Claims the amount of environmental water being held in Victoria’s dams was disadvantaging irrigators have been dismissed by Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) David Papps.
Mr Papps said figures showing the CEWH held 46 per cent of the entitlement in the Murray River storages, the Dartmouth and Hume dams, were misleading.
“The Commonwealth’s northern Victorian entitlements have provision for carryover,” Mrr Papps said.
“These provisions are exactly the same as for irrigators holding the same entitlement types.
“I actively use carryover to optimise the effectiveness of Commonwealth environmental water in delivering environmental benefits critical to the health of the Murray-Darling system.”
Victorian Farmers Federation (VFF) water council chairman Richard Anderson said when deliberate spills occurred, the water should be taken off the CEWH’s seasonal determination.
Mr Anderson said irrigators were concerned the CEWH was taking up more of Victoria’s share of the dams, than it should.
The CEWH should have used water, from the spring floods, thus freeing up more space of irrigators.
“They get the benefit, without using any seasonal determination - it’s a deliberate release, it’s not like natural flows, coming in from tributaries,” Mr Anderson said.
“I don’t know whether the rules can ever be changed, but I think the discussion should be had.”
Irrigators were also concerned that once Victoria’s share of the space in the Hume and Dartmouth dams was filled, water would go to the New South Wales account, as an “internal spill.”
Mr Papps said he was operating completely within the rules on carryover.
“In Victoria those carryover rules have been specifically designed to ensure that no entitlement holder is advantaged over another.
“The Northern Victorian Resource Manager (Dr Mark Bailey) has advised me that he is ‘not concerned at all’ about the volume of carryover attributed to environmental water holders.”
He said the figures did not take into account the watering events he had approved, but which had not yet been implemented.
“They also do not reflect the fact that my pattern of utilising carryover in the southern Basin heavily favours early season release,” he said.
“This more closely mimics natural flows prior to damming.
“It also means that I am more likely to disproportionately make space available for inflows over winter.
“What the numbers do show unequivocally is that private irrigators collectively own the majority of stored carryover.
What the numbers do show unequivocally is that private irrigators collectively own the majority of stored carryover.
- David Papps, Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder.
“Under these circumstances, it is not appropriate to attribute risk solely to environmental water holders.”
And Sunraysia VFF branch spokesman Bill McClumpha said irrigators in the Mildura area were very wary of proposals, which would affect the quality of entitlements.
He said such proposals could affect perceptions by markets, as to the consistency and reliability of water as a tradeable property right.
“Changing the rules regarding entitlement held by any particular holder would have a negative impact on market perceptions but could also lead to flow on effects,” Mr McClumpha said.
“For instance New South Wales might react if it believes any changes would cause it disadvantage, so there could be tit for tat rule changes impacting on irrigators in multiple states.
“If Victoria perceives some disadvantage from the disposition of the CEWH's portfolio then the best way forward would be through consultation.”
Discriminatory rule changes against any entitlement holder were unfair, in the first instance.
"It is in everyone's interest, including irrigators' and the market's, that the full suite of characteristics attributable to any class of entitlement remains intact and free from interference."
Ricegrowers’ Association of Australia president Jeremy Morton, Bundarool, Moulamein, said Victoria had a more conservative allocation system, than New South Wales.
“In New South Wales, we tend to ‘ride the tiger’ a bit more, water is there, or it’s not – they are just different ways of allocating water,” Mr Morton said.
“Irrigators have used more of their share of the water than the CEWH has, so the CEWH is in a difficult position.
“A fair bit of time, the river was running high, and under the rules, they were not allowed to let water out of the dams.”
He said as a percentage of water, the CEWH had used less than irrigators, which did have an impact as there was more in the dams owned by someone else.
“At some stage, they have to use water to create air space.
“As soon as we get to July 1 they are going to start letting some of their water out to meet environmental objectives they have identified.”
Earlier this year, opposition Water spokesman Peter Walsh called for a formal review of the carryover rules, for northern Victoria, so irrigators did not continue to have their annual allocations reduced.
He told parliament carryover was introduced in the mid-2000’s, to allow irrigators to manage some of the risk of access to water allocations from one season to the next.
“But, after a number of years of operation, it is now clear that the carryover rules are actually reducing the amount of water available to irrigators, in any given year.”
He said the environmental water holder, and irrigators, both lost water when the storages overflowed.
“When a spill like that happens, the environment gets those downstream benefits, not only from their spill water, but also from the irrigators’ spill water as well, whereas the irrigators get absolutely no benefit from the water, once it is going down the river.”
“I believe the environment is benefitting to the tune of 200 gigalitres (GL) of water per year, because of the perverse outcomes from irrigators, via the present rules.”