Basin Plan fails regional areas

WELCOME to the world of the Murray Darling Basin Authority, where over a third of the irrigation entitlement is to be removed from the Basin and mysteriously only 800 jobs would be lost.
This is just one of the many staggering aspects of the guide to the Proposed Basin Plan released last week, which has already received a frosty reception across rural Australia.
When we break down the numbers for Queensland, it makes sense why irrigators and communities are alarmed.
Under a 37 percent cutback, the reductions would be 39pc for the Condamine-Balonne, 45pc for the Warrego, 45pc for the Moonie, 25pc for the Border Rivers, and the undeveloped Paroo would continue as status quo.
Those reductions place the environment so far ahead of social and economic outcomes that the result would deliver a hammer blow to some regional communities in southern Queensland.
That ultimately means job losses in the thousands and a severe impediment for Australia’s ability to produce food and fibre.
The Authority proposed three possible scenarios for reductions from 27pc to 37pc in the Queensland catchments, to achieve an additional 3000 gigalitres 3500GL, or 4000GL for the environment Basin wide.
We expect the cutbacks in Queensland to exceed 35pc and be taken mainly from the irrigation entitlements and on-farm supply of cotton, cereal, fruit and vegetable growers and dairyfarmers across our catchments.
The Authority has since conceded the job losses would be at least 3000 – but we would contend they will be even far higher.
During the election, both sides of politics made the important commitment that they would meet the Sustainable Diversion Limits by purchasing water from willing sellers.
The worrying situation however is that with the water bought so far and the money allocated in the forward estimates for buyback and infrastructure, the Murray Darling Authority estimates that the Australian Government will only be able to acquire about 2000GL by 2014.
So there will be a shortfall of up to half of the water the Authority has assessed is needed for the environment at the time when State catchment water resource plans take effect to implement the Basin Plan.
That means the Federal Government must come up with more funding in a budget already under pressure – or more importantly it should reassess the impacts of such very deep cuts.
The government will also have to make sure that it is purchasing water from willing sellers, and by that I mean that it must meet a fair market price for water.
To date, our members are informing us of numerous of unsuccessful offers of water for tender, which have been rejected because of alleged “poor value”.
What the government describes as poor value, a farmer may simply describe as a fair price for a valuable asset.
In addition, we are very concerned that this Guide’s “sign-posts for success” have little emphasis on communities.
The Guide as it stands has mainly looked at the environmental side of the ledger, and there is a very real risk that these cuts would decimate some industries and towns and this impact, by design, has not been factored into the Authority’s work.
This must occur in the future, as the Authority has already admitted that it has more work to do analysing the socioeconomic consequences of these cuts.
From here, it is important that farmers and everyone in these communities attend the information sessions on the Guide.
We need to leave the Authority with no doubt about the severe impact of these water cutbacks and what it would mean for towns and economies.
QFF is reiterating in our submissions on this Guide that the irrigation sector is looking for a Plan that provides a more sustainable Basin in both environmental and economic terms. This guide is just the first step towards achieving this balance, and it is for this reason that we need to gather and consider all of this information now so that can we develop a holistic Plan for the future.