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.

Comments

Post a comment