Is the way the water market is currently working undermining the social and economic outcomes enshrined in the Murray Darling Basin Plan?
Food processing and manufacturing jobs and businesses are clearly feeling the pinch.
Jobs have been wound back in rice, dairy and vegetables. These industries have found it hard to compete for much-needed water.
The various seasonal farm and processing jobs they generated, as well as the value-adding of product that had been developed with these industries, are significant for local economies.
But their struggle is proving to be an unintended consequence of current water market reform.
RELATED READING: Has water market reform driven dollars from regional jobs?
Ricegrowers president Jeremy Morton asked: "Do you think we are getting the best out of the water market when we are at risk of losing advanced food manufacturing?" (see "Water market a risk to jobs?, p13).
He points out that while the water might be delivered to the highest value point "we're losing advanced manufacturing and all the export income and economic activity you get from it".
Water policy advisory Aither's director Will Fargher also questioned whether the benefit from the water going to the highest value point was evenly spread across the basin communities from which it came?
In other words, was there another outcome here besides the obvious economic/market value that's not being recognised? And what's that costing us overall?
In rolling out the current water market structure, few anticipated the "highest value point" would take the water downstream, nor the associated social ramifications.
The conversation a decade ago was around economic and efficiency terms to generate water savings for the environment.
With such a narrow focus on "pure" terms, the federal government (then Labor and now Liberal/Nationals) has failed rural communities.
What is possibly missing is an overarching policy on, say food security, under which all these issues, such as water and rural jobs, as well as native vegetation, mining, etcetera, could fit and therefore help guide the allocation of resources accordingly.
Meanwhile, as we head into a predicted dry spring/summer with grave concerns about apocalyptic-like fish kills, it's a tad ironic the state government is referring to its fish saving program as "Noah's Ark".
Perhaps an unforecasted flood will arrive and ease some of these pressures.