Taxpayer Funded Water Trading

Documents circulating this week continue to demonstrate the contempt and lack of empathy the Federal Government, the Murray Darling Basin Authority and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder have for the communities of the southern connected system.

In a submission by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder titled Water Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2015 [Provisions] Submission 3 the document highlights the lack of understanding around such a complex system and also the stark differencing in treatment of the northern NSW basin versus the southern NSW and northern Victoria.

The document outlines once again how wonderful water trading is, calling for ‘increased flexibility for the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder to sell water and use the proceeds to improve environmental outcomes.’

Cool, I love me some environment, but once again what is the environment? The river that is being eroded more than the last 100 years of river regulation? Or maybe it’s the likes of the Barmah–Millewa Forest and being consistently inundated, or maybe the environment is an estuary that faces the forces of the Southern Ocean and has always been fresh? The environment to the powers that be isn’t our flood plains, the ones that were wet through ‘over bank transfer’ for hundreds if not thousands of years due to the natural constraints of the river. You know the constraints they are trying to bypass with the help of Murray Irrigation, I didn’t know the Mulwala Canal was there before European settlement? The funny thing is I haven’t been able to find one MDBA report of the environmental importance of our floodplains or their ecology for that matter. There are northern flood plain studies funded by the MDBA. Maybe we are not the environment? Maybe we should ask the Environment Minister?

Our Environment Minister could also RAMSAR–list Australia Rice Paddies for endangered migratory birds as Japan did? The Environment Minister is our own Federal Member the Honourable Sussan Ley. By the way, if you are bored have a look through all our member’s social media accounts on Instagram and Facebook. It’s an interesting snapshot of how the advocate for our issues if the wheel doesn’t squeak, does it even need oil?

Sorry I got distracted. Where were we? Ahh yes, greater flexibility for the water trading by our Federal Government’s Environmental Water Holder. Aren’t they now the largest single holder of water in Australia? I’m sure that doesn’t matter. Trading water in a market with farmers trying to just feed their cattle and trying to survive, what could go wrong? If there is a need for water trading, did they buy too much, or too much on one location?

The submission states ‘water can be sold if the proceeds from the sale can be used to buy water that improves the capacity to achieve environmental objectives (for example, buying water at another time or in another catchment where environmental needs are greater).

Ok, so if the background science was so robust why are we trading water again? There was an idea they could trade water to help pay their fees, but that must have been a step too far, as it was rejected.

The other interesting little bit of information was the trading of water for social benefits. What are the social benefits? Maybe that is like food security or farmers going without water or needing to finish their crops? Would that be like our communities lobbying for an allocation as they watched their crops die in the spring? Or when dairy farmers were going broke? They were told ‘No, it’s environmental water, we can’t help you, peasants!’ (Well, they didn’t say peasants...) I may have been a bit harsh. They couldn’t do it, their hands were tied, or were they?

Turns out their hands are pretty flexible. Well, at least, if you live in the north of NSW. In the same submission, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder lists an example of social benefits. It was when they sold 10,000 megalitres in the Gwydir Catchment to 16 bidders, who were from a range of primary industries, including cotton, beef, wheat and pulse crops. Netting a tidy $3.217 million. So, $321 per megalitre? I wonder if dairy farmers, forced to pay $600 per megalitre from corporate water traders, would like water for $321 per megalitre? 

Their reason for selling the water ‘there was strong demand for water from irrigators due to drier than normal conditions’. Isn’t that funny? We are always told we have no water due to drier than normal conditions. Those drier than normal conditions make you eligible for a water allocation from the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder? Or is that just if you live in the north of NSW? Isn’t that the same place NSW Government and Water NSW have let illegal flood plain harvesting continue? I think Member for Murray, Helen Dalton, is on that scent, like a bloodhound of justice for her electorate!

I have no problem with the CEWH supplying water to farmers, in fact, that was John Howard’s vision. I have a problem with them doing it on the water market, to the detriment of food producers and also only doing it at one end of the basin. Are their businesses worth more than ours? Are their communities or are their votes? 

Maybe we should ask Sussan?