connectivity and salinity management would all need to be addressed.
Where to from here?
Issues as fundamental to the Basin as this require both expert and community input. Building upon the information being collected by governments, an independent inquiry could be set up with terms of reference requiring extensive consultation and careful deliberation.
It is possible that such an inquiry might recommend establishment of an independent entity charged with responsibility to manage in the interests of all – without fear or favour.
Mike Young, The University of Adelaide, Email: Mike.Young@adelaide.edu.au
Jim McColl, CSIRO Land and Water, Email: Jim.McColl@csiro.au
Hyperlinks to further information
-Scanlon, J. (2006) A hundred years of negotiations with no end in sight – where is the Murray Darling Basin Initiative leading us?
-Connell, D. (2007) Water and politics in the Murray Darling Basin Freedom Press.
-Report of Select Committee on the Murray River, July, 2001 SA Parliament
Acknowledgements
This Droplet was developed on a tour through the Southern Connected River Murray System where we met with a significant number of irrigator, water management, local government and community representatives. Virtually all expressed a desire for a more responsive, more transparent and less politically driven system. As with all our Droplets, we would like to acknowledge the important contributions made by our Steering Committee.
Copyright © 2006 The University of Adelaide. This work may be reproduced subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of its source. Production of Droplets is supported by Land and Water Australia and CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country. Responsibility for their content remains with the authors.
Undermining Water - Accounting for Flow Reducing Activities |
December 06, 2006 |
|
Posted by Joseph Taylor at 03:03 AM | Comments (2) |
|
This issue of the Droplet explores options for dealing with two of Australia’s most severe water accounting challenges. The question of how to deal with the impacts of land use changes on water supplies.
Droplet No. 3, December 2006
Water reaches our waterways and aquifers by landing on soil and then either passing through the soil or running over it. And, how much gets there depends upon the nature of the soil, barriers to overland flow and amount of water extracted by plants.
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza,
There's a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, a hole.
Plant trees in high rainfall areas, build a dam, establish contour banks, spread clay on a sandy soil or make any other land use change that affects water flow adversely and the amount of water that reaches groundwater systems and rivers is reduced. Reduced dramatically.
Recently, CSIRO scientists estimated that, over the next 20 years, farm dam growth will reduce annual flows in the Murray Darling system by 250 to 3,000 GL. Ranges are provided because there is considerable uncertainty about projections of this nature. Somewhat controversially, CSIRO also estimated that plantation forestry will reduce flows in the Murray Darling system by 550 to 700 GL. Industry and BRS estimates suggest that these estimates may be high. Lower estimates are in the vicinity of 165-215 GL each year. Whatever the correct estimate, these volumes are significant.
To put these numbers in perspective, the first step in restoring River Murray flows aims to find an additional 500 GL. In contrast, the possible outcome, depending upon the rate of growth in dams and plantations may be a loss of as much as 10% of the water used in irrigation in high allocation years.
Significantly, the impact of such water intercepting activities depends on whether or not the land-use change occurs above or below a dam. Interception above a dam has the same impact as less rain and thus is considered when allocation decisions are made. Changes in interception below a dam, however, typically are ignored – even though they can be predicted to reduce the amount of water available.
This is a classic example of a water accounting problem. When some but not all water use is metered, how can one ensure that when one person uses more water, someone else uses less? Other accounting problems, left for a subsequent droplet, will address the effects of climate change, increased salinity, forest fires and salinity interception.
So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, dear Henry,
So fix it dear Henry, dear Henry, fix it.
With what should I fix it, dear Liza, dear Liza,
With what should I fix it, dear Liza, with what?
Conceptually, there are two ways to fix it.
1) Reduce allocations to other water users as un-metered use increases.
2) Require the effects of any increase in un-metered use to be offset.
Progressive reduction?
If the progressive reduction approach is taken, then all water users need to be made aware that increases in un-metered water use may reduce the quantity of water likely to be made available to them. Provision of an annual land-use change impact statement is one way of providing such information.
In the River Murray system, one could imagine River Murray Water producing an independently-audited annual assessment of the extent of inflow reduction caused by increased forestry, farm dams construction and all other land-use changes. The audited report would then be used to help decision makers decide how much water to allocate to licensed water users.
Off-sets?
The other approach is to make permission to undertake a flow reducing land-use change conditional upon acquiring water entitlements equivalent to the size of the effect. Increases in non-metered water use are permitted only when arrangements are put in place to reduce metered water use elsewhere.
In the Lower South East of South Australia’s groundwater system, above a threshold area, those who wish to establish a new blue gum or pine plantation are now required to hold an irrigation licence equivalent to the impact of the proposed plantation on water supplies.
Administrative detail
Whenever an off-set approach is taken, regulations are used to require a permit to undertake a significant water-intercepting activity. Likely impact per hectare of forest or per ML of dam is then estimated by reference to a set of look-up tables. That amount of water can be set aside so that the impact of the interception on allocations to other water users and the environment is negligible.
If this water is “quarantined” in a special account and actual use estimated annually, administrative costs can get prohibitive. A simpler approach is to require surrender of a water entitlement equivalent to the average amount of water to be used.
In recognition of the value of a water entitlement, the plantation establishment or dam construction permit issued can guarantee entitlement re-issue when the interception stops and the permit cancelled.
How much does un-metered water use cost?
A very conservative estimate of the impacts of un-metered interception in the River Murray system over the next 20 years is 1,000 GL per annum. At average prices of around $1,500/ML for high security water, it would cost in excess of $1,500,000,000 or $1.5 billion to replace this water.
A different way of thinking about the impact is to ask how much it would cost to off-set a hectare of forest plantation or 5 ML dam. Clearly this depends upon where the dam or forest is located.
Located high up in the Eastern Divide where annual rainfall exceeds 1120 mm per annum, plantation establishment reduces water yield by around 2.5 ML per hectare. Assuming that around 80% of this yield reduction affects river flow, the cost of buying back the water used is around $3,000 per hectare.
Every ML of farm dam storage is estimated to reduce flow by 0.84 ML. At a price of $1,500/ML, the cost of offsetting a 10 ML dam would be around $12,600.
Further work
Under the National Water Initiative, governments agreed to include measures to have water interception under control “no later than 2011.” Recently, the Prime Minister and River Murray Premiers agreed to accelerate actions associated with water accounting.
Awkward issues include the question of whether or not offsets should be required for increases in the area under native vegetation and what is to be considered a significant effect.
Mike Young, The University of Adelaide, Email: Mike.Young@adelaide.edu.au
Jim McColl, CSIRO Land and Water, Email: Jim.McColl@csiro.au
Click here to access our previous droplet “Thinking like an accountant about rivers and aquifers.”
Acknowledgements
The contributions of Albert van Dijk, Peter Hairsine and Glen Kile to this Droplet is acknowledged with appreciation. ”There’s a Hole in the Bucket” is a folk song of unknown origin made famous by Harry Belafonte and Odetta.
Further reading
Risks to shared water resources, http://www.mdbc.gov.au/nrm/risks_to_shared_water_resources
Sharing water, http://www.myoung.net.au/water/publications/Sharing_water_060221p.pdf
National Forest Inventory http://affashop.gov.au/product.asp?prodid=12774
The Droplet - Subscribe
Droplets explore ideas and propositions which, if developed further, might improve water use. Ideas are explored from a fundamental perspective. They search for the building blocks and concepts that one might consider using if one was able to start without being constrained by prior decisions.
If you would like to receive a copy of our next droplet, please send an email to droplets@adelaide.edu.au, otherwise we will delete you from our list.
Droplets on water accounting and stormwater management can be read at www.myoung.net.au
Prof. Mike Young
Water Economics and Management
Earth & Environmental Sciences
The University of Adelaide
AUSTRALIA
Email: Mike.Young@adelaide.edu.au
Website: www.myoung.net.au
Copyright © 2006 The University of Adelaide
This work is copyright. It may be reproduced subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgement of its source. Production of Droplets is supported by Land and Water Australia and CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country. Responsibility for their content remains with the authors.
