Water As Property: the Social Impact of Water Reform on Agriculturalists in the Murray-Darling Basin New South Wales

Water as Property: The Social Impact of Water Reform on Agriculturalists in the Murray-Darling Basin New South Wales

Marea Capell

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

School of Social Sciences & International Studies The University of New South Wales

Water as Property: The Social Impact of Water Reform on Agriculturalists in the Murray-Darling Basin New South Wales Abstract Marea Capell This thesis contributes to sociology and social policy discussions on water reform in New South Wales, Australia. While the study draws on political economy theory in examining water as ‘property’ under economic rationalism polices, it makes an ethnographic contribution to rural sociology as it traces institutional reform in water management in the late twentieth century. The research is influenced by the theoretical concepts of Emile Durkheim on property relations, Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of field, game, habitus and illusio and Niklas Luhmann’s concept ‘trust’. These sociological perspectives are integral to my research.

The empirical research centred on field observation and qualitative interviews with farm managers and senior officers as the State clawed back over allocated water for environmental restoration.

The aims of this study were: (a) to observe the implications of restrictions on water use for farmers under the Water Management Act 2000 (New South Wales). (b) to enquire into the strategies used by dryland and irrigation farm managers to cope with cutbacks in water allocations. And (c) to observe if the trust by farmers in government policy is eroding.

I found that if the farmers cannot obtain water to develop their land and water further, to continue traditions of intergenerational change, then income is lost throughout the rural communities. Water reform principles ‘integrated water resource management’ and ‘sustainable water resource management’ give farmers a low priority for water access as trust in policy decisions is eroding. The small and medium broadacre farm managers interiewed retain their trust in their own abilities, resilience and survival strategies, such as earning off farm income. The larger agribusiness managers make decisions to accord with corporate objectives. If they cannot access adequate water resources their farms are more likely to be sold than are smaller or medium size broadacre farms.

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge contains no materials previously published or written by another person or substantial proportions of material that have been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at The University of New South Wales or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in this thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at The University of New South Wales or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in this thesis. I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

iii

Acknowledgments

I wish to acknowledge the encouragement of my family, Susan, Peter and Liza-Jane and particularly my husband Jim whose interest in water management and the deterioration of waterways in the Murray-Darling Basin continued during his life. He was a grazier and a veterinary surgeon working on our farm in a semi-arid region of the Murray-Darling Basin where checking watering points was a routine part of our daily life.

I also wish to acknowledge the unfailing encouragement given by my supervisor, Emeritus Professor Ann Daniel (UNSW) and the help provided through their vast knowledge of sociological enquiry made available to me by my co-supervisors, A/Prof Grant McCall and the late Ms Frances Lovejoy, AM.

Concepts and Abbreviations

Access licence - An access licence under Section 56 of the Water Management Act 2000 entitles the licence holder to a specified share component in water available in a water management area. Water is taken at specified times, rates and circumstances for use in approved locations. Australian Constitution - Sections of the Constitution under the federal system justify centralised monetary control allowing the Australian government to fund projects and intervene in water management normally undertaken by the State. Section 100 justifies the Commonwealth involvement in interstate trade, commerce and the navigation of rivers; Section 51 (1V) justifies Commonwealth support for the Snowy Hydroelectric Scheme under national defence priorities; Section 51 (XX1X) external affairs power justifies federal intervention, for example, in the Tasmanian Franklin Dam dispute. Section 96 allows the states the financial assistance that federal parliament deems appropriate. Cap - This term indicates the process for restricting water diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin implemented in 1995. The Cap fixed water abstractions at 1993-94 levels. Initially planned as a temporary restriction, the Cap became permanent in 1997. Catchment Management Authorities - Thirteen Catchment Management Authorities came into force as statutory authorities in 2005. The authorities are directly answerable to the Minister and their functions cover water initiatives to ensure a sustainable river catchment.

Corporatisation –This concept applied to the management of river catchment authorities in New South Wales and is based on neo-liberal preferences relating to privatisation of former public utilities. The expectation is that public water authorities are managed along similar lines to private enterprise organisations. Council of Australian Governments (COAG) – This is a key policy forum designed to discuss and facilitate intergovernmental agreement, including natural resource management. COAG representatives coordinate state, federal and territory government policies. Cutback in a water entitlement - Water deducted from an irrigation water licence as a proportion of the water allocation shown on the licence. DIPNR - Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources Farm - Farming and grazing land. ‘Farm’ is a commonly understood name for a ‘grazing block’ or a rural property that produces food or fibre. Farmer – For the purposes of this study the farmer is manager and or owner of a broadacre agricultural property. Integrated water resources management – Responsible water resource management that coordinates human activities in the use of water for environmental, economic and social purposes and benefits, whilst sustaining the natural resources. Licence categories – There are approximately twenty-three types of licences across different water jurisdictions in the Murray-Darling Basin. The New South Wales section includes local water utility access licences; major utility access licences; domestic and stock access licences; regulated river (high security) access licences; regulated river (general security) access licences; supplementary water licences; and unregulated river licences.

Murray-Darling Basin - The river basin covers more than one million square kilometres of land in New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory. Under the Australian Constitution, control and management of water sources within state borders rests with the states. However, under federal monetary policy, the Commonwealth Government increasingly exercises its fiscal powers to influence water management in the states and territories. National Competition Policy – The policy was implemented in 1995 and was endorsed by the COAG. The policy encourages corporatisation and privatisation of former public utilities such as water and electricity and market competition. It discourages anti-competitive behaviour and endorses market competition. National Water Commission - Established in 2004, it is an independent statutory body designed to implement and advise on the National Water Initiative National Water Initiative (NWI) - In 2003 the COAG agreed to develop a National Water Initiative. It was introduced in 2004 to ‘develop a compatible, market, regulatory and planning based system’ for managing groundwater and surface water resources for urban and rural use. The objective is to maximise environmental, economic and social outcomes (Pigram, 2006: 78-9). Public authority or authority - A Minister of the Crown, or a Government Department or Administrative Office, or a statutory body representing the Crown, or a statutory State owned corporation. Regulated river - A river so declared by the Minister by order published in the Gazette. The regulated sector lies within regulatory control of a state storage system. An unregulated river means a river, or portion of a river that is not a regulated river. vii

Senior officer - Senior employee in a government or a semi-government bureaucracy. Share component – expressed as a specified maximum volume of water allocated for a water share licence at a specified time. It is a variable; a specified proportion of the stored water available for abstraction. Station - An agricultural property similar to a ranch or a larger farm. Sustainable water resources management – The term ‘sustainable’ implies that water resources will pass to the next generation in a similar condition to that enjoyed by the previous generation. The Water Act 2007 and Water Amendments in 2008 (Australian Government) established the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. The Water Management Act 2000 is based on the principles ‘sustainable water resources management’ and ‘integrated water resource management’ that accord with the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreements on water reform. The Act replaced the New South Wales Water Act 1912. It reviewed and revised water entitlement and access licence conditions. Water allocation - The volume of water that the holder of an access licence is entitled to abstract under the licence, as recorded in the account for the licence referred to in section 85 of the Water Management Act 2000. Water resources - Applies to the function of water as a resource and its value in relation to human needs (Pigram 2006: 3). Water source - The whole or part of one or more rivers, lakes, estuaries or water occurring naturally below or above ground level. Sources: Alston, 2010; Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS, 2004-5); Connell, 2007; Pigram, 2006; and Smith, 2001.

viii

Water Management Legislation 1886 onwards – The Irrigation Act 1886 (Victoria) included the principle that all streams are public property. The Australian Constitution: Sections of the Australian Constitution under the federal system justified centralised monetary control and federal funding of state projects as parliament saw fit. The Water Act 1905 (Victoria). The Water Act 1912 (New South Wales). Murray River Agreement (1915) created the River Murray Commission The National Competition Policy (1995) is a federally mandated policy determination under which States received substantial payments from the federal government when they implemented the National Competition Policy reforms. These reforms are non-negotiable if a state authority is to keep its share of contingency payments. The 1996 New South Wales Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal established key principles for irrigation water management including: pricing to reflect the cost of water availability, asset refurbishment, the replacement of infrastructure and to include costs to the environment and groundwater monitoring. The Water Management Act 2000 (New South Wales). The Water Act 2007 (Australian Government) intended to optimise environmental, economic and social outcomes of water use. Debate over the priority decisions for water access under the Water Act 2007 continues. The Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources was established in January 2007 by the Howard Coalition Commonwealth Government. It introduced a 10 point $10 billion national water plan.

In late 2007, a newly elected Rudd Labor Government established the Ministry for Climate Change and Water. The Ministry was to oversee the Water Amendment Regulations 2008, introduced by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority that had replaced the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. The Authority gave attention to environmental and economic outcomes of reform. The deterioration of river catchment areas in the eastern states of Australia escalated as they experienced a sixth year of water shortfall as the widespread drought conditions continued. In April 2008, the $13 billion water plan commenced aiming to finance a ‘buyback’ of water licences from irrigation farmers and to finance water saving infrastructure.

Contents Concepts and abbreviations v

Water management legislation 1886 to present ix

Table of Contents xi

Chapter 1 The vagaries of water: An introduction 1 The outline of this study 8

Chapter 2 Perceptions of change 17 Water Reform in New South Wales 32

Chapter 3 Managing water in Australia 33 Integrated and ecologically sustainable water management 38 A complex problem, identifying the social impact of water reform 43 Sustaining rural communities and water supply 44 A historical account of farm development 49 Water sharing 54 Problems of food security 59 Rural society and change in the twenty-first century 62 The Cap 66

Chapter 4 Management and contemporary managers of water 69 Water management and the role of senior officers 69 Phases in water development – from a public utility to a property 71

Adjusting to modern market influences 76 Meanings of water 80 A watershed of ideas 82 Intercultural studies of conflict and water control 84 Drought and water reform 91 Conflicting views on large-scale water diversion 92 Priorities for water use and share components 95 Towards understanding natural resource management 96

Chapter 5 Sociological perspectives informing research 99 Trust relationships 100 Public Management 105 Property 107 Meaning and water transferability 112 Bourdieu: field, game, habitus and illusio 114 Field 115 Game 117 Habitus 118 Illusio 120

Chapter 6 Studying the impact of regulations: Research strategies 123 Planning the research and ethical considerations 124 Thematic analysis 134 Theoretical sampling 135 The respondents and their socio/cultural milieu 136 Qualitative study 138 xii

Sampling 141 Exiting the field 142 Ethical research 143 The respondents – expectations and change 143 Mountains, rivers and plains 146 Interviews and conferences 148 Significance of the study 150

Chapter 7 Stewards of water resources 152 Management priorities 156 Property relations. COAG agreements and Initiatives 157 Managing water reform 159 Water Managers 165 Trade in water 167 Traditions and change 178 The social impact of water reform 181 Property ownership and change 183 Looking to the future 187 Policy 188 The Snowy River return flow 189 Environmental matters 192 Adjusting to water reform 193

Chapter 8 Farm and water futures in a time of drought 197 Dryland farmers: Ruth, Dominic, Sandy, Marcus 200 Leisha, Gregory and other dryland and irrigation farmers 210 xiii

Large agribusinesses and consultative processes 215 Family and community support 219 The physical setting 220 Facing uncertainty - loss of trust 221 Irrigation and dryland farming in the twenty-first century 222 Making money out of water 223 Parkes Drought Summit meeting 225

Chapter 9 Survival strategies: Trust and distrust 228 The contestants: farmers and senior officers 248 Participants in the struggles 250 Farmers managing water 252 Resilience 253 The mature phase of water development 256 Complexities of modern water management 257

Chapter 10 Towards understanding our natural resources 269 The Snowy River experience 275 Water policy 278 Institutional reform 280 Directions for future research 282 Management decisions 293 Managing change 295 Changing values 302 Bibliography 309

xiv

Appendix 326 1.1 Murray-Darling basin 326 1.2 River catchments 327 1.3 Timeline for water and farm development 328 1.4 Major droughts in Australia 331 1.5 Catchment Management Authorities New South Wales 332 2.1 Industries in the Lachlan Catchment 333 3.1 Regulatory change 333 4.1 List of respondents – farmers 334 4.2 List of respondents – government officers, experts and other informants 337 4.3 Farmers questionnaire 341 4.4 Person to person interviews – local people, experts and others 342 4.5 Questionnaire – senior government officers, politicians and experts 343

Chapter One The vagaries of water: an introduction

In 1788 the first British settlers at Sydney Cove relied on the nearby Tank Stream for their fresh water supply. Food and water security were essential for the survival of the northern Europeans while they learned to cope with the variable rainfall in New South Wales. Skilled free settler farmers arrived following a request by Colonial authorities and once farmers adapted to the rainfall, climate and soil conditions the Colony flourished. However, learning to understand the climate and rainfall variability, to sustain the water resources and protect the farmland has taken much longer. This study examines the social impact of water reform on farmers and their communities during the twenty-first century as farmers adjust to change in regulatory demands under the principles ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’. The Government of New South Wales introduced the Water Management Act 2000 to replace the Water Act 1912. The rules for water storage and access for farmers have changed with the introduction of this new legislation. Farmers have lost the priority of access to water they enjoyed under the previous legislation and water has changed from a public utility to a property, a commodity for trade. The first European farmers learned to adapt to Australia’s variable rainfall and environmental needs. Farmers in the twenty-first century are learning to adapt to institutional reform and changed rules for water access.

Australian farmers demonstrated their resilience in producing crops and raising livestock, developing irrigated agricultural production to the value of $11.4 billion in 2002. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) figures showed that the share of agricultural production for New South Wales approximated $2.9 billion in that year. According to a report from the Department of Irrigation Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) New South Wales, irrigation farming used 1.5 per cent of the State farmlands and accounted for almost 35 per cent of farm production (DIPNR, 2005: 52). The commitment by both government and the farmers to the agricultural industries was mutually supportive for over 150 years when agriculture was the highest earner for the Australian export market. During the nineteenth and for most of the twentieth century the political objectives of government and those of the farming industries coincided, to provide food security and increase the levels of export earnings. The national development policies encouraged inland settlement and employment opportunities in regional Australia. There was an acceptance of the important role of the government in water and land development. This led to a hegemonic relationship between farmers and government officers based on mutual objectives. Political acknowledgement of the economic, political and social significance of the farm industries encouraged farm expansion. The traditions emerged supporting the establishment of family farming and intergenerational change, where the younger generation learns the farm management strategies and takes over from previous generations. From the 1980s the rural economies began to contract under the pressure of events largely outside their control. These include globalisation, competitive world markets and expanding demands for 2

material goods that placed pressure on water resources. The literature search examined the works of scholars who addressed these and related subjects in the light of farming in Australia. These are reported in Chapters Three and Four and their findings inform my questions in a qualitative study. Of immediate interest are the changes in water policy and natural resource management from the 1970s. Reform of government agencies and departments brought change to the role of senior officers dealing with water resources and the farming industries. The interrelation between the senior officers and the farmers is important as farmers adjusted to the changes in water allocation entitlements as the available water resources need to meet additional demands. An important mechanism for change is the ‘marketisation’ of public services. Alston (2010) provided clarification of the meaning for rural people. Public services, including water services that were free, are now required to be partly, if not fully purchased by the consumer. The study is located in the Murray-Darling Basin that covers a large area of inland Australia (see Appendix 1. 1). The development of water resources for irrigation purposes relied on government subsidised funding for public utilities like dams. Both dryland and irrigation broadacre farming benefited from the development by the government of the railways, roads and communication technology to lessen the problems of distance between regional centres and coastal cities. From there the farm produce was distributed and exported to bring valued export earnings. Government encouragement for water and farm development lasted for two centuries. The father of water law in Australia was Alfred Deakin, then Attorney General of Victoria. Deakin studied water law in North America where the law 3

followed economic ideology and the principle of private ownership. Alfred Deakin rejected this model and ensured that water remained in public ownership. His legislation guided New South Wales water law, as it became a model for water law throughout Australia. In the early New South Wales legislation, the Water Act 1912, the environment was taken-for-granted. There was no special consideration given and frequent flooding in inland regions encouraged the idea that water was plentiful and should be captured, stored and sent to irrigation farmlands. Engineering solutions included the large dam construction era that allowed the manipulation of large volumes of water. Water could be sent for use where and when it was needed for industrial or domestic purposes. The changes under the Water Management Act 2000 (New South Wales) recognised the need of the rivers for a share of their own water. As well, it recognised the growing social and political influence of the environmental movements in Australia and throughout the world. The decision by Australian Governments to accept the principles: ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’ (Pigram, 2006) brings a primary assumption and a chain of reasoning associated with water management practice under New South Wales legislation. The term ‘principle’ used in the sense of ‘a primary assumption that forms the basis for a chain of reasoning’ (Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, 2007) has relevance for the concepts ‘integration’ and ‘sustainable’ water resource management. There is a wide discussion on the use of these concepts and it appears that there is no explicit definition of the principles. Water reform in various water jurisdictions accords with the goals and objectives of those in control of water management. 4

For farm managers, institutional reform and administrative change means that they are one of many stakeholders who seek water access entitlements. Their interrelations with senior officers centre on the rules for water access and the information provided to conform to water access and other administrative matters. The irrigation farmers rely on the decisions of the water managers in their water jurisdiction to apply the rules and allocate a share of water available under the proportional system. Each stakeholder is entitled to a portion of the water contained in the storages or expected to be available in a water year. The entitlement ranges from zero upwards. The water managers in the river catchment regions in the Murray-Darling Basin (see Appendix 1. 2) advise on water policy and its administration. They use their training and expertise to advise on policy and to interpret the regulations in their catchment area and integrate the different demands on a usually limited water resource. Australia is the driest inhabited continent in the world and at different times in our history, we take measures to ensure that water resources are adequate to meet current demands and to conform to international thought and principles about management and control. A timeline setting out significant reforms that influence water policy in New South Wales is a useful guide to understanding the progressive approach to legislative change (see Appendix 1.3). During the 1990s, water reform gained momentum and in New South Wales this led to incremental reforms that were followed by the Water Management Act 2000. This legislation applied economic instruments to allocate water. Prior to the legislation water was allocated by water administrators, senior officers in government agencies appointed for this task. They allocated rural water for farm 5

use on an equal sharing basis. Both irrigation farmers and dryland farmers were encouraged to use water as needed to expand their farm businesses. Farmers and the government policies had similar objectives: the further development of water and the development and expansion of farming. In the twenty-first century, in New South Wales, under the rules of the Water Management Act 2000 farmers pay most, if not all, of the cost of water management under the principles of integrated water resources management that include the ‘user pays’ arrangements. As the largest users of water resources in Australia, farmers necessarily carry a major cost of water reform. Governments supported farming through the initial phase of water development and now they expect an investment return on their capital expenditure to an equivalent value it could earn from an investment in other industries. This responsibility falls under the ‘rate-of-return’ principles and integrated water resource management policies. Economic rationalism ideology developed in the closing years of the post-Second World War national development period, during the 1970s and 1980s. The eminent sociologist Emile Durkheim argued that some things should be beyond appropriation, they belong to everyone as public property. Durkheim included ‘the air, springs and streams and the sea’, also ‘banks of rivers that are navigable... or the shores of the sea’ that are among the ‘sacred’ objects. The State administers and manages these things but does not have the right to part with them. A State has ‘obligations connected with them but has no right of property over them’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 159). Public access to and use of the ‘sacred’ things should be a permanent right for all people.

Durkheim concluded that, ‘There are things which are not the object of any kind of right of property’, in Rome they were ‘sacred things’, ‘res sacrae or religiosae’, or they were ‘outside any transactions, absolutely inalienable’. They could not ‘become the object of any real right or any obligation whatever’. It is not their physical nature that defines whether things are available for appropriation, but ‘the form their image takes in the public mind’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 159). The people must agree to the appropriation. Water has meanings and special connotations that will be briefly touched on in Chapters Two, Three and Four. Water reform brought change to water access entitlements for irrigation farmers. Water was no longer plentiful and relatively free as it was under the rules of the Water Act 1912. Under the Water Management Act 2000 farmers take more responsibility for water management costs. The change means that new attitudes towards water must develop. Farmers and other water users must adapt to ‘the form’ and image that water as a property takes ‘in the public mind’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 159). The qualitative research process will discover what management strategies farmers adopt in order to adjust to water reform. The smaller family farm enterprises may not have the economic resources that the larger farms or corporate agribusinesses take-for-granted as they enter the field of competitive water markets. Farm expansion is the traditional way to earn more farm income as well as allowing the next generation to return to learn farming skills and to be ready to take over farm management when the previous generation retire. ‘Inter-generational change’ is a tradition of family farming in Australia that is under threat. If water resources are 7

restricted further then farms cannot expand and continue the longstanding management strategy of earning the extra income necessary to support the next generation when they return to learn the farming techniques. Irrigation brings an increased dependency on irrigated food production as farming areas and world water resources diminish (Connell, 2007: 1) while world demand for food increases. Connell asserted that without irrigation the world population would not have expanded as rapidly. People expect a reliable food supply and expanded irrigation farming is necessary to produce the food while the global land and water resources available, diminish. The themes that focus my research emerge from scholarly studies of farm, water management and policy decisions and from my own research. The themes are property, trust and meaning. Each contains sociological meaning for water resource management by the farmers.

The outline of this study In Chapter One I provide the outline of this study and a summary of why it is essential to examine the social impact of water reform among farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin in New South Wales. I briefly outline the history of farm and water development since European settlement. This Chapter concludes by presenting the aims of this study. In Chapter Two I explain the origins of my study and my interest in water reform and water allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin. I observe how farmers and environmentalists work together at times, for example in Landcare programmes that benefit urban and rural environments bringing together groups with a common interest in 8

conserving natural resources. The bonds between river communities and their river are fractured when the river management is privatised. In Chapter Three I examine the social impact of water reform on farmers and the influence of marketisation, meaning the ‘adoption of user-pays principles’ for access ‘to health and welfare’ services. Many people in remote rural areas may be unable to access these services if they cannot pay (Alston, 2010: 20). I explore the concepts ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’ and the influence of these concepts on modern western water policy and changes in water policy in Australia. The intercultural studies addressed in Chapter Four allow discussion of water and its regulatory control in the United Kingdom and the United States of America that allows water development to be placed in a global context. The interrelations between the farmers and the government officers who introduce water reform are central to the discussion of the social impact of water reform on farm managers. In Chapter Four the place ‘managerialism’ plays in the role of the senior officers as they deliver services to the public is discussed. Managerialism replaced their ‘narrower and more limited function’ of ‘administration’. It is a change ‘in theory and function’ of the senior officers’ role. The new managers are innovative, achieve results and take individual responsibility in the outcome of their duties (Hughes, 2003: 6). ‘Trust’ in the competence of the senior officers to perform their work satisfactorily was expected ‘many decades ago’, Vanclay (2011) explained. ‘The extension officers felt important delivering useful information to an eager and receptive farming population. Those days have gone’ said Vanclay. While farmers have previously accepted the 9

ideas the extension officers introduced they are now ‘sceptical and dubious about stated claims’. Therefore, ‘Extension in its various new forms needs to win back the trust of farmers’ (Vanclay, 2011: 62). The reports indicate that trust between the farmers and those in charge of water management at both the institutional level of decision making and at the management level, where rules are implemented, is eroding. It is important that communication between these groups is satisfactory if water management is to encourage farmers to continue to produce the food and fibre needed to feed the nation and contribute to the international food markets. Farming in Australia from the early years of European settlement required the farm managers to learn how to deal with long dry seasons. This was vital because there is usually a drought somewhere in Australia. There is a list of the major droughts from 1864 to 2010 provided in Appendix 1. 4. Alfred Deakin provided strong leadership qualities for the development of water resources and water law in Australia. During the 1880s as Attorney General of Victoria, he travelled to northern America where water development included the construction of large dams. This policy had the support of political leaders at each level of government. Deakin’s report published on his return from his study tour established the organisational arrangements for water administration. It required trained, competent officers administering water licences and overseeing water use on behalf of government departments and statutory authorities. He rejected private ownership of water and ensured that water remained public property owned by the people. The New South Wales Water Act 1912 followed the

Deakin guidelines. This legislation remained in place until replaced by the Water Management Act 2000 (New South Wales). The water share plans introduced under the Water Management Act 2000 and drawn up by River Management Committees required the approval of the Minister in charge of water. These committees continued for several years until replaced when the Water Catchment Authorities were established. These are shown in Appendix 1. 5. In Chapter Five theoretical perspectives are drawn from the thoughts of Emile Durkheim (1984), Pierre Bourdieu (2008), Bourdieu and Wacquant (2002), and Niklas Luhmann (1979). The theorists are integral to this study and an interpretation of water management by farmers or senior officers representing government. Water policy is perceived in two ways, water firstly, is a life-giving element and this idea underpinned the earlier water policies favouring farm use. Secondly, water is a property, a commodity for trade. Thought on the economic value of water as property emerged from the 1970s and reflected western thought on the privatisation of public services. Trust in the future was the foundation on which to build the highly productive farming industries in drought prone Australia. As Luhmann (1979) explained, ‘Trust increases’ the ‘tolerance of uncertainty’ (Luhmann, 1979: 15). Trust ‘is not to be confused with instrumental mastery over events’, when instrumental mastery can be ‘actualized’ then ‘trust is not necessary’. ‘But trust is required for the reduction of a future characterized by more or less indeterminate complexity’ (Luhmann, 1979: 15). As the farming industries spread from Sydney Cove towards the inland farmers faced the uncertainty of Australia’s inland climate, its variable rainfall and long dry spells. 11

They learned to manage drought, floods, distance from markets and isolation. Trust by the newly arrived farmers in their own ability to adapt was essential. The farmers and the government cooperated in ensuring that the inland population was settled more closely and that farming industries could support local food and fibre needs and profit from a productive export trade. Government support was apparent at both the institutional level of decision-making and at the organisational and technical level of land and water development. The confidence of the government in farming and in a productive rural society was evident in the government subsidies for roads, railways, dams and communication channels that spread across inland Australia. Trust in their high priority for farm water access was fostered among the New South Wales farm managers at the institutional level of decision making under the regulatory framework of the Australian Constitution and the Water Act 1912 (New South Wales). Luhmann (1979) and Barber (1983) explained that we expect ‘persistence, regularity, order and stability’ in our routine lives. Anxiety, bewilderment and anger emerge if our expectations of trust relationships are threatened and the social order that we know and understand changes significantly (Barber, 1983: 11-2). In order to explore trust relations I examine water reform at three levels. These are: (a) continuity of the social order; (b) competence of senior officers at the organisational level of management; and (c) the institutional level of policy decision making. We live in a world where expectations necessarily change in the complexity of modern society and we interrelate with others who may, or may not see things as we do. Luhmann (1979) argued that ‘in 12

conditions of increasing social complexity man can and must develop more effective ways of reducing social complexity’ (Luhmann, 1979: 7). He emphasised that trust and expectations for the future are essential, otherwise it is too difficult to function in daily life. Luhmann argued that ‘trust in the broadest sense of confidence in one’s expectations, is a basic fact of social life’ (Luhmann, 1979: 4). Trust, as defined by Luhmann is an important sociological construct allowing for a sense of continuity from the present to the future. Trust is a way of simplifying a problem so that the complex world becomes manageable. A problem increases complexity while a solution is intended to reduce complexity, ‘the increase and reduction of complexity belong together as complementary aspects of the structure of human response to the world’ (Luhmann, 1979: 7). Things occur that we cannot entirely control, taking precautionary action, that is ‘distrust’ measures (as will be discussed in Chapter Five) ensures the best outcome in the circumstances. In Chapter Five I draw on Bourdieu’s sociological constructs, habitus, illusio, game and field to understand the underlying motives for social action, differing objectives of stakeholders and water usage priorities. Bourdieu views human action as a relational experience and his concepts provide a useful method of grasping the interests that draw a contestant to enter a field and take part in a game. The stakeholders are there because the ‘game’ is important to them. Bourdieu argues that each field generates an illusio that motivates each stakeholder who each hold different positions in the power structure of the game, a ‘dominant’ or ‘subordinate’ position. There are sociologically significant concepts that guide research into natural resource management. ‘Sustainability’ is a principle used 13

in the Water Management Act 2000 to establish the objectives for the protection and use of water sources based on economic, environmental and social benefits to the State and its people. The concept ‘resilience’ is increasingly significant in scholarly studies relating to farm activities, natural resource management and food security. Strang (2004) examined multiple meanings of water and argued that its intrinsic value lies in its life generating quality. She cautioned against treating water as a ‘commodity’, quoting Benjamin Franklin who said that, ‘When the well is dry we know the worth of water’ (Strang, 2004: 1). Water has a value in the market however water also has intrinsic value not achieved through market competition. In Chapter Six I describe the qualitative methods adopted to discover the social impact of water reform on farm managers and the adaptive strategies they apply to cope with water reform. Ethical considerations are significant throughout the empirical research and I explain that ethics does not end with conforming to the University regulations; ethics are an integral part of the entire research process. I also present the planning procedures, interview techniques and schedule I use. Qualitative techniques allow theory to emerge from the accounts of the respondents that centre on the themes, water as property, trust in policy and the meanings of water. The questionnaires are open-ended and they address matters raised by the scholars in the literature as reported in Chapters Two, Three and Four. In Chapter Seven I report on my field research and data collection centred on water managers who are senior officers implementing water reform on behalf of government. The attitudes expressed include those of experts in different fields linked to farm communities

and water reform. They include politicians, environmentalists, social workers, bankers and stock and station agents. Chapter Eight reports the broadacre irrigation and dryland farmers’ interviews. Where gaps in information appear then further information is sought on an area of interest, such as resilience strategies, water cutbacks and sustainability of water resources. Managers of large agribusinesses and of the medium and smaller farms present their perspectives on the process of reform and the management strategies that are useful in complying with water access rules. Each type of farm has access to economic or familial resources drawn on during drought and each farm manager has a unique response to water use. Chapter Nine offers an analysis of the data collection, based on the theoretical perspectives of Durkheim, Bourdieu and Luhmann. There is a focus on trust relationships and survival strategies. The qualitative analysis allows farmers and senior officers to offer their responses to water reform, to explain why farmers take up certain options for water management and reject others. As Luhmann found no individual can trust chaos (Luhmann, 1979: 39) and the farmers need to have expectations for the future and to plan ahead and restore order in their farm business. In Chapter Ten I explain changes in water policy and the decisions made by the smaller farmers and the larger agribusinesses about remaining in the farming industry. The options include whether to sell their water and farmland or in the case of irrigation farms to sell the water and continue as a dryland farm. This Chapter provides a formalised report on directions for future research. Food security is once more a matter for consideration by national leaders who make the policy decisions on priorities for farmland and water resources 15

use. The first European settlers who arrived in Australia in the late eighteenth century confronted a similar problem - providing food security for the population. In a world with increasing demands on water sources and an expanding population it may be running too much of a risk with water to leave allocation to market forces. My research conclusions demonstrate that water reform gives farmers no special priority of access to water resources. Trust in policy decisions is eroding. The small and medium farm managers retain their trust in their own abilities, their resilience and their survival strategies. The larger agribusinesses make decisions to accord with their corporate objectives. In summary the aims of this study are: (a) To observe the implications of further restrictions on water use for farmers under the Water Management Act 2000 and other regulatory agreements. (b) To enquire into the strategies used by dryland and irrigation farm managers to cope with water reform and cutbacks in water allocations. (c) To observe whether the trust by farmers in government policy is eroding. This research and the analysis of the response by the farmers to the changes in the regulatory framework for obtaining water access is informed by the history of Australian farming and the generations of farming traditions.

Chapter Two Perceptions of change

This study began with my interest in the rare flood events in the western river systems in the Murray-Darling Basin in New South Wales and Queensland. The sight of the western rivers flooding over the countryside, the arrival of bird life, the noise of frogs and watching the landscape coming to life emphasised the truth in the statement by Mitchell (2004) that ‘water is life’. It had much relevance for farmers who know the variability of the rainfall from first-hand experience. The experience of the flood events and of farming in south west Queensland and earlier, in western New South Wales, gave me a ‘participant observer status’ of changes in water access. My interest in water use allowed a brief historical overview of changes to river flows generated by the diversion of surface and ground water as demand for water increased. Rice production and intensive cotton growing were two of the irrigation industries expanding during the last decades of the twentieth century. The population in large regional centres increased as did the demand on domestic water supplies as these industries flourished. In the meantime other industries were expanding, notably the mining industries in regional Australia that staked their claim for surface and groundwater shares. Whilst I am now interested in water management as a research project, I cannot help but inject my personal experiences into this account. I am studying water management, but I am a participant in

the story that had led us to this point. So, I report my own experiences, as well those of others from interviews. We used surface and groundwater sources on the farm where I lived (from 1976 until 2001). It was a dryland grazing property in south- west Queensland, Yerinan, a broad acre sheep grazing property in the north-west section of the Murray-Darling Basin in the Warrego River Catchment. The Widgeegoarra Creek runs through Yerinan. The Creek name is believed to derive from an Aboriginal language meaning, ‘Where did the waters go?’ On Yerinan, we raised merino sheep for wool production and beef cattle, all fed on natural pastures. During the nineteenth century, the creek supplied most of the water for the first pastoralists. It was common for graziers to walk off the land during long droughts before the Great Artesian Basin bores were first ‘tapped in northern New South Wales in 1878. The first bore that successfully intersected artesian aquifers in Queensland was at Thurulgoona Station near Cunnamulla in 1886’ (Smith, 2001: 156). It was located in the Warrego Catchment and approximately 200 kilometres north-west of Yerinan. Smith observed that, ‘There is difficulty in portraying the quality’ of the many individual aquifers. Those in the middle to bottom strata are normally the best in ‘yield and quality’ (Smith, 2001: 36). The Great Artesian Basin water is essential to the survival of the grazing industries in a large area of the arid and semi-arid zones. The Basin is ‘a vast sedimentary formation of water-bearing rocks’ underlying 22 per cent of the Australian continent with an estimated water storage of 8,700 million megalitres (Pigram, 2006: 24). Basin water supplements surface water during drought, therefore the protection of the Basin water is essential. The water is suitable for 18

both human and animal consumption. Cunnamulla, the nearest town to Yerinan where I lived (60 kilometres by road), depends on the Great Artesian Basin water for human consumption and other purposes (Collection of Papers, 1978). As the rivers and creeks broke over their banks in the infrequent flood events, to flow southwards and join with the Barwon-Darling River system in northern New South Wales, we imagined the water flowing down the rivers restoring ancient wetlands and reaching the barriers at the mouth of the Murray-Darling system in South Australia. The outcome of flooding was the revival of native flora and the return of the fauna as waterholes filled and the land near the river was green again as new growth covered sun baked plains. The floods gave life to native trees, grasses, bushes and bird populations as noted by Mitchell (2004:1) when he presented the opening address at an international conference on the ‘Power of Water’ at Charles Sturt University at Albury-Wodonga, itself located in the Murray-Darling Basin. He lived in the Basin area and appreciated the changes in water access following rainfall. The title of his paper was: ‘Water is life’. Until the 1970s, water was valued for its life-giving properties in Australia. It was not, as in the United States of America (USA), a property, a commodity for trade and something to fight over in long expensive court battles. The common understanding was that water was plentiful if it could be stored and used when needed. It was also relatively free because the government believed in equable distribution of water and access that should be available to all. To the people in regions that experienced long, severe drought water was not thought about as, in the main, a commodity for trade. Water was a 19

publicly owned and controlled utility and irrigation licences were for use on a parcel of irrigation farmland and were not transferable. Water is part of the hydrological systems that nurture wetlands and grow pastures. Water supports all life, human activities and functions. Water is part of the national heritage that Australians enjoy. Sheil (2000) explained that as a government adviser on ‘policies based on economic rationalism for many years’ and a person aware of its ‘strong points’ he intended to ‘show’ that the doctrine of economic rationalism has shortcomings, confirming ‘intuition and common sense, that could never concur with the idea that water is just another product’. He says that there is scarcely a field of human ideas, activity or a category of experience in which ‘water has not made its omnipresent magic felt’. This is apparent even when its ‘divine and experimental meanings’ are set aside (Sheil, 2000: xii-xiii). As a partner with my husband, a farmer and veterinary surgeon, managing a dryland semi-arid grazing property, we were reliant on our own resources for the capture, storage and maintenance of surface and groundwater supplies. In other parts of the Basin during the late 1980s and the 1990s irrigation farms were expanding; throughout New South Wales and in the Murray-Darling Basin approval was given for a larger number of irrigation surface water abstraction licence applications, leading to the over allocation of water resources. In conformity with the Water Act 1912 New South Wales, the senior officers issued the licences under policies encouraging farm and water development. The officers were following the rules in conformity with their obligations under national development policy. The observable deterioration of many sections of the Murray- Darling Basin gained general public attention when an outbreak of 20

blue-green algae in the Darling River in 1990 led to the contamination of hundreds of kilometres of water. This water was the major water source used by the 200,000 people who lived in the Murray-Darling Basin region and by numerous animals as their main drinking water source. The contamination made the water unsuitable for use by animals or humans. The cause was traceable to contamination further upstream nearer Toowoomba, the inland city on the Darling Downs in Queensland. Earlier, during the 1980s I had observed a lesser volume of water flowing down the northern rivers following the expansion of irrigation farming. Water was diverted to irrigation channels and then to flow towards storage dams on irrigation farms. As irrigation farming expanded media reports of conflicts emerged. Water sharing, between irrigation farmers and dryland graziers, located further down-stream from the larger irrigation farms, became a controversial matter. The graziers expressed concern over excessive water diversions and the likelihood of contamination of farmland, water and animals on their farms from aerial crop dusting. The social outcome of increased farm activity from irrigation was apparent in the changes in rural towns. The slower pace of business in western towns, relying on grazing and some crop growing for employment and clients, gained new life. Employment opportunities on irrigation farms in the rice, cotton and fruit growing industries increased. The new farming industries needed the service towns and the population in the towns increased. People in Bourke and St George (the former in New South Wales and the latter in southern Queensland) benefited from the employment chances that irrigation expansion provided. 21

At the same time, during the 1980s, the droughts in the northern region of the Basin appeared to be lengthening, extending over several years rather than one or two years. The most severe drought that affected our property, Yerinan, while we lived there spanned the years 1978 to 1983. ‘This drought ranks as one of the most serious and prolonged periods of rainfall deficiency recorded in Australia’. It was more destructive because of the ‘weakened ability of the agricultural sector to withstand the adverse effects’ (Pigram, 2006: 29). The drought caused economic loss to the farms and the rural communities throughout the region where we farmed. There was a social loss as individuals and sometimes a family left the district to find opportunities for employment elsewhere. The itinerant work force did not arrive in their usual numbers in those years as employment opportunities fell away as the grazing, sheep breeding and wool industries contracted. The ‘weakened ability’ of rural communities to survive at this time as mentioned by Pigram (2006: 29) is addressed in Chapter Four. Twenty-five years later as I commenced research into the social impact of water reform in 2004, I contacted Jane the senior officer from Lachlan Water (the agency she said served the interests of the farmers in water management) who had compiled a list of the rainfall records in the Lachlan River Catchment region.1 She compared the rainfall records from the 1970s to 2003, with other periods during the twentieth century. She found that rainfall measurements, from the 1940s until the 1970s when irrigation began to expand showed that more rain fell on average each year than from 1980 until 2003. These

1 All names of people interviewed were changed to protect them. 22

drier years were similar to the years from the beginning of the twentieth century until the mid 1940s. Based on her study Jane concluded that the wetter seasons in the mid twentieth century encouraged the high expectations of rainfall events and irrigation expansion. In turn this encouraged further water resource and farm development that led to the over allocation of water. The issue of irrigation licences and the further development of irrigation farming was based on an observable rainfall pattern. Jane felt that the larger irrigators would have been more cautious in investing in irrigation expansion if they had examined the historical records of rainfall events throughout the twentieth century, in the Murray-Darling Basin. As it was only one study in one location, she said several studies were necessary to confirm her findings. She intended to continue her work in other water districts. Connell (2007), who researched the political influence on water management in the Murray-Darling Basin, observed that people expanded into the more intensive types of farming, such as grain growing, in the semi-arid marginal rural regions during the good seasons. When drought returns many farms across Australia are abandoned. Connell applied the concept ‘Goyder’s line’ to explain the tragic consequences of unrealistic expectations of farming in semi-arid regions. Good seasons enticed wheat farm settlers to marginal rainfall regions ‘during the 1870s’ in South Australia. When poor seasons returned many farmers abandoned their homesteads and left. The symbols of the settlers’ hopes remain visible in the crumbling bricks and rotting timber of deserted homesteads (Connell, 2007: 7). I have observed similar deserted homesteads or the crumbling remains of them, in the eastern states of Australia. In many of the 23

more remote farming areas the weather and rainfall variability, the climatic changes and the challenges of soil and water availability require resources to fall back on and advance planning if farming is to succeed. Farmers work on the assumption that the last fall of rain might be the start of the next drought. Studies of rural sociology largely build upon one another. A theoretical method offering a fruitful focus on twentieth and twenty- first century rural society was presented by Lawrence (1987) in his comprehensive study of the ‘The Political Economy of Australian Agriculture’ (Lawrence, 1987: 102-130) a Chapter that has relevance for my study from his book Capitalism and the Countryside: The rural crisis in Australia. The political economy theory offers useful sociological tools for an insightful examination of emerging contradictions in agricultural research (Lawrence, 1987: 120). The political economy model has roots in Marxist theory. Marx had argued that the growth of production was possible through applying rational action to industry and work place activities. Lawrence (1983: 120) explained Marx’s idea that ‘human intelligence’ human innovation and creativity under the ‘conditions of class struggle within competitive capitalism’ made possible the industrial growth the world has experienced over the last two centuries. I do not view the interrelations between the central groups in my study, the senior officers employed by government or semi-government authorities on the one hand and the farmers, as property owners and/or managers on the other, as groups divided by class affiliations. I adopt the concepts presented by Bourdieu: field, game, habitus and illusio. For Bourdieu, modern society is an ‘ensemble of relatively autonomous spheres of “play” that cannot be collapsed under an overall societal logic’, 24

whether ‘of capitalism, modernity, or postmodernity’. In each field ‘particular values’ and ‘regulative principles’ are prescribed (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 16-7). There is no constant class struggle between two groups, senior officers representing government and farmers, each in conflict because of their class affiliation. Farmers and farm managers own and/or control their land and its productivity, the government officers impose legislative control on the way land, that is capital, is used. The power of each group dwells in ownership on the one hand and in bureaucratic authority on the other. In Bourdieu’s terms, they bring to the contest, ‘the game’, different interests, tactics and expectations. According to my understanding, based on the historical records of the development of water resources for agricultural production in rural Australia, farmers and senior officers have cooperated with each other in a form of hegemonic relationship too frequently to consider their interrelations as constantly influenced by class conflict. The earlier rules supported water allocation for agricultural production, these guided water development in New South Wales until the mid-twentieth century. However, when mining overtook agriculture as the main export earning industry government priority for water for farmers decreased as water was essential for the growth of industries that could contribute more to the economy than agriculture, including the mining industries. The thought of Bourdieu is central to my study. It offers the sociological constructs and a methodology to understand the superordinate and the subordinate positions of influence that stakeholders hold in the field where contests over water take place. Bourdieu’s concepts explain the different trump cards that the 25

multiple interests present in the field of contestants seeking to access water bring into play. Bourdieu offers insight into the interrelations between farmers and the authorities as water regulations change. Bourdieu (2008: 177) explained that a focus on economic interest narrows the field of inquiry. There is more to ‘interest’ motivation than ‘callous cash payments’ he observed, citing Marxist thought. While political economy theory offers valued insight, it is complemented by Bourdieu’s theory allowing me to incorporate his concept of ‘yesterday’s man’, that acknowledges part of our unconscious selves that may inform present action; not all responses to a situation are rationalised in the sense of economic benefit. The concept ‘sustainable natural resource management’ is among objectives of the Water Management Act 2000. The concept ‘sustainable’ has provided a useful tool for research in recent years. Cork (2010: 3) explained that ‘sustainability’ was a ‘prime focus for policy relating to interactions between the environment, society and economies for many years’. The concept ‘resilience’ is a useful sociological tool of inquiry. Cork argues that it is an aid to ‘ensure that ecological and social systems are able to find their way towards sustainability’ (Cork, 2010: 3). Cork found that resilience is a key component of defining problems and proposing solutions although few researchers are explicit about what it ‘means in terms of governance and management’ (Cork, 2010: 3). In recent social science studies, the concept ‘resilience’ is gaining more attention. Alston (2010) explained differing interpretations ranging from the conservative responses to change to positive proactive responses. The most common approach to change in Australia is to attempt to change ‘just enough to accommodate new 26

circumstances without destabilising social relations’ (Alston, 2010: 35-6). Resilience can mean a response that is ‘reactive’ or ‘proactive’. To be reactive is to do all that is possible to retain things as they are and change as little as possible. To be proactive is to move in the direction of ‘greater social sustainability’ by challenging the social structure that causes disadvantage and ‘treating the causes of potential dysfunction’ (Alston, 2010: 36). Smith (2001) supported the concept of ecologically sustainable development. The 1990s saw a ‘marked surge in concern about the deterioration of the environment in Australia’. This belatedly led to ‘proposals to improve water quality information’. The key elements of change are: accepting the usefulness of the concept ‘ecologically sustainable development’; ensuring community involvement through Landcare programmes; establishing whole of catchment management programmes; and gaining public acknowledgement of the need to protect the deteriorating natural resources (Smith, 2001: 30). The Widgeegoarra Creek bed on our property was normally dry except for the large water holes that filled during floods. The water could last from months to a year or more. The Creek watered livestock, native flora and fauna. We knew the infrequent floods would not support irrigation farming and hoped that no one would try it encouraged by the false promise of the wet seasons. Irrigation farms around Bourke, a western New South Wales town three hundred kilometres to the south-west of our farm, grew in numbers and size from the late 1970s to the 1980s. They drew water from the Warrego River and the Barwon- Darling River system. The farms drew water resources that had taken many years to accumulate, 27

some in underground aquifers and other water that was stored in and beneath the wetlands. I learned that the larger, privately owned water storage systems were legal as a manager of one of the larger irrigation properties explained. Laws passed a century earlier, at the start of the twentieth century, gave the owners of a water licence the right to construct large private dams and to harvest the river water flows at particular times and river height following flood events. In the northern section of the Darling River that is in northern New South Wales and southern Queensland, there were few state owned dams at the beginning of the 1980s compared to the number of state owned dams in southern New South Wales. Permission given to farmers to capture and store water complied with the regulations controlling water entitlements. Each water jurisdiction in the Murray-Darling Basin has rules that may differ from that of a neighbouring water jurisdiction. The laws for New South Wales water management, under the Water Act 1912, encouraged water use for farming. These laws were suited to their purpose when the machinery capable of pushing up many kilometres of levee banks was not available for private use. By the 1970s, technological advance minimised the manual labour of farming and brought improvements in the machinery for other types of farm work, including building water storage systems that allowed farm expansion. Water managers make decisions about the Murray-Darling Basin that affect millions of lives (Connell, 2007: 6). When the New South Wales Government instituted the Water Management Act 2000 it was timely legislation. It reassessed old water laws to allow for modernising influences and increased demands for water.

The arrival of major cotton industries during the late 1970s brought significant change to the volume of water abstractions taken from the Murray-Darling Basin system. Some local people questioned the sustainability of the new industries and their impact on the rivers. I listened as the local radio broadcast calls from people wondering about the increased pumping of water for irrigation and the benefits of the industries in the catchment area during that time. The increased abstraction of water raised concerns particularly as the decade beginning in 1980 was marked by years of drought. Uncertainty about the future of water supplies was beginning. The established irrigation licence owners were sharing the water with an increasing number of stakeholders. The irrigation businesses responded in radio broadcasts designed to reassure the local people that the waterways in the Bourke region and other irrigation centres would not deteriorate to any great degree by increasing water abstractions. This brought irrigation industries local support, although some claims appeared to contradict observations. For example, floods that normally flowed by smaller dryland and irrigation farms sometimes did not reach them at all. The water diversions were leaving wetlands downstream of the diversions relatively dry in some instances. The wetlands filter and purify water and are vital to the health of the river systems and the seasonal arrival of birds to nest. For many years during the 1980s and at the beginning of the 1990s, the lakes in northern New South Wales were drying rapidly in comparison to the observations made of them in previous years. As the drought years were more frequent during the 1980s it was impossible to know whether drought or over allocation of

water resources was the major cause of the deterioration in the river systems. Fullerton (2002) discussed the anxiety expressed by the dryland farmers in the northern river districts of New South Wales during this period, the late twentieth century, as the floods that supported the pasture growth on many farms failed to reach them. The irrigation industries proposed that a study be made of the impact of water diversion that would take several years. Many graziers were not satisfied because harm to their businesses and land would have occurred before the report was finalised (Fullerton, 2002: 88). Water diversions were coming under the scrutiny of scholars interested in water and farm management. Their perspectives are discussed further in Chapters Three and Four. According to Mitchell (2004) water needs protection from individuals motivated to take more from a water source than others do. To conclude, the local town economies may benefit from large- scale irrigation farming as residents of the region have more employment opportunities. It is apparent that wetlands in sections of the river regions south of Yerinan and across the state border in New South Wales, have deteriorated under the impact of diminished flood frequency whether from drought or water abstractions. Doubtless, it is the result of a mixture of both. Curiosity about the acceptance of the laws governing water entitlement, the values underpinning policy decisions and the social impact of water development on farms, a local rural social order and the environment generally, prompted my interest in a study of the social impact of water reform. I knew first-hand, of changes from the post-Second World War era of national development, during the 1960s and 1970s. Irrigation drew 30

new industries to dryland grazing and cropping areas located between the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers in southern New South Wales, where I lived during this earlier period. Our quiet western town where economic activity centred around grazing became a busy service centre for irrigation farming. The Lachlan River Catchment, the focus of my field research, depends for employment on a broad variety of industries (see Appendix 2. 1). Irrigation generated population growth and employment opportunities. In western towns like Forbes, Finlay and Deniliquin in central and southern regions of New South Wales the diversification of employment opportunities arrived with the irrigation farming. At Finlay, near the New South Wales and Victorian border, the Mulwala Canal extensions brought water hundreds of kilometres from the Snowy River through the Murray and the Murrumbidgee River system to boost development of irrigation farming. The growth of environmental awareness evidenced by the increased influence of the vocal, largely urban based environmentalist movement, focused on the deterioration of the river systems. As the 1990s commenced, their voices became more strident when the thousand kilometres long algae outbreak on the Darling River near Bourke drew public attention to the need for water reform. State and federal governments became interested in the over allocated river systems. I take up some of the relevant legislation in the next Chapters as appropriate. The essential and most valued asset of the farm manager is water resources. Fears were emerging during the 1990s about the future of irrigation farming as the Murray-Darling Basin waters were increasingly under stress from over abstraction. 31

Water reform in New South Wales In New South Wales the River Management Committees commenced to draw up water sharing plans during 1997. The committees consisted of local people, ‘insiders’, and representatives of organisations outside the district, ‘outsiders’. The changes to water management under the New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 started in 2001 and were to be fully implemented by July 2004. There have been several Amendments to the Water Management Act 2000 and Council of Australian Governments (COAG) initiatives continue to influence changes in state and federal water policy. Landcare programmes introduced during the 1980s heightened awareness of water deterioration and gave individuals in urban and rural Australia a share of the responsibility for water restoration. The Commonwealth Government funded the programmes that continued to expand during the 1990s. It is apparent from the care that people from all walks-of-life demonstrated through Landcare group activities, that environmental matters were of wide concern and could become a unifying force linking city and country, urban and rural people, as hoped at that time. Dryland farmers could apply for trees to plant on their farms during the programme. On Yerinan we received 200 native trees that we planted, sharing some with neighbours as part of the ‘Greening Australia’ project from 1989-1991 (Smith, 2001: 61). In the next two Chapters I report on matters that deal with water management found during my literature search. The questions asked of respondents are informed by this literature search. The studies offer an understanding of the phases of farm and water development, of current reform and food security issues.

Chapter Three Managing water in Australia

Farmers in New South Wales built their productive agricultural industries working in the driest inhabited continent in the world because they had trust in their future and their ability to adjust to the variable rainfall and recurrent droughts. The government in prioritising water use for agriculture had generated expectations of continued support for the development of water and its use in the farming industries. In this Chapter I explain attitudes towards water reform and perceptions of policy changes. Currently policy is guided by the concepts ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’ that provide a framework for reform. A key factor in water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin is that water has become a commodity. Niklas Luhmann (1979) explained that trust in our future and the expectations we have for the continuity of the social order that is familiar to us, is essential. Productive farming industries were a priority for the first European settlers in New South Wales who were anxious to ensure food security and build a future in their new land. The State Water Act 1912 (New South Wales Parliament) indicates that a century and a quarter after the first European settlement agricultural production was still a priority. It gave farmers priority to access water for use on their farmlands. The legislation established the trust relations between government officers as administrators of water and the farmers as water users that existed in the nineteenth and for most of the twentieth centuries. The control of water use and priority 33

for irrigation reflected common values: both farmers and the authorities recognised the social and economic benefit of a viable agricultural industry. Engineering expertise in the late nineteenth century underpinned the expansion of irrigation and the increased production of food throughout the world. The diversion of massive volumes of water for irrigation has generated dependencies on food production that will be difficult to maintain, argued Connell (2007: 1). Increased food supplies has allowed the global population to increase beyond expectation. Irrigated farmland currently provides one-third of the world food resources; Connell argued that most of the additional food to supply the global population as it expands further must come from irrigation (Connell, 2007: 1). The problem is that adequate water and farmland areas available for food production are diminishing as the need for more food increases. The Murray-Darling Basin is the most significant food production region in Australia. During the late twentieth century the problem of sustaining the Basin’s natural resources while continuing to reap the benefits of a productive farming industry needed to be resolved. Much of the research in recent years centres on irrigation systems management. Meinzen-Dick (1997) provided an account of ‘policies toward farmer participation in irrigation management over the past 20 years’ in both low-income and high-income countries. A main feature of development is the ‘value of social organisers as catalysts’ for change. Farmers who participate in modernising projects take into account the costs of the improvement measures and the benefits of change, the latter must be sufficient to offset the farmers’ costs of participation (Meinzen-Dick, 1997: 103). 34

During the 1950s and the 1960s, the general thought was that irrigation systems required centralised control. In this light, ‘Water was a strategic resource over which the state assumed ownership, and water control was a public good, which the state provided’ (Meinzen- Dick, 1997: 104). This has changed under globally accepted policies for ‘integrated water resource management’ and ‘sustainable water management’. Three factors are critical to successful transformation to the new policy direction: ‘the institutional organisers and training programmes; the partner bureaucracy; and the enabling conditions’ (Meinzen-Dick, 1997: 109). The significance of a useful legal framework, institutional arrangements, farmer training and a ‘partner bureaucracy’ is emphasised by Meinzen-Dick, as essential to encourage farmers and extension officers to work cooperatively towards reform (1997: 110). As farmers take a greater role in participation, administration and the payment of the costs of water infrastructure and management, the cost to government may decrease. For the farmers participation in reform usually means greater costs (Meinzen-Dick, 1997: 110). The major feature of reform, argued Meinzen-Dick, is to provide a ‘receptive partner bureaucracy’ that can develop the ‘enabling conditions for farmers’ to take a more participatory role in water reform. The management role of the senior officers engaged in reform is a vital component of modern ‘irrigation system management’ (Meinzen-Dick, 1997: 110). Under water reform regulation in New South Wales the role of both dryland and irrigation broadacre farmers is important for the purposes of this study, of the response of farmers to reform and the impact on themselves and their farm businesses. The senior officers in the 35

government departments that control the management of water are pivotal to successful water management in the Murray-Darling Basin. Their cooperation provides an enabling environment essential for the reforms to take place. The initiatives, regulations and laws guiding reform and the roles of the two groups at the centre of reform – the senior officers and the farmers – is discussed further in this Chapter and in the next one. The Ministerial Council of Australian Governments (COAG) in 1990 adopted the Natural Resources Management Strategy to improve the management of the nation’s natural resources. The Strategy was to arrest the deterioration of farmlands, rivers, streams and land areas increasingly harmed by salt. The intent also was to encourage environmental restoration and to implement sustainable water management practices. Within a year, the COAG produced an additional incentive for environmental restoration by introducing the ‘Water Quality’ policy designed to integrate ‘agricultural, environmental, urban, industrial and recreational’ use of water (Connell, 2007: 118). The COAG was recognising that we were all involved in the water improvement processes, not just the farming sector. It reflected the obvious fact that just as we are all involved in the decisions and priorities that led to the over allocation of the waterways of the state we must all be involved in the restoration programme. Connell’s study of water policy is extensive and comprehensive and he is concerned about the future of the Murray-Darling Basin as a working river, cautioning that the reforms are moving too slowly. Pigram (2006) examined the evolution of irrigation and regulatory change in Australia (see Appendix 3. 1 for a list of influential laws 36

and agreements that regulate the changes). The decision to adopt irrigation depended on the physical characteristics of the region, adequate water, suitable soils and terrain set against environmental and economic circumstances. The ‘availability of water’ needs political decisions regarding ‘storage construction, institutional arrangements for water allocation, sharing and distribution’. The financial limitations on providing extra farm infrastructure further affect water supply (Pigram, 2006: 132). The personal attributes of irrigation farmers and their cultural attitudes and values allow farmers to weigh the ‘positive and negative’ aspects of land and water resources care. The decision to irrigate can ‘return significant benefits to the individual, the community and the rural economy’. It is important to consider change because they may be ‘decisive’ and are ‘often irreversible’ (Pigram, 2006: 133). Irrigation farming has raised expectations of the continued expansion in food production that encouraged growth in the world population Connell (2007) maintained. He cautioned that land areas available for irrigation are diminishing while farmland is taken by urban development as the demand on water resources increases. This means that the conditions that allowed irrigation farming to develop initially no longer exist (Connell, 2007: 1). Connell sees many problems in feeding the people of the world in the future and predicts that Australian farmers will play an important role. Therefore, it is important that water managers gain a broad understanding of special features of water management in Australia. It means understanding the hydrological systems and the interplay of human behaviour, land use, water manipulation and replenishment. Since the 1980s Australian farmers and institutional reforms have 37

together developed better land and water management policy and skills although as Connell (2007) suggested, we have further to go.

Integrated and ecologically sustainable water management Integrated water resource policy under the regulatory control of the Water Management Act 2000 is the major guide for water management in the Murray-Darling Basin, New South Wales. The concepts ‘sustainable water resources management’ and ‘integrated water resources management’ include economic rationalism principles that rely on economic instruments for change. The concepts are accepted in Australia by many scholars of water reform in relation to farm management and are widely accepted by the governments of western nations. Nevertheless, the precise detail of what they mean in different water regulatory systems is unclear, particularly to farmers, as I discovered in my research. Ryan et al (2010) observed that as Australia’s natural resource managers have accepted the principle of ‘integration’, they must clarify its meaning. Pigram (2006) following his extensive research on water policy in Australia, explained that ‘integrated catchment management’ was a significant advance in water policy and offered a new direction when the principles gained acceptance by the Australian governments, in 1988. ‘Integrated water resources management is the more generic term’, Pigram (2006: 12) wrote. It is a way to manage ‘human access to water and related resources’ and ‘maintain a healthy natural environment’ (Pigram, 2006: 12). The Water Management Act 2000 applied the principles of integrated management to the regulatory control of water in New South Wales. The Act is necessarily complex as it covers the water resources of the State, an 38

array of stakeholder interests and the complex details of management by senior officers as they introduce water policy to a variety of stakeholders. The benefit of the concept ‘integrated water resources management’ has become the focus of considerable research. While Pigram accepted the concept as beneficial in the Australian context, intercultural studies suggest that scholars remain undecided about the actual benefits of the concept in different economic, political and social systems. Biswas (2004) found no workable interpretation of the concept that would allow it to apply to the many different social, political and economic systems throughout the world. Hall, Lobina and de la Motte (2005) suggested that the privatisation of water, one of the central principles of integration, was ‘vigorously pursued’ during the 1990s and the early 2000s, with limited success. Each writer suggested that it was difficult for the water managers to base the changes required for policy direction on privatisation. Privatisation meant altering the expectations of people who are the actual users. In the past water was a public utility and access was a natural right of those who were food producers. Disco (2002) also questioned why the concept ‘integrated water resources management’ had gained such wide acceptance. He offered an example of professionals struggling against each other as conflicting ideas emerged among representatives of the various disciplines. Each wanted their view accepted. In a Dutch water development project Disco explained, there was no unifying principle. He found conflict among engineers, biologists and ecologists. Disco suggested that finding engineering solutions that consider the

ecological impact of their project design could provide a useful solution (Disco, 2002: 221). Biswas correctly pointed out that merely declaring that using individual interpretations of the principle ‘integrated water resources management’ will work automatically in a particular socioeconomic system is not effective. Saying something will happen does not make it happen (Biswas, 2004: 255). Larsen, who represented the Global Water Partnership, a group of international specialists in water management, questioned if equitable access to water for human needs is possible in an economic system when the full recovery of costs is mandatory (Larsen, 2000: 62). Some people are so impoverished that they will be unable to pay the costs of water access. The research he cited indicated that water should be a commodity provided at little or no cost. Water should remain as a natural resource. Connell (2007) is unconvinced that the principles relating to sustainable and integrated water resources management can work. He indicated that for the principles to work would require further debate about the socially acceptable moral and ethical issues. In short, more concensus about definition and application of management procedures is required. Biswas (2004) insisted that ‘water problems’ are not homogenous, constant or consistent and he argued that one concept cannot apply to the diversity of the population, land resources and the interests of people living and working in widely varying economic, social and political systems throughout the world. If ‘integrated water resources’ policies are to survive they must be workable. Biswas quoted a former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Harold Macmillan, on the 40

subject of unanimous decision-making and agreement. Macmillan believed that if the entire establishment united behind one policy it was always the wrong policy (Biswas, 2004: 255). Biswas emphasised that wide acceptance of a principle does not mean it is effective in practical application. Sheil (2000) examined economic rationalism and its impact on water resource management. He described the changes as the influence of the ‘chill winds’ of economic rationalism. He argued that they derive from the western model of neo liberalism and adopt its principles. The appeal to governments was the promise of reduced expenditure on public services such as transport, electricity and water. Economic rationalism spread throughout the western world during the 1970s and captured the attention of leaders of both state and federal governments in Australia. Scholars, heads of state bureaucracies and government policy makers approached the ideas with enthusiasm (Sheil, 2000). The Premiers of the States, including the then coalition Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner, were enthusiastic adherents of the new management model for state owned public utilities. Greiner described himself as the ‘Manager’ of ‘New South Wales Inc’ (Sheil, 2000: 96-7). During the 1980s, the government of New South Wales ‘applied strategies of corporatisation, commercialisation and privatisation’ to the public sector (Smith, 2003: 55). The government Corporations applied economic principles to the costs of service provision whereas previously the orientation was on welfare or providing services. It is appropriate to refer to the former bureaucratic ‘administrators’ in the public service authorities as ‘senior officers’, when I refer to the heads of the departments and agencies interviewed in this study. They 41

are water managers employed under the ‘post-bureaucratic’ direction of government service provision. Farmers are no longer users of public services they become clients of the government corporation, a trading enterprise that works towards specific targets. Smith (2003: 54-5) offered a comprehensive account of the phases of public service development since the colonial period. The state government applied strategies of ‘corporatisation, commercialisation’ and in cases such as ‘Graincorp and the State Bank, privatisation to the public sector’. In areas where there was a ‘public sector monopoly’ such as electricity or rail, they transform to ‘government trading enterprises’ that work towards set targets and if possible maintain ‘neutral competition with non-government rivals’ (Smith, 2003: 55). The government water corporations operate within these strategies designed for the management of former public utilities. The Rural Adjustment Scheme of the 1970s aimed to keep farmers on the land. It was timely as disillusion over the push and pull of input costs, the variability of market prices and the use of modern mechanisation was taking its toll on the economic viability of the farming community and employment opportunities in small rural towns. Globalisation and competitive markets had taken their toll on western rural communities across the world. Many people moved away from them as work opportunities decreased. Cities with strong links to financial markets have created the ‘global citizen’ who ‘works within and across borders’. They are the ‘educated, highly skilled and mobile citizen’. The disadvantaged are the ‘people and communities who are unable to participate’. Alston (2010) stated that Australian and many other western rural communities are losing out in opportunities available in this new 42

world system. They are experiencing a loss of jobs and an erosion of employment security and conditions (Alston, 2010: 28). By the 1980s, as the national balance of payments became an increasingly serious problem for governments, spending cuts were essential. Industrial protectionist theories were questioned (Beilin and Reichell, 2009: 8-10) and the economic system moved towards freeing trade from restrictive practices and towards the privatisation of public services. The changed attitude of government towards support for farm and water development commenced at this time. The acceptance of the principles ‘integration’ and ‘sustainability’ for natural resources and water resources promised water management strategies that could efficiently protect natural resources and provide for the costs of managing them. In passing economic responsibility for much of the costs of the public services to those who used them, the government could meet other economic responsibilities. The application of ‘Sustainable’ principles was to ensure that water and other natural resources passed through to the next generations in a reasonable condition. Both concepts need further clarification however they attract research and offer a useful focus for examining natural resource management and the policies that relate to them.

A complex problem, identifying the social impact of water reform Social adjustment followed the reform of public service policies and with the drier years, meant a period of widespread water shortfall that marked the late 1970s and the early 1980s in eastern Australia. The downturn in rural economies had a serious social impact on farm communities and was a factor in the increased rates of divorce, suicide and ‘illness in rural areas’ (Hayman and Cox, 2003: 163). Hayman 43

and Cox explained that drought threatened the traditions of rural families and widespread drought had a negative effect on the national economy. They suggested that future drought policy should encourage farm managers to make allowance for the return of drought while seasons are good (Hayman and Cox, 2003: 162). Stehlik (2003) found that the family farm is the first line of defence against drought and that men and women experience drought differently. Men tend more to isolate themselves in circumstances of adversity, whereas women are more likely to form support networks, to help themselves and others. To prepare for drought, most producers strive for self-reliance; risk management; plan and operate sustainably; have an environmental consciousness; and undertake ‘whole-of-farm’ strategic planning (Stehlik, 2003: 91). At the heart of their defensive action is preparation and resiliency (Stehlik, 2003: 92). Cork (2010) understood that ‘efficiency’ is a broad concept; we must avoid narrow interpretations (Cork, 2010: 7-11). It is apparent that scholars are increasingly recognising that when food security is at risk economic criteria for assessing efficiency in supply is but one part of a broader global problem (Brunori and Guarino, 2010: 41). It is essential to liberalise global food supplies and ensure ‘sustainability for farming, food production and the food supply chain’ (Barling, Lang and Sharpe, 2010: 61-2).

Sustaining rural communities and water supply To ensure an adequate food supply earlier social planners encouraged the development of productive rural communities throughout inland Australia. Current changes in water management include the use of economic rationalism policies. The decision makers attempt to design 44

policies that are appropriate for rural communities, for the objectives of the COAG policies and to ensure sustainable food supplies. Alston (2010) argued that rural policy that aimed to provide social services to more remote communities had failed to allow for the economic setbacks that have affected rural service centres and farm viability since the 1970s. In her critical analysis of the rural social services policies, Alston observed that rural people may be overlooked when policy is decided, social workers could do more to promote reform because it is difficult for minority groups to access decision makers to explain their own position (Alston, 2010: 36). Policy makers tend to focus rural policy on agricultural needs while ignoring the diversity of rural communities, ‘It has led to a focus on economic dimensions of sustainability over social or environmental’ sustainability (Alston, 2010: 37). Pannell and Vanclay (2011: 3) encourage extension services officers to understand the individual and unique aspects of the partnership between the farmer and the farm (Pannell and Vanclay, 2011:2-3). Each farm business has its own distinguishing features to work with. The increasing demand on water resources and rain shortfall during the 1980s and the 1990s in Australia, led the Australian governments to place natural resource management and water reform on their agenda for discussion. Under Council of Australian Governments (COAG) initiatives of the 1990s the economic instruments underpinning reform centred on the designation of water as property. The concept of water as a commodity for trade remains controversial. In the opening statement of his book Water’s Fall - Running the risks with economic rationalism, Sheil (2000) observed, 45

that ‘the privatisation’ of ‘Australia’s water infrastructure’ was ‘a treasured objective’ of the followers of ‘economic rationalism’ ideology. The force of the ‘general public’s opposition to the privatisation of electricity and to privatisation per se’, has partially, but not fully, ‘suppressed open expression of policies to sell off water’ (Sheil, 2000: 1). In the early 1990s the COAG encouraged the states linked to the Murray-Darling Basin waters to reassess water use entitlements. The Water Management Act 2000 New South Wales is the outcome of reform and is: ‘An Act to provide for the protection, conservation and ecologically sustainable development of the water sources of the State, and for other purposes’. The National Water Initiative 2004 followed four years after the Act, to refine some of the management strategies adopted. The intention was to meet further demands on hydrological systems through developing comprehensive water plans balancing sustainable allocations with ‘the ambitions of production’ (Connell, 2007: 40). Farming needs for water were sandwiched between the ‘other purposes’ demands on water, under the terms of the Water Management Act 2000. The Act and the National Water Initiative (2004) made no immediate concession for payment to farmers for their loss of water under water cutback policy that affected many aspects of farming including farm expansion. The emphasis of the National Water Initiative (2004) was on ‘sustainability’ and ensuring additional water savings that could address the over allocation of water and allow for environmental restoration. The assumption was that farmers could do more with less water if they managed water efficiently. 46

Connell (2007) suggested that the term ‘sustainable’ means to hand to the next generation of farmers the same opportunities for water access as present generations enjoyed. In the context of this study I adopt this meaning of ‘sustainable’ water management practice. The concept sustainable and its meaning, in the context of water use in the Murray-Darling Basin, had no widely accepted interpretation. The water share plans to include in the Water Management Act 2000 were discussed and agreed upon by representatives of various economic, environmental, social and political interests that made up the members of the River Management Committees. The committees met over a five year time span, from 1998 to 2003 (Spriggs, 1999). The structure of the groups and people who qualified as representatives included local people such as farmers, business people, townspeople and Aboriginal representatives. The representatives of the environmental movement, senior officers from government departments and representatives from business attended. An account of the responsibilities of the management committees, their composition and function, the Ministerial duties, mandatory provisions and other aspects of committee organisation are set out in the Water Management Act 2000 (Part 2 Section 11-21). Spriggs (1999) offered a comprehensive account of her research on in the Murray-Darling Basin. The idea was River Management Committees that representatives of different groups would reach a consensus on water share plans. The river catchments studied included the Lachlan River Catchment where part of my field research was located. Spriggs found that some farmers wondered why they were there because the Minister had to approve their decisions.

The water share plans were to include restrictions of approximately 10 per cent on water allocations for irrigation purposes (Spriggs, 1999). The decision meant that when the water share plans commenced, immediately farmers had a ten per cent cutback in their water entitlements. The plans restricted the volume of water that dryland or irrigation farmers could capture and store from the water flow over their farmlands. Farmers could keep 10 per cent of the flow. The harvest of further water required a licence. The dryland farmers who had not yet built water storage units to the size required were disadvantaged when compared to the fully developed farms that already had larger dams or water storage units (Geoffrey, senior officer, Lachlan Water Inc, 2005). One of the anomalies of the water share plans was that the farms located in the higher rainfall areas that did not need as much storage could construct the same size dams as farmers in drier regions who had lower rainfall averages and needed more water storage. Although the river could be hundreds of kilometres long the variable rainfall of different regions was not considered. The rule failed to account for individual farm requirements (Geoffrey, Lachlan Water, 2005). Caught in the regulatory change under the COAG water reforms was the process of intergenerational transfer of the farm to the next generation. Water cutbacks restricted the likelihood of expanding the farm to provide for the next generation. Providing a sustainable farming industry ensured food security in the longer term. This was the focus of earlier policies. Government has addressed the modern problems of increased demands on water through water share plans and the use of economic instruments to bring change in water access

and use. The change brings further restrictions on farm water access. Farmers must be more efficient in water use to survive.

A historical account of farm development An insightful study of farm development and water use was presented by Beilin and Reichell (2009) who traced the different phases of farm development in Australia observing that the protectionist era of development intertwines with the period of ‘national development’. The intermittent floods doubtless gave policy makers the idea that there was plenty of water for unlimited farm expansion if water was harvested, stored and controlled. Government protectionist policies favouring farm development followed the Great Depression and Second World War years. Under the Keynesian paradigm, agriculture was part of the ‘economic and social policies’ that focused on progress, capital development, and food security. Farmers could specialise, because of the technological improvements in machinery for sowing and harvesting crops and the modern advances that facilitated global market access. The expansion of farm businesses created a surplus of goods that, unfortunately, flooded the markets marking the beginning of rural poverty in Australia (Beilin and Reichell, 2009). The drop in farm profitability commenced in the 1970s, as Alston (2010) explained. Farmers are price-takers rather than price-makers and many farm products must sell when harvested, despite the price offered. The decisions made are frequently due to a lack of storage space, refusal to pay high storage charges for a lengthy period as well as transport and refrigeration requirements.

There is speculation that farmers remain on their farmland due to their commitment to agrarian ideals. Agrarianism is a belief that farming is an ennobling occupation (Gray and Lawrence, 2001: 73). The agrarian belief gains respect because it involves hard work, perseverance and family life and the qualities that underpin the ‘resilience’ attributed to the Australian farmer. The ‘rural idyll’ is also significant to the thought of farmers when they are deciding whether to stay or leave. It includes ‘countrymindedness’, a belief that rural life is superior to urban life (Gray and Lawrence, 2001: 73). Osbaldiston (2010) found that in contemporary ideas the ‘bush’ appeals for its ‘potential to escape’ to a place of privacy and solitude. In general ‘Country communities are perceived as authentic, and traditional’, albeit ‘quirky’ (Osbaldiston, 2010: 247). Bourdieu’s concept of ‘yesterday’s man’ draws attention to our unconscious thought about our past ‘in the course of which we were formed’. It links tradition, imagery and myth ‘or bodies of law’ understood by ‘members of the same group or class’ (Bourdieu, 2008: 78-9). The ties to a rural social order, to the people and place are formed over time among people sharing similar experiences: travelling to school on the bus, experiencing flood or participating in sport. These forge ties among people in rural society who might be reluctant to leave partially because they share similar life experiences, a habitus that others around them understand. In Bourdieu’s thought ‘yesterday’s man’ stays in our unconscious and the imagery may linger long after the bonds have fractured. The history of farm development in Australia demonstrated that in no other occupation in Australia could people who had so few 50

economic resources to start with have the chance to own their own farmland, as did the early settlers and many of the post-war soldier settlers. Rural ideologies and policies that led to the development of family farm traditions made many Australian family farm owners capitalists in their own right, although small capitalists. The first European farmers were in accord with the authorities in seeking farm and water development. Priorities have changed for a government called on to meet the demands of an increasing array of stakeholders in water. Are the family farm managers planning for intergenerational change when the next generation manage the farm? Irrigation had an important influence on the social structure of many rural communities in New South Wales. When farmland was originally allocated for this purpose in the years following the First World War, in the 1920s, the farm sizes for irrigation were approximately 400 acres (The acreage measure has now changed to hectare measurements). Those irrigation farm areas would now be far too small for farmers to earn a viable income. Dryland farms were approximately twice the size of the irrigation farms in the Lachlan Catchment (Lachlan Valley Water Inc, 2005). Many soldier settlers were inexperienced in farming and some were unable to perform the hard work of preparing the land (Smith, 2001:165-6). Land clearing could mean using an axe or other labour intensive methods. On Yerinan where we lived, trees were cut by axe for the many kilometres of fencing undertaken during the 1930s and earlier. On tree stumps cuts made by the axemen were visible, fifty and more years later. Mechanical aids were few when the farms were established and transport conditions were poor in comparison to today. Communication with others outside the farm business often consisted 51

of meeting the neighbour on the adjoining boundary. The conditions are difficult to imagine in the twenty-first century when the roads are, for the most part, suitable for travel and modern vehicles transport farm produce to their markets. Most farms access television. Public power in positions of influence in the community are largely held by the males although increasing numbers of women take prominent positions and are farmers in their own right. All family members help with the farm work (Alston, 1995). Not often acknowledged is that while each member of the family contributed their labour to a greater or lesser degree, in a family farm economic structure this may not transform into equality in the economic sense in a masculine oriented society (Alston, 1995: 24-5). ‘Pluriactivity’ describes taking off-farm employment as well as on- farm work. This can add to the stress of modern farming because earning an off-farm income ‘affects the social basis of farming which underpins the entire agricultural system’. The reasons range from the need to supplement farm income to an individual desire to take work away from the farm. It is an option when off-farm work is available (Gray and Lawrence, 2001: 55) and when it is economically advantageous to travel the distance required. National development programmes led to the construction of large state owned dams that increased in number following the Second World War. In the Lachlan River Catchment respondents from two dryland farming families interviewed, are descendants of the First World War soldier settler programme. Each of their farms was enlarged to keep pace with change and to remain viable.

Following both World Wars, 39,000 returned servicemen took up farming. The area they settled exceeded 11 million hectares and some land was new irrigation farmland requiring extensive clearing. The Great Depression, that severely affected the Australian economy, commenced in 1929 and continued through much of the 1930s. The prices for farm produce were profitable until 1929, when the returns on farm goods fell sharply and a quarter of the soldier settlers abandoned their farms. The reasons include small size of holdings, inexperience, poor prices and poor administration. There was little understanding of the soils in comparison to the ‘standing and expertise of water engineering’ (Smith, 2001: 157-8). The descendants of these settlers, family members who are still on the farms, are likely to have strong ties developed over a century that influence any decisions to keep the farm business operating despite economic stress. It is an ongoing consideration for farm families whether to stay when they could earn more income if they invested their capital elsewhere. Batkin was a soldier settler from the First World War, who applied through the courts to have his economic responsibilities for farm loan repayments reduced. The farm size did not allow him to produce the income needed to repay his loan and support himself and his family. The Pike judgement as it was termed, named after Justice Pike who deliberated on the case, found that land values should be determined by the farmer’s ability to pay. The judgement found that farmers should pay operating costs of the irrigation schemes but not pay interest on the capital investment contributed by the government to open up the irrigation areas. The Pike judgement also required that in future the allocated farm size increase to provide an adequate living for a farm family (Smith, 2001: 165). 53

The Pike judgement meant that Land values were from then onwards based on the ability of the farmers to pay. The government expectation of earning interest on their capital investment had failed (Smith, 2001: 165). This judgement no longer applied under the Water Management Act 2000 when government expected a ‘rate-of-return’ on investment under economic rationalism principles. Water reform alone did not cause the farmers to lose their trust in government policies according to a study by Vanclay (2011). He found that a number of past policies, intended to improve farming administration and management practices, were unsuccessful. This has provided a reason for farmers to be sceptical about changes recommended by government extension officers (Vanclay, 2011: 55- 6). The current extension officers may have been in their occupation for only a decade and cannot understand why farmers are slow to accept some of the proposed changes. Farmers are more cautions because they have knowledge of some of the failures. Alston (2010) remarked that service providers in rural communities are often surprised to discover the strength and density of the social networks and the strong social organisations they find. Country people are generally good at having many activities that keep them socially aware and lessen the impact of social isolation (Alston, 2010: 16). When water share plans were decided during the 1990s, farmers felt it was important to take part in decisions. Water development and regulatory control underpin the social development of rural society.

Water sharing Water for irrigation purposes originally was tied to the irrigation farmland and could not be used on another farm. The water licence 54

was not transferable. In the 1980s the rules changed to allow a limited transfer of irrigation water. For example, if a farmer or a business organisation owned more land in the river catchment the licence could be transferred to the other farm therefore rationalising farm work and using economies of scale when water, machinery and infrastructure were concentrated on one farm (Director, Twynam Group, 2005). The right to the limited transfer of water encouraged the further development of larger irrigation agribusinesses, such as those in the Lachlan River Catchment owned by the Twynam Group, one of the leading water owners in the nation. In the northern river systems where state owned dams, such as the Wyangala Dam on the Lachlan River, were fewer, farm managers could construct private dams to store water. The Clyde group that was also one of the leading owners of water in New South Wales during the 1980s and 1990s, constructed massive water storage systems to store water for irrigation purposes. Water under the Water Management Act 2000 New South Wales, became a transferable tradeable commodity and separate from irrigation farmland. Water could be diverted away from an irrigation water district or away from the farming industry itself. For example, the farmers selling irrigation rights could sell them to the mining industries, towns or to city water authorities. A reading of the Water Management Act 2000 provided the details of the complex procedures that govern water management and sharing procedures in New South Wales and the encouragement to share water between the stakeholders. Irrigation water management by the farmers in an irrigation district included sharing the cost of the infrastructure among other farmers. 55

When travelling between the farms in the Murrumbidgee region in 2005, I observed a number of ‘stranded’ farms with dry weed coverage over the soil, sandwiched between orderly farms that were still in production mode. This is termed the ‘swiss cheese’ effect where there are abandoned farms among an otherwise orderly rural landscape. This has a long-term social impact as neighbours move away and the social and family networks fracture. There is the possibility of multiple social and demographic ramifications as towns lose their population, schools lose student numbers and teachers. The provision of public services diminishes as under ‘user pays’ policies the agencies or departments are required to become a viable business replicating features of profit-making of a private business. A reading of both Acts, the Water Act 1912 (New South Wales Parliament) and the Water Management Act 2000, that replaced the Water Act 1912 indicated the different priorities and principles that guide each legislative approach to water use for farming. The legislation in the early twentieth century ensured that water was available for farm development and agricultural expansion at a reasonable cost to farmers. The emphasis was on the expansion of the farmlands through the equable sharing of water. The current legislation in contrast required farmers to do more with less water and focused on water share plans. Fullerton (2002) found that in the Lachlan River Catchment, in 2002, farmers could purchase irrigation water licences at a cost of more than $1 million (Fullerton, 2002: 148). If they sold their licence they could make a large profit, however they would then be without adequate water and with farmland that was too small to provide a reasonable living when used for dryland farming. 56

Under the legislation dryland farmers in New South Wales can keep ‘10 per cent of the water that falls on their land for free’; they need a licence to keep more. Some farmers choose to use this water to irrigate a small patch of land, when previously, this water flowed freely through the waterways of the catchment (Fullerton, 2002: 155). In New South Wales there is a proportional system for apportioning water for irrigation licences. The irrigation water right the users receive is established, for each water year, on a proportional basis. Farmers rarely receive their full water licence entitlement (Fullerton, 2002; and 2003). There are approximately twenty-three different types of water licences issued in the catchment areas (Geoffrey, Lachlan Water Inc. Forbes, 2005). The demands on natural resources and water have escalated from the 1980s and the State government must choose between industries that should have priority of access for water. Day (1986) studied water access for farming and the mining industries in the Hunter Valley, New South Wales. Her study took place during a drought, water was in demand and the mining industries and the farmers each requested extra water. The request from the mining industry received priority. There was no discussion of the social outcome on the community should farms close and mining become the main source of employment (Day, 1986). Mining caused concern, particularly to any community relying on artesian water for town water supplies and for farming, as the different scholars of natural resource management indicated. The concerns focused on lowered water table levels, water and air pollution, chemical contamination of the soil, waterways and groundwater

systems. The concerns included roads considered unsuited to take heavier traffic loads and becoming increasingly dangerous for travel. Mining and water use and decisions about who should pay for water access were controversial matters as far back as the nineteenth century in New South Wales. Hardy (1968) described the conflict over water access for the Broken Hill mines and the town centre. The long- established mining centre in New South Wales was experiencing problems in finding adequate water when the mining industry was starting. Water was crucial to meet the domestic needs of the growing mining town, for use in the mines to limit the dust and to protect the health of miners and the general town population. The government and the mining companies were in conflict over who should fund the water infrastructure to bring water to the mining centre. Over 600 people gathered in a protest meeting to draw government attention to Broken Hill’s situation and to make known the difficulties of accessing water. In 2004 and 2005, two farmers (Sally and Lilly) in the Murray- Darling Basin explained why they had sold their farms to mining companies. Air, water and noise pollution caused Lilly’s family to leave the farm they had lived on for more than a century. The other (Sally’s) family had moved to the farm ten years before the mining company arrived. The family had no indication of the possibility of mining on such a scale when they purchased the farm. Of the two major rural industries, mining and farming, surprisingly 1.2 per cent of the Australian population work in mining and 3.2 per cent work in agriculture (Alston, 2010: 7). These figures do not present the broader idea of the diversity of rural regions (Alston, 2010: 3). It includes those employed in industries and occupations that are 58

dependent on farming for example, machinery salespersons, stock- and-station agents, rural carriers, itinerant workers and others. Alston (2010) observed that of all the inland industries farming is the most significant. ‘There are approximately 140,000 farming enterprises in Australia’ and over 90 per cent are family owned (Alston, 2010: 7). Eighteen per cent of people identified as farmers in Australia in 2005 were more than 65 years of age. This may present a problem for food security as the farm population ages and the farmers retire. Fewer of the younger generation were returning to farms in the first decade of the twenty-first century and only ten per cent of farmers were below 35 years of age (Alston, 2010: 7). McCully (1998) explored water management, the social impact of large-scale dam construction projects and the use of water in an international context. He explained how important a clean fresh water or groundwater supply is to river communities throughout the world that have built their work and life around their dependency on access to their local waterway. McCully deplored the general lack of consideration for people affected in many ways by the big dam construction projects and the loss of their local river communities. He named many famous rivers of the world that are now contaminated. He was critical of the displacement of so many people from their homeland areas under the development ideologies. He contended that ‘water sharing’ often meant giving preference to one particular set of interests over others.

Problems of food security Australians have become accustomed to reasonably priced food produced increasingly by irrigation. In providing food for the nation 59

and for the export trade, it is important to have strong rural communities based on agricultural production. Lawrence, Lyons and Wallington (2010) argued that Australian people, like others throughout the world, continue to demand an affordable food supply. There is a clash of interests between the differing objectives for production, whether food production should aim to satisfy global market demands or to meet the needs of local communities. Queries are emerging about whether farming should be mostly about speculation and corporate profit making or should it be remembered that ‘until the 1990s’, speculation in ‘basic agricultural food commodities such as wheat, corn and soybean was banned in the US (United States)’ (Lawrence, Lyons and Wallington, 2010: 6). Lang (2010) argues that the challenge for ‘food democracy’ today, as he terms meeting the food needs of everyone, is to make ‘food systems accountable to, and for, the public good’ (Lang, 2010: 273). The growth of irrigation has raised expectations of a plentiful food supply that in turn has encouraged population growth (Connell, 2007: 1). Food security, a problem for the first European settlers at Sydney Cove, is once more a challenge as the twenty-first century unfolds. Smith (2001) argued that the cost of providing irrigation water in Australia is enormous. He explained that only following the COAG discussions, based on the Hilmer reforms of the 1990s, have Australian governments had ‘the political courage to face the realities of obtaining a real return on irrigation investments’ (Smith, 2001: 164-5). Ensuring sustainable natural resources and water resources management is essential to food security. The increased costs of water add to the farm input costs and ultimately to increased food prices.

The global food crisis, in the twenty-first century brought food riots to ‘over 30 countries as the price of rice, maize and wheat soared out of the reach of the poor’ (Stirzaker, 2010: 125). The research on water development and access increasingly suggested that social order is one of the major outcomes of food security and that it is more likely to break down when people are hungry. As an Australian scientist, Stirzaker (2010) thought that he could solve the problem of providing water for crops and food security. Frequent droughts in Australia meant that it was important to get things right. He would show farmers how to apply the exact amount of water that a plant needed. The method he proposed took time and required mechanical aids but it ensured that there was minimal water wastage. The farmers saw things differently. Each part of the production cycle, including water application, costs input, prices for technology and other expenditure was an estimated calculation because they did not have the resources or time to be so precise in watering each plant. Stirzaker argued convincingly that the regulatory control of water and its on-farm management are complex problems. He cited management of a herd of roan, supplied with watering points during drought. The water attracted predator lions that killed many of the roan. Managing animals, plants, people, finances and water resources may have unwanted outcomes. Ryan et al (2010) view natural resource management as one part of the ‘wicked’ problems addressed by the Australian Public Service Commission (Ryan et al, 2010: 14). ‘Wicked’ problems occur when more than one organisation is involved in problem solving and one disagrees with the others about why a problem exists and how to solve it (Ryan et al, 2010: 13-4). 61

Water management draws different government departments and industries into confrontation in a field of debate and discussion. Water sharing brings conflicting ideas about the appropriate management strategies. Outcomes from water management decisions can be unpredictable. Stirzaker observed that in the practical use of water to ensure that animals have a regular supply precautionary planning can go wrong. The ‘consequences of our actions are somewhat unpredictable’ (Stirzaker 2010: 172). He cited an example of a herd of roan that lived on a government reserve and were getting thin because of drought. To solve the problem the rangers put in a pump to supply water. Other animals and some predator lions came to the watering points and the roans were easy prey. The rangers removed the water although not before the roan herd was almost extinct. When managing water, land and animals you are handling a complex problem (Stirzaker, 2010). Many world leaders face food security problems in the nations they lead (Cribb, 2010: 1). At the ‘July 2008 G8 (Group Eight) nations’ meeting in Hokkaido, Japan, world leaders were warned of the emerging, ‘spectre of food scarcity after decades of apparent abundance and cheap prices’. The leaders of countries such as ‘France, the United States, Russia, Britain, Germany, Canada, Italy, and Japan’ were surprised to learn that widespread food insecurity problems still existed (Cribb, 2010: 1). Cribb argued that a significant factor in maintaining social order is ensuring food security.

Rural society and change in the twenty-first century Alston (2010) addressed the matter of strong rural communities that need the social services resources available in urban areas for them to 62

survive and flourish. Since the 1970s, the social rural services have been declining along with a similar decline in the population. Alston wrote her book, Innovative human service practice and argued that ‘marketisation’ (Alston, 2010: 20) has radically changed access to social services. It requires the users of the former public services to pay for part, if not the full cost of services formerly provided free or at little cost. The charges affected rural communities in several ways. For example, health suffered because some people go without medical care because they cannot afford it. If people do attend the doctor’s surgery, some do not take the prescribed medication because they cannot afford to pay. Rural poverty had escalated since the 1970s in Australia as in other rural regions across the Western world. Alston explained it as ‘deprivation’ due to ‘circumstances’ and a lack of ‘opportunity’. It is likely to be invisible or culturally hidden. People find rural poverty unexpected as pre-conceived ideas of farmers and farm communities usually see them as better places to live (Alston, 2010: 29). Farm managers and their families do have a home to live in and this is an enormous advantage when compared with the homeless poor in densely populated urban areas. Because of the relatively isolated lives the rural poor lead alternative chances for employment may be far more difficult to access and may mean leaving the farm. ‘Social exclusion’ is a useful construct to describe the ‘complex interplay of forces’ that are relevant to the extreme disadvantage discovered among sectors of rural society, argued Alston (2010). ‘Social exclusion’ refers to the process that marginalises certain groups and creates ‘pockets of disadvantage and poverty’ (Alston,

2010: 29-30). The disadvantaged in rural society can lead to the ‘social exclusion’ of young people in remote regions (Alston, 2009). During my initial inquiries, I questioned a female farmer who mentioned rural poverty. The farmer said, ‘I take some meat’ to some families because, ‘They don’t go to town’. She explained that they did not spend money because they had a large farm debt. Alston (2010) found that ‘marketisation’, as it is applied to the management of former public services, left sectors of rural society at risk, vulnerable to illness and lacking the economic means to recover. After undertaking extensive research in rural communities, Alston concluded that rural people in many cases were unable to earn an adequate living because of events beyond their control. This included a lack of employment opportunities in part due to the distance from suitable employment. There are traditional methods that farmers use to survive when income earnings drop. Water shortfall is a common factor in the decline of farm incomes. Economic stress and lower incomes are met in various ways, through delaying the replacement of farm machinery and cutting other farm and household expenditure to the minimum. People might not attend social events when limiting their expenditure on all but essential items, therefore the concept of ‘social exclusion’ is a useful tool in the analysis of survival strategies. Alston (1995) referred to the ‘shadowy presence’ of women who live on farms in many publications about Australian farming (Alston, 1995: 13). Although their contribution to farm income and management is considerable it is hardly acknowledged in farm publications. Many women are reluctant to adopt the philosophies of the women’s movements, partly because they are wary of the feminist 64

critiques that fail to account for the importance of ‘family’ in farm/work relations (Alston, 1995: 147). She explained that sixty per cent of farms in the middle range of the income-earning farm businesses have some members of the family engaged in ‘pluriactivity’, that is in earning off-farm income. Women are highly involved in providing this income source (Alston, 2010: 134). Farms in Australia have always been ‘a mixture of family capitalism and corporate capitalism’. Pastoral companies in particular have provided ‘investment capital for land use’. Some are Australia based and others are international based (Encel, 1972: 307). The size of the broadacre and irrigation farms selected for this study range from large corporate agribusinesses to the middle range farm business size (when the family or business organisation may own several farms), to the smaller family farm. It is over forty years since Encel presented his study and came to these conclusions and this mixture of farm types remained unchanged. Mindful that more than 90 per cent of Australian farms are family farms (Alston, 2010: 7) the changing nature of farm employment opportunities and the ability to further develop farmland and water resources to provide food security for the nation, explained why tertiary education for the children remained important. Decisions of the central managers in large agribusinesses mean conforming to the objectives of the corporate owners of the parent organisation. The decisions of the family farmer on the other hand derive from family values, traditions, ties to the family farm, family resources and personal objectives. It is of interest to discover whether the family farm manager or the corporate farm manager successfully navigates water reform and remains in the farming industry. 65

Pigram (2006) asserted that as the agenda for water reform gathered strength the ‘market-oriented systems for water pricing and tradeable water entitlements were endorsed’.’ The farms that succeed will adopt ‘efficient economic practices’, control waste and make water resources stretch further. He concluded that we may see ‘the demise of irrigation on a small scale’ and marginal locations might lose small irrigation farms entirely. He predicted that ‘large-scale, integrated, corporate agriculture’ is the most feasible option for the future (Pigram, 2006: 150). Connell (2007) is concerned that water reform moves too slowly. Restrictions on irrigation commenced in 1995.

The Cap The institutional reforms leading to the decrease in water available for farm management started with the introduction of the ‘Cap’ in 1995. The Cap was designed to ‘stem long-term average consumptive use’ of water resources by limiting the allocations for new water licences (Melville and Broughton, 2004: 38). The Cap on water abstraction entitlements means a ‘cap’ that limits abstraction levels to the 1993-94 water year. The Cap has been controversial on many counts as Connell (2007) has argued in his comprehensive account of the Cap programmes, that he presented in his book Water Politics in the Murray-Darling Basin (2007: 124-8). To offer an example, in some parts of the Upper Lachlan River Catchment 1993-94 was a dry season, in other parts of the same river catchment there was considerable flooding. The Cap allocates the volume of water that farmers used that year, 1993-94. Therefore, the farmers who had a dry season and who abstracted more water have a larger allocation than farmers who had a flood over their 66

local region and therefore abstracted less water that year. The conclusion was that the Cap had an in-built inequality in water distribution because it did not allow for rainfall variations in the year selected. The Cap was initially a temporary measure until the river systems revived. By 1997 the Cap became a permanent fixture as recovery was not as rapid as expected. Connell (2007) explained that the assumptions about ‘similar climatic and hydrological conditions’ (Connell 2007: 126-7) fail to account for river catchment differences. The Cap awakened ‘sleeper’ licences (surface water licences that are never used) and ‘dozer’ licences (licences used occasionally). Consequently, there were more licences in use and more stakeholders to draw from the limited water resources (Fullerton, 2002). Overall, the view is that the Cap improved the river environment however, the debate about the inequity in water allocations continues. Vanclay (2011) presented 27 principles that if adopted could improve the relations between the farm managers and the extension officers at the centre of water reform, the willingness to adopt new ideas diminished because of problems with earlier programmes. They included salinity and the use of fertiliser thought to increase soil acidification (Vanclay, 2011: 55). The COAG National Water Reform Framework (1994) introduced ‘market-based reforms’ based on the ‘user pays’ and ‘rate-of-return’ principles. The justification for 1994 framework was that efficiencies in water use could bring ecological sustainability. Water would not be linked to a specific parcel of land and it would ‘undergo a process of commodification’ (Newell, 2003: 32). Newell, as a farmer, took part in community programmes that fostered water reform. 67

Pigram found that ‘community endorsement’ could ‘foster a culture of adaptive management required for implementation of a feasible water policy’ (Pigram, 2006: 204). Policy formulation required general acceptance and popular endorsement. Spriggs (1999) attended river based committee meetings and indicated that acceptance of reform fluctuated as the committee members deliberated over aspects of water share plans. In this Chapter I have examined scholarly reports to understand how the principles of ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’ inform water policy. Managing water requires a number of different skills ranging from engineering, political, economic, agricultural and social skills to environmental management skills. The problems of management of rural water sources are complex problems as they include meeting the needs of people, animals, the environment and the requirements of town water supplies, agriculture and other types of industrial usage. An emergent problem for people in river communities is that they live each day with the outcome of decisions made in centralised offices by a small elite group of people, unknown to them. The decision makers are physically, socially and psychologically distanced from the people living and working close to the waterways. In the next Chapter I examine the role of the senior officers as contemporary managers of water and their interrelations with farm managers as water reform is implemented.

Chapter Four Management and the contemporary managers of water

In the previous Chapter I explained how the concepts ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’ remain controversial in providing principles for management. It is apparent that each water jurisdiction has its own interpretation of water management strategies and a unified decision on the meaning of the concepts is unlikely. The Cap on water abstractions was a first step towards water reform and retrieving water from the farming industries. Despite the constraints on further development of farmland and water resources, farmers have strong ties to the land and the rural community that community workers sometimes find surprising. In this Chapter I examine the role of the senior officers as they manage water reform, phases in water development, environmental thought on water and the cultural meanings. There are commonly shared beliefs and values to consider as well as an ethical duty for social planners to ensure that all share the common human right to access fresh water.

Water management and the role of senior officers Hughes (2003) explained that ‘administration’ means achieving results and ‘management’ means taking responsibility (Hughes, 2003: 6). As an administrator the senior officer follows set rules when providing a service to the public. In contrast, the senior officers as ‘managers’ focus on achieving results while taking ‘personal responsibility’ for the way they perform their duties in achieving 69

departmental objectives. The term ‘manager’ is a ‘shorthand’ description of an important ‘activity or function’. In the ‘broader sense the words have power’ (Hughes, 2003: 7). Hughes explained that the changes to management affected: ‘the machinery of government, personnel practices – recruitment, promotion, tenure – policy-making processes, financial management, relations with outside groups and all kinds of other procedures.’ Management strategies use empirical methodologies and statistics drawn from ‘the theories and methods of economics, and economists’ (Hughes, 2003: 15). The administrative influence left a legacy of an informed, competent and strong administrative body. The managers work on this grounding although in implementing water reform they take a different approach to their role. Crucial to managerialism is ‘trust’ in the competence of the managers. Stewart (2002) stressed that each department would be efficient in a similar way to the private corporate organisations. The ‘public sector management’ role of the officers in Australia (Stewart, 2002: 67), encouraged the senior officers to be more innovative. Management practices include controls to check that the work is performed efficiently and meets departmental objectives. Stewart approved of clients paying for public services that were formerly free or cost little. Pigram supported the restructuring of the water authorities and water management (Pigram, 2006: 149). The strategies more frequently used to cope with change are ‘mitigation and adaption’ strategies. These fall under a ‘no regrets’ policy that established environmental and economic strategies appropriate for the changing conditions. If the changes do not take place then nothing is lost. If the 70

predicted changes do occur then the measures are in place to lessen the impact (Pigram, 2006: 149). A ‘no regrets’ policy is an ‘alternative strategy’ for water management that ‘incorporates elements of both pre-emptive and adaptive approaches’. The pre-emptive approach reduces the severity of change, such as minimising the impact of climate change by ‘reducing emissions of greenhouse gases held responsible for global warming’. An adaptive approach is to learn to live with the problem and learn ways to modify agricultural production (Pigram, 2006: 39). The idea is that if change in the environment does not occur nothing is lost through using these innovations.

Phases in water development – from a public utility to a property Connell (2007) placed current water reform within the historical context of water development in Australia. He observed that there had been ‘two attempts by governments to assess what was required to manage the water in the Murray-Darling Basin’. The first was in the late nineteenth century, in the 1880s when as Attorney General of Victoria, Alfred Deakin travelled widely in northern America and upon his return his report, Irrigation in western America (1885) became a standard reference for water management in both Australia and the United States of America (Smith, 2001: 152). The Deakin model was based on three beliefs: responsibility for and care and custody of water is retained by the state; state water rights are not compromised by ‘riparian rights or anyone else’; and rights of both the individual and state are clearly defined to prevent long and costly litigation (Smith, 2001: 152-3).

The second attempt to conserve the waters of the Murray-Darling Basin commenced in the 1980s (Connell, 2007: 5). ‘Water trading’ became the mechanism for water reform following the phase starting in the 1980s, which ‘abandoned Alfred Deakin’s fundamental principle that irrigators should not hold property rights in water’ (Cathcart, 2009: 254). Water belonged to the river and the irrigation farmers had an entitlement allocated for use on their farms. Water access was available on an equal sharing arrangement. Irrigation farmers in the water districts could then take water as needed within the limits of their entitlement under a proportional system of annual irrigation allocation. Payment of a small fee was required (Cathcart, 2009: 254). Irrigation water rights could not be traded or transferred and were tied to the irrigation farmland. The role of the administrative officer was to oversee the regulations. The Deakin report referred to the establishment of ‘irrigation districts’ and an organisation of the farmers in these districts that could respond to the decisions of the majority of shareholders was established. The organisations could raise funds to administer and maintain the shared infrastructure and to meet other commitments. Smith (2001: 152-55) approved of these initial steps to ‘nationalise’ water and to retain it under public ownership as appropriate at that time. The objective was to benefit from a trained and skilled farm workforce that was willing to develop their land, soil and water (Smith, 2001: 152-55). The settlers had the opportunity to become farmers in their own right. Deakin’s water policies reflected the overarching social convictions that one sector of the population should not be privileged above others. The culture acknowledged ‘equity of sacrifice’ and the ideal of shared water (Connell: 2007: 40). The 72

principle of equal sharing led to an understanding by irrigation farmers that their water rights and entitlement to water access was safe and permanent, a ‘God given right’ (Fullerton, 2003: 116). To avoid long, expensive legal battles, Deakin ensured that irrigation water administration employed public service officers especially trained in this field. Water remained under public ownership and control (Smith, 2001: 152-53). The twenty-first century water reforms were therefore revolutionary. They abandoned former Prime Minister Alfred Deakin’s principle that irrigators did not have property rights to water. Connell (2007) described the proportional system for sharing irrigation water and noted that in paragraph 2 of the National Water Initiative (2004), the ownership of water in Australia ‘is vested in governments’ (Connell, 2007: 40). The National Water Commission (2004) followed the Water Management Act 2000 to become a prominent influence on water policy in New South Wales. The National Water Initiative (2004) stated that the government owned the water and could sell rights in the form of water shares that gave appropriate lengths of tenure to the entitlements. Under the principles ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’ water was a commodity for trade. Therefore, water lost its ‘sacred’ character allowing it to remain beyond appropriation. Durkheim (1984a) explained that there are certain things that are beyond appropriation that belong to everyone. He said that, we use ‘air, water’ and other things that are common property and do not ‘own them’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 161). He explained that the ‘power of use and enjoyment’ often existed without the ‘right of ownership’. The government, under the Water 73

Management Act 2000 can sell rights to control and manage water for a set time. Water is not ‘sacred’ or above appropriation. The power of use and enjoyment can be lost if water is transferred from a river. This occurred in the Snowy River diversion in southern New South Wales and north east Victoria when, despite lobbying against such a large diversion by a number of local people, all but one per cent of the water was diverted for the Snowy Hydro-electric Scheme. Such a loss can have massive social ramifications as several authors have described occurring with the diversion of the Owens River in northern America. For example, Nadeau (1997) in his book The Water Seekers described how people were driven from their homes as the sale of their properties to developers needing water for the city of Los Angeles, took place, but as they piled their household belongings high on their ‘autos’ they took a last look at their home. They ‘left behind a part of their lives in as beautiful a pastoral valley as California possesses’ (Nadeau, 1997: 106). Under the federal political system there are three layers of Australian government and each exerts influence on different aspects of water and farm management (Alston, 2010: 17). The Commonwealth government has centralised control of monetary resources. It can influence State policy through monetary incentives. State governments manage water within their own borders. They issue licences and control economic and organisational arrangements for the payment of fees and charges for water licences, management, storage, infrastructure maintenance and other expenses. Local government land rates are calculated on the expected economic return of the farmland. These differ among the dryland and irrigation farmlands. Irrigation farming has a higher earning potential 74

per hectare than dryland farming, therefore the land rates charged for irrigation land are higher. Local government rates for dryland farms are generally lower. At each level of government, the senior officers manage aspects of water management including water storage, supply and delivery. They ensure that water is available for environmental diversions. State government manages water and allocates water resources and water licences, water transfer and documentation for trade. The federal government has centralised control of the economic resources for major water development programmes such as the Federal irrigation water ‘buyback’ scheme (Peatling, 2009: 7). The political environment for water management changed during the 1990s. The environmental movement gained political influence as Newell (2003), a farmer, environmentalist and journalist explained. The Greens doubled their vote almost ‘everywhere’ in the New South Wales March 2003 elections and the Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) department came into being after the disappearance of the DLWC (Department of Land Water and Conservation). The Carr Labor government was returned to parliamentary office and the Coalition Parties (Liberal and National Parties) remained on the Opposition benches (Newell 2003: 230-1). From the 1990s, ‘international institutions have promoted private- sector involvement in infrastructure’ in the belief that it provided ‘investment and efficiency’ to replace an ‘under-performing public sector’ (Hall, Lobina, and de la Motte, 2005: 286). This belief remains controversial and unconfirmed. ‘Water trading’ became a mechanism of water reform. Alfred Deakin’s ‘fundamental principle that irrigators should not hold 75

property rights in water’ was replaced (Cathcart, 2009: 254). At last, the rivers are entitled to keep some of their own water.

Adjusting to modern market influences The roll out of water reform in 2001, under the Water Management Act 2000, coincided with the beginning of the longest drought recorded in the history of the Murray-Darling Basin in New South Wales. In the Lachlan Catchment, central west New South Wales, the drought started in August-September 2001 and by October 2001 had spread widely. The drought continued until 2008, when rain brought relief in some regions. Most of the Murray-Darling Basin in New South Wales did not receive sufficient rainfall for recovery until 2010. The water cutbacks and the water shortfall due to drought coincided, each commenced in 2001. The water managers in government corporations began implementing water reform as the drought spread throughout the eastern states of Australia. As Alston (2010: 19-20) found certain principles have had a major impact on service delivery in rural areas. She termed them the four new ‘isations’ for the delivery of services, centralisation, regionalisation, privatisation and marketisation. They describe the dramatic changes in the orientation of ‘rural and remote service delivery’ (Alston, 2010: 19). All Australian states adopted the national competition policy in 1995. It consolidated the direction set by the Hawke government at the Premiers’ conferences of 1990-91 (Sheil, 2000: 37) leading towards the corporatisation of the water authorities. There are different definitions of corporatisation used by government authorities (Smith, 2001: 264). He noted a 1991 report by 76

‘the Victorian Public Bodies Review Committee’ that ‘considered 28 different definitions’ that federal and state governments used. The accepted definition of corporatisation for the purposes of this report is that corporatisation placed government businesses on a commercial footing that ‘emulates private sector behaviour’. Corporatisation encouraged market competition where previously no market existed (Smith, 2001: 264). The corporatised bodies owned by the government are managed in a way similar to the management of private corporations with the distinction that a government owned corporation has no shareholders and decisions for pricing for example, ‘are made by elected representatives of government’ and government officers. This usually means that a Minister takes ultimate responsibility for management. Organisations of this nature in New South Wales fall under the State Owned Corporation Act the regulations of which are similar to those ‘applied to private companies’ (Smith, 2001: 264). Sheil (2000) listed several public utilities that were among the first to become corporations in New South Wales. The government changed the Hunter Water Board to the Hunter Water Corporation and then sold its ‘public irrigation schemes in the Murrumbidgee, Murray and Lachlan valleys’ (Sheil, 2000: 43). There is the ‘implicit requirement’ for corporations to ‘produce an acceptable annual rate of return on invested capital’ (Smith, 2001: 265). Scholars such as Smith (2001) and Pigram (2006) favoured the privatisation of water resources. On the other hand, Sheil (2000) did not agree that water management would benefit from privatisation. Sheil explained that when the cryptosporidiosis outbreak was found in July 1998 in the Sydney water supply the first ‘boil-water alert was 77

sounded’ (Sheil, 2000: 115) Water management under economic rationalism principles led to a slower response because of the compartmentalisation of the water authorities. There were communication problems that resulted in a later discovery of contamination than would have occurred before the structural changes in the water authority. Many of the experienced staff who would have quickly recognised the problems had either left or were retrenched. In addition, there were communication problems between officers of the different departments leading to a slower response than under the former administrative routine (Sheil, 2000). Alston (2010) explained the changes that regionalism or the centralisation of rural services, had brought to the delivery of health services. Under privatisation regulations, the government used private health service providers when available and ‘market-based parameters’ for service delivery (Alston, 2010: 19-20). An example was the closure of 130 birthing centres in Australia from the late 1990s as the health services consolidated (Alston, 2010: 20). A further change, ‘marketisation’ is now a ‘more prominent factor of service delivery’. Marketisation is the adoption of ‘user-pays principles to health and welfare services’ as the consumers pay a proportion, if not all of the cost. ‘Marketisation’ undermined rural services and penalised rural consumers because of the lower client base. Demand is the dominant factor in service provision and in remote areas people might lose a service if it is not viable (Alston, 2010: 20). The ‘centralisation’ of business means that the ‘administrative hubs’ are seldom found in rural locations. The ‘large conglomerates’ provide efficient administrative centres although they lose ‘local 78

knowledge and expertise’, leading to their failure to understand the ‘complexities of service delivery in rural and remote areas’ (Alston, 2010: 21). The senior officers who managed water service administration prior to centralisation were more likely to be located in small rural centres. Now working from central offices, they frequently travel many kilometres to outlying regions to meet their clients and may lose the benefit of personal contact and local knowledge that the former water ‘masters’ under the Deakin reforms had. Marketisation, privatisation and centralisation have a marked impact on rural populations where demand rather than need for the service dominates service provision. Many rural services have been withdrawn or do not meet local requirements (Alston, 2010: 20). The commencement of political interest focused on water as an entity in itself, is traceable to the Commonwealth Government, through a statement delivered on the 4 October 1992, when it added a water reform agenda to current economic reforms. The National Competition Policy of 1995 (National Competition Council, 2011) is an outcome of the reform objectives. The reform model supported competition in the market place. To the reform agenda, it added publicly owned organisations that were to operate on equal terms with privately owned enterprises in competitive management practices and behaviour. Under the benchmarks for change through the National Competition Policy the states were provided with an incentive to meet water reform benchmarks. ‘Tranche’ payments would be made to the states that conformed to an agreed schedule for water reform (Fullerton, 2002: 143). Fullerton argued that these were a ‘$1.106 billion incentive’ to start the process (Fullerton, 2002: 143). 79

The reforms gave water a property right title and cut the tie of irrigation water to the farmland, although there is no clear understanding of the entitlement that the property right provides so it is important that it should be, ‘defined and specified in terms of ownership, volume, reliability, environmental flows and tenure’ (Fullerton, 2002: 146). Since the implementation of the reforms, the reliability of water allocations for farm purposes has decreased. To explain the situation it is appropriate to consider that the city water users have 100 per cent water reliability. Prior to the reforms Robert Caldwell, a farmer in the Lachlan River valley, had a 70 per cent allocation for his irrigation licence; that is he could plan for 70 per cent reliability for water access. His allocation would be lower for the remainder of a one hundred year period and in four of those, his allocation would be zero. Under the reforms, in 40 of the 100 years Caldwell calculated he would have no water and if a drought was long then zero allocations could frequently occur consecutively (Fullerton, 2002: 148). All river communities were required to have a water share plan in place by 2001 (Fullerton, 2002: 151). The River Management Committees drew up the plans, the Committee members represented local groups, farmers, business representatives, Aboriginals and townspeople, termed ‘insiders’. The committees also had ‘outsiders’ including government officers, environmentalists, representatives of business and private interest groups from outside the community.

Meanings of water Strang (2004) is the author of a study The Meanings of Water based on her anthropological research in the Stour River, in the United 80

Kingdom. Strang demonstrated the value of cultural analysis in understanding the conflict between different stakeholders. Political processes for water management in western societies currently are formulated around the principle of the commodification of water resources. Water is a tradable transferable property like any commodity for sale. This principle counters longstanding principles of water as life giving and as sacred, beyond appropriation. Strang found that younger informants in her study, while they expressed: ‘predominantly largely secular worldviews, made frequent reference to general spiritual and moral beliefs in discussing water and meaning’ (Strang, 2004: 83-4). Although water management practices change, Strang indicated that significant sectors of modern society do not fully accept the changes designating water as a commodity. In the modern western society where she researched the meanings of water, Strang found opposing views about the status of water. Strang cited the selected poetry of King and Clifford (2000) in their anthology, The River’s Voice: An anthology of poetry. The poets gave rivers the voice to demonstrate changing interests in water use and the meanings of water down many generations. The older, longstanding views are observable in the poetry of Robert Burns and William Wordsworth. Burns (2000) sees river water bringing a calm that ‘nature breathes’ (King and Clifford, 2000: 30; and William Wordsworth (2000) would prefer to die near a ‘loved’ river among friends of his early years (King and Clifford, 2000: 50). The poets touch on ‘undercurrents of meaning’ where ‘water appears as a matter of life and death’. Strang’s research suggests that an accessable water resource underpins human physical, psychological and spiritual

wellbeing (Strang, 2004: 65). Water, in this sense, has special meanings beyond supplying economic wellbeing. Smith (2001) in his book Water in Australia: Resources and management, claimed that it is essential to have ‘strong and effective’ regulatory controls over water because the ‘nature and enforcement of the regulations’ require high standards. Smith argued that a ‘well run public utility can achieve the same goals as a privatised entity’. Much depends on the goals and policies relating to water management (Smith, 2001: 268-9). Those in favour of retaining water resources under public control see the democratic advantages, because the rich and poor alike have equable access to water. Speaking in his opening address at an international conference on the ‘Power of Water’, Mitchell (2004: 1) as I observed on page 17, gave an address entitled ‘Water is life’. After drought, when rain brings life to the countryside, most people would agree with his statement.

A watershed of ideas The 1970s emerged as a watershed in the history of water development in Australia as different currents of thought clashed with one another. A lasting influence on water policy was the vocal environmental movement in Tasmania, centred on the Franklin Dam protest movement and on the ‘Save Lake Pedder’ campaign. This campaign led to the formation of one of the first political parties for the ‘greens’ in the world (Smith, 2001: 175). The environmental movement gained strength in the Australian Federal Election held on March 5, 1983 when the Franklin Dam became a ‘symbol of conflict between development and conservation’ (Smith, 2001: 174-76). 82

The environmental laws used to protect significant natural resources in Australia rested on national and international law and international agreements. The laws relate to Section 51 (29) of the Australian Constitution, in reference to ‘external powers’; and Section 51 (20) that referred to ‘corporations power’. Smith (2001) offered an overview of the agreements based on the United Nations (UNESCO) convention ‘signed by the Commonwealth Government in 1982’ (Smith, 2001: 175-76). Hay (2002) discussed the development of different environmental movements through the centuries and his research addressed an array of ideological orientations, including neo liberalism that influenced the modern strands of the environmental movement from the 1970s. Only since then has environmentalism gained political prominence. It is common for the technological, political, social and economic structures to disregard the knowledge that local populations have of their natural resources and their cultural uniqueness when development is planned (Hay, 2002: 164). Following the rise of the environmental movement in the last quarter of the twentieth century, the rivers themselves are beginning to have a voice. The farmers have common ground with different groups that seek to sustain the land and water resources (Smith, 2010: 248). This was manifest in the 1988 alliance between the ‘National Farmers Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation’ (Smith, 2001: 248). Their cooperation led to the foundation of the Landcare movement that has flourished among all sectors of society. Within a few years, there were approximately 2,000 Landcare groups in Australia. One quarter of the broadacre farmers were members (Smith, 2001: 248-9). 83

Under Australian Constitutional Law, New South Wales makes the rules for water resource transferability, trade and use within its borders. New South Wales may reject Commonwealth Government decisions if they adversely affect State interests. Pigram (2006) pointed out that the Australian government may ultimately impose its will through central monetary power (Pigram, 2006: 161). For example, the States can place an embargo on the Commonwealth water licence buy-back programmes. Conflict between State and Commonwealth interests emerges as the States oppose the buy-backs. Prime Minister of Australia Alfred Deakin, at the turn of the twentieth century, predicted that the States would be tied to the chariot wheels of the Commonwealth like defeated generals in the ancient Roman Empire were tied to the chariot wheels of their conqueror. The pressure for cooperation and the coordination of objectives between State and Commonwealth governments has intensified as the financial power of the Commonwealth grows (Connell, 2007: 81).

Intercultural studies of conflict and water control Intercultural studies placed the events in Australia within a global context, as water access impacted on people of different cultures. McCully (1998) wrote extensively of conflicts over water throughout the world history of water diversion and the phase of big dam construction. Some famous rivers of the world were irreparably damaged McCully (1998) explained. When people were displaced from their homelands and became socially and economically disadvantaged, often they received no compensation even though their family and social networks were fractured and employment opportunities were no longer available. The diversion of the Owens 84

River water in the United States of America has captured the attention of many modern writers in their discussions of political decision- making, private ownership of water and ambitions for power and wealth through gaining control of a major water source. Reisner (1993) in his book Cadillac Desert, The American West and Its Disappearing Water allowed a comparison between the water development programmes in the United States of America and water development in Australia. He explained how the farming industry, in the highly productive agricultural region the Owens River Valley Catchment in the United States of America, at first attempted to coexist fruitfully with the city, Los Angeles, whose representatives were buying up farms and gaining access to the water rights of Owens Valley farmers. Sales of farms took place with the farming community convinced that other farmers were buying the land, unaware that the city was undermining the continuity of their industry in this region. Ultimately, the farming industry came under severe pressure as water was diverted away from the farmland for urban use. While some farmers leased farmland from the city, the unpredictable water supply ‘discouraged’ most farmers ‘who tried to carry on’ (Reisner, 1993: 100). As Reisner explained, the farm industry expanded because it had water, a city population needing food and a fertile valley to farm. The city of Los Angeles remains chronically short of water and a century later the city planners continue to chase water for a city built in a low rainfall region, a city that cannot be self-sufficient in water. Comparison between the Australian experience and that of the United States of America may be made as water becomes a commodity for trade and likely to be appropriated by the highest bidder in the market place. Cities in Australia, such as Adelaide in South Australia and 85

Melbourne in Victoria can pay more for river water than is possible for local communities along the river. Each city lays claim to water from the Murray-Darling Basin and may benefit from laws and regulations related to a competitive market place and water as a commodity for trade. Reisner (1993) suggests that the laws guided by the principle of development allowed the appropriation of water from the Owens Valley to continue. Once the surface water was insufficient for supply the city turned to groundwater to supplement its needs. The focus of industry changed in the Owens Valley from farming to largely tourism related occupations. The physical environment of the Owens River Valley changed as it became ‘beyond desert’ and likened to salt flats through water diversion. Reisner argued that the wars for water stopped when there was ‘nothing left to win’ (Reisner, 1993: 101). Kahrl (1983) addressed the leadership decisions and the ‘water and power’ struggles over the control of water from the Owens River Valley. He found that the problems are not with the local people who live near the river and oppose the diversions, but with ‘the people and the institutions they construct’. Many vital decisions that affected the lives of local people in the Owens Valley were made in Los Angeles where their interests were not represented (Kahrl, 1983: 443). Pearce (1999) provided an alternative view of the outcome of water struggles and diversions from the Owens Valley. His grandfather, A. A. Brierley, lived through the experience and lost his own farm. Brierley recalled that once the water left the Owens Valley the conflict ceased. His grandfather was comfortable with the peaceful Owens Valley and the community. He did not want water returned to the river because it caused conflict. 86

Kahrl (1983) wanted an interdisciplinary study on water matters that included input from local people. The interdisciplinary study would include experts familiar with several exacting disciplines ranging from ‘hydrology to law to engineering’. He argued that a problem with water management is that usually it falls to ‘average citizens’ who are elected to public office. They make decisions that can affect the lives of millions of people. The positions taken by opposing sides in a debate about water matters may be from the viewpoint of an engineer or an average citizen who happens to hold public office. The participants take their argument from different positions and Kahrl suggests that the debates ‘are sometimes purposely’ confusing. Today, Kahrl wrote, (that is 1983) city representatives argue that continued pumping for water is beneficial. The residents ‘in contrast, see in the same program an engine of irreversible devastation’ (Kahrl, 1983: 446). He suggests that the underlying motivation of a stakeholder in the debate might remain hidden. For example, the engineer may want a huge new water development project to oversee, leading her to overlook the devastation to the environment such a project may bring. Connell (2007) observed that in the last decades of the twentieth century there was optimism that the era of decision making about water infrastructure and administration ‘by small groups of engineers’ was drawing to a close. In future, decisions would fit within the framework of institutional reform (Connell, 2007: 115). A report by the Institute of Engineers (2000) in New South Wales found that much of the infrastructure in the state needed maintenance work or replacement. Under the ‘user pays’ system these costs need to be met and that is a problem for future managers. 87

An example of national development programmes in Australia is the mid twentieth century construction of the Snowy River Hydro- Electric Scheme. The scheme took all but one per cent of the Snowy River water, the river that runs from the southern mountains in New South Wales to Victoria. The water following the diversion for the Snowy River project passed through the Hydro-Electric system and on to irrigation districts on the Murray and Murrumbidgee Rivers in southern New South Wales (Connell, 2007: 101). ‘It was common wisdom at the time’ that ‘it was a wicked waste to let the Snowy River run to the ocean’ (Miller, 2005: 13). The water was crucial for power generation and irrigation water during droughts (Connell, 2007: 100-01). In 1949 major decisions about the river water diversions were agreed upon. Miller (2005) provided an in- depth account of the contests over water in her book Snowy River Story. The Snowy River population were confused about the volume of water they would be left. The many deputations and strident voices warning of the social, environmental and economic damage the project would cause were ignored (Miller, 2005: 13-20). In the mountain community the social order was fractured as people and industries moved away following the water diversion. The remaining flow left the Snowy River bed open to silt problems and other forms of environmental damage. The people who remained in the area watched the bed of the river silt up over the years until a sudden flood of water almost destroyed the remaining housing and the local amenities needed for tourism, such as the local Caravan Park. Then local government decided not to restore the amenities and the local people were outraged.

Their protest took the form of a ‘reactive’ response that led the local people to form the Snowy River Alliance, a protest movement, formed in 1996 (Miller, 2005: 48-9). The objective was to gain a return of at least 28 per cent of the river flow by lobbying politicians and others in positions of power. The Alliance gained public attention and after a long conflict a 21 per cent return flow was promised. The Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales, Steve Bracks and Bob Carr, were photographed ‘crossing the Snowy River’ below the Jindabyne Dam wall. The return flow would be ‘enough for the water to be well above their heads’ (Miller, 2005: 195). The Snowy River story is followed further in Chapters Seven and Ten. Alston (2010) described the sociological concept ‘resilience’, perceived as a way to respond to and adapt to change and to allay uncertainty about the future (Alston, 2010: 35-6). The resilience response can be ‘reactive’ or ‘proactive’. In a proactive resilience of responding to a problem people might come together to protest, as they did in the Snowy River Alliance movement. This Alliance movement was to press for the return of more of the Snowy River flow that meant so much to the river people (Miller, 2005: 205). Smith (2001) stated that the storages for water completed between 1950 and 1959 had a larger capacity than the total of all the dams constructed in the ‘previous one hundred years’ (Smith, 2001: 182). Water storage construction reached its highest-level average during the 1970s when the Franklin Dam controversy in Tasmania galvanised people to form environmental movements to protect the natural resource heritage. From that time forward, water flowing to an ocean outlet would not be considered wasted (Smith, 2001: 184-5).

The Franklin Dam conflict was the start of serious opposition to big dam construction in Australia. The ‘rise and fall of dam construction’ was a phase in the history of water development (Smith, 2001: 182- 85). The big dam construction period brought problems as well as great benefits. Connell (2007) indicated that many water management problems could be overwhelming and induce a form of inertia that stifled debate (Connell, 2007: 5). Barlow and Clarke (2002) argued that water resources in our present era need protection. In biblical times, people protected their water sources and societies, like the Inuit and the early Mesopotamians, recognised that water sustained life. One Chinese tradition recognised that ‘water and other elements of the earth exist in a balance that should not be disturbed’. Barlow and Clarke maintain that today ‘the normal cycles of nature are being disrupted by climate change and the abuse of almost every water system on earth’. Moreover, ‘corporate control of the world’s water resources and distribution systems’ threatens the welfare of people everywhere. This is because ‘water is fundamental to life’ (Barlow and Clarke, 2002: 4). The intercultural studies allow the Australian experience of water development and management to be compared with international policies on water control and management. Water remained in public ownership under the administrative control of senior officers in New South Wales until the influence of privatisation and the corporatisation of water authorities gained wide acceptance among economists and policy makers (Sheil, 2000). Water remains under government ownership while water rights are a commodity for trade purposes.

Drought and water reform Botterill and Fisher (2003) examined changes in drought policy since 1989 and the incidence of droughts in Australia. Until the late 1980s drought was officially termed a ‘natural disaster’. Changes from the late 1980s recognise that drought is a normal risk of farming. Modern policy moved from a ‘crisis response’ using policy instruments to meet needs of ‘farm families, their communities, the environment and the broader economy’ to be in ‘harmony with Australian biophysical and climate reality’ (Botterill and Fisher, 2003: ix). The current demands on natural resources and particularly on water give rise to terms such as ‘crisis’ and ‘scarcity’ as an increasing number of scholars address food security. Dayton (2003) found that many of the 188 countries ranked in a United Nations report were in a state of crisis from water shortage in 2003 including ‘Kuwait, the Gaza Strip, the United Arab Emirates, Malta and Singapore’ (Dayton, 2003: 1). Connell (2007) observed the increasing world interest in natural resources and food security matters. He stated that as far back as the 1970s the interest in natural resource decline caught international attention. The threat to human well being and security from environmental decline and reduced access to freshwater resources was addressed during a United Nations Conference (Connell, 2007: 2). He quoted the outcome of the Mar del Plata Conference in 1977 that found the scarcity of water and diminished access, ‘threatens four basic components of human security’: food production, aquatic environments, political stability and social and economic stability. The Brundtland report was widely accepted by water authorities throughout the world and emphasised the harmful influence of 91

‘unsustainable development’ (Connell, 2007: 2). Cribb (2010) asserted that leaders in future must find ways to provide food security. It is a significant factor in ensuring a stable social order (Cribb, 2010: 1). My field research will address water management and control at three levels. First, the farm and community level where farming contributes to the continuity of the local social order as understood in a particular area. Second, there is the organisational level where senior officers who are competent in performing their duties interrelate with farmers and provide information about change to water regulations. Third, is the institutional level of reform where political decisions are made about water management and use on the farmlands. The coincidence of the longest drought on record occurring at the time water reform commenced in 2001, challenged the farm managers navigating the changed water entitlements.

Conflicting views on large-scale water diversion As I commenced my field research I was mindful of the words of Mitchell (2004) who implied that changed water policies (that allow water to be an accepted commodity for trade) and water shortfall could allow greed to emerge as demands on water resources increased. Questions about greed and the accumulation of large volumes of water were raised in a New South Wales Stateline programme (Stateline, ABC Television, 25 April 2003, 7.30pm). Cubby Station is the largest cotton farm in Australia and is located in south-east Queensland near the New South Wales border. A proposal to extend its water storage capacity early in the twenty-first century was opposed by graziers and cotton farmers downstream anxious about the security of their water supply and about their future. 92

The expansion of water storages on Cubbie Station was questioned on several counts: the diversion of water into shallow dams leads to rapid erosion, it captures water relied on by other farmers for pasture growth and a big flood could bring a half metre depth of water flooding across neighbouring farms over the levee banks constructed to store the water. The farmers asked why a promised environmental study was not undertaken before the project was approved (Diary record. April 25, 2003). The Stateline report found that if the New South Wales government opposed the development the case would go to the New South Wales environment court. Cubbie Station potentially can store more water than Sydney Harbour, 500,000 megalitres. The Cubbie business and water supply relies heavily on good seasons free of drought. Many local business people were in favour of the development because irrigation was more labour intensive than dryland farming and brought employment opportunities to the region. A conflict that could emerge from water diversions is mentioned by Barlow and Clarke (2002) in their book: Blue gold: The Battle Against Corporate Theft of the World’s Water. The authors explain that water from the Murray-Darling Basin supplies a portion of the water for the city of Adelaide, in South Australia. Sheil (2000) argued that ‘South Australia’ has introduced ‘the largest privatisation’ enterprise. In 1995 the South Australian authorities contracted out the ‘entire management, operation and maintenance’ of water and sewerage systems and the capital works programme for Adelaide (Sheil, 2000: 43-4). The privatisation of the city of Adelaide water led Barlow and Clarke (2002) to posit the idea that as United Water International has 93

‘secured the water concession for Adelaide in southern Australia’ it is ‘developing plans for bulk water exports’. Barlow and Clarke suggest that there is a ‘fifteen year’ strategy to ‘export water to other countries’ to use for industries such as computer software manufacturing and agribusiness irrigation. The idea seems improbable and there is no evidence to support this proposition. The authors raised matters that require further discussion as demands on water resources increase and available supplies are in demand. Barlow and Clarke explained that by using a combination of ‘pipelines and tankers for transportation’ the massive water transfer is achievable (Barlow and Clarke, 2002: 133). The authors imply that the government wanted to sell water to the highest bidder, Barlow and Clarke (2002) claimed that during the initial bidding procedures for the Adelaide water concessions, Australian companies ‘were not even allowed to bid for the contract for bulk water exports’. Their assumption was that ‘an international consortium’ would increase the export value of water estimated to be in the ‘range of $628 million’ (Barlow and Clarke, 2002: 133). The market oriented competition for water has ramifications for water use on Australian farms for food production. The consequence of failure to protect water sources is summarised by Connell (2007) who stated that if we do not have water to produce food for the increasing world population it means ‘extraordinary misery for billions of people’ (Connell, 2007: 3). Smith (2001: 4-10) viewed water resources in the light of the hydrological cycle, river runoff, groundwater recharge systems, rainfall, evaporation into the atmosphere and ‘transpiration from vegetation’ (Smith, 2001: 9). Massive water diversions could disrupt these natural processes. 94

Priorities for water use and share components The Water Management Act 2000 listed water share components and the priorities for water allocation under its regulations in Part 2, Access Licences (Sections 56-60). The regulations allowed irrigation licence holders an entitlement to a share component of ‘available water’ in the specified water management area or water source. The component ranged upwards from an annual zero water allocation. Priorities for water distribution under the Water Management Act 2000 give essential needs, such as domestic water usage first priority. Second on the priority scale are environmental needs. In the third priority ranking are high security licences, the uses include horticulture, viticulture or citrus fruit growing; and fourth priority is the most commonly used general security licences, used for cotton and rice growing, pasture and grain crops. Broadacre irrigation dairy farmers hold general security irrigation licences, that is, the farmers who use the most water hold fourth place in the priority ranking. ‘Sustainable management’ principles accord with the objectives of the Water Management Act 2000, that is ‘An Act to provide for the protection, conservation and ecologically sustainable development of the water sources of the State, and for other purposes’ (Water Management Act 2000:1). The Act (Chapter 1: Section 3. (c) ) aimed to ‘recognise and foster the significant social and economic benefits to the State that result from sustainable and efficient use of water’. Unlike the previous Water Act 1912 (New South Wales Parliament) the environment takes precedence over most other uses. The reform process must integrate ‘many different interests’ and cannot meet each one separately (Connell, 2007: 45). The Water Management Act 2000 (Chapter 1. S. 3 (f) ) aims ‘to integrate the 95

management of water sources with the management of other aspects of the environment, including the land, its soil, its native vegetation and its fauna’. Responsibility for sustainable and efficient management is shared between the government and the water users. The regulations encouraged ‘best practice’ in the management and use of water (Ch. 1 S. 3 (g, h) ). There are inherent contradictions in legislation designed to maximise ‘the social and economic benefits to the community’ (Ch. 2. S. 5 Part 1.2 (g) ) while also seeking environmental benefits. Improving the environment can mean taking water out of use for economic purposes. The irrigation farmers as food producers enjoyed first priority for water access, now they rate lower on the scale of priorities and must do more with less water.

Towards understanding natural resource management Barnaby (see Williams, 2009) in the ABC radio national programme Ockham’s Razor, produced by Robin Williams (Williams, 2009) examined the prediction that water wars would replace wars over oil within the coming century. In her study, Barnaby found that nations with insufficient water to meet their own needs did not go to war while they could import the water hidden in manufactured goods or food production (2009). Trade offered peaceful solutions to conflict. Wahlquist (2003) observed a trend in the media to create conflict out of a situation, to blame something for negative events. She related this to the fact that urban people learned about country people mostly through media reports of how farmers manage, or fail to manage, drought (Wahlquist, 2003: 74). She is concerned about the presentation of drought that leaves the wrong impression - that drought is a problem for rural people alone. The media reports failed 96

to inform their audience that drought is a problem for both urban and rural dwellers. Water for environmental purposes and the volume required remained controversial. Despite requiring tight control over use of water on farms no such restriction appeared to be in place for monitoring environmental water diversions. Professor Cullen (2004) a representative of the ‘Wentworth Group’, a group of business leaders, scientists, environmentalists and academics, advocated a yearly audit of water to be taken of irrigation water use. Pigram thought it was ‘disturbing’ that no similar audit was recommended for water diverted for environmental purposes including the ‘long-term implications’, its ‘management and effectiveness’ (Pigram, 2006: 158). For some writers there was a mystery in rationalising the decision by farmers to stay in their industry despite difficulties in accessing water, coping with the modernising influences over twenty-five years and the increased input costs of production. The reasons they remain in the industry relate to values linked to agrarianism, the rural idyll, family commitments, supportive social networks, rural and farming traditions, as suggested by Alston (2010). The sociological concepts allow the thought and behaviour observed through empirical research to be viewed in a broader societal context. They are the tools to draw together the multifaceted study of water reform and its social impact on farmers and rural communities. It is recalled that the aims of this study were: (a) To observe the implications of further restrictions on water use for farmers under the Water Management Act 2000 and other regulatory agreements.

(b) To enquire into the strategies used by dryland and irrigation farm managers to cope with water reform and cutbacks in water allocations. (c) To observe whether the trust by farmers in government policy is eroding as they cope with water control, ownership, management and use. In Chapters Five and Six, I address the theoretical foundation for empirical research and the methodology that guides my approach to answering the questions raised. These are drawn from the information discovered by scholars of various disciplines, senior officers in their roles in the government and semi-government organisations and from farmers, who are each day at the cutting edge of water management. The List of Respondents is given: Appendix 4. 1 Farmers; Appendix 4. 2 Government Officers and experts and other informants; Appendix 4. 3 Farmers questionnaire; Appendix 4. 4 Person to person interviews – local people, experts and others; and Appendix 4. 5 The questionnaire for senior Government officers, politicians and others. The respondents include agricultural scientists, townspeople, politicians and other respondents discovered through personal involvement in the field of inquiry into water management and control. The questions relate to the on-farm water use, legislative change and the social impact of water reform on rural people, particularly the farm sector, in the New South Wales Murray-Darling Basin. The study also addresses the institutional reform of water policy.

Chapter Five

Sociological perspectives informing research

In this Chapter I identified the theoretical perspectives that guide the empirical research. The social theorists Durkheim, Luhmann and Bourdieu informed an interpretation of social action as they relate to farmers and senior officers who collaborate at times and at other times express conflicting views on water management. Durkheim offered insight into the moral aspects of property ownership. He observed that the social acceptance of a particular thing, as a property, derives from popular approval. Durkheim included rivers and streams as among the things generally considered beyond appropriation. Durkheim’s ideas of the ‘sacred’ nature of particular waterways differed from the ideas that underpin the Water Management Act 2000 that bestows on rural water sources the status of mere profane property, without any “sacred” feature. The studies reported in the previous two Chapters raised questions to inform my empirical research. Central to the findings is whether trust is eroding as farmers introduce the rules for water access into their farm management strategies. To discover whether trust is eroding trust relationships are examined on three levels: Firstly, farmers place trust in the outcome of water reform and the continuity of the social order as known and understood. Secondly, farmers expect competence from the senior officers in managing the practical aspects of reform and the dissemination of knowledge related to reform. Thirdly, farmers trust that the decisions made at the institutional level of

control will not disadvantage the farmers’ ability to continue in their industry. The empirical research took place from 2003 to 2006. It is impossible to exit a field such as water studies completely because the changes are ongoing and as the drought conditions continued water use gained prominence in media reports. The reports gave insight into how the general population viewed the changes to the status of water. The water that we use does not all come from stored water. Stirzaker (2010) described the different types of water used on the broadacre irrigation and dryland farms, the focus of my research. Stirzaker said that rain falling on the land and renewing the soil moisture is ‘green’ water and only plants that grow where the rain falls can use it. When water runs off the soil into streams or percolates through the soil to the aquifers below this is ‘blue’ water. Blue water can be collected, stored and moved to any sector of the economy or left ‘for the environment’ (Stirzaker, 2010: 10) and remain unharvested. Blue water is used for irrigation farming under the water share plans and is transferable and tradeable. Barlow and Clarke (2002) referred to blue water as ‘blue gold’, because through trade it increases in value.

Trust relationships Luhmann observed that ‘trust occurs within a framework of interaction’ influenced by both personality and the social system, and trust ‘cannot be exclusively associated with either’. Trust is a ‘social relationship’ that has its own ‘system of rules’. It occurs within a framework of interaction influenced by both an individual personality and the social system (Luhmann, 1979: 6-7). Trust in, ‘the broadest 100

sense of confidence in one’s expectations, is a basic fact of social life’ (Luhmann, 1979: 4). Everything we do would feel impossible to undertake without trust, that is why trust is essential for our human well-being. It is beyond human endurance to exist with the fear and dread experienced when there is a lack of trust (Luhmann, 1979: 4). Trust in this sense is a relational concept usually found among a tight group of people who hold similar values and interests. Trust allows farmers to hold the expectation that the moral and social order they know and understand will continue. Luhmann explained that because the modern world is so complex there are various possibilities associated with trust relations. Therefore, the concept ‘complexity’ suggests ‘a number of possibilities’ (Luhmann, 1979: 6). The farmers deal with complex problems in the changeable international market demands, fluctuating prices for products and farm inputs, variable climate and rainfall together with changes in the regulatory controls governing water access. The concept trust’ rests on expectation of a particular outcome. Trust is underpinned by our use of ‘distrust’ mechanisms, meaning to take precautionary action to ensure a favourable outcome before bestowing trust. Distrust is not the ‘opposite of trust’ (the italics follow the original statement from Luhmann), distrust is the ‘functional equivalent for trust’ (Luhmann, 1979: 71). Distrust is viewed by Barber (1983) to mean that our ‘rationally based expectations’ of a ‘technically competent performance’ by persons in authority or expectation of ‘fiduciary obligation and responsibility’ will not of themselves be sufficient to maintain social order (Barber, 1983: 166). A form of ‘rational distrust’ is also necessary. This ensures ‘political accountability in a participatory democracy’ and 101

serves in other areas such as the interrelationships between senior officer and client. Distrust ‘may be based on knowledge, experience, and values’ (Barber, 1983: 166-67). Hobbes wrote, of ‘Pleasures of the sense’ that may arise from the sense of an object ‘Present’. He wrote, that other ‘pleasures of the mind’ arise from the ‘Expectation’ that in turn ‘proceeds from foresight of the End’. The expectation of an outcome is valid whether it will please or displease (Hobbes, 1968: 122). He implied a sense of the present that links with our future expectations. The sociological concept, trust, as it links with our expectations, generates a sense of continuity offering confidence in our expectations for the future. Many of the New South Wales farms are family business enterprises with established rituals that promote family continuity linking the past, the present and the future generations. As explained, intergenerational change means passing on the family farm, knowledge of the industry and traditions from one generation to the next. Farmers in the past had expectations that this would continue, that the next generation would take over from them. If this expectation changes and the children are not encouraged to do this or if the laws that restrict further water development make this transition impossible, there could be an erosion of trust. This could focus on the reform process itself and of the government to take up the responsibility to ensure food security for the nation into the future. Luhmann’s theory of trust (1979) informed a sustained argument of the study of ‘trust’ relationships between the farmers and the government officers. Barber (1983: 21) and Luhmann (1979: 71) agree that trust and distrust are complementary concepts for reducing complexity and simplifying the world. If we refuse to bestow trust, we 102

‘restore the original complexity of the potentialities’ of a situation and continue to ‘burden’ ourselves with it (Luhmann, 1979: 71). His insight provides a useful framework for research on the adaptive strategies of farm managers when political, economic, social and environmental influences change the rules for water access. Luhmann explained that trust overcomes fear of what lies ahead: ‘A highly complex, but nevertheless structured conception of the world could not be established without a fairly complex society, which in turn could not be established without trust’ (Luhmann, 1979: 94). Barber (1983) is supportive of Luhmann’s theoretical understandings. He explained that we use trust and distrust mechanisms consciously and unconsciously. ‘One segment of society’ should feel assured that they can ‘trust the others’ (Barber, 1983: 18). Luhmann’s concept ‘distrust’ is not simply the opposite of ‘trust’. The definition of distrust provided by the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (2007) means to view something as potentially harmful, unrealistic or insincere. In the sense used in this study ‘distrust’ means to minimise potentially harmful outcomes through taking precautionary action. Barber explained that trust relations that are more directly relevant to his study are in the ‘persistence and fulfillment of the moral social order’ (Barber, 1983: 10). He argued that the ‘absence of trust in the moral social order is very difficult to accept or perpetrate’ (Barber, 1983: 14). He adopted two specific meanings of trust that he uses when applicable: ‘the expectation of technically competent role performance’. It could ‘involve expert knowledge, technical facility, or everyday routine performance’ (Barber, 1983: 14). The second expectation is of ‘fiduciary obligation and responsibility’. It is the 103

recognition that ‘some others’ have moral obligations to show concern for our interests at times even above their own (Barber, 1983: 14). ‘To talk about the nature and meanings of social phenomena such as trust is to define their functions and dysfunctions in terms of social relationships and social systems’ (Barber, 1983: 19). We expect order because, ‘you cannot trust chaos’ (Luhmann, 1979: 39). Trust is the expectation of the continuity of the moral social order. Trust relationships are explored at three levels: the level of the social order where water reform has an impact on farmers and their community; the organisational level of water management where the senior officers demonstrate their expert knowledge, technical competence and take up their routine responsibilities. The third level is of institutional reform, water policy development and regulation. To use the distrust mechanism is to take the precautionary action essential to achieve a favourable result. Trust allows farmers to make uncertainty tolerable as they work with globalised markets and institutional reform. Trust is learned through ‘underlying assumptions’ that are ‘laid down in infancy’ (Luhmann, 1979: 27). For the purposes of this study, trust means to hold the expectation that the social and moral order that we know and understand will continue. Trust simplifies the complexities of the modern world and allows problems to be manageable (Luhmann, 1979: 7). If we cannot fully understand a problem and cannot resolve it ourselves, as in a business transaction where part of the transaction takes place in a foreign country, in bestowing trust in others we apply a reduction mechanism to decrease complexity (Luhmann, 1979: 7).

104

Barber (1983) cited the study by Harold Garfinkel (1967) that detected familiar ‘commonplace scenes’ that indicate that life is continuing as usual. Garfinkel explained how behaviour and moods change when there is a breach of trust, by undertaking ‘breaching experiments’, to demonstrate that this type of trust actually exists (Barber, 1983: 11). People expect their routine to persist. They expect order and stability in daily life. When others have breached our trust then people are made to feel ‘uncomfortable, bewildered, angry, and anxious’ (Barber, 1983: 12). Similarly the sociologist Daniel (1998) viewed trust as a method of ‘simplifying’ the world’. She continued, ‘trust’ exists in ‘the tight relations of groups’ and in a shared identity and ideology (Daniel, 1998: 34). Trust reassures and allows complex situations to appear manageable. If trust is withdrawn then individuals reconsider their situation and they may leave their social group or occupation.

Public Management In previous Chapters I discussed the ‘management’ role of senior officers. I explained that since the 1980s the role of the senior officers has changed from administrative duties to managerial strategies (Hughes, 2003: 1-2). Prior to the ‘new management’ reform in the public service, bureaucracy was organised around a hierarchical structure as explained by Max Weber. The office holder had a ‘vocation’ for their appointment to public office. They had life tenure, earned a fixed salary and followed a career path through a hierarchical structure (Gerth and Mills, 1974: 198-204). For most of the twentieth century the ‘traditional’ Weberian model of bureaucratic duties and responsibilities dominated the roles of 105

public service officers in New South Wales. The change to the ‘new management’ model commenced during the late 1970s. Under the new regime, the managers were to meet ‘market-based’ objectives in dealing with the public and in performing their duties. Unlike the rules based work regulations previously followed the new managers were innovative in responding to their duties. Hughes explained this change as the ‘emergence of a new paradigm in the public sector’ (Hughes, 2003: 1). It combined modern management practices, the logic of economics and retained basic ‘public service values’ (Hughes, 2003: 262-3). The theoretical change is from a Weberian model of public service administration to a management model influenced by neo liberalism ideas or the Australian interpretation, economic rationalism. Management is characterised by ‘efficiency, effectiveness and quality of service’. There is ‘a decentralised management environment’ and business activities are client focused. The officers have flexibility to ‘explore more cost effective alternatives to direct public provision’ of services. The senior officers’ role is flexible and they are accountable for results (Hughes, 262-3). They establish ‘due process’ rather than comply ‘with a set of rules’. A key difference between administration and management ‘is the underlying theoretical’ perspective of economics or ‘private management’ (Hughes, 263). The administrative authorities gained the trust of the farmers as they established control of water according to the rules of the Water Act 1912 and through the strong administrative body of social service providers founded under the Deakin laws. The Water Management Act 2000 brought a radical transformation of political thought that transformed water management regulations and access for farmers. 106

Property Durkheim used the term ‘thing’ when discussing property relations because he did not see the need to ‘prove the particular nature of the thing’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 160). He explained the constitution of property rights that may be applied to many things that people want to own or want to retain in public ownership. He found no ‘a priori’ limits that restrict the power of a societal collective to endow any ‘thing’ that exists with the qualities requisite for juridical appropriation or to take away the right of appropriation (Durkheim, 1984a: 160-1). The government has the right to bestow private rights of ownership on things formerly considered beyond appropriation, such as water resources just as society (or a collective of people) as Durkheim explained, can take those rights away. The appropriation of things may be so much against accepted social values and customs that it may not be acceptable to the society. The ‘range of things’ subject to private ownership is subject to ‘laws of each country’. The laws also decide ‘the range of persons qualified to own’ them (Durkheim, 1984a:160). In Durkheim’s thought, water in streams, a public access path or a road are among the things not suited for private appropriation (Durkheim, 1984a:160). The power to make use of a thing or to benefit from the produce it bears does not explain the truth about the ‘right of property’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 161). It is ‘public opinion in every society’ that allows ‘some objects’ to be ‘regarded as liable to appropriation and others not’. The ‘rights are fluid and can change’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 159-60).

107

Under the principle ‘right of property’ other stakeholders may enjoy certain rights over the thing, but the owner’s rights are reserved (Durkheim, 1984a: 163). The owner may preclude another person from access, if they so decide. In Australia, the government retained its ownership rights to water. The economic rationalist ideology facilitated the change to water as property that in turn allowed water rights or water shares to trade in open market competition. Trade is pivotal to water access under the Water Management Act 2000. Durkheim explored the right of others to use a thing whether one owns it or not because, ‘power to make use of the thing is so little characteristic of this right that it may be exercised over things that do not admit of appropriation’. He explained: ‘I use air, water, all that is common property, and yet I do not own them’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 161). Durkheim found that the ‘power of use and enjoyment’ existed when there was no ‘right of ownership’. We can say that we have the right of use over certain things although we cannot possess them. To manage something is not to possess it (Durkheim, 1984a: 163). Durkheim distinguished different forms of property rights: ‘jus fruendi’, is the right to the produce of the trees, soil or interest on money owned; and jus utendi, is the right of use, to ‘live in a house’, ‘ride a horse’, or ‘walk in a forest’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 160). Jus abutendi gives the right to alter the nature of the thing owned or to modify its ‘physical composition or its legal status’ and even destroy it (Durkheim, 1984a: 160). The right over property that gives a right to ‘exclude other individuals and collective entities from the usage of a given thing’ can never be taken-for-granted because the state can change the law, or intervene with usage in some manner. The state is ‘the sole 108

exception... to the ultimate rights of the individual owner. The State and lesser organs of the State’ hold rights of usage that apply in ‘special circumstances.’ The state can compel the owner to relinquish property rights in an exclusivity entitlement (Durkheim, 1984a: 164). Irrigation farmers have managed water for irrigation during the twentieth century under the Water Act 1912 (New South Wales Parliament) where under Section 17, farmers were entitled to ‘take, use, and dispose of any water...’ on their irrigation farmland. This legislation stood, until regulations started to change during the 1980s. Under the Water Act 1912 water was tied to the irrigation farm that the licence was issued to supply. The rules followed the Deakin informed laws that rejected privatisation of water. Limited transfer of water from the farmland was allowed during the 1980s. The Water Management Act 2000 removed barriers to the transfer and trade of water entitlements, although water jurisdictions in river catchment areas retained some rules that were barriers to open market trading and unrestricted trade in water applicable in their jurisdiction. Barlow and Clarke (2002) observed that privatising former public utilities, particularly water resources, is a global trend although largely restricted to western society. They argued that corporatising water utilities does not improve water management and that, ‘Continued widespread privatisation of water will also be a recipe for an inequitable and nonsustainable future’. They view the corporate objective of profit making as providing a risk to the ‘health and safety standards’ of water sources and is counter to the right of disadvantaged people, including those too poor to pay the charges for water, to have regular access to fresh water supplies (Barlow and Clarke, 2002: 124-5). Privatisation concentrates power in the hands of 109

private corporations. As a result, government power is greatly reduced ‘making it difficult’ for their water managers ‘to establish minimum access and quality requirements’ (Barlow and Clarke, 2002: 125). The restriction on water access to the public is counter to the Deakin reforms of the twentieth century that ensured equable water access under Constitutional Law. Section 100 of the Australian Constitution states that the: ‘Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation’. ‘Recent High Court decisions’ in Australia, relating to provisions in Australian Constitutional Law, allow Commonwealth domination of water management (Connell, 2007: 176). The Commonwealth Government can ensure that ultimately the States, through monetary incentives, comply with Commonwealth policies. The increased role of the Commonwealth in twenty-first century water policy, Connell observed, was evident in the political leadership of then Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard. He introduced a $10 billion dollar plan in 2007, the National Plan for Water Security, to enlarge Commonwealth participation in water management. The Water Act 2007 (Commonwealth legislation) was to place the management of interstate water systems within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Government. It appears that a hegemonic relationship existed between farmers and the State and Federal governments during the water and farmland development phase in Australia. Farmers and the government had similar objectives under the rules of the Australian Constitution and the New South Wales Water Act 1912. 110

Cascao offered a definition of hegemony as ‘political power that flows from intellectual and moral leadership, authority or consensus’. Hegemonic control is distinguishable from control based on ‘armed force’ (Cascao, 2008: 15). The intellectuals are perceived as the ‘dominant group’s “deputies”’, who exercise the ‘subaltern functions of social hegemony and political government’. Gramsci (1975) distinguished between two forms of control: ‘spontaneous consent’ accorded to the leader by the masses and ‘coercive power’, used when common consent fails (Gramsci, 1975: 12). Zeitoun (2008) discussed transboundary water regulation in the context of hegemony and leadership. In Australia, the legacy made to water law by the Attorney General of Victoria and later a Prime Minister of Australia, Alfred Deakin, provided strong rules for the administrative authorities to monitor water use. Each state retained autonomy in water management on behalf of its people. The pressure for state governments to cooperate and coordinate their planning for water use intensified as the financial power of the Commonwealth grew (Connell, 2007: 81). As the farming industry expanded to become the largest export earner for Australia both Federal and State governments held a hegemonic understanding of the priority for water for the farming industries. Successful farming generated confidence and trust in a future free from the fear of food insecurity as experienced in New South Wales in the eighteenth century and the early nineteenth century. The Water Management Act 2000 changed the rules. As the reforms were set down in each state, the Commonwealth Government used its fiscal powers under federalism to encourage the states to implement the COAG initiatives for water reform. The Commonwealth 111

Government gave $5.5 billion dollars in tranche payments to the states to ensure compliance with phases of water reform (Fullerton, 2002). The farmers, who had much of the responsibility for meeting the benchmarks for reform, received no monetary compensation for their loss of income through water cutbacks. Fullerton quoted the then Deputy Prime Minister and National Party Leader in the John Howard Coalition Government, John Anderson, expressing regret that the tranche payments made to the states as part of the water reform package were not part of an adjustment package for farmers coping with income loss through water reform (Fullerton, 2002: 196). Reisner (1993) discovered through his research on water reform that water diversions that take place for all the right reasons, can ultimately prove to be wrong. He understood the difficulty of keeping a civilisation alive if water resources become scarce. He observed, ‘A Civilisation. If You Can Keep It’ (Reisner, 1993: 477). He referred to the development of cities and civilisations in dry regions that, lacking their own local water supply must continually draw water from distant rivers and streams to sustain civilisation. Connell (2007) encapsulated the complex problems of managing water in the future. The leaders in the past have generated a need through irrigation to feed an expanding population. This need may be impossible to service in the future.

Meaning and water transferability Fresh water from the streams should remain “sacred” and not be subject to any transaction (Durkheim, 1984a: 159). Water is precious as environmentalist Barlow (2008) explained: ‘suddenly it is so clear; the world is running out of fresh water’ (Barlow, 2008: xi).

112

Strang (2004) claimed that in essence the water ownership debates are about collective and individual rights and responsibilities. Water is framed respectively as ‘a common good and as a commodity’. Transferability of water resources, under the Water Management Act 2000 subjects water to de-materialisation. It allows a ‘metaphorical abstraction of water’ under its transferability arrangements. It ceases to belong to a singular place or group (Strang, 2004: 246). Water is a powerful influence on social and psychological well-being and on human behaviour generally. Deakin’s laws gave water control over to a strong administrative body, including local water masters. Familiarity with the local needs of farmers and other water users ensured knowledgeable, local input by officers administering control. Centralisation has taken away some of their access to local knowledge and understanding of local needs. Strang’s study had relevance to my study particularly because decisions made apply to the long, slow flow of the western rivers where my empirical research is based. The decisions can ignore local conditions because the decision makers may never have to feel the impact of the changes as local river people experience them. One sector of the river population can be left disadvantaged. Connell (2007) addressed this point, indicating that the problems are so large that a form of inertia may set in among those deliberating on water policy and little advance is possible under such circumstances. This is a problem when water has particular value as a life-giving resource. Farmland and water essentially form ‘a symbolic societal garden’ in which water is the ‘collective substance’ and ‘generator’ of ‘production and reproduction’. Water creates ‘health and energy’ (Strang, 2004: 172). The reality of the meanings of the local water 113

source held over the centuries are lost if large volumes of water can be readily transferred from the river catchment.

Bourdieu: field, game, habitus and illusio The concepts, field, game, habitus and illusio, are meaningful sociologically because they create a way of thinking about water within its hydrological context. Bourdieu wrote how the book An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002) originated from ‘a semester-long seminar’ with a group of doctoral students in ‘sociology, anthropology, and political science at the University of Chicago’where the matters addressed were selected under Wacquant’s guidance. The format of the book noted above, focused on the ‘penetrating’ questions of Wacquant and Bourdieu’s considered answers. Bourdieu wrote that the discussions addressed ‘the most fundamental issues of my research’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: vii). The book gave insight into the sociological constructs developed by Pierre Bourdieu. In an introductory Chapter Wacquant explained Bourdieu’s understanding that the: ‘task of sociology is to uncover the most profoundly buried structures of the various social worlds which constitute the social universe’. Sociology must also uncover the ‘mechanisms that tend to ensure their reproduction and transformation’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 7). Bourdieu eschewed taking a Hegelian approach that, although important is founded on ideas and a philosophy that seeks the ‘inner truth of the subject matter’ (Hegel, 1977: 44). Rather than searching for an inner truth, Bourdieu sought out the underlying concepts influencing social action and the practical application of the habitus 114

based on present and past experience. I argue next that Bourdieu’s concepts “field”, “game” and “illusio”can help us to interpret this social action over water.

Field ‘To think in terms of field is to think relationally’ stated Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 96). The italics are from the original work. Bourdieu researched the ‘historical genesis of the state’ and the ‘emergence of a specific capital’ whereby a state can ‘wield power’ over ‘the different fields’ and ‘forms of capital that circulate’ in fields (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 115). The habitus forms as we are socialised into a social order that ‘constitutes the field as a meaningful world’. The field has ‘sense and value’ for those who consider it worth the energy they contribute (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 127). The concept ‘field’ denotes ‘a set of objective, historical relations between positions anchored in certain forms of capital or power’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 16). Each field establishes its ‘values and possesses its own regulative principles’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 17). Moreover, each field is a ‘space of conflict and competition’ (the italics are used in the original work). The field is likened to a ‘battlefield’ where players vie for control over a specific type of capital, including things that are sacred, scientific or cultural. The stakeholders bring their trump cards that enhance their opportunities because any field has a ‘structure of probabilities’ where there are rewards and sanctions. Bourdieu avoided ‘the inflexible determinism’ inherent in ‘classical structuralism’. There is always some ‘indeterminacy’ and even when 115

rules in a universe are strongly enforced there are instances of playing with them as ‘part of the rule of the game’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 17-18). Bourdieu (2002) offered an example of the different attitudes people bring when entering a field with which they are unfamiliar that require them to learn different approaches and attitudes. In the field of art, for example, some people are familiar and others enter because they become interested. People from different backgrounds may ‘play the game of culture’ while they are unfamiliar with its meanings and lack knowledge of how to play. Some take ‘culture too seriously’ and are ‘too fearful’ to ‘bluff’ or ‘imposture’. They cannot adopt the ‘distance and casualness’ that demonstrates ‘true familiarity’ (Bourdieu, 2002: 330). Water reform is a complex ‘game’ in this sense and the contests over water may produce ‘bored alienation’ if people are forced to participate in endless debates about ‘water policy’ (Connell (2007: 6). Connell did recognise that some participants in debates could become passionate about water management. Farmers enter the game with the familiarity of their on-farm water use. Water management is part of their daily routine activities particularly during drought when water and soil moisture are constantly checked. Different levels of interest and practical hands-on involvement indicate types of employment in relation to water management. Bourdieu offered insight into human behaviour when people enter an unfamiliar social space. He understood the interrelations between different players in a field and his understanding has application for the water managers who represent government agencies and departments. Their position requires familiarity with the institutional 116

and organisational levels of control. For senior officers understanding the role of the farm manager is essential as the senior officers enter the field and the farmers are encouraged to discard traditional habits and their expectations of water priority. Open and transparent communication between the two groups is important if conflicts over access entitlements are to be resolved.

Game The sociological construct ‘game’ suggests a struggle between ‘objectively complicit opponents’ as Bourdieu explained (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 103). Farm managers and senior officers in the agencies in charge of managing water each have their own objectives. The farmers compete in the field with an increasing number of stakeholders including environmentalists and investors in the water trade. The field has players or stakeholders armed with trump cards, competing with their opponents. The ‘game’ theory holds that a good player will always suppose that his or her opponent will discern the best strategy to achieve their objective and will deal their hand accordingly. The risk and uncertainty are part of the game. Farmers have a ‘sense of the game’ and know how to remain interested and in order to keep playing they should take precautionary action, using ‘distrust’ mechanisms. Bourdieu explained that action comes from below a surface level of consciousness and calculation when a player is familiar with the situation (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 128). Action can be unconscious and isolated and may gather strength as others express the same outlook and seek the same opportunities. This could occur when farmers join in pro-active resilience as in a protest meeting. 117

Habitus Bourdieu understood that: ‘social reality exists’ in ‘things and in minds, in fields and in habitus, outside and inside of agents’. In a ‘social world’ that produced a habitus unconsciously or consciously applied, knowledge and familiarity may be comparable with the actions of a ‘fish in water’. It is perfectly at home and the water has no weight for the fish when it is where it belongs. The fish can survive difficulties because it is in a familiar space. Bourdieu found that the familiar world has special ‘meaning and interest’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 127-28). The ‘habitus is the universalising mediation which causes an individual agent’s practices’, when there is no ‘explicit reason or signifying intent’. Action without explicit intent is no less ‘sensible’ or ‘reasonable’ (Bourdieu, 2008: 79). The habitus offers an understanding of the different experiences and the meanings of water resources found among the various stakeholders, senior officers, the environmentalists, policy makers and farmers who each have interests and objectives in water use and access that differ widely. The homogeneity of the habitus that is found among people in a socially-linked group cause their practices and words to be intelligible to each other when they share a common cultural, social or economic heritage (Bourdieu, 2008: 80). Farmers share a common heritage in this sense. Among any occupational group there is a ‘practice-unifying and practice-generating principle’, a ‘class habitus’ (Bourdieu, 2008). The farmers belong to a ‘class’ group in the sense of Weber’s use of the concept, based on a similar occupation or income earning capacity (Weber, 1964: 424).

118

Weber’s theory of class is relevant to both groups that are central to this research, the farmers and the senior officers. Each belong to a particular class category when ‘class’ refers to a group where the members share the same ‘class situation’ in relation to the economic order, qualify for specific ‘life chances’ or occupational activities (Gerth and Mills, 1974: 181). The senior officers belong to a class group where life’s chances derive from tertiary training and specialist knowledge. The acquired opportunities and skills of the individuals in each separate group are internalised through their socialisation processes that bring the primary properties of the habitus into their response to a situation. The boundaries of the class position are fluid in modern rural society as senior officials may also own and or manage farmland. In addition, the farmers in New South Wales frequently ensure that their children have tertiary training that allows them to take up employment other than farming. They may return to regional New South Wales, occupying senior roles based on their expertise and tertiary training and take employment in government departments or private enterprise organisations until they take over the management role on the family farm. A hidden categorisation operates in a set of subsidiary characteristics that function as ‘principles of selection or exclusion without ever being formally stated’ and in small rural communities as in other parts of society, the categorisations may mean the difference between finding suitable employment or failing to do so (Bourdieu, 2002: 101-03). The principle of ‘social exclusion’ was defined by Alston (2010) as ‘an inability to participate in society’ despite one’s wish or intention to participate. The reason for non-participation may 119

be beyond one’s control (Alston, 2010: 30). The habitus that informs and is generated by the behaviour and response of the individual to change, may leave farm people vulnerable to circumstances, clinging to the farm and water resources despite increasing economic stress when they might be economically secure if they left the farm. They remain because the stakes are important to them. Gray and Lawrence (2001) use the concept ‘detraditionalisation’ to describe how people become reflexive, free themselves from social structures and monitor their own behaviour. The reflexive process if applied could be a productive and ‘central feature’ of detraditionalisation (Gray and Lawrence, 2001: 163).

Illusio Bourdieu explained that each field called forth or ‘gives life to a specific form of interest, a specific illusio’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 117), the italics are used in the original work. Illusio implies a specific ‘interest’ that is thought of in advance and is generated or renewed in the course of events (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 115). Illusio, Bourdieu explained, derives from the term ludus the game. The stakes in the game are ‘the product of the competition between players’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 98). To have an interest or an illusio is to be concerned about what happens for the ‘stakes are important’ and ‘worth pursuing’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 116). Illusio is the opposite from ‘ataraxia’ meaning to be ‘untroubled’ by events. The illusio may differ from one person to another although it denotes a specific and continuing interest. Each individual farmer has an illusio, an interest in the field of action that partially reflects their life situation. They might be at the 120

point of retiring and want to pass the family farm to the next generation or they may be starting out on their years of farm management and are raising a family. They may want water savings to expand their farm income to allow the next generation to return to the family business, the illusio takes many directions and informs the options and management strategies taken. Bourdieu cited the ‘remark of Weber about law’, that individuals obey a law while the benefit of doing so outweighs the benefit of ‘overlooking it’. If it is against their interests to obey rules then farmers might refuse. Bourdieu explained that sanctions for disobedience must be severe enough to ensure compliance (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 115). Farmers may have a lifetime investment of time and money in the field. Their habitus allows them to discover how to survive change and what measures they will find acceptable to make their voice heard. The sociological constructs property, meaning and trust emerge as themes by which to focus my research on the responses of farmers to water reform. My empirical research methods are set out in the following Chapter. In this Chapter I have explained how Bourdieu’s concepts can work towards allowing further understanding of the underlying currents that inform the actions of the respondents and of the farmers in working through water reform. The research for this Chapter addressed property ownership and the acceptance of change through the insight of Durkheim. He considered that some things such as certain waterways or pathways should remain in the public realm as they have meaning and use beyond an economic advantage.

121

In the next Chapter I present the research strategies carefully compiled to allow a more complete understanding of the way farmers adapt during a time of conflict and change as water transforms from a public utility, plentiful and relatively free, to a commodity for trade. The theoretical perspectives informed the methodology elaborated in this Chapter and the methodology is sensitive to them.

122

Chapter Six Studying the impact of regulations: Research strategies

In the previous Chapter I explained that trust is closely linked with distrust mechanisms. In a differentiated society it is essential to trust in our‘underlying assumptions’ that are established ‘in infancy’ (Luhmann, 1979: 27). We need to hold on to the expectation that the social and moral order that we understand will continue. To ensure this expectation is realised, as far as possible, we take precautionary action. Much of the agricultural produce from Australia goes to the international market place. Normally farmers do not personally know the buyers although they know what standards are required and prepare the product to accord with those expectations. Ultimately, farmers bestow the trust in others needed to conclude the transaction. Their trust is in essence a ‘reduction mechanism’ that, as Luhmann observed, decreases complexity (Luhmann, 1979: 7). Trust, in this sense, allows simplification of interrelationships in the world of global markets. Bourdieu’s theories of field, illusio, habitus and game are sociological tools that are important to the interpretation and analysis of data obtained during empirical research. They offer a process to understand the interrelationships and the different levels of power in the field of water management. Bourdieu’s concepts provide useful research tools that productively use the resources that are available (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 227). Durkheim explained why some things are available for appropriation and others are not. People allocate some things to a ‘sacred’ realm regarding them as belonging

123

to everyone to share and use. His theory of property is particularly relevant in the study of water because of the special nature of water as life giving and the belief that access to fresh water is a human right. In this Chapter I explain my empirical research approach and the ethical considerations that underpin the research methods in discovering the social impact of water reform as water transforms into a property. I have conducted a media search examining major daily newspapers and other media forms. When available I have examined original documentation and applied interview and participant observation techniques to achieve the standards essential for my purposes. Farmers have made a major economic contribution and they ensure food security for the population. It is important to understand what management changes they make and their approach to revolutionary changes in water entitlements. The Water Management Act 2000 facilitated water transferability and trade in water rights. From 2001 to 2004 was a period for adjusting to change before the full implementation of the legislation.

Planning the research and ethical considerations Bourdieu explained that the researcher needs to enter the field, locate ‘reliable and insightful informants’ and then ‘present yourself to them’. They know what the research subject matter is and questions they will be required to answer. Habitus, field, game and illusio are concepts to apply to my research method rather than to consider as theoretical constructs in themselves. Bourdieu found them useful tools for social inquiry to discover underlying meanings and attitudes that might otherwise remain hidden (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 228).

124

The literature search provided background knowledge of different areas to explore in more depth when asking questions of informants. The questionnaires needed to reach people interested in water from their different employment and social orientations. They are open- ended questions, useful tools for qualitative interviewing to allow the respondents to add information, to express their ideas and expand on areas of interest. Three different questionnaires were necessary to meet the needs of the research plan and obtain the perceptions of water reform from the respondents located at different occupational and social levels in the field with differing relationships to water use, water management and water reform. The list of the farmers, senior officers and others whom I interviewed is located in Appendix 4 along with the questions asked of interviewees (see page 98). Participant observation allowed an opportunity to record the impact of water reform on farmers in regional New South Wales and the effects of further water shortfall during an extended drought period. The literature informed me of the areas requiring further research. These were directed to informants at each level of water management, the farmers and others in the local community, the senior officers and other experts at the organisational level of reform and the institutional level where decisions were made. The observation of water management strategies used by farmers included their on-farm water management practices and the impact of changed priorities on access to water. The tradition of intergenerational change in family farm enterprises or the planned strategies and water access entitlements of the managers of the larger farm corporations were relevant in understanding how farmers cope,

125

who might best survive water reform and whether farmers were losing trust in institutional reform. To examine aspects of the organisational level of reform, I attended meetings where water planning and changed rules for water entitlements were topics for discussion. At such meetings, I would request an interview with a senior officer when I felt that they could fill gaps in knowledge about the water reform process. To study the institutional level of reform, I interviewed relevant parliamentarians, parliamentary advisers and secretaries about water reform matters. Debates appearing in the media provided useful stepping-stones for opening the subject matter with respondents. Additionally individuals linked to the environmental movement or employed in regional Australia, such as stock and station estate agents, health workers, community workers or bankers helped me to understand water reform from a broader social perspective. The empirical research included interviews and formal and informal discussions with senior officers managing reform. The officers had communication with farmers as clients of their corporation or agency. Part of the duties of several officers to whom I spoke was to ensure that information about the reform changes reached farmers. Information was available electronically, by postage, by material distributed at meetings, through media statements and by personal contact. My research required my attendance at various meetings, conferences and lectures and information gathered from participant observation, farm walks and field days. I also observed the daily life of farmers as they were engaged in various farm activities. It was also useful to contact some respondents, such as farmers and senior officers, through email, if they were travelling away from the 126

office or the farm, in addition to the face-to-face contact of qualitative interviews. Distance problems could often be overcome by collecting information by phone, mail or email. The planning included discovering the rational ‘distrust’ procedures used by farm managers in their day-to-day work. Observing precautionary action such as keeping enough fodder stored and water secured to carry the farm through long dry periods was an important part of field research. Participant observation allowed a conversation to flow readily and for questions to arise with regard to the similarities and differences in farm and water management practices. Sometimes the farmers kept most of their livestock, or in other instances, decided to sell them. They could select certain grape vines or trees to water and allow others to wilt. The normal routine of farm work changed to cope with water shortfall. If I needed to know whether trust in policy decisions and in the policy makers themselves was eroding, I enquired if the farmers asked politicians to use their influence to allow them an extra water entitlement, or if they thought it was not worthwhile to do so. The planning ensured that accepted ethical standards of research became part of the entire process. ‘Ethical concerns are social’, stated Kellehear (1993), they may arise from and be suggested by the research itself (1993: 13). People were observed while undertaking their usual daily activities, so it was essential to maintain ethical standards throughout the project. I was mindful that ethical considerations, essential to the initial planning phase to conform to the requirements of the University of New South Wales, must continue. The privacy of respondents was assured. Kellehear (1993) listed ethical criteria as a matter of primary importance. Applying ethical 127

criteria involved unobtrusive research to ensure that no harm came to participants. The conceptualisation of the ‘unobtrusive observer’ means one must not be deceptive about the nature of the research and should avoid a situation where the research could be a means of empowerment or disempowerment of a person or of a community (Kellehear, 1993: 14). The use of water by farmers may become a target for biased reporting in the media when news items emphasise the deterioration of the river systems in the Murray-Darling Basin, without further in- depth examination of the situation and the underlying forces that generate the problem. Observable associated losses can be estimated by asking questions about pupil losses in the local school system, family movements in and out of a district, how sporting clubs fare for team numbers or what does the shop frontages inspection tell of business closures. Viewing the occurrences from a particular viewpoint, such as economic loss and ignoring the social impact on others in the community, obscures the broad range of socioeconomic outcomes that changes to water priorities may bring. The unobtrusive observer could examine the outcome of water loss and ask does it generate a social loss as well. As Kellehear explained, the observation strategies of the ‘unobtrusive researcher’ will complement the use of the participant observation method (Kellehear, 1993: 115) that allows a broader view of local society. The loss of employment means the demography of society may change resulting in the further contraction of public services, including road repairs, public transport facilities, health services, hospital or bank closures and loss of public telephone or postal delivery services. 128

The unobtrusive observer may supplement the spoken word of informants with images, sounds, film or photographs that give insight into the culture of a place and its people. The body movements, actions and expressions of the informants may say much about the attitudes of interviewees (Kellehear, 1993: 73). These can be as distinctive as the clothing worn by the respondents. The formal attire, often with the insignia of office, on the shirt worn by senior officers, denotes their senior status. This compares with the clothing worn by farmers, ranging from worn farm work clothes to tailored clothes in good condition. Farmers could dress as they pleased and did not need to observe particular standards as did the departmental senior officers. Kellehear (1993: 115-16) listed expressive movements observable in smiles, frowns, expressions of anxiety or other emotions that indicate what the person is feeling when a question is considered. Human behaviour for example, can provide fruitful sources of data and during field research the farmers were observed as they were undertaking their daily farm management tasks, checking watering points or soil moisture as well as checking their crops or pasture growth. Watching the expressions and gestures of respondents may tell more about their attitudes and approaches than the respondents may be willing to express in the spoken word. Practical matters of responsible planning include gaining written consent of respondents requested by the ethics committee at the University of New South Wales. I showed the Participant Information and Consent Form from the university to respondents whom I wished to formally interview. I had three queries about signing the form and three refusals to give signatures. The reasons were that it was unnecessary to sign the forms, particularly in the light of my 129

commitment to confidentiality. This procedure conformed to the University of New South Wales Ethics Committee regulations, recognising that social research should be ‘committed to the idea of sociology as a moral science’ (Bessant and Watts, 2002: 100). The rural communities studied are located in geographically large areas although the population distribution is sparse. People know, or know of, one another and it is therefore essential to respect the privacy of informants. Kellehear (1993) provided useful guidelines for research: ensure the privacy of respondents and others associated with it; gain the consent of the respondents; ensure confidentiality; and protect the respondents from harm (Kellehear (1993: 13-4). De Vaus (2002) explained that confidentiality assurances help to obtain ‘honest responses’. They encourage participation if a project will ‘protect a person’s privacy’ (De Vaus, 2002: 59-62). Questions asked of respondents were not personal but rather concerned with general adaption to change, required by water reform. I commenced the empirical research by planning to undertake it in places that are familiar to me. I had contacts for meeting prospective respondents in the Lachlan River Catchment area who led me to a chain of prospective interviewees. Following research approval by the University of New South Wales Ethics Committee, interviewing commenced in September 2004. May (2008) found that ‘the idea of research free from values’ remained a problematic matter and argued that, ‘indeed, value- freedom is itself a value position!’ Furthermore, it is apparent that ‘research takes place within a context where certain interests and values often predominate to the exclusion of others’. The researcher is responsible for drawing up a ‘set of ethical guidelines’ and 130

conforming to them. That at least is a beginning to recognising the ‘responsibility to apply research ethics’ (May, 2008: 67). May referred particularly to research undertaken at the request of institutions or organisations however there is a valid argument that, for ethical reasons, ‘values and interests’ should be acknowledged as ‘motivations for the research’. This is relevant for many projects where interest in a subject is to continue over a considerable period. Participation in the interview process was voluntary and the respondents were aware that they could withdraw from the research programme or decline to answer a particular question. When meeting with respondents I was mindful of the sensitivity of some subject matter (Bergen, 1993). I used ‘scrutinising’ methods to ‘avoid many ethical dilemmas’, including avoiding ‘exploitation and deception’ of ‘respondents’ (Bergen, 1993: 197). Bessant and Watts (2002: 81) suggest that Wild’s (1974) study of Bradstow, an Australian community, as well as Bryson and Thompson’s (1972) classic community study offered examples of how the privacy of respondents may be protected during studies of ‘small town’ localities in both urban and rural Australia. The study by Dempsey (1990) of Smalltown should also be included in the list of exemplary Australian community studies that protect the identity of respondents. For the purposes of this study I had access to prospective interviewees who could prompt the formation of a chain of respondents. This experience conformed to procedures in research among informants obtained through a mutual acquaintance (Glesne and Peshkin, 1992: 43).

131

The time given for interview is the interviewee’s gift to the research process. When interviewing a government officer in his or her office I kept the interview to the time schedule requested, say twenty minutes, ending precisely on time. When interviewing farmers I was on their ‘territory’ and respected the social norms of the invited visitor. The preliminary ‘pilot’ study prompted an initial venture into the region to observe attitudes towards water access and water share plans. This was in addition to a review of contemporary literature, as recorded in Chapters Three and Four, bearing on the significance of water for agricultural occupations. I also compiled an account of events of interest in discussions of water reform through the careful monitoring of media reports. Senior officers, representing government in their roles in the various agencies and statutory authorities, filled gaps in knowledge about regulatory control. Additionally, experts in different fields in academia, commerce and non-government organisations provided background knowledge. Their expert interests in reform ranged widely from compiling a model of the probable economic impact of water reform and water cutbacks on farms, the impact on the health of farm families in isolated regions, or knowledge of the economic affairs of farm businesses. Grounded theory, adapted from the Glaser and Strauss (1967) model, has potential as an effective method to generate data (Minichiello, Aroni and Hays, 2008; Sarantakos 2005). Sarantakos (2005: 347-8) described aspects of grounded theory such as ‘identifying indicators of a concept’ and comparing the indicators with each other. It includes refining attributes of categories ‘until the codes are tested and saturated’. There is further ‘testing, contrasting and 132

comparing of theories’ and refining or changing them as needed (Sarantakos, 2005: 348). It is useful to examine a document on three levels: meanings intended by the author; received meanings constructed by the reader; and internal meanings conveyed in a semiotic sense of signs and symbols emerging through language (May, 2008: 184). Original documents, newspapers and media reports allowed an understanding of potential changes in attitudes to reform as the drought persisted and the reform was continued. In his discussion about ‘Situating Social Theory and Research’ May (2008: 37) explained how Kuhn’s conceptualisation of the ‘practice of science raises several questions’ for social researchers, particularly the ‘attempt to separate what we do, from how we do it’ (the italics follow the original text). The manner in which we conduct research is necessarily ‘affected by the social context’ (May, 2008: 37).With the significance of the social context of research in mind, May suggested that there are ‘different ways of viewing how we gain knowledge of social phenomena’ in the first place. His thought brought an awareness of why I was in the field, what values and biases I carried and the objectives of the research. May explained that all sciences are ‘influenced and affected by the factors’ existing ‘externally’ to the discipline in which the research is undertaken. He raised the significance of paradigms arguing that they are not ‘closed systems of thought.’ One paradigm may be compared and contrasted against another and by making a comparison it is possible to discover the strengths and weakness of each (May, 2008: 37).

133

Unlike Kuhn, who argued that one paradigm disappears as another emerges, May argued that, under the modern dynamic structures of research in the social sciences, new paradigms are emerging even before earlier paradigms are discarded. The argument has relevance for the role of the senior officers in the public service as it has changed from administration to management.

Thematic analysis Thematic analysis allowed the identification of themes that emerge from the transcripts of interviews and other data collection processes. Minichiello, Aroni and Hays (2008: 10-1) suggested that taped qualitative interviews should be fully transcribed and it was useful to follow this process. It was important to transcribe notes taken during empirical research and type out and codify written interview reports at the earliest opportunity following the interview. In accordance with Bourdieu’s analytical methods described by Wacquant (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 23) I attempted to discover properties that are relevant to my study and to discard others. I allocated each respondent a card, once the transcription and my analysis of the interview was complete. This allowed a compilation of similar categories of respondents, comparative analyses of management strategies and an expanded knowledge of different emergent properties, attitudes and responses. My use of a card system allowed me to classify related incidents, such as buying or selling water entitlements, leasing water on a seasonal basis and how, where and when water was used and for what purpose. I could recognise indices that suggested ‘trust and distrust’ mechanisms and response.

134

There are methods for meaningfully analysing data in a manageable form (Miles and Huberman, 1994: 260), ‘factoring’ in or finding results from discrete pieces of data that join within other pieces. This allows thinking through the data to select and focus on the more relevant facts (Miles and Huberman, 1994: 50). Ideas, concepts and theories develop from the data examined, they are then interpreted and the ‘textual’ data is divided into concepts and descriptive parts to become a ‘meaningful whole’ (Minichiello, Aroni, and Hays, 2008: 282-4). Recognising a key category allows observation of the largest degree of variance in behaviour. It also helps to ‘integrate, tighten and saturate a theory’. It assists in theoretical sampling and data collection and in discovering ‘significant variance in behaviour’ (Sarantakos, 2005: 348). The research raised questions such as do the respondents make approaches to politicians if they wish to change some aspect of water reform, do they have confidence that a request will be listened to or do they feel that it is not worthwhile to make any approach. There are methods of determining if respondents were losing trust by observing if they were anxious, angry or annoyed about the changes. The responses were obtained through open-ended interviews where possible to discover indicators of expression or body language relevant to their impressions of reform.

Theoretical sampling In grounded theory the ‘subjects, settings and events are selected predominantly during the process of data collection and analysis’ (Sarantakos, 2005: 348). The progression of the sampling leads to 135

further questions and directs further information gathering. The theory that emerges, known as ‘theoretical sampling’ drives the study forward. The sampling process continues until a point of saturation emerges (Sarantakos, 2005: 349). Aspects of grounded theory research were applied while I ensured that the respondents were selected in advance of the research, having been informed by my literature research findings of the subjects requiring coverage. As my research progressed others found to have knowledge of a particular area of expertise could also contribute. The data sampling process took into account the different orientations towards the management of water resources that mark the different levels of water access enjoyed by dryland and irrigation farmers. The study focused primarily on seeking the perspective on reform of the two groups most closely involved: the dryland and irrigation broadacre farmers on the one hand and the senior officers charged with advising on and implementing water policy on the other hand.

The respondents and their socio/cultural milieu The respondents who generously offered their knowledge and experience of the changes that water reform brings came from different and distinctive occupational groups and social positions, largely tied to agriculture. A profile of proposed respondents is set out in Appendix 4. Appendix 4. 1 provides a profile of farmers interviewed. Appendix 4.2 provides a profile of government officers and others selected as interviewees, who generously gave their expertise and insight to round out areas of knowledge of special interest to this research project. 136

Alston (2010) offered a critique of rural society as masculine oriented, where social values protect established (masculine) interests (Alston, 2010: 8-9). These are the interests of the white, male Australians in an older age bracket. Women play a major, although not publicly recognised role in supporting a farm business both in taking up a managing role on-farm or taking off-farm employment (Alston, 2010: 7). I interviewed both male and female farm managers. The sociological concept of ‘community’ has changed, particularly in its relevance to the social forces and modernising influences on rural communities. Bell and Newby (1971) traced the emergence of ‘community’ as a sociological concept that emphasised the nostalgia of a ‘rural idyll’, a form of ‘praising the past to blame the present’ (Bell and Newby, 1971: 22). Tonnies’ concepts ‘Gemeinschaft and Gesselschaft’ and their translation, ‘community and society’ suggest a gradual progression from a traditional society to a modern society based on contractual, impersonal relationships. The community village or ‘at most, the small town - was the antithesis of these’ (Bell and Newby, 1971: 22). In traditional communities, people did not change from their occupational class and their status was constant despite achievement (Bell and Newby, 1971: 22-5). Alston (2010: 8) affirmed that the notion of the ‘rural idyll’ borrows considerably from nineteenth century thought, from Tonnies’ concepts, Gemeinschaft – ‘a strong sense of community – apparent in rural regions’ and Gesselschaft – that is more typical of the urban society based on formal and therefore less personal face-to-face communication. Alston described elements in contemporary regional Australia that are similar to both. The Gemeinschaft relations are apparent in a denser network of relationships between neighbours and 137

kinship groups, ‘community mindedness’ generated by shared adversity. These give rise to ‘strong networks of trust’ (Alston, 2010: 8) that add to their loss should people leave. The region that is the location for this empirical research lends itself to the appellation of ‘rural’ in the sense that Alston (2010) explained. The term as used in this study applies to regions that are beyond metropolitan areas and classified as ‘Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote’. Although almost a quarter of Australia’s people are overseas born they tend to settle in the capital cities, so there is less diversity among the population of rural society (Alston, 2010: 9). The industries in the sections of the Murray-Darling River Basin where field research was undertaken are largely farming centres although mining and tourism are increasingly relevant in contributing to economic opportunities. The outer regional, remote to very remote areas are places where the population shares values that may be termed rural (Alston, 2010: 9).

Qualitative study A qualitative study accepts the relationship between the researcher and the subject and that this relationship sets the boundaries for the enquiry even as it shapes it (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998: 5). If it is possible, good rapport should be established between interviewer and interviewee (Bergen, 1993: 199) as it allows an agreement to be reached on ways to address the more personal matters. Qualitative studies are important as they offer a rich, meaningful understanding of social processes (De Vaus, 2002: 5). They are particularly useful in exploring themes. Examination of the three themes of water as

138

property, the meanings intrinsic to water resources and levels of trust were helpful aids in focusing research. Qualitative analysis has a long history in the social sciences and has changed (Guba and Lincoln, 1998); new paradigms have emerged and new methods of study have presented themselves (Denzin and Lincoln, 1998: 1) in recent years. The senior officers interviewed are modern managers who represent government and are expected to approach their work as Giddens (1991) explained, using ‘modern’ management methods. These give a manager more flexibility in performing their role; they are no longer required to work within an established code of rules. The key in relation to handling their approach to their clients is that they must be innovative. Nevertheless, their managerial decisions should conform to the objectives of their agency or department. Esterberg (2002) explained that in qualitative studies the researcher tries to ‘understand social processes in context’ (Esterberg, 2002: 2). Social research methods are ‘intertwined with theoretical concerns’. The social research method uses what Mills (2000) described as the ‘sociological imagination’, perceiving individual matters within a broader social context. The researcher tries ‘to understand the meaning of social events for those who are involved in them’ (Esterberg, 2002: 2-3). A qualitative study allowed me to observe the farmers and senior officers within ‘a larger social context’, a process that Mills ‘called a sociological imagination’ (Esterberg, 2002: 4). I am aware that observations must be as free of bias as possible and was mindful of the danger that error could occur when the personal bias of the researcher interferes with the final interpretation of data. There is ‘a need to monitor consistently for undue bias’, as the 139

research requires ‘personal interviews and even lifestyle interaction’ (Anderson and Poole, 1998: 28). I am also aware that the researchers’ own point-of-view may affect my work. My ‘bias’ towards the subject, how farm managers access water resources in a period of change, is apparent, in my explanation of my former occupational role as farm manager that I occupied for twenty-five years. It is also important for the researcher to avoid being ‘captured’ by respondents because of the influence this could have on interpreting the data. Silverman (2000: 28) suggested that research students should seek out and ‘use other resources and opportunities’ to expand the data collection process. Mindful of this I attended courses on environmental matters, conferences and seminars on water. An international conference, the Royal Agricultural Society Conference ‘The Power of Water’, held in the Murray-Darling Basin in Albury (March 2004), at the Charles Sturt University campus at Albury, New South Wales in the southern Murray-Darling Basin allowed me to acquire a useful insight into people at all levels of the social spectrum who were interested in water reform. The people attending the conference included politicians, academics, investors, directors of major international agricultural conglomerates, senior officers managing water for various government departments and international experts on water policy. The experts came to the conference with their ideas of water management drawn from places where they lived. These were as different in climatic and social conditions as South Africa, Canada and the United Kingdom. Dryland and irrigation farmers attended who managed farms ranging from smaller units to large corporations from each state of Australia. Each speaker contributed to the knowledge of water in the sense of the power that 140

control over water allowed. This contributed to my further understanding of the ‘relationship’ between theories about water use and access and the ‘empirical world’ where water is managed on a farm or by officers in government corporations or departments. The conference included a tour for a week through irrigation and dryland farm areas, farm walks, aerial observation of irrigation regions, workshops and visits to experimental scientific agricultural stations where research into water application and water management was in progress. The tour allowed a close study of the empirical world. ‘The empirical world is the world of the senses: the world you can see, hear, smell, touch, and (less frequently considered in the social sciences) taste’ (Esterberg, 2002: 5).

Sampling In the sampling for this thesis, I expected to find more reluctance to take part in the research than I actually experienced. I was concerned that fear by respondents to speak, from the viewpoint of a public servant for example, might influence the proposed respondent to refuse an interview. One prospective interviewee refused and that was a local government officer who said that he had little information to contribute. He did not attend any of the river management committee meetings. I initially phoned Federal and the New South Wales State government departments in charge of water resources or associated with aspects of agricultural production and asked for contacts in rural water management in the Murray-Darling Basin. From the telephone numbers given to me I contacted senior agency officers

141

who would be likely to have information on the subject matter needed. I developed a pool of potential interviewees. At several conferences, I met senior public service officers, bankers, farmers and others and requested interviews. I could complete the targeted sample number and from the experts in different fields, such as real estate, banking or social work, it was possible to fill gaps in knowledge that emerged as the data collection and analysis continued. I identified the key matters and relevant questions that would provide information and knowledge of: ‘how people’s thoughts, opinions, views, feelings, actions, strategies and interactions change in response to different conditions and contexts’ (May, 2008: 286).

Exiting the field When one is closely associated with a field of inquiry it is not possible to completely exit the field if general interest in the subject continues. Water availability changed over time and droughts, floods and long dry spells replaced one another in their random unpredictable manner in various parts of the Murray-Darling Basin during the middle years of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Drought breaking rains commenced in some areas in 2009 however not until the end of 2010 did most of the Murray-Darling Basin experience widespread relief. My interest in the field is ongoing and some of my respondents who are farmers, periodically inform me of the farm, their future planning programme and water- related matters.

142

Ethical research I found the senior officers in government departments or agencies employed as managers, whom I interviewed, were professional in their approach and clear about the areas of water management that it was their responsibility to direct. I used pseudonyms rather than real names to protect the identity of my respondents in accord with the ethical requirements of the University of New South Wales. The names italicised in this report are pseudonyms.

The respondents –expectations and change The respondents, both male and female, divide into two broad categories: ‘outsiders’ and ‘insiders’ a concept related to the location of people in rural society, their beliefs, values, obligations and sense of belonging to a particular place. For example, the environmentalists whom I interviewed did not live in the catchment areas investigated. In this sense, they are ‘outsiders’ to the people in the rural region. ‘Outsiders’ include senior officers or politicians representing government agencies at State or Federal level and business people whose head office lies beyond the local region and other experts in aspects of water reform. They manage various aspects of water policy, undertake research or influence policy decisions. Outsiders include private enterprise employees who belong to large corporations such as banking or real estate whose decisions reflect those of the central bank or real estate organisation. The insiders include farmers and local business people who have settled permanently in the region. The terms ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ followed Spriggs (1999) who referred to the composition of the River Management Committees, convened to draw up water sharing plans from 1997 to 2003 in the 143

Murray-Darling Basin, New South Wales. The representatives of different groups or water authorities, who became members of the River Management Committees, met for discussion during the compilation of water share plans. The work of the River Management Committees ended with the formation of the Catchment Management Authorities in 2004. The committees, through consensus agreement, established the rules for water management and sharing for inclusion in the Water Management Act 2000. I interviewed five people who had participated in these meetings. The term farmer indicates the dryland or irrigation broadacre farm manager. The term includes references to pastoralists, graziers, mixed farmers, horticulturalists and dairy farmers. Farm management in Australia means learning to work with the dry seasons. Management rests on expectations or a trust that having worked through similar experiences and circumstances and overcome difficulties, the farmer has the skills and knowledge to survive water shortfall. Pigram (2006) predicted that the future in farming would be the ‘ultimate demise of irrigation on a small scale’, and the total loss of irrigation from ‘some marginal areas’ (Pigram, 2006: 150). I could examine whether the managers of large agribusinesses trusted the future sufficiently to continue with farming after years of low water priorities and water shortfall from drought and water restrictions and cutbacks. I could also discover whether the family farm managers changed their plans for the future and if diminished access to water resources affected the tradition of intergenerational change. The government officers as managers of water reform approach the interview with knowledge based on their skills and training. The 144

concept ‘bureaucracy’ is regarded in the sense used by Max Weber. It is ‘the means of carrying “community action” over into rationally ordered “social action” ’ (Weber, 1974: 228). The Weberian concept, while outdated in many aspects in reference to the role of the modern senior government officer, remains useful in comparing the modern manager duties and responsibilities with those of the administrators. The sociological construct ‘trust’ is important in the performance of the role of the senior officer. He or she must act in a trustworthy manner. Failure to do so means that their authority is undermined (Pigram, 2006: 7). The modern senior officer manages water sources to meet stakeholder interests as indicated under the broad term ‘other purposes’ use of water (Water Management Act 2000. No 92: 1). The politicians’ role lies in making the decisions that the senior officers bring into the field of water management. Barber (1983) explained that the occupants of some roles are required to demonstrate fiduciary responsibility; that is, on some occasions they must put the interests of others before their own interests (Barber, 1983: 9). Politicians are answerable to the electorate, to their constituents and may allow their decisions about the allocation of water to be made to serve the interests of a broader social context rather than the interests of one ‘class’ group of farm managers. In drawing up the sample of respondents, a distinction was made between the small or the medium size farm enterprises and the large agribusiness corporations. Among the respondents interviewed are two farmers who managed the agriculture branch of their international organisations. I arranged interviews and discussions with a further eight respondents who were farmers. A dryland farmer working in the 145

medical field and two dryland graziers on medium sized properties were included. In some cases when interviewing a farm manager, a partner would arrive or other people would appear who wanted to add to the information. For example, Kath and Grant are married, as are Ruth and Dominic. Kath and Grant refused separate interviews and several other family members arrived during the interview. Their comments contributed to the discussion. The sample included ten respondents recruited for their specialised knowledge of reform. These included a banker, a real estate agent, two politicians, a local government engineer and an engineer working on the Snowy River water restoration project. A parliamentary secretary also agreed to a discussion of water reform in New South Wales. Part of her duties included keeping track of water legislation for parliamentarians and senior officers in New South Wales. The field study took place when there was international interest in the ownership of water and a keen awareness of the value of water as a commodity. To cover this area of enquiry I answered an advertisement in the weekly rural paper The Land, a popular long running rural newspaper. The advertisement, inserted by a water brokerage in Dubbo, was seeking clients interested in water trading. I also attended an auction of a Hillston grazing and irrigation property, located in western New South Wales. The auction took place in Sydney auction rooms.

Mountains, rivers and plains The empirical research focused on the Murray-Darling Basin and most of my field research focused on the Lachlan River Catchment region, that is representative of other major river catchment areas in the State. 146

The Lachlan River is a long, slow flowing, meandering western river that covers a geographical area of approximately 84,700 square kilometres. It supports a population of approximately 106,000 in central New South Wales. The industries in the region are predominantly agricultural (see Appendix 2. 1). The New South Wales Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) report provided a profile of the Lachlan River catchment. The river rises near Gunning (a mountainous region) and terminates in the Great Cumbung Swamp. The physical environment covers a range of features (DLWC, Lachlan Catchment, 1998: 1). The Lachlan is typical of inland rivers in their variable geophysical features as they rise in mountainous country and flow over sloping country to the western plains. The Lachlan River rarely reaches the Murrumbidgee River to flow on through the Murray-Darling Basin system. The deepest artesian basin bore on Yerinan where I lived was suitable for drinking purposes for both livestock and human use. Other bores that were not as deep and were more saline were suitable for watering livestock. The Murray-Darling Basin has approximately 30 major dams that capture water flows. The major dam on the Lachlan River, the Wyangala dam, has a capacity to hold 1, 220, 000 megalitres (ML) of water (DLWC, Lachlan Catchment 1998). The Great Artesian Basin lies beneath 22 per cent of the Australian continent and beneath much of the area covered by the Murray- Darling Basin. It is the largest artesian basin in the world and the ‘water storage is estimated to be 8, 700 million megalitres’ (Pigram, 2006: 24). Of the 4,700 bores taking water from the Artesian water source, 850 of them flow freely, that is, they are not capped and the 147

flow is not controlled. They are up to 100 years old and a few are older, dating from the late nineteenth century.

Interviews and conferences As I was a visitor to a farm as well as an interviewer, I could not choose the place for the interview within the homestead on the farm or exclude others from the interview. I decided to use a focus group technique for my interviews when more than one person was present as some family members refused separate interviews. I employed techniques, taken from Zeller (1993), who explained the methods that are useful in facilitating a focus group talk. In the light of this advice the respondents in the groups were encouraged to be ‘spontaneous, enthusiastic, articulate and informative’ to allow me to achieve the response objective as described by Zeller (1993: 182). I interviewed officers from both public and private organisations about their experience of water reform and interviewed one politician. Interviews were conducted in person or by telephone. On one occasion, I was asked to send the questionnaire via email to the respondent who was overseas at the time. He returned the email with information about his attendances at the River Management Committee meetings providing me with insight into the power relations operating in the field of water reform when the water share plans were drawn up. He provided the perspective of a manager of an agricultural conglomerate. It was important to interview participants who attended the water share meetings. They were engaged in drawing up the ‘environmental water rules for the area or water source’ (Water Management Act 2000 Chapter 2 Section 20: 1(a)). A number of my respondents remained in 148

touch with me when my research had ended enabling me to follow the outcome of their decisions about water management and intergenerational change. The respondents were people living and working in the Murray- Darling Basin or dealing with water policy within the Murray-Darling Basin. Approximately 80 per cent of respondents came from the central and Upper Lachlan River Catchment region. I kept detailed research diaries as a record of my progress. Prior to the commencement of my research, the day-to-day details found in electronic reports of the 2003 Kyoto Conference, held in Japan, on the world water supply, was an informative introduction to the global issues surrounding water management. It presented water control and ownership in a national and international context. The dominant ideas influencing water control, including the environmental movement views and western neo liberalism influencing the management of former public utilities, emerged from the Kyoto Conference. Limitations to the study of regional Australia by a single researcher arise in part from the travel distances required to cover such a vast region. The rules for water reform changed as amendments were made to legislation and new initiatives were introduced by government departments and by the cooperative efforts of the COAG meetings. Respondents were busy during drought time and extra work, both on and off-farm, feeding livestock, checking on watering points and considering options for management made giving interviews more arduous for farmers and townspeople who for example, possibly were coping with fewer employees if they worked in or owned a town business. However, I reached the planned quota of interviews.

149

To keep the study to a manageable size, I focused the field research on the regions bounded by Parkes, Cowra, Condobolin, Lake Cargelligo, and Forbes, in the Lachlan River Catchment. As part of the interview programme and participation observation technique I interviewed farmers and agency officers from the north eastern areas of New South Wales in the Murray-Darling Basin, southern Queensland and from western New South Wales in the Bourke region. These allowed me a broader perspective of water reform and its impact on people working on different types of farms in the Murray- Darling Basin. Field research was also undertaken in the Griffith, Leeton, Albury and Holbrook regions in the Murray and Murrumbidgee River Catchment areas. An outline of events that I attended or events that were reported, that were relevant to research, were recorded in my research diaries and the media clippings that followed the emerging conflicts were collated. The impact of water cutbacks generated discussion from widely varied perspectives such as environmentalists, senior officers, townspeople, academics, farmers and politicians.

Significance of the study There are several reasons why a study of the social impact of water reform on the farm sector and on rural communities is important. Lawrence, Lyons and Wallington (2010) argued that before the ‘global financial crisis’ became acute in 2008 a crisis in food and agriculture had already threatened social order in many parts of the developing world. It was the result of poverty among low-income families and rising food prices (Lawrence, Lyons and Wallington, 2010: 1). Civil unrest may increase as world populations expand and 150

more demands are made on food supplies. There will be new pressures on farming and water resources already struggling for sustainability as the global population expands. Food policy needs planning by leaders aware of their responsibilities to the people at different levels of the social structures that they lead. This study examines the challenges confronting food producers, the farmers in New South Wales. In Chapter Seven I examine water reform from the perspective of water managers, the senior officers dealing with water reform as government representatives. They manage water within the framework of the concepts ‘sustainable water resources management’ and ‘integrated water resources management’.

151

Chapter Seven Stewards of Water Resources

In the previous Chapter I discussed the steps in planning to research the impact of regulations under the Water Management Act 2000 on farmers in the Murray Darling Basin. I explained that ethical considerations are an important component of such research among people in smaller and more remote communities. It was important to protect the privacy of the respondents providing information as many people know each other or know of each other through family and friendship networks. They are smaller face-to- face communities. The respondents for the empirical research selected for a qualitative study belonged to two groups central to the reform, farmers and senior officers who had expertise in the field of water reform. The perspective of the senior officers, as representatives of government, is important and this Chapter reports on the interviews with these officers and the regulations that guide their involvement in water management. Three themes emerge during the literature search that informed the questions asked: water as property, trust in policy changes and the meaning of water resources. The senior officers who implement water reform adopt the role of ‘managers’ as they introduce water reform reflecting the interpretation of the principles ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’ under the New South Wales legislation. The Water Management Act 2000 was introduced in 2001, the year that drought commenced and spread throughout most of the

152

Murray-Darling Basin. When my field research commenced, in late 2003, irrigation and dryland broadacre farmers were experiencing their third year of drought. They were discovering the options and strategies that could help them survive drought and water allocation cutbacks as the reform procedures continued. In this Chapter I report the perceptions of the senior officers as they explain their role in relation to water reform and their understanding of the objectives. The senior officers are employed in government and semi-government and manage rural water in the jurisdiction that their work covers. I made an initial visit to the field that I had selected for my empirical research in the Upper Lachlan River Catchment. At a meeting of senior officers and farmers that I attended at Forbes, in December 2003, the farmers were told that community involvement in the river management committee programme was ending. This programme had commenced in 1997 when representatives of groups with an interest in water reform or that would be affected by water reform were recruited as river management committee members. The Catchment Management Authorities were more broadly representative of the whole river catchment in comparison with the River Management Committees that were locally representative of different sections of a river catchment. The Catchment Management Authorities were to replace the smaller committees. There were positions on the board of the water authorities that qualified people could apply for if they had the appropriate selection criteria to become a board member (Catchment Management Authorities, October 2003).

153

I listened as people expressed concern about the change to the full implementation of water reform by July 2004. There were an estimated 50 farmers at the meeting as well as other people from the community. One farmer asked if the environmental restoration work on public property, that he and others had put considerable time and effort into making successful, would continue. The senior officer who chaired the meeting was not sure that it would continue. He could give no answer to the question because he did not know if the new authority would offer him employment in a similar position to that he previously occupied. The first phase of water reform was winding down and a new regime for water management was commencing. I understood that people were uncertain about further change and this included the senior officers as well as the farmers. Under the ‘management’ policies of employment in government agencies I learned that the senior officers did not always have permanent employment, they worked for a set period on a particular project such as planning and implementing water reform. The farmer who asked if the environmental work his group was doing could be completed, appeared angry and impatient because they had worked hard to restore public land and if they could not finish the work then what they had done was a waste of effort. When the meeting continued with discussions of other matters the farmer left abruptly, his body language expressing his anger and frustration. The senior officer and the farmer were both uncertain about the future. My observation was that the organisational process of the transition was not taking place as smoothly as each participant, the senior officer or the farmer, would have preferred.

154

I spoke to Jane, a senior officer employed by Lachlan Water and she said that she wanted to continue with her work when the new department was established but if she needed to transfer to another town it would mean hours of travel each day. Jane would resign from her department because she could not commit that time. She could understand the anger of the farmer but could not offer an answer for him about whether the restorative environmental work would receive funding to continue. The meeting was held at a local club, there was no government venue large enough to hold all the people who were sent the information about the meeting. In 2005 I attended an opening of a new building for the water authority on the Lachlan River. There was a crowd of people, possibly one hundred in attendance. The building was essential because it could bring experts in various areas of water management together under the one roof. I heard comments from senior officers near where I stood about the relatively few farmers who attended as they thought more farmers would have been there. The drought had continued without a break and farmers were busy on their farms and did not attend any event unless it was necessary. Dominic, a dryland farmer had told me about the opening of the building. Although I asked him if he would attend he pointed out that it would have been more than a one hundred kilometre round journey from his farm to the opening venue. Then he went off to work on the farm, indicating that he had other things to do. It appeared that the changes to water management brought mixed responses from farmers and senior officers.

155

Management priorities Shari, the agricultural economist specialises in working out the economic impact of water reform and generating ideas about ways to fund environmental flows. He wanted to establish a central organisation to purchase water for the government to use that they could divert for environmental flows. He said that any person or organisation could contribute to such a fund, through money donations or even water entitlements. He provided me with a paper by Jayasuriya (2004: 77-91) ‘Modelling the regional and farm-level economic impacts of environmental flows for regulated rivers in New South Wales’, that researched the change in the earning capacity of mixed farms under water cutback programmes. Shari said that the modelling work he did would not address the social impact of water reform on farming and rural communities. However, he agreed it was essential to establish an interdisciplinary team to discover the impact of reforms on agricultural communities. Another senior officer, Roland, was the manager of the sector of a government authority that approved water abstraction entitlements. Roland said that all water allocation approvals passed through his office in the southern New South Wales water jurisdiction where he worked. He was concerned that farmers had lost a lot of their water entitlement and said that, ‘We are going to take more water from them’ (Field notes. December 2004). Roland said that farmers were simple people who just wanted to get on with their work and he repeated that they were yet to lose a lot more water. That was proposed for 2005 when the drought would enter its fourth year. Both Shari and Roland were concerned about the social impact that 156

water reform was having on the farm communities. These impacts are explained in Chapter Eight where I explore farmers’ responses to water reform. Shari appreciated the discipline that economic rationalism principles allowed him in his work. He worked for the DIPNR. When the five year preparation for water reform ended and the agency that employed him had completed its work, his employment continued in another department.

Property relations. COAG agreements and initiatives Two documents are important in understanding the role of senior officers as they implement reform and the principles guiding water management. The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) National Water Initiative (2004) has shaped national water policy. The intent was to apply the principles of the National Water Initiative until 2014. A reading of the report informed me that the Intergovernmental Agreement would further institutionalise reform for water use and emphasise economic and environmental outcomes. The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (April 2004) in a Senate Report, ‘Rural water resource usage’ (paragraph 2. 22) presents a summary of rules under the National Water Initiative that need clarification. The key elements of the 2004 Intergovernmental Agreement derived from the ongoing COAG consultations were: Water access entitlements will be defined generally as perpetual access to a share of the water resource available for consumption. Statutory recognition for water will be provided to ensure environmental outcomes. 157

Over allocated water systems are to return to sustainable use levels. A formula is to be developed to assign the risk of a future reduction in water availability between water users and governments. Water trade in connected systems is to be encouraged through increased efficiency in administrative arrangements. Institutional barriers to trade in water are to be removed. A water access entitlement must be held for any new land use activity likely to intercept significant volumes of water. Continued implementation of reforms to allow the full-cost recovery in pricing for water in both urban and rural sectors is required (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, 2004, April).

In the DIPNR (2004-05) annual report in New South Wales it was noted that thirty-one water share plans commenced in July 2004 and at the time eighty per cent of the surface water resources of New South Wales were from regulated rivers, that is, rivers controlled by dams, weirs and so forth. ‘Approximately 7,000 Water Act 1912 licences’ were converted to Water Access Licences under the Water Management Act 2000 (New South Wales). The new (Amended) Act commenced on 1 July 2004. In that year more than 9,300 licences, covering over 8,000 gigalitres of water per annum, were placed on the Land and Property Information (LPI) register. They had a title similar to a land title. A certification system allowed the register to issue licence holders with their certificate of title (DIPNR Annual Report 2004-05: 5). 158

Leisha a farmer brought her title for water for her irrigation farm to my attention. It was a decorative document indicating the change in the status of water, from public property to water shares with a title similar to a farmland title. It is notable that water captured for any new land use activity likely to intercept significant volumes of water must have a licence and failure to obtain this licence restricted the further development of farmland. One other notable feature in relation to the social impact of reform on farm communities was the emphasis on the ‘marketisation’ of a former public utility. Under ‘user pays’ principles water was a property and rules governing trading were also introduced. Barriers to trade would be removed as it became feasible todo so and water transferability would be encouraged. The costing of water made significant inroads into farm access to water however, the market competition regulations could have far-reaching outcomes that could impact on the entire river community. Premier Bob Carr had mentioned in the weeks prior to his re- election, in March 2003, that water should be a property in its own right with a title similar to a land title. The Land and Property Information register gave certification for the water property rights that Premier Carr had mentioned. The Department of Infrastructure Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) established the administrative arrangements for further reform in 2004.

Managing water reform Thirteen Catchment Management Authorities were established in New South Wales to manage natural resources and to facilitate the implementation of the Water Management Act 2000. It was 159

envisaged that the Authorities would allow people in a river community to have more input into key decisions on the management of natural resources. The Authorities were also a means for State and Commonwealth governments to channel incentives to land managers to, ‘achieve restoration and improvements of the natural resources of the State’ (Catchment Management Authorities, 2004: 1). State and the Commonwealth governments would provide funding and a Chairperson and up to seven Board members would sit on the boards and report annually to the Minister. The New South Government established procedures so that the Board could ensure ‘accountability, transparency and fairness’ (DIPNR, Annual Report 2004-05: 5). In January 2004 the thirteen Catchment Management Authorities for New South Wales were established through the Catchment Management Authority Act 2003. The DIPNR together with the Catchment Management Authorities implemented the Living Murray initiative in 2005 that included a planned return of 500 gigalitres of water for environmental flows to the Murray River system (DIPNR Annual Report 2004-05). Groundwater was also coming under the scrutiny of the Authority. Geoffrey, of the Lachlan Water Authority, told me in an interview that he was drawing up plans to regulate groundwater use and to establish the charges for water under the new arrangements. The Director General of the DIPNR, in her annual review, found that the year (2004-2005) had brought extraordinary achievements in implementing reform in ‘land use planning and natural resource management’ (DIPNR Annual Report, 2004-05).

160

Six objectives of the water management schemes are set down in the water management section of the New South Wales State Government report: Water should be allocated sustainably between both the users and the environment. Water management is to include representatives of regional communities Water entitlements are to be more secure. Each catchment should have a clear health objective. The most valuable economic use of the water resources of the State will be encouraged through the economic mechanism of ‘an open and fair water market’. The health of the rivers would be protected while strong agricultural communities would be maintained (DIPNR Annual Report, 2004-05). The objective was to balance economic, social and environmental elements of reform. In formulating water management rules each would receive equal consideration. However, the task was more difficult because, in encouraging the most valuable economic uses of the water resources through open market competition, farmers must compete with other industries or town water suppliers willing to pay more for water. It is difficult for water managers to balance environmental, economic and social outcomes in these circumstances. The farming industry is a major employer and export earner. There are 38,051 farms in New South Wales (National Farmers Federation, 2011). Over the 30 year period from 1974-75 to 2003-04, ‘Australian farms’ have consistently achieved average ‘multifactor 161

productivity growth’ of 2.8 per cent per annum. The farmers in Australia produce 93 per cent of the daily domestic food supply and export 60 per cent of the total agricultural production, that is, 76 per cent of the ‘total gross value of Australian agricultural production’ (National Farmers Federation, 2011). Even though farmers were experiencing the worst drought on record they ‘earned the country $32.1 billion’ in 2009. These earnings represented 11.9 per cent of total commodity exports and 14.7 per cent of all Australian merchandise exports’ (National Farmers Federation, 2011). In its flow-on impact, Australian agriculture has significant links to various sectors of the Australian economy. It supports the ‘employment of 1.6 million Australians in farming and related industries’ in city and regional areas. ‘As of November 2009, 318,000 people were directly employed on Australian farms’ (National Farmers Federation, 2011). A fundamental activity on the farms is Natural Resource Management and 94.3 per cent of farms engage in restorative work (National Farmers Federation, 2011). The irrigation industry and farming generally provide a valued monetary contribution to the state and the nation. The farm industries faced pressures as the first decade of the twenty-first century commenced. Discussions with Geoffrey, a senior officer employed by Lachlan Water, helped me understand the complexities of the problem of water sharing, priorities of use and the role of the senior officers. Farmers and other water users were issued with water abstraction licences that led to the over allocation of water resources by 1989. This situation was possible under the rules of the Water Act 1912 that encouraged farmers, as the largest users of water, to use as much water as needed on their farmland. As new stakeholders 162

demanded their share, the list of stakeholders grew. Geoffrey explained that by the 1990s it was clear that things had to change. He had worked on water reform plans for several years. Each stakeholder had a lower entitlement as the pool of water to draw from had to cover requests from an increased number of stakeholders and the various water abstraction entitlements under general security licences, high security licences and others. In the Lachlan Catchment general security licence holders, growing pasture for dairying or other forms of grazing and crops including rice production, had received a zero water allocation on their general security licences for the second consecutive year by 2004. Jane, the senior officer employed by Lachlan Water, informed me that the licence holders had three out of four years with a zero water allocation by 2005. Geoffrey was concerned about the farmers and their survival strategies when some irrigators had experienced three years of a zero water allocation. Geoffrey said this would occur the following year also as no drought breaking rain was predicted during 2005 – 06. Farmers could not keep water savings to expand their irrigation farm area as was the custom, they could not ‘go there’. Roland, a senior officer in the agency that allocated water shares showed his concern that water entitlements for farming were diminishing. More water would be taken from the farmers that year and further water cutbacks would be made, he said. Each of the senior officers was concerned about the loss of water from the farming industry. They were unsure about what strategies they could take to relieve the responsibilities of the farmers to pay water licence fees when they had no income from irrigation.

163

Shari the agricultural economist thought that all water users should pay the full cost of water management and for storing and delivering the water used, including the farmers. He believed in the benefit of ‘user pays’ principles. Farming was a business like any other business and water was a commodity like any other commodity in the perception of Shari. He described water reform as a ‘good thing’ for the nation as water is worth money and, ‘When it is transferred it will be used most beneficially’. Jane and Geoffrey approved of economic mechanisms, such as ‘users pay’ principles to allocate water because if it hurt farmers in the ‘hip pocket’ then they would save water. Shari, Jane and Geoffrey were referring to the concept that Alston (2010) termed ‘marketisation’ whereby the users of former public utilities and services pay for most if not all of the costs. Geoffrey and Jane recognised that farmers were experiencing significant economic pressure due in part to the water reform cutbacks and partially because of the long drought. Geoffrey said that the water reforms did not benefit the farmers. The 2004-05 report from the DIPNR found that the pressures on farming came from ‘drought, climate change, increasing competition for water between human and environmental needs’ and different types of human use. The water year 2004-05 was the third year of drought in most areas of New South Wales (DIPNR Annual Report 2004-05). It was interesting to observe that the water initiatives and reports stated that they encouraged strong agricultural communities and while the pressure that farmers faced mounted, there was little public discussion in the media of ways to relieve the situation.

164

Water managers The public service traditionally acted through procedural arrangements and rules for work performance, as I noted above; these were replaced ‘by economic theories and provision by markets’ (Hughes, 2003: vi). Management principles replaced the administration principles for water management. Geoffrey found it difficult to accept that general security irrigation water licence owners, as the largest users of rural water, were reluctant to sell their water resource rights despite economic hardship. Geoffrey commented that farmers held the view that the water resources were part of their farming asset in a similar way to the farmland. ‘Management’ of water by the senior officers breaks with the traditional rules for administration and the structure of the work performance that Max Weber described (Gerth and Mills, 1974: 198- 203; and Weber, 1964: 333-34). Instead of following set rules, senior officers have greater flexibility in their work and there are in-built controls to ensure they fulfil the objectives of the department. Other officers can monitor their work if required. Hughes (2003) explained that this means to ‘trust’ and have mechanisms in place to check that the work is performed according to regulatory standards. ‘Trust is required of a manager’, in that they are given a task and then ‘left to do it, without detailed oversight’. Should the work be later checked to see if it was completed appropriately this in no way takes away, ‘the sense of trust given to the manager in the first place’ (Hughes, 2003: 250). In each aspect of interrelations between the farmers and the senior officers, the bestowal of trust is important.

165

Administrators focused on ‘process’ and in contrast, the ‘public manager’ has a ‘genuine responsibility for results’ (Hughes, 2003: 6). Shari did not deal with the public directly however, he readily accepted my request for an interview when I met him at a conference at Orange, New South Wales. He supported economic rationalism principles perceiving them to be in the interests of both farm managers and managers of water resources in various government departments and agencies. Water was worth money, he argued, and therefore would be used to the greatest economic benefit. Roland and Geoffrey were more cautious about the social outcome of the reforms for the farmers and their agricultural communities. The managers whom I approached provided valued insight into water management and were cooperative and knowledgeable. Each was willing to answer my questions. During the interviews Geoffrey, Shari and Jane through their personal comments and attitudes as well as their professional responses allowed their understanding of reform to be explained. Each was committed to the theory of economic rationalism, whereas Geoffrey said the reforms did not benefit farmers, Shari gave this little consideration and Jane was unsure. The general water uses include growing cotton, rice and different types of grain crops or pasture growth in the dairying industries. Shari appeared convinced that the irrigation water should be used wherever it would bring the greatest benefit and he suggested that the benefit should be assessed on economic values. Water should reach its highest value earning capacity if freed of restrictive ties to a place. He said that more trading should develop as reform was only then (2004-05) at ‘beginners level’. Shari explained that he would like to be part of an

166

interdisciplinary study that included social science work on the social outcome of water reform. The public interest in drought was increasing by April 2005 as it continued to spread through the eastern States of Australia. I asked two senior officers who were dealing with water allocations what rainfall was necessary before irrigation water allocations were made. Each stated that a fall of rain sufficient to restore the water levels in the dams and replenish other water systems was necessary.

Trade in water An initial cutback to water allocations for general security water licences came from the rules for drawing up water share plans at River Management Committee meetings. The plan was to initiate a 10 per cent minimum cutback in water licences in the Lachlan River Catchment region (Jane, Lachlan Water, 2005). The regulations allowed both dryland and irrigation farmers to retain 10 per cent of the surface water that flowed over the farm, Jane observed. Jane was also concerned that general security licence holders were receiving zero allocation when high security licence holders received more water. She said that farmers should consider changing to high security licences. The uses for the high security licences include fruit, nut, melon and grapes grown for wine production. However, it is difficult and costly to change farm practices, for example to change from a grain grower to a fruit grower. Infrastructure changes, new machinery, land contouring and tree purchases are some of the requirements. There are several years to wait while trees and vines reach a production stage before farmers are receiving an income from the monetary investment. 167

Geoffrey of the Lachlan Water authority considered there was much work to be done before the problems of water reform were fully worked out. As an advisor on government water policy Geoffrey said that if he wanted to contact a politician he picked up the phone and called the Minister. He was very involved in planning water use and he had participated in the River Catchment Committee meetings. As the former owner of a broadacre irrigation farm he had an extensive knowledge of water availability, seasonal changes and water policy in the region. I spoke to his wife when I first established contact with Geoffrey as she ran the smaller farm they had purchased when they sold a larger farm. She said that two problems were significant to her at that time, relating to water shortfall; keeping her garden alive and educating the children. The drought cut farm family incomes she said and most farm children would need to earn the cost of at least part of their own education if they decided to go on to tertiary training. If the farm could not be passed on to the next generation then tertiary education was essential. She said her husband was very busy with work and if she could help to take some of the pressure from him she would like me to interview her instead. After I had talked to her Geoffrey did ring back and made a time for his interview. Geoffrey, as a senior officer from Lachlan Water requested that the Minister in charge of water at that time (2005) waive, rather than postpone the irrigation water licence fees charged. His reason was that following three years of drought out of four years, when general security licences had no irrigation water allocation the farmers should have the licence fees waived. Eventually the government agreed to postpone, rather than waive the licences. Geoffrey said the farmers 168

should not pay licence fees for water they did not receive. Earlier in 2005 the Lachlan Water Authority had made a submission to the government with this request and it was rejected (Geoffrey. Lachlan Water Authority, 2005). Geoffrey thought that it was unjust to increase charges for water when the farmer had received no irrigation water for two years. I saw a copy of a letter written by the Lachlan Water manager in protest about increased water charges. Geoffrey said that his agency (Lachlan Water) lodged an appeal to the Courts because the farmers were in the fourth year of drought, they had zero water allocations and they were paying licence fees for water they had not received. They would need to pay their back fees owing, before they could access irrigation water when it became available. Before matters reached a Court appearance stage, the Minister in charge of water pricing, having reviewed the matter, decided in favour of the submission by Lachlan Water. Jane, a senior officer employed by Lachlan Water, explained that the charges for irrigation water management came from the IPART (Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal) organisation. That authority assessed costs relevant to the management of the infrastructure, its maintenance and general administration (Jane, Lachlan Water, 2005). Geoffrey had lived in the central and southern New South Wales Murray-Darling Basin region all his life and understood the expectations that farmers held of water access from the Lachlan River Catchment. He said that normally the river flow was supplemented by moisture from snow melt flowing down from the mountain ranges. In 2004 and 2005 there were lighter falls of snow and that left little snow melt to supplement rainfall and increase the water resources of the irrigation system. 169

In the light of their small (or zero) water allocations the option open to farmers to request that their licence fees be postponed should be taken up by farmers said Geoffrey. ‘Waiving’ licence fees meant that the farmer had no further responsibility for paying the fees. As the government authority refused to allow farmers to have fees waived, Geoffrey explained that they should take up the option to have them postponed. If they did not take up the option then the government might decide that the farmers had plenty of money and did not need to have the fees waived. The government decided to permit farmers to postpone their fees, a move Geoffrey described as the government: ‘Playing the game.’ This statement of Geoffrey’s suggests that he thinks that farmers receive only a very small concession because fees must be paid prior to a further water delivery. Adrian Piccoli is the Member for Murrumbidgee in southern and central New South Wales. He said that the farmers could borrow money to pay postponed fees in order to have a water delivery and still have no crop sales or enough pasture to keep animals alive if there was no following rain to supplement the initial water allocation. Borrowing money was risky and some farmers had told Piccoli that they had run out of credit and could not borrow any more so they would not be able to pay the postponed licence fees. Piccoli, in his submission from the floor of Parliament requested that the government waive water licence fees, because he declared that where else are people expected to pay for something they do not receive? He was anxious that they would lose their farm and be lost to the industry. The rules for the postponement of fees encouraged farmers to sell their general security licences because keeping them was too costly. 170

Encouragement to sell the licences would accord with the objective to free water from ties to the farmland, a view that Shari the agricultural economist had explained. There was a further option for farmers to buy water back once their licence was sold, however, it was unlikely that farmers would do so, as Piccoli explained. He said that water shares were rising in cost and the farmers would not buy water entitlements back if the cost was so high that it made irrigation unprofitable. Piccoli said that the rules for repayment could send a farmer bankrupt if they had to borrow from their bank to pay licence fees before they had a water delivery. Some of the licence fee payments owed, mentioned by respondents in the interviews, ranged from $20,000 to $90,000 per farm. Borrowing was risky as after three years of drought (by April 2005), if the crop failed then it was Piccoli’s concern that farmers could go bankrupt. Piccoli, as a parliamentarian was viewing water reform from the wider perspective of the impact on society in general if the farm industry took a massive loss and there was a considerable loss of farmers. He said that the next generation of farmers was not returning to the farm and that a generation of farmers is being lost. He was concerned about food security as there was mention of people in different parts of the world experiencing extreme hunger because of conflict over water resources or drought or both. Gregory a farmer, was reluctant to lease his irrigation water licence on a temporary basis because he said if he did that the government might think he did not want the water and take it from him altogether. In the reports by Geoffrey and Gregory it was apparent that there was an erosion of trust by both a senior officer and the farmer as they 171

perceived that government support for the farming industry was declining further. When questioned about water transfers out of the district, Geoffrey did not see that water from the Lachlan River Catchment could be transferred away from the valley because only once in twenty years did water flow from the Lachlan River to join the Murrumbidgee River. Geoffrey said, ‘We manipulate the water, we don’t let it flow out.’ Given sufficient economic resources and a motivation the local water could be diverted elsewhere, as other river populations had found. I was mindful of the research on the Snowy River in Australia when I found that all but one per cent of that river was diverted during the 1970s. As mentioned earlier, on page 74, much of the Owens Valley River water, in the United States of America was diverted to service the city of Los Angeles, for its development and expansion. The Owens River lost almost all of its water, as did the Snowy River. Geoffrey was socialised into the culture of the Lachlan River catchment from a very young age. The Lachlan River itself held special meaning for him as became apparent when he spoke of it. His perception differed from that of Shari who described the local waterways and water management in terms of transferable and tradeable commodities. Shari thought that the highest value use of water would be most beneficial for society. I watched the Lachlan River, hoping to see what Geoffrey and others saw in it. When I observed it in 2004 and again in 2005 it was mud brown and flowing very slowly, if at all, near Forbes. In 2004, I noted that the surface of the water mirrored the blue sky and the straggle of trees on the riverbank. 172

Geoffrey was critical of the farmers who took water from the ‘too many’ unregulated sections of the river. He wanted tighter control of the unregulated water and of the groundwater sources. Geoffrey also criticised farmers who attended the meetings when the votes were taken for the water share plan. Some farmers failed to mention one licence they could use at particular times, then when the water share plan was complete the farmers with the unlisted licences asked: ‘Where are we?’ This licence was for permission to pump water when the rivers reached a particular level and there was adequate water for licences with a higher priority for water access. The plans had to be redrawn causing concern among the committee members who had overlooked that particular licence. The officers from the various water departments ‘had to go back to the drawing board’ said Geoffrey and start the process of water share planning again. It appeared that different undercurrents were at work in drawing up the water share plans. Although Geoffrey said that the government was ‘playing a game’ with the farmers by postponing water licence fees rather than waiving them, it appeared that some farmers might also be playing a game by not mentioning a particular water access entitlement until all the plans were finalised. Geoffrey appeared to straddle two worlds, as an insider to the local community and as an objective observer working in water management as a senior officer. Geoffrey explained that many owners of general security licences were farm managers who did not want to trade them. The general security licences had zero allocations that left the general security irrigation farmers with no water once again in 2004-05. The farmers seemed to keep their water entitlements as they did the farms and Geoffrey remarked that ‘they’ (meaning the 173

authorities) had thought the farmers would sell their water entitlements. Maurice is a field officer and manages a semi-government agency that provides clients with information about their water allocation status. He had reservations about the water policies, particularly about the privatisation of water and the way farmers became locked in to accepting less water than they needed. Through the COAG policies the tranche payments from the Commonwealth Government were designed to encourage water reform. Farmers in New South Wales were accepting cutbacks to their water supplies without an offer of financial recompense. Maurice referred to this when he said that farmers were locked into the reforms and were accepting less water than they needed. The Commonwealth Government may have released some of the tranche payments to the State Governments with the provision that the loss of water by the farmers should be reimbursed. The Commonwealth Government did not do this. At the start of water reform there was a flurry of sales of high security water licences, said Geoffrey. The high security licences had smaller water allocations than general security licences but their water was secure. The reasoning was that it took years to replace trees and to bring an economic return so if they died many years of income was lost. The high security irrigation water was used to grow nuts, fruit of various kinds, wine grapes and other products. In contrast general security water grew annual crops and pastures. The flurry of trade in high security licences that commenced in 2001 had ended by 2003 (Jane, Lachlan Water).

174

A casualty of the lack of water trading was a business that started up to handle water sales. The Water Bank located at Dubbo, central New South Wales, advertised for clients in regional newspapers and I responded to one of the advertisements in 2003 placed in The Land, a weekly rural paper and was told that anyone could purchase water shares. Several months later I phoned again to inquire about water trade and a message bank took the calls. My calls were not returned and within one year the phone in that western town was disconnected. I spoke to a stock and station agent, Libby who said that her firm handled their own water sales that year (2005). She did not know what had happened to the local branch of Water Bank. I asked Geoffrey about the water trade prospects, as a senior officer at Lachlan Water he had knowledge of various aspects of water management and trade. He said that the trade had died because farmers saw the water prices increase and became aware that in the future they would be unable to afford to buy from the water market at the higher price if they sold their water rights. They held on to the general security licences although it was a hardship for some irrigation farmers. Some of the earlier water sales were necessary to pay farm debt (Dominic), although, there was no point in owning the irrigation farm if the water was sold. Geoffrey said the irrigation farms were too small to run as dryland farms. They were usually less than half the size needed for dryland farming. Geoffrey explained that if the government agreed to defer the payment of the water licence fees then the problem ‘hypothetically’ was that if $30,000 was deferred from this year to next year and if the $30,000 goes on for three years, ‘…which is likely, $90,000 would be

175

expected from the farmer’, before they could ‘turn the irrigation pump on’. Adrian Piccoli, the New South Wales parliamentarian said that government policy makers and their advisers decide on the rules and that the governments could change them. He had asked unsuccessfully for the rules to be changed. Geoffrey suggested that irrigation farmers use a ‘continuous accounting scheme’ for water that could benefit them. It required careful planning. If water was not all used one year the allocation could be carried forward for up to five years. He said that farmers could use their water allocation in year five and have one good season. Alternatively, they could sow a big crop in years two or three. The option was available through the continuous water accounting structure and farmers would know that in one or two years out of five, for example, they would have a reasonable income (Geoffrey). Immediately questions came to mind about media mentions, during 2003 and 2004, of rusting farm machinery that was lying unused for two years, while the farmers paid interest on the loans taken out to purchase the machinery. If there were zero irrigation allocations in the two years following the machinery purchase then crops were not sown. The expensive farm machinery could lie unused and rusting. If there were several years of zero water allocation then the plan for the continuous accounting scheme might not be feasible. Water trading was facing problems related to managing the different licences and the different restrictions that were bearing on the sales of the licences. The auction sales of water shares could be simplified said Geoffrey. At an auction, raising a hand for a bid and giving a nod to the auctioneer for acceptance, is the normal practice. If 176

water is tied to a farm loan the transactions are more complicated. Freeing up water trading required changing the bidding system and a variation in the current water licence system (Geoffrey). If the water licence is sold it has to be cleared first from mortgage ties, and this takes time (Ronald, banker). The licence must be cleared of the fees owing under the government agreement to postpone irrigation licence payments if there is a zero water allocation. Ronald stated that, ‘Most of the farmers want to keep their collateral in their farm loan secure and when the drought is over they will reorganise their loans’. Ronald added that farmers ‘Don’t want to make the loan they depend on insecure’. The loans that Ronald mentioned had been approved when irrigation water was tied to the farmland. Ronald said that whatever arrangements the banks made as water and farmland were no longer tied the farmers agreed to accept. They need the security of the loan, he said. In his experience in only one instance did a farmer not agree to the new terms of the loan (Ronald). The Water Management Act 2000 (Ch. 3 S. 78 1(c) set the rules establishing that the Water Access Licences may be suspended or cancelled if fees are not paid before a water delivery. The problem was twofold, firstly, the fees were payable when there were zero water allocations and secondly, the licence fees actually increased: ‘It’s probably your biggest topic at the moment’ (in the water year 2005- 06) said Geoffrey. The water managers were flexible in their approach to their work activities. They discussed their field of expertise and then allowed a glimpse of their own more individual ideas about water reform. For example, Geoffrey agreed that economic rationalism was beneficial to 177

water reform itself although he indicated that the changes that management brought to water access for farmers were not helpful to them. Geoffrey thought that the charges levied on water licences should be waived by the government after two years if farmers had zero water allocations for that period of time. Shari was convinced that economic rationalism theory and the principles of integrated water resources management gave discipline to his work. He wanted barriers to trade removed so that water could trade across state borders. Other water managers addressed water management from the perspective of their area of expertise, such as Maurice whose evaluation of water policies was that they left farmers locked in to accepting less water than they needed. Jane thought that the management policies would work eventually. The managers comply with the objectives of the agency or government department that employs them. Each accepted economic rationalism ideas and their perception of water reform reflected the skills and training that prepared them for their role in water management. Water sharing and sales opened up new options for water management and it also brought new players such as investors and a wide array of stakeholders into the water industry.

Traditions and change Intergenerational change is an important tradition for the more than 90 per cent of farms that are family owned and managed, in New South Wales. Geoffrey, the senior officer explained that if water was available and farmers could make water savings they could not keep the water they saved. They could put in expensive water savings devices to use water more effectively and it made no difference to the 178

rules. Prior to water reform, by saving water or seeking further access to a water licence entitlement, the farmer would expand his business. The expansion in general earned income to support the family of a son or daughter so that they could return to the farm to learn the management skills and eventually take over the farm. This tradition of intergenerational change was impossible now for many farmers, as Adrian Piccoli had predicted. Geoffrey said that the department told farmers: ‘You cannot go there’, when they wanted to keep their water savings. He said that the reforms in this sense did not benefit farmers. It was difficult to understand the logic of this when businesses in Australia are encouraged to expand, said Geoffrey. He explained that when a request was made of farmers, because of the contradictory nature of the regulations, the farmers were becoming distrustful when told of a new requirement and they would ask what the government planned to gain. If it was in their interests the farmers would agree to the proposal. Geoffrey affirmed that farmers were losing their trust in the requests made of them and in the water reform policy. Geoffrey argued that water should be a property and traded with no constraints on where, when and how it would be used. He said there should be one government in charge and that should be the Commonwealth Government. He said that the Commonwealth says one thing and the States say another at present (2005). In telling the farmer that they, ‘Can’t go there’, cannot keep the saved water to expand their farm business, it leads to a loss of trust. Nevertheless, as Geoffrey stated, ‘The farmers do not sell their water licences as they were expected to do’.

179

‘Probably’ where the water sharing plan has, ‘Gone a little bit wrong,’ said Geoffrey, is because the Lachlan River Valley was not totally developed but in a ‘modern development stage’ when the water sharing plans were introduced. He said that, ‘Stretches of the river remain uncontrolled by a state owned dam’. The major water storage unit in the Lachlan Catchment is the Wyangala Dam. Geoffrey said that when rain falls or snow melts in the catchment it is often ‘scooped up’ before it flows downstream. Every water user is effected by the actions of the few. Roland remarked that Lake Cargelligo water levels were very low between 2002-05. Prior to the increasingly extended drought periods over the last quarter of the twentieth century, the long weekends and holiday times brought people from distant places to camp by the lakes and the rivers. Hardly anyone went there now. Lake Cargelligo is a lake designed to store water and it has strong aesthetic appeal in a semi-arid region and traditions centred on water sports. These include fishing, tourism and water skiing. Roland, a water manager who worked in the section of the DIPNR that arranged water entitlements, said that he believed that the people would return for their holidays when the lake had useful water in it again. I had visited the Lake earlier, in the year 2000 when many people were swimming, fishing, boating or enjoying the view and the coolness of being near the water during the hot summer (February 2000). The main street of Lake Cargelligo had a throng of people waiting at a store for a take-away lunch. I went to the same store on a long weekend in 2005 at approximately the same time of day when there should have been many people there but the store was empty as were the streets in the town. There were a small number of people by 180

the lakes and in the camping ground. There was very little water in Lake Cargelligo in comparison to my last visit. The shores were muddy and it would be difficult to walk over to the water. Roland felt optimistic that water levels in the lake would improve, ‘When it rains’. Local cultural and sporting traditions were changing and there was less certainty about the future although the views expressed to me were consistently optimistic about an improvement in the water supply.

The social impact of water reform The quiet town of Lake Cargelligo in 2005 symbolised the stress that water shortfall placed on the community. A number of shops in the town were empty, some were for sale and others had rental signs in the windows. Jon, a pilot who had a crop dusting business near Forbes said that in 2004, his business, spraying irrigation crops, was in steady decline as it had been since 2002. He was selling his plane and moving away. He said that several crop duster planes were for sale, as there was little work. Nancy, a community relations officer from Condobolin, who was also training as a psychologist, was encouraged by the positive steps taken by women in remote communities in western New South Wales, in 2005 and 2006, linking with other families to ensure that no person would feel isolated or depressed. They were organising self-help groups and depending on their own resources to fund their activities and give active support through the drought. Nancy said that her office offered assistance though: ‘As western women do’ they raised their

181

own funds to finance their support groups. They did not rely on outside help. When I met Jean, a co-ordinator of community services, in western New South Wales, she endorsed Nancy’s observations, through her experience both as community services co-ordinator and as a farmer. Jean’s work required her to travel over a vast region in western New South Wales and her base was the office that linked different services such as health, Aboriginal and employment services. Jean remarked on the resilience of rural people during a stressful time. Jean is a partner in a family farm as well as a community services employee. She emphasised the importance of family farm networks in the survival strategies of the family farms. For example, she and her husband borrowed their farm machinery and in return gave their labour to other family members’ farms. The families support each other by providing material and physical resources, therefore Jean and her husband did not go into debt to purchase farm machinery. Jean’s occupations placed her as both farmer and as an officer in a semi- government organisation. A community social worker Ann, was concerned over the growing mentions of suicide by people who felt that they could no longer cope with the lack of income from the lack of rainfall due to the long drought and uncertainty about water access entitlements for the future. The breaking down of established certainties, of the norms of farming where seasonal work was rewarded with a harvest left farmers feeling despondent and seeking alternative ways of living in the world. Gray and Lawrence (2001) used the concept ‘detraditionalisation’ to describe the process whereby rural society must change. As people become free from social structures and monitor themselves they are 182

reflexive and this becomes a ‘central feature’ of detraditionalisation (Gray and Lawrence, 2001: 163). Change is occurring and some people cannot cope. The experiences that Ann described indicated the emergence of ‘social exclusion’ among some members of society. This is a process of becoming disadvantaged through no fault of one’s own that is described by Alston as including the times when people do not take part in key social activities as they would normally do (2010: 30-31). Ann pointed out that some people no longer come in to town as usual to attend functions and meetings. Nancy ensured that her work with people allowed them to come together and support one another. Several farmers to whom I spoke had a high regard for her competence and compassion in a difficult role. Nancy’s work was invaluable and she was a special person doing a very good job among people in western regions who were encountering uncertain futures (Sandy, office manager and farmer).

Property ownership and change Ann commented on the lack of communication between farmers in the different regions of the state. The dryland dairy farmers near the coast of New South Wales experienced the same drought starting in 2001 that their peers in western districts experienced. They wanted to move to irrigation farms and away from the coast. Ann said that some farmers near Forbes discussed selling out their farms and water entitlements and moving away from the irrigation to the western dryland areas. They had lost faith in irrigation farming. At the same time, in 2005, Ann learned that other farmers were enquiring about purchasing an irrigation farm to use for dairying because they wanted 183

an assured supply of irrigation water. They were unaware of the trend to move out of irrigation. I enquired of the proposed changes by asking Libby, the stock and station agent in the Forbes-Condobolin region, about farmers moving into irrigation areas. Libby said that she had several enquiries about the possibility of purchasing irrigation farms for dairying and that enquiries were coming from farmers on dryland farms on the coast. They seemed unaware of the low allocations for irrigation water. Some farmers still held the idea that irrigation water would drought proof the land. I followed this line of enquiry to discover if it was generally accepted. James is a farmer and a young manager of a long-established family farm group. They sold their farm because it partially relied on irrigation water. They bought into a dryland farming area to continue their beef cattle and sheep stud work, breeding and selling stud bulls and rams. In 2005 James said, ‘Anyone (who is) still in irrigation is mad.’ His view is extreme and in contrast to other farmers who were uncertain rather than disillusioned about the future of irrigation farming. Elizabeth is a community services coordinator trained in social work, and employed in work similar to that of Jean. Elizabeth’s work included coordinating access to public services such as health care. Elizabeth agreed that there was a problem in the lack of coordinated information for prospective farmers coming in to the dairy industries. Elizabeth found that people had moved to the district unaware of the drought, the water shortfall in the irrigation catchment regions and the loss of employment. 184

I enquired of Libby, the stock and station agent, about a mixed farm property for sale, a dryland and irrigation property, near Hillston, in western New South Wales, Wyadra Station. It was to be sold out of family ownership after one hundred years. Originally, it was a dryland grazing property, mainly running sheep. In the late 1970s, the owners invested in irrigation infrastructure when irrigation farming expanded. The farm, Wyadra Station, was advertised as a dryland and irrigation farm (Sale documentation). It was to be sold with the provision of the owners that the water rights would not be sold separately to the farmland. The farm did not sell at the auction that I attended in Sydney. There were two bids, one for $3 million and the vendor bid for more than $6million. Libby, the agent, said that after negotiations, the farm sold later, during the 2006-7 water year, for an undisclosed sum nearer the vendor bid. A report in the Sydney Morning Herald (15.12.2009) stated that the New South Wales Government was to cut off water supplies from the Lachlan River to the central West town of Lake Cargelligo to protect water supplies for larger drought stricken towns such as Cowra, Forbes and Condobolin (Robins, 15.2.2009: 1). The water licence for the general security water for Wyadra Station would have a zero water allocation for two consecutive years, cutbacks under the Cap restrictions and also the minimum ten per cent water cutback under the Water Management Act 2000. Two years after the sale of Wyadra station, in the 2008-09 water year, the water supply was cut to the Lower Lachlan Catchment region where Wyadra is located. The low water level in the Wyangala Dam, of 4.5 per cent, did not allow water to travel the hundreds of

185

kilometres to the outlying Hillston area. Within months, water was flowing to the Hillston district again after rain in the catchment areas. Pat is a tour guide who was employed with a travel agency and she was also an irrigation farmer. She worked in the town nearest to her farm and had a manager do the farm work since her husband died. She pointed out ‘stranded’ irrigation farms in the Murray-Murrumbidgee region on my tour of the district. Stranded farms are well cared for but located among abandoned farms. Pat said that if farms in an irrigation district are abandoned then the payment for the upkeep of the water delivery infrastructure fell to fewer farmers. Transfer of water out of an irrigation region meant that the local town businesses declined, employment opportunities on the farms dropped and people moved away. She said that the water sold separately to the farms found purchasers because the buyers did not want the farm and the water was often worth more than the farmland. Pat told her personal story, when her husband died she could not provide enough income for her son or daughter to come home and work the farm as she and her husband had done. So, she bulldozed the house to make more farmland available, moved into town and hired a manager to ensure that the work on the farm was done. She found employment in the town for herself (Field notes: Riverina tour 2005). Property changed hands more frequently as the dry period continued and farmers took up the option of leaving. In the main, my respondents indicated that they were optimistic rather than disillusioned about the future. They were attempting to understand the events that were changing their lives and their plans for a future. They were innovative, for example, Pat had her farm house demolished to allow more land to be worked as farm land. Some people sold out 186

altogether such as the family who sold Wyadra Station, a property that had been in the family for one hundred years. Perhaps the sale was made because the farmer was retiring. One can only speculate if the sale was a personal or an economic decision.

Looking to the future Jane was a senior officer employed by Lachlan Water. She asked herself why water use had escalated so much in the last decades of the twentieth century. In 2006, she researched the rainfall charts on the history of rainfall in the Lachlan Catchment region, checking the available records going back over more than a century. She wanted a clearer understanding of the link between climate change and water shortfall during the current drought (2001 to 2006 and continuing). Jane found that when most of the large state-owned dams were built during the mid twentieth century, the annual rainfall average was unusually high. She made this assessment by comparing the period from the late 1940s until the mid 1970s, with the rainfall from the late nineteenth century until the mid 1940s. Jane found that from the early 1980s until 2005, the rainfall levels were lower and similar to the low rainfall recorded from the late nineteenth century until the mid 1940s. The question she was asking was whether the predicted climate change was occurring. She intended to conduct further research as her answer was inconclusive. Her conclusion about the reasoning underpinning the over allocation of water in New South Wales was that the large-scale dam and irrigation projects were too ambitious in the mid twentieth century and had failed to take account of historical rainfall records. The rainfall average was higher during the big dam construction period before falling again from the late 1970s. The 187

higher rainfall reflected rainfall variability and not an average rainfall. Jane said that future water development programmes must examine the history of rainfall more closely. The groundwater and surface water taken from the rivers for water abstractions during the latter part of the twentieth century had accumulated there for many centuries, in underground aquifers and in the wetlands. Once water abstractions were greater than the inflows for an extended period, as from the late 1970s until the beginning of the 1990s, it was essential to make a realistic assessment of the volume of water available for abstraction, so that restorative processes could begin.

Policy Sue, a parliamentary secretary, traced legislative changes in parliament and supplied information to parliamentarians or relevant agencies about the coming debates on natural resource and water management legislation. She attended a Conference on water (the Royal Agricultural Society Conference ‘The Power of Water’, 2004), in Albury-Wodonga, where I met her. She summarised the information to pass on to four parliamentarians from the New South Wales Government who were attending the conference also. The direction that legislation was taking, as she saw it, did not favour farmers, but was leaning towards environmental restoration. She observed that many foods, similar to Australian products, could be imported more cheaply than the food grown in Australia. Sue reminded me in 2004, that the Murray-Darling Basin waters supply extra water for Adelaide. There was also a proposal to construct a pipeline to supplement water for Melbourne, the capital 188

city of Victoria. The city of Melbourne, like Adelaide, is not located in the Basin. The implication is that the cities will pay more for water than a farmer pays, so water reaches a higher value per litre used when diverted to a city. I could see why farmers were no longer favoured for water priorities if parliamentarians thought that food could be produced more cheaply in other nations and that the urban use of water could earn more per litre than it could in farming industries.

The Snowy River return flow The people in the Snowy River mountain catchment area had waited for over thirty years for the water to return to their river. After successful lobbying of the parliamentarians at State and Federal level, the Victoria and New South Wales Governments agreed to a water return to the Snowy River. On August 28, 2002, below the Jindabyne Dam, Premier Steve Bracks of Victoria and Premier Bob Carr, of New South Wales turned on a tap to the Mowamba diversion in the Snowy catchment, to release water flow to the Snowy River (Miller, 2005: 207). Drew is an engineer who was working in the Snowy Mountains enlarging the pipe in the dam wall, as he explained it, to release the water from the Jindabyne Dam to flow down the Snowy River. The pipe Drew was to replace was installed during the construction of the dam in 1962. Drew said that the pipe to be replaced was quite small and was little larger than the size of a street drainpipe. Mary, a retired farmer, had lived near the Snowy River catchment region, in northern Victoria, for many years. There was excitement among local people she said, when the Snowy River flow came down

189

again. When the flow stopped without warning Mary wondered what had happened. Drew told me that the work on the pipe enlargement and the release of water for the Snowy River had stopped. He explained that the project had run out of money and he expected that further funding would be available for the project to start again. During my media search of matters that were relevant to water management, I discovered that the Commonwealth Government had placed an advertisement in leading Australian newspapers advertising shares in a proposed sale of the Snowy River Corporation. I replied to the advertisement asking for more information. Meanwhile, there was an outcry in the media about the sale of the nationally valued Snowy Hydro-electricity Corporation. Migrants to Australia who had worked with Australian born people on the scheme argued that the Snowy Scheme symbolised a multicultural ethos. This developed in the years following the Second World War, when people of many nations worked together to construct the massive Hydro- Electric scheme in the Snowy Mountains. These former Snowy-Hydro workers were opposed to the sale. They claimed that the control of the Snowy Hydro-Electricity Corporation should remain in public hands. The opposition against the sale grew from May 2006 onwards as discovered in the media reports (The Land May 18 2006; The Land May 25 2006). Reports in the weekly rural paper by June 2006 (The Land June 15 2006) reported that the people were listened to. I received an email on 5 July 2006 from the Commonwealth Government in reply to my earlier enquiries. It stated that no prospectus would be forthcoming for the sale of Snowy-Hydro shares

190

as the sale had been cancelled. There was no further clarification (Snowy-Hydro, 2006). I had received information from Leisha, a farmer in the Upper Lachlan region, about irrigation farmers in the southern Basin area of New South Wales who were offered the chance to participate in a survey on the cost of irrigation water and the volume that farmers could abstract. The proposed sale threw light on the reasons for the phone calls to farmers in the Murray and Murrumbidgee River catchment areas. Potential buyers would need to know what their customer base would be. The irrigation water in these rivers was boosted by the water diversions from the Snowy River. I found an engineers’ report (Institute of Engineers, 2000) that partly answered my query about the possible reasons for the sale apart from the sale price adding to State income. The engineers conducted a survey of the public utilities including dams, railways and electricity infrastructure built during the nineteenth and twentieth century. The report found that much of the infrastructure was aging and would need replacing, or extensive maintenance work in the near future. These costs could be passed to the new owners. The sale of a national icon like the Snowy could appeal to the government on several counts, it would bring income to State and Federal governments, pass on the responsibility for further maintenance or replacement costs to purchasers and conform to the privatisation principles under the economic rationalism model guiding the management and control of former public utilities.

191

Environmental matters In the light of this information, I examined the electoral platform of the Labour, Coalition, Democrats and the Greens parties, for the New South Wales (2003) State Government elections. Phillip, the Greens Party candidate in my electorate, personally delivered the electoral platform for water management to my door. The Greens Party almost doubled its vote in the March 2003 elections (Newell 2003: 230) although Phillip, a Greens Party candidate, was not elected. He found that privatisation of water resources was against accepted standards of ‘fairness’. Phillip argued that access to water was a human right, the ‘government should protect water.’ Phillip also opposed the concept of ‘sustainability’ because he viewed it as meaning to keep water resources and the environment as it was. Phillip argued that natural resources needed restoration and it would be disastrous if they remained in their present condition of deterioration. He sought improvement. The Carr Labor Party returned to the Government benches in March 2003 following the New South Wales State elections. The Labor Party had posted me a comprehensive water policy statement, as did the Coalition Parties in the pre-election weeks. The environmentalist movement was highly vocal throughout the pre-election period and if Phillip was an example, the Greens were highly enthusiastic and dedicated to the environmental cause. The results for the Greens reflected the mood of the times and the growing interest in the objectives of the environmental movements. Phillip was climbing a waterfall months after the election, he slipped and fell to his death. His funeral left standing room only and spilled on to the street outside his Greek Orthodox Church. His messages and writings about 192

environmental thought filled his funeral book and they were the recognition of his passion for the environmental cause (Original copy).

Adjusting to water reform Water trading was more complex because of the different certificates required, according to Geoffrey. Prior to the Water Management Act 2000 there was one water licence, now there were three licences and each had three ‘pieces of paper’ (Geoffrey), attached to the licence. Geoffrey meant that there is an abstraction licence as well as the water title, and a third ‘paper’ used in water trading and access. Ronald, a banker, in March 2004, remarked that as water is a property and the ties to irrigation water and the farmland are now separate, if there is a mortgage over the farmland and water, this mortgage must be cleared when the water is sold. Ronald predicted that when the drought broke many farms would be sold due to economic conditions. Alston (2010) examined ideological, economic and environmental influences that affect the well-being of rural regions. She recognised the growing problems that contests over water generate and the influence that water shortfall had in the history of rural Australia. From 1994 to 2004, farmers faced uncertainty from socioeconomic and political influences that existed prior to the COAG initiatives, such as globalised markets, centralised control of services and loss of employment as technological aids replaced much of the work performed by the rural workforce. It was a loss commonly felt throughout rural societies in the western world. Alston commented that it is important to know whose interests have priority and whose 193

voices are heard. She found that the interests of Aboriginals and women have a lower priority than do others (Alston, 2010: 54). The Parkes Summit meeting (2005) attended by over 2,000 people, largely farmers, is an example of pro-active resilience as people take action to have their interests listened to by the wider public and by the government. The people attending the rally were told that the New South Wales Government Treasury would waive the 2003-2005 irrigation water licence fixed fees. Earlier, Adrian Piccoli’s request to waive water licence fees if irrigation licence holders had two or more years of zero water was refused, when he addressed the parliament of New South Wales. To waive a licence fee means it is no longer a debt to be paid. To postpone a licence fee means that the fee is payable before any water is delivered. Despite its earlier refusal to waive general security irrigation water licence fees at the Parkes Summit meeting the representatives of the New South Wales Government announced that government agreed to the request. The irrigation licence fees for the 2003 – 2005 water years were waived. Four Corners, the prominent weekly ABC Television investigative programme had their team film the meeting. The summit meeting took place in May 2005 and the Four Corners programme ‘Gambling the farm’ was presented the following August (Four Corners, 2005). Later requests to waive fees made in the years from 2006 to 2008 were refused, even though general security irrigation farmers had five years when they had no useful water, they had zero water allocations or very low allocations, averaging approximately 20 per cent over the period in some of the water jurisdictions. The drought had commenced in 2001 and by 2008 the farmers were experiencing 194

considerable financial stress. The reasoning that I could determine through media and government reports and speaking with Jane and Geoffrey from Lachlan Water, was that the expenses that could not be further minimised, such as costs for power, fuel, grain, transport and government charges increased while farm incomes dropped. Geoffrey, said that the adaption to water reform and further changes were going nowhere because: ‘…all the States say one thing and the Federal Government says another’. This resulted in, ‘going around in circles’. He suggested that there were several reasons. Firstly, States act in their own interests. Secondly, the longest drought in the history of the Murray-Darling Basin started within months of the roll out of water reform in 2001. Thirdly, the government expected that the farmers would sell their general security water licences and they did not sell them (Geoffrey). The list of proposed interviewees for this section of my thesis increased as the complexity and breadth of this subject expanded. These interviewees gave insights into the reactions of politicians and others to the events taking place, including the response of environmentalists, townspeople and business people. The environmental statements, for example those made by Phillip, the Greens candidate in the 2003 New South Wales State elections, illustrated the range of thought on water matters. Government officers and economists were seeing water as a commodity for trade and at the other end of the spectrum were those seeing water as a life giving substance, such as the Greens Party candidate, Phillip. He interpreted ‘sustainable’ water resources management in the sense of keeping things as they are. However, he wanted improvement in natural resource management. 195

The qualitative approach was useful for interviews allowing respondents to feel relaxed and to ‘express their experiences as completely as possible’ as Bergen (1993: 203) explained. Qualitative research allowed me a more comprehensive understanding of the events, providing understanding of issues within ‘the relationship between theories and the empirical world’ (Esterberg, 2002: 5). I could discern different attitudes and approaches to water reform as farmers, senior officers and experts expressed their views. The socioeconomic and cultural impact of water reform and water shortfall on farmers and their communities as the drought continued and new rules were established, is the focus of the next Chapter. Questions need answering about the farmers’ trust in government institutions and their decisions. It is necessary to discover if their trust is eroding as farming diminishes in significance in the perception of the policy makers. In the next Chapter I tell the story of the farmers to observe the implications of further restrictions on the water use of those with dryland and irrigation farmlands.

196

Chapter Eight Farm and water futures in a time of drought

In this Chapter I present the response of farmers to water reform. The principles ‘sustainable water resources management’ and ‘integrated water resources management’ bring changes that impact directly on the water farm managers can use on their dryland and irrigation farmland. In the nineteenth century farmers learned to cope with the variable rainfall and to handle the soils and climate to build their productive farming industries. In the twentieth century under the Water Act 1912 New South Wales farmers were encouraged to use as much water as they could use on as much land as they could farm. The twenty-first century restrictions on water entitlements placed restrictions on water access that impacted on farm development and expansion. The reforms were introduced as the longest drought on record commenced. Farmers were struggling to cope with drought conditions as they experienced further water restrictions from water reform. In this Chapter I examine the response of farmers to water reform under the New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 and to various rules and regulatory controls that direct water policy in the twenty-first century. My study commenced in late 2003, as farms in the Murray-Darling Basin New South Wales entered their third year of drought. In September 2001, I had travelled as a fellow person on the land through the Lachlan River catchment and farmers were talking about the failure of rain that spring. It seemed to be the onset of drought

197

however there was no thought that this drought would be the longest on record or that it would be so widespread. I observed the results of the continuing drought two years later, at the end of 2003, when I stayed on a farm in the Lachlan Catchment district. The paddocks were bare of grass by then, there were blue cloudless skies each day and the local shopkeepers in the towns in central New South Wales were concerned about their businesses, as trade fell away. Media reports of the spreading drought conditions gained wide attention because of the restrictions on water use in Sydney, the capital city of New South Wales, which were introduced following the March 2003 state elections. Each drought is different and each farm unit makes its unique response to drought depending on its economic and physical resources and the plans for the future held by the farm managers. Farmers approach drought as a complex exercise knowing that they are juggling farm work, economic resources, the water reserves, feed for livestock, labour and other resources to ensure the best outcome. Stirzaker (2010: 174) demonstrated that water and animal management involved getting a lot of things right. In the previous Chapter (page 170) it was noted that Adrian Piccoli, the parliamentarian, was concerned that family farms were breaking with the tradition of intergenerational change because the next generation of farmers were being lost to the industry. They were not taking over the farm from their parents. The farmers whom I interviewed were reassessing their future. I asked Gregory, a dryland and irrigation farmer what he did with his water and he replied, ‘What water?’ It was the third year of drought; the dam water levels in the privately owned farm dams and the large state owned dams were low. 198

There was no irrigation water allocation for farming purposes on the small irrigation farm where I was staying in the Lachlan River Catchment in 2005. It was the second consecutive year when Gregory had been allocated a zero water entitlement and the third year the farmers, Gregory and his brother, had owned the farm. They had paid for irrigation licences and were paying the licence fees that had increased. They were considering their options, whether to sell the farm and water, or just the water. Eventually they found they had to sell part of the irrigation licence to pay interest on the farm loan. The usual method of providing for the next generation was expanding the farm business although under the new water restrictions this was not possible any longer. Geoffrey from Lachlan Water said that when farmers wanted to use the water they saved on their farms for farm expansion, he told them that they could not ‘go there’. Marcus, a dryland farmer, was angry and upset about this rule and asked in what other business would this happen? What other business would be told not to expand? He also had said, when asked how he managed water, ‘What water?’ Marcus had some bore water he could use to supplement surface water for supplying water for his cattle and sheep. There was very little surface water and yet caring for the water they had took up a part of each day’s work because it had to be checked to ensure nothing perished from the lack of a drink or because as the water dropped the sides of the dam had clogged with mud and the animals were caught. The first European to settle in Australia understood that food security was important and encouraged the development of farming, as I wrote in my introduction (see pages 1-2). The priority for water for farmers was lost and as noted in the previous Chapter, I 199

interviewed a parliamentary secretary, Sue (see page 188-9) who said that food could be produced more cheaply in other countries and then imported to Australia. The cost was measured in economic terms and not on the footprint on the environment as food was transported thousands of kilometers when imported for Australian markets. Farmers were competing for water with other industries that could earn more from each litre of water used and exported than could be earned from the ‘hidden’ water used to produce food for export.

Dryland farmers: Ruth, Dominic, Sandy and Marcus To the dryland farmers in central west New South Wales the rainfall always brings new growth and renews their trust in the continuity of the social order that they understand. The rhythms of the seasons dictate the work of the dryland farmers. Ruth a dryland farmer, said almost every year for the past five years the rains did not fall when expected. Ruth did not think that her children would earn a living on the farm if things stayed the same as they were in 2005. It was four years since the drought started. Ruth and her husband Dominic had already told their children to take other employment and not to expect to take over the farm. The skills passed on over two centuries allowed farmers to cope with drought. The dryland farmers had the skills to deal with water shortfall. In 2005 the irrigation farmers were learning to do more with less water as the dryland farmers do during drought. Ruth said that sometimes she felt like leaving the farm when most years were drought years. Then, surprisingly, she stated that ‘Farming is a rewarding industry’. The family managed a mixed farm in central west New South Wales. In 2005 it seemed that Ruth was grieving for 200

what was lost. She said that: ‘The tractors would start up each year and you knew when that would be. Now it doesn’t happen.’ Ruth told of the projects for farm and land conservation work that the family were working on. Ruth and her husband had planted many trees in the past decade, she was very aware of the need to grow them to protect the farmland. Ruth spoke of some farmers who dry-sowed the crops, who started the tractors and sowed the crops into dry ground in the expectation of a fall of rain. They wanted to have the seed in the ground ready to spring to life should it rain. Ruth rejected this practice for soil conservation reasons. Dominic added that he had already advised the children to take up other occupations, because, ‘There’s no money’. Dominic explained that for some years (prior to 2005) the dryland farmers could not support the next generation on the farm and the farm managers had told their children to make sure they got work elsewhere. Dominic said, ‘Now it is happening to irrigation farmers’. Dominic referred to the changes in access to irrigation water and cutbacks to water allocations. The rules did not allow savings made by the farmers themselves to be kept for further farm expansion. The irrigation water cutbacks commenced from the 1995 water year under the Cap restrictions (this restricted irrigation water access to 1993-94 abstraction levels). The restrictions on the size of the dam construction limited everyone to capturing ten per cent of the water flow over the farmland. Dominic also observed, when asked to expand on the area of interest to him, that the intensive type of farming expected of the farmers in the twenty-first century would eventually bring serious salinity problems on his farm. Dominic predicted that if farming continued as it was at present, then in fifteen years time his 201

farm would have serious salinity problems. His major interest now was in soil conservation. Dominic preferred to conserve the land, although it made earning an adequate income more difficult and the likelihood of the next generation earning an income on the farm more unlikely. Ruth and Dominic are active in Landcare projects to ensure sustainable natural resource management. Dominic, as the senior manager of the farming family firm, a medium sized business with several farms sharing machinery, labour and farm equipment, said that irrigation and dryland farmers need each other during drought. The farms that Dominic and Ruth managed were dryland farms. Dominic was very interested in the irrigation farms nevertheless and the regulatory control that followed institutional reform emerging from the late 1980s. The irrigators need the dryland farmers just as the dryland farmers need irrigation produce: ‘We are all in the reforms and the drought together’ (Dominic). Dominic saw the future of farming where the manager and family have access to an off-farm income while managing the farm. Male and female members of his family ‘firm’ take off-farm work, including wool classing, taking advisory positions on various boards and working in teaching, nursing and various roles in the medical fields. Dominic said that when the federal government buys water licences from irrigation farmers or as he referred to them, ‘cash strapped cockies’, the government uses the term ‘willing sellers’. The term obscured the economic stress on farmers generated by the drought conditions and the water reform cutbacks. Dominic argued that the

202

irrigation farmers are ‘willing sellers’ of water allocations in the sense that they have no other option. I questioned Dominic and Marcus, who is also a dryland farmer, about the impact of the reforms under the Water Management Act 2000 on their own farm management strategies. Dominic made it clear that he was not an irrigation farmer and so the cutbacks to water did not affect his business directly. He wanted the irrigation farms to be viable because he might want to buy grain from them or use them to agist his sheep. He said they were all in water reform and drought together. He had not used them for this purpose, but in the future maybe he would or others would need to do so. The restrictions on the volume of water he could store from the water flow over the farm (10 per cent of the flow) did not affect his business because his farms were fully developed and he said, ‘I don’t suppose they will come out here and fill in my dams.’ In contrast, Marcus, who has a young family to support, still needs to improve the farm and enlarge his dams. The reforms put restrictions on the capture and storage of water and the size of the dam he could construct to carry his farm through dry seasons. He was refused a permit to enlarge his dams to an adequate size to store water for longer droughts. This rule followed the direction of the National Water Initiative, 2004, stating that a landholder must have a water access entitlement for any new land use activity likely to intercept significant volumes of water (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, 2004, April). The Lachlan Water officer Geoffrey explained to me that when farmers want to use water savings to expand their business, ‘We say you are not going there’. 203

Dominic said that when first the irrigation licence transfers and sales were an option, some farmers sold their licence entitlement, planning to buy it back when the price of water fell. Instead, the licences got more expensive and some farmers could not afford to buy into the water market again. They had ‘dryland’ farms that were too small to be viable. Some irrigators had sold the farm and left the farming industry, others like Gregory worked them in conjunction with the land area of his family’s dryland farm. Marcus thought that some farmers had made a ‘killing’ with the big prices initially paid for high security irrigation water entitlements and he was not as sympathetic as Dominic towards irrigation farmers who had left their farms. Dominic was unimpressed with the wide fluctuations in commodity prices for water. He did not view water as a property and thought that it was against the long-term social interests and the interests of the farm industries to commodify rural water. He said that prices could fall as quickly as they rose. Marcus supplemented the main source of his income, his farm, by working in the medical field as a locum. Marcus said that the thinking of the authorities is to maximise water for the river systems, so they are trying to stop rainwater from staying on-farm and hence not running into the rivers. The authorities and the farmer are ‘talking about two different things’, he said. The authorities are talking about restoring the environment, as Alston (2010: 53) explained. However, the rules of the National Competition Policy did not make a special point of addressing ‘significant environmental concerns’ or ‘the social impacts on various stakeholders’ (Alston, 2010: 53). The authorities may be talking about environmental

204

restoration while the economic objectives appear to be equally significant, if not more so, in informing decision-making. This means that the authorities are maximising water flow into the rivers and the water storage systems, whereas the farmers want to cope independently with their experience of variable rainfall to underpin the management strategies they use. They seek to ensure that the farm survives economically and that the social order, the local farm community also survives. Farmers can keep ten per cent of the farm’s surface water flow and Marcus did not know how the figure was established. He guessed it was by a ‘complicated calculation’ that he did not know about. Water management was a major part of daily farm work by 2005 and 2006. Marcus helped with water carting for the sheep and cattle as the farm dams dried up. Geoffrey and Leisha showed me their dam. In past droughts, the dam had supplemented the local town water supplies, now ducks and other birds were on the dam in their numbers, polluting the last of the water in the dam and leaving the water unsuitable for drinking. Reports were coming in of the water tanks at public places (such as a local scout hall or school) being emptied as the water was stolen. The same thing was happening on farms. Many western New South Wales towns relied on the water carted to them for drinking and other domestic uses. The replies to the question: what are farmers doing with their water resources, found similar answers. Most were doing all possible to take precautionary action as the drought continued, to keep a supply for domestic purposes and farm use. Sandy was part of the family team carting water to the house and for the animals on their farm. Marcus and Dominic said that the local water pipes that bring town water to 205

Parkes, Tullamore, Tottenham, Trundle and other western regions and to their farms, were running at their maximum capacity. Dominic said that someone is always in a paddock somewhere dealing with a broken water pipe. Previously, the government paid for maintenance and replacement, now Dominic was uncertain about where the responsibility lay. Water for farm and domestic purposes was on everyone’s mind. In my farm walks, I watched farmers check troughs that supplied water to farm animals, look at dams and at the points where irrigation water would normally come through to the farm, that in 2005 and 2006 were dry. Marcus, Leisha, Dominic and Ruth doubt that the farm traditions of intergenerational change will continue without radical change to water policy. The thought was that farming must be one of the few industries in Australia where expansion was restricted by regulatory control. Marcus thought it unfair to have water reform become the deciding factor that destroyed the tradition of intergenerational change. Geoffrey of Lachlan Water had told me that as the drought lengthened the rule was that water had to be stored in the state owned water storages to provide for essential services and purposes, such as town water. So the longer the drought lasted, the more water had to remain stored in the dams for emergency use and the less water there was available for other purpose use. Farmers needed to be self-reliant, in drier parts of the catchment farmers need to store more water than those in the highlands where the rainfall is more frequent and copious. Marcus said that the farmers know the answer to the question, ‘How much do I spend to have my water infrastructure for my size of farm?’ Marcus said that each 206

farmer could tell the authorities the volume of water storage they needed: ‘Rather than someone coming up with an arbitrary figure and saying, “This is all you can have and that’s just it!”’ The point Marcus made was that: ‘People are the best judge of how much water to retain (on the farms) because they know’. He added, ‘They can judge how much water do I need?’ By the year 2007, when I was in the Lachlan Catchment district, Dominic the dryland farmer still referred to the irrigation farmers as ‘cash strapped’. The charges for water and for the licence fees had increased and the general security water licences had a zero allocation, again. Under the regulations of the new Commonwealth Government legislation, the Water Act 2007, the federal government proposed to buyback water entitlements from irrigation farmers. According to Dominic, the farmers had experienced further loss of surface water (other than the restrictions under the water reform rules) from the ongoing drought, then in its sixth year. This made the option to sell irrigation water entitlements a way to retire farm debt or to leave irrigation farming after years of low income. Sandy, as a dryland farmer, manages the family farm with her parents, and takes off-farm employment, using her degree in agricultural economics to supplement her main income source, the farm. She cited the instance where her cousin, who is an irrigation farm manager, sold water entitlements. He had checked that the purchaser could convert the licences to abstraction entitlements when the sale was complete. The buyer requested the delivery and the water authorities said that the water was not available because the expected rain in the catchment had not fallen. Sandy was angry about her cousin’s experience, because through no fault of his own he felt that 207

he had let the buyer down badly. The anger of the buyer was palpable because he had paid for something that was not there. Sandy concluded that, ‘Water as a property is not working’, because the water authorities could not deliver on their promises. Dominic and Grant, both dryland farmers (although Grant has retired) observed that irrigation farmers and other water users and industries such as mining, could take up bore water licences to replace or supplement surface water. Dominic said that he did not know how long the finite groundwater resources would last if everyone started to use them or if the new industries entering the water market should receive permission to abstract all the water that had lain in the aquifers possibly for thousands of years. Dominic had a low flow groundwater bore that supplied water for sheep during drought. He was concerned that because of all the farmers who were now supplementing surface water from the groundwater system that it would run out. The interrelations between the farmers and the authorities varied in the approaches made and satisfaction with the communication process. Dominic found that the politicians were approachable whereas Leisha, a dryland and irrigation farmer, would not bother asking a politician if she needed help. Dominic said that he had confidence that the Parkes Summit Meeting, where he was among the 2,000 and more farmers who attended, would lead to a satisfactory consultation with the politicians and the appropriate authorities. When I asked if the farmers’ ideas might be listened to, Dominic replied confidently, ‘Ah, yes. They will listen to us.’ Dominic when asked to raise matters he felt were of interest, supported the concern raised by Marcus that the water pipes from the Wyangala Dam to outlying towns, such as Trundle, were old and 208

leaking. The arrival of a fresh water resource, in the mid twentieth century, through these pipes was of great benefit to the living conditions on the farm where he lived. The Wyangala Dam had been of enormous benefit to the local society generally, making life and work much easier. Under ‘marketisation’ as Alston (2010) explained, the users of services pay most, if not all of the costs of administration and management. Previously senior officers would administer water maintenance, now there was uncertainty about where responsibility lay for repairing the infrastructure that required maintenance. Dominic was cautious about increasing farm productivity as he became more interested in conserving his farmlands, planting trees and worrying about the affects of salinity. Intergenerational change was becoming less assured because further water and farm development was restricted. Dominic was also confident that the farmers would receive a hearing if they held their rally at the Summit Meeting in Parkes, the town considered the epicentre of the drought. Dominic trusted that the farmers’ voice would be listened to at the institutional level of reform. Dominic was correct in his assumptions. The Parkes Summit meeting brought a response from the New South Wales State government and the Federal Government. The New South Wales Government is in charge of issuing water licences and it waived water licence fees on farms that had no irrigation water for two years because of the drought and water restrictions. The Federal Government also promised to review the ‘special circumstances’ drought assistance measures and the then Prime Minister, John Howard, travelled though the Upper and Lower Lachlan Catchment 209

areas to examine the impact of drought. He offered funding towards the replacement of water pumps used to pump water from Lake Cargelligo to towns like Lake Cargelligo and Tullibigeal, in western New South Wales. The pumps had clogged up with salt from the river water as the water level in the lakes and weirs fell.

Leisha, Gregory and other dryland and irrigation farmers Gregory and Liesha are a married couple who are dryland and irrigation farmers in south west New South Wales. Each are from farm families who trace their history back four generations in the district. Gregory is in a family partnership with his brother. The partnership was paying off an earlier mortgage on the dryland family farm and they had recently bought the irrigation farm. Gregory wanted to buy the irrigation farm in 2002 because he had seen wheat crops there that were higher than the fence. The farm was near a small lake and Gregory thought it an ideal place for retirement. He wanted to build a shack by the water. When I was there, the lake looked desolate and there was no water although some bones of dead birds lay on the lake-bed. A boat ramp from a neighbour’s shack hung feet above the bed of the dry lake. The water to this system was cutback due to rain shortfall in the catchment (Geoffrey, Lachlan Water). Gregory was caring for the cattle and sheep on the homestead farm and on the irrigation farm also. He had not sown a wheat crop in 2004 or 2005 because there was no rain and no irrigation water allocation. His brother took some of their cattle to northern New South Wales to find agistment paddocks for them. Eventually, he had found what he

210

needed and had remained to care for the cattle so Gregory was farming on his own with the help of other family members. Gregory took me on a tour of the local district. He said that the impact of water shortfall from drought and restrictions on irrigation licences had affected town business. This was apparent in the number of closed shops that I saw in Condobolin, Lake Cargelligo and Forbes (Field notes, 2005). Gregory remarked on the loss of the local electrician who had recently closed his shop and relocated to a larger town. Everyone in Lake Cargelligo and the neighbouring district would miss him, said Geoffrey, as he could fix all sorts of things. A once thriving children’s wear business had also recently closed. Much of the middle class, including local professional people such as doctors, lawyers, teachers and some of the officers in the government agencies, had left the region. The schools struggled to keep teachers as pupil numbers dropped. Churches lost congregations and sports groups cooperated with other teams to make up team numbers. Other social groups struggled to survive (Gregory). The journey westward from Condobolin allowed an understanding of the different experiences of drought expressed by the two groups, the farmers and the senior officers. To arrive at Gregory’s farm I travelled along dusty untarred roads. In contrast, when I interviewed the senior officers the interview generally took place in an office accessed by a bitumen road. Drought was not as visible during the interview in the office as on the homestead veranda or in the kitchen. Gregory took me to favourite picnic spots and camping places by the Lachlan River. I had observed one of them on a long weekend in the year 2001, when the camping ground was full of people while other people were fishing or boating on Lake Cargelligo. Kath, a local 211

farmer, showed me photos of herself taken at the lake during the 1970s. In the background were crowds of people but this had changed by the time I arrived in 2005 when the popular swimming holes were dry. Gregory believed that the river water would return, the rains would fall again in the catchment area and by the time he would retire, probably in thirty more years, he would build his shack by a stream or a lake and fish. Gregory held a general security licence for the irrigation farm. For four years out of six it had a zero water allocation. He was paying bank interest charges on the loan for the purchase of his irrigation farm and the licence fees still had to be paid. To repay the interest on his loan he had sold some of his irrigation allocations to a gold mine further to the east, near Parkes. Selling his water allocation to the mines left him with some of his debt repaid. His farm was too small for a dryland farming area and by the year 2007 he had sold the remainder of his irrigation water. It left him with a dryland farm to add to the home farm even though they were twenty kilometres apart. Gregory valued his independence and relied on his own judgement before taking major decisions. Before he completed the sale of his irrigation entitlements he travelled to the Wyangala dam and saw for himself that it had only a ‘puddle’(as he described it) of water in the lowest part of the dam. This was the deciding factor and he sold the last of the irrigation licences. Leisha did the bookwork for the three family farms belonging to her parents-in-law, her husband and his brother, although she had no equity in the farms herself. She had two school-age children whom she took with her when she was working as a teacher. She needed the

212

off-farm work to put her children through school, she explained, ‘Because the income we get from the farm won’t do it’. Leisha told me that the impact of water reform affected the Council rates when the irrigation water was sold away and the irrigation farm changed to a dryland area. Without irrigation water the potential earning capacity from the farmland was much less and she wanted the local government to reassess the Council (Local Government) rate charges to bring them into line with other dryland farm rates. Councils are understandably unwilling to agree to a drop in their income by decreasing rate charges. Adrian Piccoli the parliamentarian, when asked about the land rates remarked that he was asked frequently to help farmers, who had sold their water separately from the irrigation farm, to encourage the local government to decrease the rate charges to dryland farm rates. The purchase of the irrigation farm had cost Gregory and Leisha a considerable amount of money. Leisha said they had never received one cent of income from their irrigation water, they paid the licence fees and the increased charges for them although no water was allocated, apart from one year when the allocation was too small to use for crops or pasture growth. They also paid interest on the farm loan. This family is in the younger age bracket for Australian farmers, in the 30 – 40 year group. They could not expand their business to meet the rising input costs of farming because of the further water cutbacks. The economic impact of larger water cutbacks was severe for them and they changed their irrigation farm to a dryland area. Reading the information provided by the government about water reform annoyed Leisha because she spent twenty hours and often more each month doing the bookwork required by government 213

authorities. Then she spent more time reading the information sent to farmers. Leisha said she read most of it because she might miss something important. The documents that explained the rules of water reform failed to state how the increased charges for licence fees and other charges were to be paid when there was a zero water allocation. John, an irrigation farmer from the Condobolin-Forbes region argued that communication between farmers and the departmental officers was unsatisfactory. He said that the water was diverted for the environmental flows that cutback water from farmers quite early in the roll out of water reform. He doubted that the water was used as effectively as it could be by those in charge of water application for environmental purposes. They lacked the experience of the farmers. John tracked one environmental flow and found that no further watering was applied at the appropriate time and consequently the green shoots that had sprung up, had all died. He was very angry because the water was cutback from the water allocations for farmers in 2001-02 with no warning. He went into the longest drought on record with his grain storage low when normally he kept enough store feed to supply his sheep for at least two years of drought. John sold the grain early because the seasonal rainfall was good and he expected that his water allocation would allow him to replace what he had sold. John felt strongly that effective consultative processes were lacking, he was extremely angry and lacked trust in competent water management and organisation when his normal expectation of a water allocation changed without his knowledge. Departmental decisions about water transfers and cutbacks needed transparency, he said. It was essential for farmers to plan for seasonal growth and they could not do so if anallocation changed without warning. John thought 214

that a ‘greenie’ must have influenced the decision. He went into a drought unprepared and said he had never done that before.

Large agribusinesses and consultative processes George, an owner/manager and director of an international family owned corporation was angry about the loss of the priority for water use for farming and the changes in policy. He said that farmers were encouraged to develop their irrigation licences and the farms. In 2005 they had a zero water allocation, as they had done most years since the water reform regulations were implemented, from 2001 onwards. There was no adequate consultation with farmers. George is pro-active in pursuing the interests of the irrigation and dryland farming industries. In his interview, sent via email, he indicated his loss of trust in the organisational and institutional levels of government responsible for water management. George explained that he did buy and sell water, trading it on a temporary or permanent basis, when water was available. He thought that the idea of consultation with representatives from different sections of the rural communities in the River Management Committees was good, the problem was that it was not carried through. George explained why he believed it was so difficult to reach decisions in the committees, attributing it to a ‘lack of notice taken by the government and the bureaucracy’ of the input of the farm sector. Consultative processes with officers charged with water reform management in general have ‘been appalling’, George explained. Furthermore, the committees were ‘stacked with greens, government people and minority interests’. Then, ‘given they were meant to come

215

up with unanimous decisions the farmers and communities generally, didn’t have a lot of joy’. The water trading process was beneficial, explained George because it allowed, ‘properties to maintain or reach a size allowing economies of scale’. For example, all the water purchased was used on one irrigation farm, using one set of machinery and one group of employees. George was buying and selling water, depending on requirements, ‘market prices and allocations’. He berated the ‘stupidity’ of some of the policies. In particular, he viewed the inclusion of the water in the Lachlan River Catchment into the Cap, (the limit placed on water abstractions in the Murray-Darling Basin river systems retaining them at 1993-94 levels) as an inbuilt form of ‘stupidity’. He said, ‘The Lachlan doesn’t meet the Murrumbidgee and hence doesn’t contribute to the Murray-Darling water. In all maps it is shown as meeting, however, it actually empties into the Great Cumbung Swamp’. It reaches the Murrumbidgee River ‘only in very high floods’, about once in twenty years. George said that throughout much of the twentieth century the farmers were encouraged to develop their irrigation farms, now the government tells us: ‘We want more water back in the system and basically the farmers are carrying 100 per cent of the costs’. George said that their farm businesses would ‘be giving more (water) back, so at today’s values (2005) that’s well over $30 million without $1 of compensation’. George found that government had no ‘conviction’ because it did not cancel one single irrigation licence when the licence holder had failed to comply with the rule to develop the irrigation licences within 216

three years. The farmers who followed the rules and developed the farmland for irrigation, such as himself, were disadvantaged. They needed to buy extra water due to further cutbacks in water allocations. This meant that people with the sleeper licences (licences that are never used) and dozer licences (licences used occasionally), make money from people who need water because they have followed the rules and developed the licence. George claimed that these licence holders made an undeserved profit out of farmers who ‘did the right thing’. He said rural dwellers were of the view that water share plans had a detrimental effect on their region. Another major cotton producer and international agribusiness director and manager who agreed to an interview was Warren from northern New South Wales. When we spoke in 2006 he had just left a meeting at Bourke, western New South Wales, where the deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson was present, he was then also the Minister in charge of regional affairs. Warren was the managing director of the Australian branch of an international corporation that had varied commercial interests in Australia, including farming. He had been pro-actively seeking support from the government to have more water diverted to the dams on the irrigation farms he directed in northern New South Wales. The dams were drying out from the lack of rainfall in the northern catchment areas for the last five years. Warren’s application to local water authorities for an extension of the water licence had failed. The refusal possibly came from a ‘lefty’ Warren jokingly explained. He meant someone with ‘left’ wing views opposed to big business and large corporations.

217

Warren had taken his request to the Deputy Prime Minister, illustrating that he had trust that he would be listened to at the most senior levels of government. Warren wanted to plant cotton in the coming season and the drought that had gripped most of the eastern states for five years had left the irrigation dams almost empty and soil moisture almost non-existent. When I telephoned Warren I asked him how water shortfall and regulations under the Water Management Act 2000 were working on the properties that he managed. I also asked how he was using the water resources available and if he was trading in water. Warren said that he had requested a reassessment of the water licence for the farm because it was cancelled for that water year (2005-06). The river system from which Warren was drawing a water supply was also the system that supplied Cubbie Station, the controversial cotton farm, the largest in Queensland, near the New South Wales border. He explained that it was a large catchment area. Warren did not get approval for the water allocation that he requested from the Deputy Prime Minister, despite his appeal at the highest level of government. However, his interview with me by phone did shed light on the question whether there was trust in policy makers, sufficient for a farmer to feel that his or her request for water was listened to. However, it is questionable whether managers of smaller farms would have gained the attention of such a significant political figure. Warren affirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson was a ‘good bloke’ and had listened to his request. The request was refused and the farms that Warren managed closed their cotton farm sections the following year. I found that the farm closures brought a considerable loss of employment opportunities in 218

the cotton growing districts of northwest New South Wales and to the townspeople of Bourke in particular.

Family and community support Family support is often crucial to the survival of the smaller farm operation. Penny, a dryland farmer, spoke of selling her property that she owned in partnership with her husband. Her parents-in-law were retiring and as an offer was made for Penny’s farm on a ‘walk-in- walk-out’ basis, they sold. The sale conditions ‘could not be refused,’ said Penny. They moved on to manage their parents’ farm in the process referred to as ‘intergenerational change’. Penny said that the corporation that had purchased their farm had pushed up the farm prices in the region to an unrealistic level. It is important to understand the conditions with which farmers were working as the water reforms were established. On the road to the meetings where water reform was discussed or when travelling to the interviews with farmers in central New South Wales, from 2003 to 2006, the countryside was in a severe drought. There was no ‘green pick’ in the table-drains at the side of the road that often follows quickly after rainfall. There was red earth, thick sand and dust across many of the roads, save for the roads that had a strip of bitumen down the centre. Except for sprouts of green at some creek crossings, the creek beds were dry with ants scrambling about. On the mixed farms, the ground was dry, as I recorded in my diary in April 2005, when usually the paddocks were ready for a crop or had one sprouting. Liam is a dryland and irrigation farmer who had planned to expand the dairying section of his farm through growing more irrigated

219

pasture by irrigating from a large dam he had constructed. However, he was not permitted to fill the dam as it was above the storage limit. Adrian Piccoli told me that a generation of farmers was being lost to the industry and farmers would not be available when required for food security in the future. Marcus captured this view when he said that no other industry that he knew of besides farming had such restrictions placed on its further development.

The physical setting In April 2005, as I travelled from Condobolin towards West Wyalong, central west New South Wales, in the Lachlan River Catchment, my field notes record that the billowing dust made sunset driving difficult. The road symbolised the closeness of the farmer to the drought in all that they do in their daily work and travel. The research indicated that the farmer viewed the regenerative qualities of water first and then looked to its income earning capacity. This was demonstrated in decisions made by farmers to keep their irrigation water licences even though the cost of the licences was rising and put a strain on the budget of the family farm, said Leisha. Gregory, her husband, travelled to the Wyangala Dam and saw there was little likelihood of using the irrigation licence in the near future because of the low water level in the dam and so he sold the remainder of the licence entitlement, albeit reluctantly. The research indicated that farmers see water as one of their most precious and valued possessions, valuing it in a similar way to the farmland. The nature of farm employment and of the irrigation district itself changes when water is sold away from a water district. Gary, the son of a farm family in the Leeton district explained that it was sad to 220

come home to the Riverina (southern New South Wales) and find an increasing number of deserted farms had replaced the working farms that were there in his childhood. The physical landscape had changed and the friends that Gary grew up with had left. His familiar social network of friends was fragmented.

Facing uncertainty – loss of trust The response by John, an irrigation farmer near Forbes, was one of anger when irrigation water normally allocated to farmers was diverted as the drought commenced in the 2001 to 2002 water year. For the first time he faced a drought without adequate preparation. He was pro-active in organising a protest meeting attended by approximately 100 people. John attempted to change things rather than accept the cutbacks without question. He was angry over what he perceived as incompetent water management by a senior officer. Water was diverted to the environment and John said it was wasted, the green shoots that sprung up were not watered again and died. Employment opportunities in remote areas were more likely to be offered to local people rather than people who were considered ‘outsiders’. I learned that Leo, a farm and station worker and part-time truck driver, gave up seeking work in the Murrumbidgee catchment district and moved to Queensland because local people were favoured for work that was available. He had lived in the region only a few years and did not have the long-standing familial or business connections to have a priority for an employment opportunity. The traditional response to employment problems in smaller rural centres is to fall back on the family. This is an indication of why the tight social and familial networks in rural areas that foster trust 221

relationships between people who have long-standing ties with each other and to the region, continue. They are important when surviving drought or cutbacks to water that diminish economic opportunities. Between 2002 and 2010 many irrigation farms had zero general security irrigation water allocations in five of those years (Jane, Lachlan Water). In 2005 the irrigation licence fees were waived by the state Government. The concession was announced to more than 2,000 people attending the Parkes Summit Meeting. One stream of thought advocated that allocations should be impartially distributed and based on market competition, meaning that water should go to the highest bidder. The other stream of thought was that each stakeholder was entitled to an equal allocation of water. In an interview, John, a farmer in the Lachlan Catchment, commented on these contending views. As an irrigation farmer who had lost water to an environmental water allocation John suggested that environmental water presented a dilemma. Someone needed to pay for it and the issue was, who would pay? As cutbacks to farm water allocations were made without monetary recompense, the farmers paid, said George, as an owner of an international family agribusiness. Gregory, the Lachlan Water officer also confirmed that he thought the farmers were paying because they had cutbacks deducted from their water.

Irrigation and dryland farming in the twenty-first century Sandy, who managed a dryland family farm, said that treating, ‘water as property’ does not work. She cited her cousin’s experience who when managing an irrigation farm, sold a water entitlement that had an abstraction title that he had confirmed with the authorities was available to the purchaser. When the purchaser applied for the water 222

delivery he was told that the water was not available, the expected rain had not fallen and there was no water. Sarah a dryland farmer, sold their farm because coal mines were taking over nearby farms and the noise and dust polluted the air, land and water at their homestead and on the farm. When purchasing her next farm to replace the one sold to the mines, Sarah said that she would not only ask ‘Where is the water?’ But also, ‘Where is the coal?’ Glen was retired from farming but remained on the farm. Glen’s family had three mixed farms. He had four sons and several grandchildren. Two sons worked on the farms while also taking other off-farm work. Glen took up irrigation licences that he intended to use, but they are ‘sleepers’ (unused licences) because family illness thwarted his plans for irrigation development. He believed that his grandchildren would develop the farms and use the licences so he retained them for this purpose.

Making money out of water George,as owner/director of a corporate family farming enterprise, is angry and disillusioned about farmers who held irrigation licences and did not develop them, then activated them when the Cap on water abstractions was first enforced. The farmers with developed licences needed more water and had to purchase it from the owners of the unused licences at enormous cost, as George explained. There were several issues beginning with the reluctance of governments to reimburse irrigation farmers for cutbacks in water allocations under the Water Management Act 2000. Farmers were charged the annual irrigation water licence fee when no water was 223

delivered. The reason given was that government still had to meet its expenses and these required the fixed charges. Don Harwin, Member of the Opposition (Coalition Parties) in 2005 addressed the debates about water policy. He stated that under the Water Management Act 2000 there are three separate licences for irrigation water entitlements: an access licence; a water use approval licence; and a water supply works approval licence (Local Government and Valuation of Land Amendment (Water Rights Bill) 2005: 3). The system is complex in contrast to the earlier licence format that had a single licence (Geoffrey, Lachlan Water). George the director-manager of an international family company supported Marcus’ contention that some people made a windfall on water sales although they did nothing at all with the licences and they were not penalised for that. He implied that there are one set of rules for some aspects of the water reform legislation and another set of rules for another. George said that those who did nothing got a ‘windfall gain by being able to sell water to those who now need more water’ for ‘their developed area’ of farmland. He was angry about already contributing ‘10-20 per cent of our water back to the environment’ and that ‘more’ will be demanded. Marcus agreed that ‘Some people have made a lot of money out of water in two or three years’. He said, ‘They bought a lot of water entitlements and water is expensive now’ (in 2005). He added, ‘They have sold it to those who desperately need it, like the mines and places like that, where they’ll pay masses of money’. Marcus had views about a social consciousness that convinced him that water should remain a publicly owned utility, a property left in the ownership and control of the people. He was totally against 224

privatisation of water or other former public utilities. He is impatient with policies based on environmental restoration that demonstrate little regard for ensuring ‘sustainable’ resource management and the proper, ‘morally acceptable’ intent of water reforms and entitlements (Marcus). It appeared that he supported the concept of water reform but not the addition of economic arrangements for modern water management. Marcus (in 2006) found entrepreneurs taking part in water trading. He said that water is ‘currently valued at $1,000 dollars per megalitre’, and added that ‘the price jumps around. It could be more or less at any time’. Marcus disagreed with privatisation of water and decided that water had been managed successfully for many years when it was under public administration. It was the escalating demands on water, from the late 1970s, that brought over allocation and unrealistic expectations of the water resources available to harvest (Marcus).

Parkes Drought Summit meeting The summit meeting was held at Parkes on May 17, 2005. It attracted more than 2,000 people and drew wide publicity. Marcus attended the meeting and agreed to follow proceedings and record them for my use in this thesis. I instructed him to observe the interrelations between different sectors of the farm and regional communities, matters discussed from differing viewpoints and the issues that were unifying. Marcus believed that most farmers prefer to take off-farm work to keep the farm and the family economically viable when no crops are sown or crops fail. The farmers prefer this to taking drought relief

225

payments, ‘That is why the wives in many farm families have off-farm work’, Marcus explained. Marcus predicted that off-farm work would continue to be the main extra income source for the duration of the drought. He doubted if a further input of drought relief would work because the mood among farmers was to seek drought economic management programmes that allowed for dry years so that most people could recover quickly once rain fell and good seasons returned. At the Parkes Summit meeting the State government agreed that the licence fees for general security irrigation licences in the Lachlan River Catchment would be waived in the two years when they had no irrigation allocation (2003-2005). Farmers would not pay the back fees for those years before receiving a water delivery, as they were ‘waived’, meaning completely dismissed. Adrian Piccoli had requested this earlier in parliament and his request was refused. A further concession to farmers was made when, at the Parkes meeting, it was announced that the exceptional circumstances drought relief programme was to be reassessed. Meteorologists and climatologists put their research observations before the meeting and explained that there was little likelihood that the hoped for rainfall would materialise soon. Marcus described the mood at the Summit meeting when the meteorologists spoke: ‘A dampener fell over everyone’. The difference in the atmosphere ‘is very noticeable’. It ‘suddenly’ had a ‘pessimistic feel about it’. The State Minister in charge of agriculture arrived to address the meeting. He made several announcements and the meeting ended shortly before noon. ABC Sydney Radio 702 broadcast part of the meeting allowing me to take notes as the meeting progressed. Also, a 226

Four Corners Programme on ABC television, ‘Gambling the Farm’ presented details of the meeting and its orderly atmosphere. The programme aired on television in August 2005. Barber (1983) found that people, governments or organisations behave inconsiderately towards various interest groups while attempting to meet the needs of others. Out of character behaviour, whether it upsets the family, the social order or reasoned expectations of a large section of the population, may occur at the organisational or institutional level of government. The untrustworthy behaviour that occasionally emerged as when water allocations were diverted to the environment without prior notice to the farmers confirmed Barber’s statement that, ‘The public must trust and distrust all wielders of social and political power’ (Barber, 1983: 140). The farming industries were established on the basis of the trust relations and expectations of government priority for water access. Favourable working relationships existed between the farmers and the representatives of government, the senior officers, then water administrators. Now, the priorities of government change and farmers come to terms with the arrangements replacing water development policy that had continued for two centuries following European settlement. The twenty-first century heralds new priorities for government organisations meeting the needs of other industries and political demands including the environmental movement. The next Chapter reports on my analysis of the differing and sometimes conflicting perspectives of farmers and government officers. Each are searching for ways to resolve the complex problems in allocating water priorities and managing water resources.

227

Chapter Nine Survival strategies: Trust and distrust

In this thesis I have examined the response of farmers in the Murray Darling Basin, New South Wales, to institutional reform and reform of the structural arrangements for water distribution for agricultural use. The social impact of water reform is important in a world that will need to increase food supplies as the population expands. In my study of the response to water reform by farm managers in the Murray- Darling Basin, New South Wales and the impact it had on farmers and their communities, the farmers were encouraged to express their understandings of options, water management strategies and changed attitudes to water management as the result of regulatory control. The separation of the decision-makers from the farmers managing with less water, adds tension to the interrelations between farmers and the senior officers who implement water reform. Water management policies tend to underestimate the contribution that farming makes to the economic and social benefits that modern society enjoys and which result from earlier cooperation between the government and the farm industries. Water has meaningful connotations - ranging from water as private property to its life giving qualities - shared by everyone. People who live in river communities, for whom close access to a river influences how they live and their work opportunities, may feel a sense of alienation as control over their water use is transfered from the local community to unknown decision makers in centralised locations. In this Chapter, the accounts of participants engaged in developing,

228

managing and utilising water resources for agriculture are analysed to offer deeper appreciation of the contested interests at stake. Farmers, from the beginning of European settlement, were encouraged to invest their physical resources, time and money in their industry. However, recent changes threaten farm traditions of intergenerational transition in passing management from one generation to the next. Water access priorities for farming diminished under the Water Management Act 2000 in New South Wales, while at the same time the economic responsibility for water infrastructure, management and related costs increased. Farmers struggled to maintain their farms and survive the change in water priorities established during the nineteenth century. The water cutbacks for environmental flows and other purposes were not defined clearly enough and could be made by senior officers without consultation with the farmers most affected by the changes. The influence of ‘marketisation’ on water, as a former public utility, meant that farmers, who are the largest users of water, were taking increased responsibility for water as an input cost to the farm business as water allocations were reduced. The reforms placed further stress on farm income sources already reduced by drought. The senior officer, Geoffrey from Lachlan Water, explained that the reforms did not benefit the farmers. Farmers entered the field of the water industries and have a compelling interest in remaining there as they have much to lose should they leave. There are agrarian values that support farming as a worthwhile occupation and an ennobling experience. Failing to survive the economic challenges of restriction on water access, meant failing when others in the farm family history may have survived more difficult periods. As Alston (2010) observed, 229

social workers from outside rural communities are frequently surprised at the strong social networks and familial ties that help people in agricultural communities survive drought and other contingencies. The accounts given by all interviewed participants who are engaged in developing, managing and utilising water resources for agriculture, offer a fuller and deeper appreciation of the contested interests possible through bringing to the analysis a range of sociological theory, especially the work of Durkheim, Bourdieu, Luhmann and Barber. Barber (1983) found that we use ‘trust’ and ‘distrust’ mechanisms consciously or unconsciously, to allow ‘one segment of society’ to ‘trust the others’ (Barber, 1983: 19). ‘Distrust’ means to view something as potentially harmful, unrealistic or insincere and using ‘distrust’ mechanisms in this sense, ensures that farmers take precautionary action to achieve the best result in a complex situation. Farmers are working in a complex world under globalised market conditions. Luhmann (1979) presented his perception of the world we live in as a continuation from the present to the future, this perception is appropriate for understanding the need for farmers to trust in their own expertise and that their product will meet world market demands. Farmers must produce their crops then accept the global market, a market driven by the forces of supply and demand. Luhmann understood the complexity of modern society that could not be established or exist, as it does, without trust. The trust relationships are examined at three levels. The first level of trust is the ‘expectation of the persistence and fulfilment of the natural and moral social order’ and ‘confidence in the expectation of continuity despite the complexity’ of the modern world. Farmers must 230

feel confident that they can survive, otherwise, the ‘absence of trust in the moral social order is very difficult to accept or to perpetrate’ (Barber, 1983: 14). Life is chaotic without trust and ‘you cannot trust chaos’ (Luhmann, 1979: 39). Farmers understand the symbols of ‘chaos’ from the history of farming under conditions where rainfall is subject to the variable forces of nature. They know of the retreat of earlier farmers who failed to understand the fragility of the land and manage farm water problems. The story of ‘Goyder’s ghost’, explained by Connell (2007), told of the ‘Surveyor General, George Woodroffe Goyder’, of South Australia, in the nineteenth century warning that ‘the droughts of the 1860s would return’. In the 1870s, he warned of the risk of farming semi-arid regions as farmers pushed the wheat frontier into the drier climatic zones. Misled by seasons of plentiful rainfall their retreat, following drought, is evident in the ruins of crumbling homesteads visible across the inland (Connell, 2007: 7). The first level of trust, as Barber explained, concerned the continuity of the social order as known and understood. A loss of trust may be apparent in the observation of ‘social isolation’ (Alston, 2010) where farmers and other rural people are impoverished by circumstances largely beyond their control and hide their poverty by staying at home. Social workers mentioned this problem and the coping mechanisms farm women in western New South Wales were using, forming social networks to ensure support for each other. The second level of trust takes place at the organisational level where farmers have the ‘expectation of a technically competent role performance’ by senior officers, government advisers and various specialists associated with their industry (Barber, 1983: 14-5). The 231

senior officers implement rules to conform to water law and regulation, advise on policy and make technical decisions about water allocations. Farmers trust in a competent performance of these roles. Trust at the third level centres on the responsibility of the politicians making decisions at the institutional level of authority. Fiduciary responsibility occurs at a ‘moral level of interaction’ (Barber, 1983: 15). The reforms should be morally acceptable to the people to gain acceptance as for example in some occupations, such as the legal attorney or the medical professional. Politicians also have a moral responsibility to a wide electorate that represents multiple interests that may compete with each other. Day (1986) examined the government response to demands for extra water during a period of drought, by the farming industries and the mining industries in the Hunter River Catchment area, New South Wales. The government decision favoured water allocations for mining and related industries. Each litre of water could earn more if used in these industries. However, due to their wider responsibilities to society as a whole it is essential that political decision makers consider and balance the social, economic and environmental impact of water use rather than concentrate on economic outcomes. As the scholarly studies on water resource sustainability find, food security remains an important consideration for world leaders as the global population increases. Barber (1983) explained that at times people, governments or organisations might behave in an inconsiderate way in their behaviour towards various interest groups while they attempt to meet the needs of other interest groups. When the interest or the illusio, driving changed priorities for water use, put the highest value on economic 232

outcomes then water resource access is at risk for those with an illusio centred on social or environmental outcomes. The use of the term illusio emphasises that the stakes in the ‘game’ are important and worth pursuing, as Bourdieu wrote (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 116). Government priorities are shifting from the priority of water for farming to priority for industries that return the greatest economic value for water use. The farmers may feel that the changing priority for water allocation is out of character and against the expectations encouraged in the farming industries for two centuries. The attitudinal change upset the expectations of the farm population as was apparent when I asked George, the director of a large agribusiness about water reform. George said that farmers were encouraged to purchase water and expand their farms and now (2005) the government is telling the farmers that they want the water returned. There is no monetary recompense, the water cutbacks come from the licence entitlement therefore the farmers carry the cost. George said that in the case of the agribusiness, of which he is a director, the losses are in the order of millions of dollars and more cutbacks are expected. George responded to my question about communication with the senior officers when discussing water share plans, by stating that the hearing given to the views of the farmers’ was unsatisfactory. George spoke from the subjective perception of events of a major holder of water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin and shareholder in a company with extensive rural property. He said that while the river management committee meetings, because they were intended to allow everyone to participate in drawing up the plans for water sharing, were a good idea, such was the composition of the 233

committees that farmers and other people from the local rural community had ‘little joy’ in the decisions made. He felt that the local people, the ‘insiders’ townspeople, farmers and other local business and social representatives, were outnumbered. His use of the term ‘joy’, rather than a more objective term such as ‘confidence’, suggests the subjective nature of his approach to his attendance at the committee meetings, despite the fact that he represented a large international agribusiness. He demonstrated his concern about the outcome of further water cutbacks following the full implementation of water reform regulations. Barber (1983) found that expectations of satisfactory communication might fail at an organisational and an institutional level of interrelation with the authorities. During the twentieth century, farmers became accustomed to the competent performance of their work by the officers charged with the administration of water. Barber (1983) describes this process as a competent ‘technical role performance’ (Barber, 1983: 14-5) that earns trust. Vanclay (2011: 51) explained that more than communication about intended reforms is involved in encouraging farmers to adopt proposed changes. He suggested that senior officers could encourage reform through considering it as a social learning process. The argument is that making unexpected changes without appropriate consultation does not form trust relationships. John the irrigation farmer was angry. He lost his water allocation because of unexpected water cutbacks to increase environmental flows, at the expense of the allocations for farmers. He organised a protest meeting attended by approximately one hundred people. John like other farmers needs to plan farm work ahead including sales of 234

crops and sowing times. He was not told in advance of the proposed water cutbacks therefore he could not plan for the water loss and sold some of his reserve stock feed. The season was good and if the irrigation water was available, as he had expected, he would have quickly replaced what he had sold. He went into the long drought unprepared. Consequently, he lost trust in the competence of senior officers who were in charge of applying the water to the environment, the water had no follow-up application and the initial growth died. When he spoke to me he was still very angry and it was more than two years later. He had lost trust in the institutional decisions that could allow this to happen. That is why he organised a protest rally. Towards seeking an understanding of modern rural society, Alston (2010) reaffirmed the significance of the concepts Gemeinschaft and Gesselschaft , introduced by Tonnies (1957). Bell and Newby (1971) attribute Tonnies with providing a rich source of ideas for those dealing with community and its human relationships. Alston (2010) asserted that the ‘rural idyll’ in Australia, the belief that life is better in small rural societies, borrows much from Tonnies’ ‘sense of community’ (Gemeinschaft) (Alston, 2010: 8). The more formalised structures of urbanisation inherent in Gesselschaft relationships inform attitudes and outlooks. The urban values are infiltrating values based on the sense that life is better in smaller rural societies. The emphasis on economic objectives for water use may conflict with ideas about the value and benefit of water use for food security. The objectives of the farmers and those of the senior officers may clash when the senior officers need to meet the objectives of the Agency that employs them. The farmers want water 235

to continue farming. They simply want to get on with their work. The smaller family farm managers were not seeking to enter into the challenges of the water investment market. They wanted adequate supplies to continue with their work. Alston (2010) described the close-knit network of Gemeinschaft relations operating beneath a modern social structure in rural society, although usually they are not readily observable. Denser social relationships, community awareness and trust relations were apparent among people in rural communities. Women formed social networks and many of the respondents, who were farmers, cared how other people in the community were coping. The women living in the towns such as Ann, a social worker and those on farms in the country thought about others among them who might be isolating themselves and took the appropriate steps to form groups to provide support networks. Elizabeth, a social worker travelled hundreds of kilometres to provide information and support to isolated rural families and townspeople who were stressed due to drought and the economic circumstances. Farmers clung to their water resources as they did to their farmland even though selling water would relieve them of some of the cost of the farm economic input. Gregory only sold his two water licences after considerable thought. Alston referred to the help of fellow community members in times of adversity and the ‘strong networks of trust’ in modern rural society (Alston, 2010: 8). I observed this even as I learned of people who moved away for employment and further education opportunities for their children. Also relevant to the study findings are the changes from ‘administration’ to ‘managerialism’ explained by Hughes (2003) and discussed earlier in Chapter Seven. Managerialism introduced the 236

market-based policies that replaced the rights-based administrative approach to the provision of public services. Modern society has less personal, face-to-face communication systems than was common during the early and middle years of the twentieth century, when the New South Wales Water Act 1912 regulated rural water. Now decisions are made and the people who have made them do not live daily with their outcome as do people in the river catchment areas. The views of respondents in my research suggest that under the Water Management Act 2000 legislative change meant that farmers had to include complex regulatory controls over the use of water on their farmlands. Much of it was ‘imposed’ from above rather than decided among the local community members and the authorities. As George explained, the idea was to draw up water share plans through community participation and consultation. It did not work because there were many representatives of outsider groups and the local people were out-numbered. Water is a multi-functional resource and the differing views of the use, application and value of the guiding principles ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’, indicated the complexity of applying one set of rules to vast inland water systems. The situation required the farmers to grasp complex changes in the status of water. The main principles of water entitlements, public ownership, ties of water to irrigation farmland and equal sharing of the available water no longer applied. The reforms are changing many farm and water management practices in such a way as to decrease the farmers’ control over the outcome. However, trust in the outcome is essential to productive negotiation with decision makers. 237

My analysis of the responses of senior officers, as they replied to my questions, found that their duties did not include understanding the social impact of reform on the local population and on farmers. The comments by Shari, who specialised in economic matters tied to farm and water use, confirmed that the principles of ‘integrated water resource management’ influenced water policy. With the introduction of these principles came the associated requirements of privatisation, globalised market competition, and the centralised control of water. The processes indicated a focus on the wider benefit for society and tended to ignore local impacts on people and their social order. The power to control day-to-day water transfer arrangements rested with the State of New South Wales under Constitutional Law. However, the research indicated that once the Commonwealth decided on a plan of action for example, the decision to buy rural water entitlements, despite the State Government of New South Wales opposition, it was unlikely that individual States could prevail over the demands of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Government had the power to withhold the payments to the States and this further encouraged the States to adopt the water reform initiatives. In defining ‘hegemony’ as ‘political power’ emerging from ‘intellectual and moral leadership’ and arising from ‘authority or consensus’ (Cascao, 2008: 15), it was apparent that, following European settlement until the 1970s, farmers and State and Federal governments were in agreement about the principles of water administration. Each accepted the intellectual and moral leadership that the water laws generated. The Federal laws that gave each State control over its own water resources suggested a useful level of trust between State and Commonwealth Governments. 238

Deakin, as the “father” of water law in Australia, provided the intellectual and moral guidance that led to the development of hegemonic relationships in directing the interrelations between the farmers and the authorities. The legislation had the support of the farmers and the State retained the ownership of the surface and groundwater sources. The New South Wales Water Act 1912 gave farmers access to water through a simple licence system. Geoffrey, the Lachlan Water senior officer, described having ‘one piece of paper’ for a water licence whereas under the more recent initiatives each licence had ‘three pieces of paper’. Criticism of the complex arrangements also came from Leisha and Marcus, both dryland farmers who did not favour the economic arrangements and the privatisation of water. Since European settlement at Port Jackson in the late eighteenth century, when food insecurity challenged the leaders of the Colony, farming industries were essential. They ensured the well-being of the people. Until the 1980s, water development and water allocation for farming was administered to conform with the belief that water was free and plentiful and that it could be administered for farm purposes in isolation from other forms of use. A significant advance in water management was the ‘endorsement of the integrated catchment management’ policy by ‘Australian, State and Territory Governments in 1988’ (Pigram, 2006: 12). An alliance between ‘the National Farmers Federation and the Australian Conservation Foundation’ brought ‘two lobby groups’ together that had similar objectives. Each recognised that economic outcomes must be pursued in the use of water resources and each understood that it was essentials to retain ‘biodiversity and ecological sustainability’ (Pigram, 2006: 12). 239

The initial approach to water administration was constrained by policies that were fragmented (Pigram, 2006: 12). However, under the ‘integrated management principles’ a more united approach, accepted by State and Territory Governments as well as the Australian Government, was possible. Farmers now face rules that are open to continuous change and reassessment as they enter the contests for water entitlement as one of many competitors in the market. Their sense of security in their entitlement, when they had a high priority for water access, has eroded. The support of the water policy by Pigram (2006) is rejected by Sheil (2000), who viewed privatisation of the water authorities as costly for government rather than economically beneficial (Sheil 2000: 71). The corporatisation of the water authorities has left farmers unsure about how costs of water will increase and where responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the water infrastructure lies. In the twenty-first century water can no longer be perceived and allocated as a plentiful and free resource. Furthermore, the increased demands underscore the fact that water management giving the highest priority to one industry, farming, is no longer appropriate. Farming industries does not take place in isolation from the demands of other industries. Throughout my research as the social facts built on one another in a layering effect, relevant details of the adaptive strategies used by the farmers emerged. Bourdieu found ‘buried structures’ in the ‘social universe that social enquiry attempts to uncover’ (Bourdieu, 2002: 7). Bourdieu offered conceptual tools to view the social world in relational terms. His key concepts in this sense, field and habitus are expanded upon through the principles and rules that emerged from his 240

concepts ‘game’ and ‘illusio’. Bourdieu traced the principles that linked his thought to the works of Durkheim and Marx, the latter perceiving society as the ‘sum of connections and relationships’ where individuals discover themselves (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 16). Bourdieu suggested ways to understand why people behave as they do, asking what are the underlying concepts that guide action. He pointed to the significance of the events and thoughts that precede actions. A farmer experiencing dry seasons or alternatively floods, for example, when faced with a similar situation will almost subconsciously react and then act according to his or her habitus. This is based on knowledge learned through socialisation and drawn from other phases of life and experiences of similar situations. The ‘habitus’ informed the ‘game’ as the contests over water developed. John, an irrigation farmer, had expected a water allocation following a good season of plentiful rainfall in the 2000-01 year. The expectations he held of planning for drought were shattered. He lost faith in the continuity of the moral social order, as he understood it, when his water allocation was cut without consultation. John found that the water normally diverted for farming was used for environmental sustainability. He became angry because he decided that the water to restore the environment was badly handled by inexperienced people. Continuing with the analogy of the ‘game’ Bourdieu explained that his concept of ‘field’ means ‘to... think relationally’ (2002: 96), the italics follow Bourdieu’s statement. In the field of politics, he viewed the State as the more powerful contestant in human interaction over scarce resources. He observed that in the ‘historical genesis of the State’ and an ‘emergence of a specific capital’ a State can exercise 241

power over different fields and types of capital that circulate in fields (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 115). In the last instance, the State had the position of power in the field of water management. If the State decides on a model for water reform, farmers comply with the decision. The nature of water and its method of delivery and access for irrigation farming ensures that the government, as owner of the resource, a monopoly in decision making over supply, allocation and sale. Water delivery comes to the irrigation farm in a water district through the one set of pipes or through the one water channel from a water storage unit. The Wyangala Dam in the Lachlan River Valley Catchment area provides an example. Irrigation farmers comply with the regulations set by the water authority or corporation that controls supply. The farmers can protest if they are not satisfied. Bourdieu’s use of the term ‘field’ offered insight into social action, a ‘field’ contained ‘a set of objective, historical relations between positions anchored in certain forms of capital or power’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 16). Each field is a ‘space of conflict and competition’ (the italics used follow the original work). Each field differs and as the ‘game’ takes place it constructs its particular ‘values’ and applies its particular regulative principles (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 17). The ‘field’ where water allocation contests took place framed the contest for all stakeholders participating in the ‘game’. Senior officers employed in government agencies interacted with farmers mainly at the organisational level of management. As Leisha a farmer in the Lachlan Catchment explained, the rules for water use and documentation of other information about water access are delivered to the farm office via electronic mail or by post or gathered at formal 242

and informal meetings with senior officers. At the meetings about water reform that I attended, information on many different aspects of water use and management was available. For example, at the meeting in late 2003, when a farmer walked out after the audience were told that the River Management Committees were being replaced by Catchment Management Authorities, it was because he was not certain if environmental work in progress could be completed (Forbes, December, 2003). This was an example of a breakdown in trust relations between the authorities and the farmer. There is always some measure of ‘indeterminacy’: even when rules in a universe are strongly enforced, there is some instance of playing with the rules as ‘part’ of ‘the game’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 17-18). Dominic, a keen observer of irrigation water contests, although he is a dryland farmer, said that farmers selling their entitlements, in the belief they would buy them back when they were cheaper, got rid of debt through the sale. Unfortunately, in some instances they could not afford to buy back the water when needed because the price had markedly increased. In Dominic’s view, the sellers of the water entitlements were the losers. They were left with a farm with no irrigation water and too small for dryland farming. Geoffrey, the senior officer employed by Lachlan Water, suggested that postponing water licence fees was a sign of a decision maker ‘playing’ with the rules of the game. When farmers faced a third year without water allocations and had already faced zero allocation for two consecutive years, the farmers applied to have their water licence fees waived. This meant that they would not owe the water licence fees and they were free of the obligation to pay a licence fee for water that was not available to them in that water year. There was a sense of 243

injustice as the fee charges actually increased notwithstanding the fact that irrigation farmers had a zero water allocation. The Government would postpone the fees, rather than waive them. Geoffrey said the government ‘was playing the game’ with the farmers; they had no water, they were running out of credit and some would need to borrow to pay the back fees before further water was delivered. Mr Piccoli, the politician, wondered what other organisation would have the customer pay for something the organisation could not deliver. My research suggests that the Government, by increasing fees when allocations were cutback to zero, was encouraging general security licence owners to sell the water licence. Government wanted water ‘buybacks’ from farmers to reduce the over allocation problems. Geoffrey said that general security irrigation water licence holders (who produce pastures, grain, rice and cotton), were reluctant to sell their licences. They held on to the water as they had always held on to their farmland. Water cutbacks increased as the years of drought continued and the vulnerability of the farmers to debt increased. Andrew Piccoli said that he feared that a generation of irrigation farmers was being lost to the agricultural industry. He wanted to know why a farmer should pay for something (water allocations) they did not receive. The dryland grain farmers could not sow wheat or other grain crops in 2005. Ruth said that until the 1990s, machinery would start up at a particular time and crops were harvested when ready. However, the normal seasonal cycle of farming had stopped by 2005 as dryland farms felt the impact of the drought as did irrigation farmers. The ‘blue’ water, water from streams, rivers and stored in dams was in short supply. The on-farm dams were emptying and the large State 244

owned storages, the dams, weirs, and lakes along the Lachlan River such as Lake Cargelligo, had very low levels of water. The small towns experienced the loss of social and kinship networks. For example, people who ordinarily might play in local football teams were no longer finding work in the district and were not available for local teams. There were instances of some families with children reaching school leaving age, needing employment or further education, moving elsewhere to find more opportunities. Leisha’s brother-in-law and his family left the district for further education and employment chances. The impact on the social order of water shortfall became apparent, although distinguishing between the impact on the communities from water cutbacks or the impact from drought was impossible. Each event brought water losses for the farmers. The social impact of reform on the farm sector was not part of his research programme said agricultural economist, Shari. He examined the economic impact of reform on farm businesses. Marcus and the husband and wife team Dominic and Ruth told their children to take up work other than farm work because the farm could not support them. Marcus explained that many of the farm women worked off-farm or had some off-farm income to support the family income and in this sense subsidised the farming industry. The accounts by Alston (1995, 2000 and 2010) who researched the contribution of women to the farm economy, demonstrated that women play a prominent, although largely unrecognised, role in contributing to the farm income. For example, women such as Leisha, a farmer with young children, took employment in town with the children during the week and returned with them to the farm at 245

weekends. Sandy is a farm manager who also manages an office in the nearest town using her training in farm economics. Each person who entered the field of competition may be from a background that knows the field intimately and knows how to ‘play the game of culture’ as Bourdieu (Bourdieu and Wacquant 2002) explained. In the contests over water, people who were familiar with the ‘game’ presented themselves as aware of the events surrounding water management and were informed of what happened in the water storage units: the dams, weirs and lakes from which they drew their water supply. Geoffrey, from Lachlan Water, knew the river intimately. When interviewed in 2005 he said that it was unlikely that farms would receive water that year from snow melt or rainfall. Bourdieu explained the action of people who are familiar with the game as having a sense of ‘casualness’ about them that demonstrates ‘true familiarity’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 330). Both Geoffrey and Gregory were familiar with the world in which they had grown up and had the innate knowledge that allowed them to be relaxed as they faced the challenge of water shortfall. They knew how to assess water availability relying on observation skills and scientific knowledge. Women in western regions formed a support group. They understood the local needs, formed their own groups and raised any funding needed with the purpose of encouraging one another. Geoffrey’s wife managed their farm while her husband worked for Lachlan Water. Her three concerns were keeping her garden alive, supporting her husband so he did not have so much work to do and ensuring that the children got an education because the farm would never support them entirely.

246

The farmers and the local parliamentary member, Adrian Piccoli, were mindful of the seriousness of the water cutbacks and the way they led to a decrease in the farm income. This serious situation for farm continuity and the future of food security was no likely to be understood by the decision makers who were geographically distanced and urban-based. Barlow and Clarke (2002) warned of the outcome of the possibility of corporate organisations capturing the water market and ignoring the interests of people in local river communities. McCully (1998) in his extensive studies of big dam construction throughout the world drew attention to global problems related to the displacement of many people through large-scale dam construction. Water capture and storage could have a destructive impact on innumerable families and social groups dependent on a river catchment area for their income. The dam construction era brought massive benefits for it allowed a higher level of food security that arguably would not have been possible without irrigation. This allowed in turn an increase in the growth of the world population that Connell (2007) explained was not possible without irrigation (Connell, 2007: 1). Farmland and water resources development needs to keep pace with the increasing demands for food generated by population growth although Connell suggests that this could prove impossible because the growth of urbanisation was taking out of production some of the best farmland. In 2003, the environmentalist Phillip was highly enthusiastic about his work and involved in the restoration of the natural resources, waterways and the neglected and abandoned areas of land in the eastern states of Australia and particularly in the Sutherland Shire in New South Wales where he lived. He brought energy and enthusiasm 247

to environmental issues and he hand delivered the Greens Party platform for water to my door prior to the New South Wales State elections in March of that year. The water industry generated a field of conflict, in the sense used by Bourdieu, the field ‘gives life to a specific form of interest, a specific illusio’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 117). The ‘stakes are important’ and worth pursuing (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 116) to those with an interest in that particular field. Farmers had a different illusio, a different outlook and attitude towards water allocations than did the senior officers, such as Shari, who mapped the economic outcome of water reform regulations. Farmers had some similarity of views with the environmentalists as each group were involved in farm and land care programmes or organisations. Farmers were concerned about their loss of options for further farm and water development. They needed to generate income to bring the next generation into the farm business.

The contestants: farmers and senior officers Farmers and senior officers each belong to different class groups where ‘class’ refers to a group of people who share the same ‘class situation’ in relation to the economic order and have opportunities to access specific ‘life chances’ (Gerth and Mills, 1974: 181). The farmers belong to a ‘class’ of owners and/or managers of farmland. The class position in modern rural society is not based absolutely on ownership or non-ownership of farmland property; some senior officers employed by government authorities may also own farms in regional New South Wales, such as Geoffrey, who is a farmer and also an officer working in a semi-government agency. In a similar way 248

children of farmers who normally would become farmers, are educated to take up occupations other than farming and they may return to the region if there is an employment opportunity in a government or semi-government agency. The senior officer, in interrelation with farmers as clients of the agency or the department, belongs to a class group where life’s opportunities were enhanced by tertiary training and specialist knowledge. The senior officer brings to the field the habitus that is derived from socialisation into the norms of the group. Their objectives will accord with the department that employs them. In the interview with senior officers Jane or Geoffrey who are both partners in their respective family farms, I found that, as well as their occupational perspective as employees of semi-government agencies, they had a broader perspective of the events. Their responses demonstrated an understanding of the social impact of change. Bourdieu explained the hidden categorisation that operates within a set of subsidiary characteristics and generating ‘principles of selection or exclusion without ever being formally stated’. They may become the underlying motives that affect human behaviour (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 101-03). This selection process could be viewed in the river management committee meetings where there were representatives of local groups, farmers, townspeople, Aboriginals and others who came to decisions on water management with ‘outsiders’. The ‘outsider’ committee members included environmentalists, business people and senior officers who belonged to various government and semi-government organisations whose central offices were located outside the local region.

249

George the owner and director of a large agribusiness said that he found that the ‘outsiders’ outnumbered local people. He said the meetings were ‘stacked’ by people with no immediate involvement with water access for on-farm use. It was a good idea to allow rural participation in decisions over water planning he argued. However, the ‘outsider’ representatives did not listen to the local people as they might. This indicated that their interests in the field were different from those of the farm owners.

Participants in the struggles The habitus of the senior officer evolved as he or she learned the skills and became socialised into the world of a government officer. Their role in the field of water contests and management is understood, in Bourdieu’s sense as constituting a place in a field where contests are part of their ‘meaningful world’. The field has a ‘sense and value’ for participants (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 127). Shari, the agricultural economist, exemplified the interrelation between the individual and the field under study. He is enthusiastic about his management model, working out the farm economic output and the productivity levels of farmers who experience water cutbacks. He enjoyed the discipline that economic rationalism ideology imposed on his work but said that the social outcome of the new water arrangements required an interdisciplinary study group. It was apparent from the answers of the respondents that there was a harmful social affect on farmers and their communities while at the same time there was little certainty about what was the real cause, whether it was the long drought or water reform or other socioeconomic influences.

250

Family farmers are socialised into their field often from birth. The farm managers whom I interviewed, who were in control of large agribusinesses, brought skills in economics and farming as well as tertiary training qualifications to their role. Newcomers, such as investors seeking trade in water, or environmentalists seeking water diversions for the environmental flows, also bring their illusio, their special interests, to the field. When I considered the different ‘interests’, in the sense used by Bourdieu, that guide each group of contestants in fierce struggles over water, it is evident that conflict and struggle are likely to continue. The views and arguments expressed in interviews by the participants, at the protest demonstrations such as that organised by John, the irrigation farmer, or at the Parkes Summit meeting in May 2005, or comments in the rural press about water reform, sales of water and farmland, there appears to be a lack of trust, a bitterness emerging in the struggles. There was an early casualty of water trading when the Water Bank in Dubbo, that had advertised for trade in water shares, closed down. A stock and station agent said that the water share firm was no longer trading. Deakin (1885) designed legislation with the intent of avoiding long legal conflicts over water. He did not want Australia to be a legal battlefield for challenges between water users as happened in the United States of America (Smith, 2001: 153). His policies lasted for one century. Since the 1990s, privatisation has become the accepted model for water management and is approved by governments of both major political parties

251

Shari may represent the style typical of the ‘new management’ senior officer. He or she looks to the future of the organisation that employs them. The managerial role at this level of seniority holds the officer accountable for the ‘very future’ of their organisation’, for establishing priorities and objectives and setting in place the plans to achieve them (Hughes, 2003: 47).

Farmers managing water Geoffrey said that: ‘Irrigation farmers can’t change over’ to become dryland farms ‘as their farms are too small to be dryland farms’. He continued, ‘When irrigation farms become dryland farms’ the farmer ‘has only got a quarter of the land that he needs’ and still has the ‘cost structure to go with that irrigation area’ (Geoffrey). It is expensive to change from one type of farming to another and the farmland size needs to be adequate. A further consideration is that the local government rates payable on irrigation land are higher than for dryland farm areas, because of the potential for higher income earnings per hectare of land. The interviews and field research in the years leading up to 2006, taught me about the economic stress within rural communities. It was a drought time and the irrigation and dryland farmers were under considerable strain. The economic and social impact of reform was understood by the sight of stranded farms indicating that the farm managers with working farms in that water district paid extra to make up for costs previously a shared responsibility with the owners of the abandoned farms. The term, ‘stranded farm’ was applied by a guide, Pat, who is also a farmer. Pat showed me a patchwork of well cared for irrigation farms 252

alongside neglected farms. Neighbouring farmers had sold their water rights and left the district, Pat explained. Fewer farmers were carrying the cost of water delivery and infrastructure charges. Some of these farms would close down if they could not keep the farm as a viable business enterprise. If the drought did not break by 2008 more farmers would sell their irrigation water rights to reduce debt, worsening the situation for a reliable local source of food production in the future. Because, without water, irrigation farms are not viable, they lose value and selling might be an option of last resort. Irrigation farmers had several management strategy options. They included selling or leasing the water and/or the land or using their water to work the farmland perhaps one year in three or five under a continuous accounting system (Geoffrey).

Resilience Resilience is a concept that is increasingly attracting sociological research. Resilience is evident in two streams of action (Alston, 2010). On the one hand, it means using traditional means to survive economic stress - the farmers will use their resources to keep things as they are. Gregory preferred not to go to protest rallies and he managed much of the farming alone with the help of his retired father. His business partner, his brother, had taken the cattle on agistment. Gregory supported traditional ideas and wanted things to remain the same if possible. Resilience of a more proactive style was observable in the actions of the farmers who joined protest meetings and approached the senior officers or lobbied politicians, such as Piccoli, the State politician, or a 253

Federal Government minister, to seek changes in water access entitlements or changes in the fee structure of local government farm rates. Marcus, Dominic, Warren and John typified farmers who adopted a more pro-active style of resilience to draw attention to their problems. This was demonstrated in attending the Parkes Summit meeting or in the case of John, organising a protest meeting. Warren approached a federal minister. Ruth, Marcus and Dominic were employed in off-farm work or had taken off-farm work in the past, while working on their farms as well. The Parkes Summit meeting was successful; it attracted over 2,000 people and captured the attention of the national media. The numbers at the rally had influence in persuading the New South Wales Carr Labor Government to waive water licence fees for the two immediate years of zero water allocation, 2003-05, for general security water licences. Farmers then avoided borrowing to pay for earlier years of postponed fees, before securing an irrigation water delivery when it was next available. The farmers could take certain grievances about government decisions to the Land and Environment Court and Jane and Geoffrey from the Lachlan Water authority showed me original documentation of the intention to do this. The State government withdrew the controversial changes to water share plans prior to the court hearing (Jane, Geoffrey of Lachlan Water). A reading of Durkheim on property law and society discovered that ‘private appropriation presupposes an initial collective appropriation’ (Durkheim, 1984a: 183). It means that society must own the property that will be appropriated and agree to the arrangements. Public property becomes private property when some person or group obtains 254

the legal right to withdraw the property from public access. Ultimately, the government can overrule water rights entitlements as it has done through legislative changes that altered entitlements given under the Water Act 1912. It is apparent that the government is doing what it thinks is right, but for farmers the erosion of trust in water management appeared to increase. The policies generated suspicion that ‘lefties’ (people with extreme left wing orientations) or ‘greens’ (environmentalists) are highly influential in some of the decision-making processes. As Durkheim, the sociologist and Alfred Deakin, Attorney-General of Victoria and one of Australia’s early Prime Ministers, were aware, water has special qualities. Because it is essential to all living things giving water the title of a ‘property’ and treating it as a commodity like others, opens it to market competition and the conflict that emerges when a scarce, increasingly valuable resource is wanted by many stakeholders. Both groups, farmers and senior officers, seek different objectives. Their habitus, their way of relating to water problems, differs markedly. The senior officers follow the regulations established under economic rationalism policies and departmental objectives. Farmers seek to survive having faced changes in government priorities for water access, as they reassess traditional farm practices including the chance to pass the family farm to the next generation. The next generation returns to the farm when major work is in progress and continues with their off-farm work. This may apply also when they finally take over the farm management. To continue farming they need water resources, as Professor Mitchell (2004) explained in his opening seminar address, ‘water is life’, it is essential to each living 255

thing. The research found that water reform overall has not been helpful to farmers and there is no reassurance that water is used more wisely now and more carefully saved.

The mature phase of water development My study took place during the phase of water development that placed the focus for management firmly on economic and environmental aspects of water reform. The New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 No 92 was ‘An Act to provide for the protection, conservation and ecologically sustainable development of the water sources of the State, and for other purposes’. Strang (2004: 147-163) explored the relationship between people in western societies and their desire to secure their water supply. She carried out an in-depth analysis based on an ethnographic research programme undertaken in the River Stour basin in Dorset, England. The study, in part, focused on social change when the privatisation of the water authorities in the United Kingdom was occurring. Strang stated that local people experienced a loss of control over their waterways and felt that their efforts to save water made little difference to ensuring the survival of the river and its environment. Strang observed that it is difficult to obtain a counterbalance through some form of ongoing public control by local government bodies that look after the interests of both local people and the corporate organisation (Strang, 2004: 147). The suggestion is that elite groups, distanced from the immediate impact of their decisions on the physical environment and people living in nearby river communities, make decisions based on economic criteria leaving local people to feel powerless to stop the deterioration of the system. The New 256

South Wales Water Management Act 2000 in stating that one of its objectives is to provide ‘for other purposes’ in water use, allows a broad range of interests to stake their claim.

Complexities of modern water management The aim of the study was to answer the three questions: (a) What were the implications of further restrictions on water use for farmers under the regulatory controls following the Water Management Act 2000 and other regulatory agreements. (b) What strategies did the dryland and irrigation farmers use to cope with water reform and cutbacks to water entitlements. (c) To observe whether the trust by farmers in government policy is eroding. The major implication for farmers was the changed relationship between the government and the farmers. Farmers were encouraged to develop their land and water resources and to provide food security and export earnings for the nation from the time the first settlers arrived at Sydney Cove. The Water Management Act 2000 was the culmination of nearly a decade of preparation for change in water access entitlements for farmers. The state waterways were deteriorating rapidly under pressures from over allocation of the water resources and increased demand from a variety of stakeholders. The farmers as the largest users of water, were the target for the major reforms made under the principles of ‘integrated water resources management’ and ‘sustainable water resources management’. Bourdieu wrote that he had ‘often quoted a remark of Weber’ (Gerth and Mills, 1974) in reference to law: Weber said that ‘social 257

agents obey a rule only insofar as their interest’ in doing so far exceeds ‘their interest in overlooking it’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 115). Bourdieu asserts that the rule is sound and that: ‘we should ask what makes those rules operative in the first place’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 115); we should examine the underlying interests that drive social action. The farmers needed the government to supply water. The larger agribusiness farmers could purchase water elsewhere if necessary but the smaller family farmers, the majority of New South Wales farmers, were dependent on the allocated water under their licence entitlement, lacking the economic resources of larger agribusinesses to make up losses from water cutbacks with the purchase of extra water licences. My research demonstrated that if smaller farms had the water sold away from the farm and the water district, they were unlikely to have the funds to purchase an entitlement back if prices for water rose rapidly. The bank officer Ronald explained that farmers depended on their loan structure and most did not request a change from the loan conditions the bank wanted under the Water Management Act 2000 when farmland and irrigation water became separate entities, each with its own title. The benefit of retaining their farm mortgage in tact outweighed the benefit of non-compliance with new bank rules (Ronald). It is recalled that the fees for irrigation water licences were payable whether or not farmers had a zero allocation and no water was available for use in irrigation in that water year. Senior officers at a Lachlan River Valley water authority (Jane and Geoffrey) explained that they advised farmers to take up the State Government offer to postpone fee payment. Geoffrey explained that it was possible that if 258

the farmers refused the offer at that time, it might not be available again. The government may decide that the farmers had money and did not need a concession because they had not accepted the offer of postponement. The reluctance to accept the offer was understandable because eventually farmers must pay the back fees because, when water became available, payment made them eligible to turn on their water pump (Geoffrey, Lachlan Water). Ultimately, as ‘cash strapped’ irrigation farmers, some would sell water licences to the Federal Government under the water buy-back scheme and others might sell because they no longer wanted to be in the irrigation industry. Bourdieu explained that the penalties for disobeying rules must be ‘severe enough to ensure compliance’ (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 2002: 115). The fees owed to the authorities were due for payment prior to a further water delivery. One part of the ‘penalty’ could be to receive a water entitlement and to be unable to turn on the irrigation pump because the licence fees were unpaid. Adrian Piccoli said that electors in his district had those concerns because they had run out of credit and could not borrow the money to pay the fees. The outcome of further restrictions must take account of the different ways water access was already restricted. Irrigation farmers had cutbacks to their entitlement where they lost a portion of their water allocation and did not receive financial recompense. All farmers were restricted in the volume of water they could store on the farm. Farmers could not keep the water savings they made and they could not enlarge their farm dams to ensure they had enough water to carry them through two or three years of drought.

259

The outcome of further water restrictions was the loss of the next generation of farmers as restrictions on further development of water impacted on the further development of the farm business. These were the major impacts of the incremental water cutbacks and there are other associated impacts. These include an approach to farm income that Alston (2010) explained has at least one member of the farm family, often the female, supplementing farm earnings with off-farm employment. There are broader social implications also as the services provision to the local rural commercial centre shrinks as people leave for better educational or employment opportunities. Under marketisation of the public services, as Alston explained, the need to make a profit and ensure that the services are self-funding, means that the smaller centres do not generate sufficient income to make service provision self-supporting. Centralisation takes the local water managers and the managers of many public service organisations, out of smaller rural centres to work in centralised offices. In this outcome the interrelations between the farmers and the senior officers, who manage water reform, are more distant. Much of the personal interaction under the administrative role of the senior officer becomes impossible. Distance and time pressure on the new managers, who often travel vast distances to visit their clients, makes the relatively close contact of the previous water regime difficult. Enquiry into the strategies used by the dryland and irrigation farm managers to cope with water reform and cutbacks in water allocations discovered individual responses to water reform and to the many other events in the lives of the farm managers. Much

260

depended on whether the farm manager was running a large agribusiness or a medium or smaller size family farm business. Some farms, such as Ruth and Dominic’s farm were fully developed and had adequate water storage at hand. Other factors were important including the stage of life of the farm managers. The farmer who was starting out had much work to do if the farm was not fully developed. The younger farmers were also likely to have children to educate and were yet to organise the eventual change as the children took over farm management. Marcus, Leisha and Gregory were in this phase of life. Gregory sold the irrigation entitlements for his farm as he had not had a water allocation for his general security licence for three years out of four. Ruth said that some farmers took the option to dry sow their crop, that is sow a crop during drought and hope the rain came at the right time. Ruth and Dominic preferred to let their ground remain untouched and take their chances on the rain. Their farm was fully developed and they had plenty of water storage to carry the sheep through a long drought as well as access to bore water when needed. Warren on behalf of his large agribusiness organisation approached a Federal Government leading politician for regional Australia, to have his water allocation restored. His request was refused and shortly afterwards the irrigation sections of the large agricultural holdings were closed. The social repercussions were felt in the nearby town of Bourke as employment opportunities were lost. The social fall out included psychological pressure on some of the local people who had relied on irrigation for employment and could find no alternative work in the remote western regions.

261

The other large agribusiness manager George said that he bought up water in some catchment areas and in others he both bought and sold water depending on seasonal changes and the needs of the farms. George tried to have his ideas and those of other local people put forward at meetings deciding water share plans, because they could contribute information that was essential to a good outcome in water management. George was disappointed that the local people were not listened. He thought that was stupid because they knew the variable nature of rainfall and were accustomed to managing the farms and drought. Some farmers sold, others did all possible to keep their farmland. I attended the Auction in Sydney of a large dryland and irrigation farm that had been in the hands of one family for a century. It was located in the Lower Lachlan River Valley. It did not sell at Auction, although it sold some months later below the reserve price. Several farmers used family resources to help them through, working for other family members and using their machinery on their own farms in a reciprocal agreement of paying for using the machinery by providing labour. Gregory turned his irrigation farm into an additional dryland farming area when he sold his irrigation licences. In examining whether the trust by farmers in government policy is eroding, I was mindful of the history of water development from the time of the Deakin reforms. Farmers as a group had trusted that their priority for access to water would continue. As Daniel (1998) stated trust is a means of ‘simplifying’ the world’. Trust is found in ‘the tight relations of groups’ and in sharing an ‘identity’ and an ‘ideology’ (Daniel, 1998: 34).

262

As a group, farmers believed that their right to access water and their priority for water entitlements would continue. It was a surprise to find themselves one of many stakeholders and fairly low on the priority list for water allocations under the priorities listed in the Water Management Act 2000. The trust by irrigation farmers in government policy was tested when year-followed-year when farmers had no water allocation for general security irrigation water licences. The trust of dryland and irrigation farmers was further tested when the capture and storage of their own water on their farms was curtailed. Farmers did unite successfully to find some relief from their financial problems at the Parkes Summit meeting in 2005. The then Prime Minister John Howard personally inspected the drought impact in central New South Wales, in the Lachlan Catchment region, near Lake Cargelligo. Howard agreed to fund repairs to the pumps that supplied fresh water for the population in towns and some outlying farms. The Federal government also promised to examine the exceptional circumstances drought relief programme to decide whether to continue with it. The State Government in New South Wales, having earlier rejected the request, decided to waive two years of licence fee charges for general security irrigation licences. The decision to waive fees was made at a large rally of over 2,000 people at Parkes, then the epi-centre of its longest drought in recorded history. John, an irrigation farmer lost trust in the management of water at the organisational level of reform as a consequence of an unexpected water allocation cutback that was given without warning or consultation with farmers in the 2001 – 2002 water years, just as the

263

drought commenced and the Water Management Act 2000 with priorities favouring environmental flows, was introduced. John went into drought in the Lachlan River catchment with few reserves of grain and fodder to survive the longest drought on record. He was angry and anxious about water diversion for environmental flows that failed through he said, wastage and mismanagement. He thought that farmers should be asked how to apply environmental water at the right time. (John). John felt that farmers were excluded from important water management decisions and that there was little transparency in decision-making procedures. He was also concerned about the competence of senior officers at the organisational level of water management, as they had little practical experience in the most efficient use of applying environmental water. Similarly, Marcus, a dryland farmer who also took regular off farm work to supplement the farm income, said in his interview that he regretted that he had not had the opportunity to fully develop his farm dams. To ensure that the next generation of the family could take over the farm and to support his family he needed to enlarge the farm dams. Now he could not get permission, leaving him doubtful that the farm could earn the income to allow his children to take over the farm management in due time. The history of the farming industry indicates that it was encouraged by the trust relationship that developed between the farmers and the various governments throughout Australia. Both State and the Australian governments supported irrigation development. Pigram, (2006: 128; and Smith, 2001) explained that early doubts were expressed about the potential for irrigation expansion. However, the 264

governments of each State, supported by the Australian Government provided resources to construct the infrastructure that could allow control over vast water resources and limit the impact of drought. Now, in the early twenty-first century, after a century of water development programmes, the government appeared to be ignoring the contribution of farming to food security and the national economy by lowering the priority for farmers to access water. In enquiring into the different strategies used by dryland and irrigation farm managers to cope with water reform and cutbacks, I found that each farm is different and each farmer decides on options suited to their farm business and management requirements. Gregory wanted to be independent of government assistance, he never wanted to have things go wrong and go to the government for help later, so he travelled the hundreds of kilometres to examine the Wyangala Dam water storage supply to estimate his chances of a water delivery in the next year or two. He returned to his farm and sold his water entitlements when he found the water levels extremely low in the dam. He was fortunate because he had other dryland farm areas that the irrigation farm would supplement. His management strategy was to sell the water that had a zero allocation. Farmers were not buying in extra water to supplement water lost from licence cutbacks. I needed to know the reason. There was an initial flurry of trade in irrigation water from 2001 to 2003, particularly for high security water licences, said Geoffrey, from Lachlan Water. Marcus, a dryland farmer also commented on this. He said that for a brief period it seemed likely that water trade would be highly profitable for farmers and investors and he knew that some farmers did make a ‘killing’ out of their licence sales. Then trade in 265

water fell away and the trade virtually died, according to a stock and station agent report. I learned that the Dubbo branch of the business opened to trade in water had closed by 2005. Drought was in its fourth year and general water licences had low or zero water allocations. The large corporate farms draw on the objectives of their parent organisation to dictate their management strategies, whereas the family farmers draw on their traditions and their plans for future development and continuity for the family farm. If farmers cannot use water savings to expand their business or to build a dam to the size needed to store water to take them through a major drought their business cannot grow. It may lead to the end of the traditions of family farming as known. The study allowed me to observe whether the trust by farmers in government policy is eroding. The Parkes Summit in May 2005 attended by over 2,000 people, mostly farmers, led to the New South Wales Government announcing a concession for the irrigators holding general security licences. The summit meeting was orderly, farmers, such as the dryland farmer Dominic told me before the meeting that he trusted that some economic concessions would be made to farmers at the meeting. His expectations were realised with a decision to reassess the former drought policy. Among the issues to consider at the Parkes Summit meeting was the problem of replacing the water infrastructure (that delivered water to remote towns) badly damaged by salt due to low water levels in Lake Cargelligo. John Howard, the Prime Minister, visited Lake Cargelligo in May 2005 and saw the difficulties of supplying water to the outlying towns. He agreed to contribute to the replacement and repair

266

costs of the infrastructure. His visit covered the ground that I had travelled over two weeks earlier and had observed it in severe drought. Barber (1983) explained that the ‘absence of trust in the moral social order is very difficult to accept’ (Barber, 1983: 14). The lack of consultation between senior officers and farmers (at the organisational level of reform) that John had explained and that was about issues vital to the survival of farm businesses also annoyed the agribusiness manager, George. He found poor consultative practices between local people and the representatives of government managing water in the river catchment meetings. George found that the democratic and participatory ideas proposed at the initial meetings of the River Management Committees, that drew up water sharing plans for river catchments were sound in principle. George was discouraged when the rule for developing water licences, that is within three years of purchase, was not enforced by the authorities. George said that left farmers with developed licences, who obeyed the rules, buying the undeveloped licences for a very high price when cutbacks to licence allocations were made. George argued he had no confidence in Government in its dealings in water matters when some rules, namely the rule for licence development was discounted. Farmers have experienced some government policies for farming innovation and development that have ended in failure. As Vanclay (2011) explained. Water reform and the current water cutbacks alone did not cause the farmers to lose trust in some government policies. A study of past farm improvement policies by Vanclay (2011) found that a number of them, intended to improve farm administration and management practices, were unsuccessful. This was a reason for

267

farmers being sceptical about change recommended by government extension officers (Vanclay, 2011: 55-6). Farmers are aware that institutional reform does have problems. In the river management committee meetings when the members of the committee drew up water share plans, there was difficulty coming to a consensus about listing priorities for water sharing, access and delivery. Furthermore, in the sale of water shares, Sandy’s cousin sold water entitlements when there was no water in storage to meet the sale. Trust was eroding and Sandy concluded that: ‘Water as property’ was not working. Adrian Piccoli, the politician in the New South Wales Government, said in his interview with me that he fears that the next generation will not learn the traditional farming skills and an entire generation of farmers will be lost to the industry. The tension increased between political, economic, environmental and social objectives for water access and use during the period of this study. It was apparent that Australian State and Federal Government’s did not give priority for water allocations for farming, that under the principle of ‘integrated water development’, should be given more consideration to support the industry and the global needs for an expanded food production industry in the future. In the next Chapter I examine ongoing debates about water sharing plans and the ownership of water as property to discover what areas would most benefit from further social research. Decisions about the most productive uses of water, about our priorities for water use and about societal interests that underpin water policy should reflect scientific understanding of the best options for water use in the future.

268

Chapter Ten Towards understanding our natural resources

The introduction of new rules for water access followed the introduction of the Water Management Act 2000 in New South Wales. This Chapter explores the reforms discussed in this thesis and points to gaps in knowledge that are potentially fruitful avenues for further research and scientific inquiry. The research could draw together the combined investigative resources of a variety of disciplines that bear on waterways, their use, their value as an economic resource for the nation and their unique life-giving qualities that must be conserved. The principles ‘sustainable water resources management’ and ‘integrated water resources management’ guide water reform in Australia (Pigram, 2006: 12-14). Integrated management processes include and consider the ‘ecological, economic and social aspects of natural resources management’ within the boundaries of an identifiable water catchment system. Ideally, human requirements are satisfied while maintaining long-term viability (Pigram, 14). ‘Sustainable’ in this thesis is perceived as meaning to provide the conditions to hand to the next generation the water resources in the same, or an improved, condition that was enjoyed by previous generations. An ‘integrated’ approach was accepted because it would develop and manage water, land and other natural resources in a more unified way (Pigram, 2006: 193). The ‘sustainable’ development of ecosystems and river catchments, as Pigram (2006: 13) wrote, is central to the water reform process. The reforms were intended to redress the over allocation of water resources in the Murray-Darling

269

Basin during the 1970s until the early 1990s and to restore and rejuvenate the rivers and their environment. In applying the principles ‘integrated water resource management’ the senior officers in charge of water resources balance economic, environmental, agricultural and other purposes under the Water Management Act 2000. The policy for water diversions and abstractions in the twenty-first century must be acceptable to the multiple players in the field including State, Federal and Local Government authorities. Under the legislative change, farmers lost their priority for water access, their ‘enjoyment’ of the access to water for irrigation purposes allowed to them under the New South Wales Water Act 1912 and the Australian Constitution. Managers of the large agribusinesses and the managers of the smaller farms or the medium size farms had to decide on their future in the industry. The options considered in 2009 included to move away, run their irrigation farmland as a dryland farm, sell the water under the Federal Government ‘buyback’ scheme, or simply wait out the drought period. The farmers were taking account of institutional reform –their lost priority for water access – and the climatic impact of the longest drought in living memory. The objective of the Boards of the larger agribusinesses and the future of the farm families continuing in the industry depended on the ability to access adequate water, or to do more with the water available. The National Water Initiative (2004) encouraged the use of water resources in compliance with national and international standards for the privatisation of public utilities. The objective was to facilitate the return of over allocated water to the river systems to achieve ‘sustainable’ levels. In the light of the increased demands it is unclear 270

what the sustainable levels will be (Connell, 2007). The economic risk of future reductions in irrigation water was shared between the water users and the government according to the report of a Senate Committee (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, 2004, April). The objective of the Boards of the agribusiness corporations, in line with corporate business management practice (Sheil 2000: 40-1) was to make a profit. The plans of farm families for intergenerational change on the small to medium size farms were under consideration (Piccoli, parliamentarian; Dominic, Marcus, farmers). Farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin in New South Wales were weighing up the benefits of staying in the farming industry. Their contribution to food production is important, although in Australia the population does not face the threat of famine farms need to be profitable to survive. On the other hand several intercultural studies emerging during the following year (2010) focused on global population growth and food security for an expanding world population (Cribb 2010: 187; G Lawrence, K Lyons, and T Wallington 2010). Cribb mentioned the possibility (albeit remote) of food wars (Cribb, 2010: 187). Australian farmers had made a major contribution to agricultural production for domestic purposes and for export. Institutional reform and prolonged dry years made it necessary to consider if they could continue their work. The critical food security problems in some developing nations gave greater urgency to the fear expressed by the Murrumbidgee politician Adrian Piccoli, that a generation of farmers could be lost to the industry. Irrigation farmers were refused the permission for the extra irrigation water to expand their farms to an economically viable size that allowed the next generation to continue in farming as their 271

main source of income. Any new land use likely to intercept considerable volumes of water required an entitlement licence (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, 2004, April). Key elements of the 2004 Intergovernmental Agreement for water share plans cover economic, environmental and political objectives. They do not indicate a priority to cover the social aspects of water reform, the viability of the farm industries or the survival of smaller regional communities. The removal of barriers to competition and trade in achieving the objectives of the ‘integration’ and ‘sustainability’ principles and meeting ‘marketisation’ challenges led to a questioning of ‘trust’ that farmers could expect to feel about their future. In river catchment areas, such as the Lachlan River, water rules, applying to particular water jurisdictions, allowed water trade within certain sections of a river and not other sections. Leisha a dryland farmer said that they could sell irrigation water licences to a particular mine because it was within the area allowed them for transferability of their water entitlement. The Intergovernmental Agreements governing removal of the trade barriers could impoverish some water districts if water traded to destinations outside the region. Trade barriers that individual water jurisdictions had in place, protecting local industry could be lifted. The social impact of trade in water appeared to be an unknown factor. Marcus wanted to enlarge the water storage on his farm to provide water for the long droughts. He could not do this because restrictions on water capture did not allow further farm development. He said that he probably could not pass his farm on to his children because 272

without further development from extra water supplies the income earning capacity of the farm would be inadequate to support them. The social impact of reform is apparent. If the farmers cannot develop their land and water to keep pace with rising costs and to continue traditions of intergenerational change then income is lost throughout the rural communities. This means a social loss as people leave rural regions because of a lack of employment opportunities. The economic loss increases the likelihood of the loss of health, transport and other services (Alston, 2010). A large number of farms and most of the water sources of inland New South Wales had some economic or social impact on the local community from the change in water access arising from the reforms. The DIPNR Annual Report (2004-05) stated that thirty-one water share plans commenced in July 2004. ‘Approximately 7,000 Water Act 1912 licences’ were converted to Water Access Licences under the Water Management Act 2000 (New South Wales). The new (Amended) Act commenced on 1 July 2004, in that year more than 9,300 licences, covering over 8,000 gigalitres of water per annum, were placed on the Land and Property Information (LPI) register. Under a certification system, the water licences had a title similar to a land title (DIPNR Annual Report 2004-05: 5). There was ambivalence about water reform, perhaps impossible to avoid because of the wording of the major water reform initiatives. For example, the National Water Initiative 2004, wanted strong rural communities but did not recompense farmers for their loss of water entitlements. Water was taken out of farm production and the farmers and local communities carried that cost.

273

Sue, a parliamentary secretary in the New South Wales Government explained that food could be produced, imported from foreign markets and reach the market shelves of the State as a cheaper product than many Australian produced food items. Mining industries and other major stakeholders in water resources contributed more to the national economy than did the farming industries. The Parkes Summit meeting in 2005 did bring a favourable response from the New South Wales and the Federal Governments. There was temporary relief when two years of general security licence charges were waived if the farmers had a zero water allocation for that period. The Commonwealth Government also reviewed its contribution to exceptional circumstances drought concessions and John Howard, then Australian Prime Minister, visited outlying drought stricken regions in the Lachlan River Catchment following the Summit meeting. His promise to assist in funding the repair or replacement of the broken pumps that normally delivered water to drought stricken towns such as Lake Cargelligo, was timely. Governments were clearly addressing economic matters when considering the distribution of water resources and access for farming purposes. The Water Management Act 2000 required water to be used to its highest earning potential. Water as a commodity appeared to guide water policy decisions. The Snowy River Hydro-Electric organisation offers an example of government promises that were broken, perhaps because of economic considerations. The Snowy River story demonstrates how water policies do suddenly change without warning to the people in a local community: As explained (on page 189), the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria Governments agreed to a return of up to 21 per cent of 274

the Snowy River flow. Drew, an engineer was in charge of the work to enlarge the pipe to allow the water release to the Snowy River. Premiers Carr of New South Wales and Bracks of Victoria, on the 28 August 2002, pressed the button and released a flow back to the Snowy River (Miller, 2005: 205). The water was a trickle at first then spread into a cascade over the wall of the weir. Drew informed me that the original pipe for a return flow, that was put in when the Snowy-Hydro works was in the construction phase, was very small, like an ordinary street water pipe. He worked on the water return project until suddenly it ran out of funding. Reports passed to me from people in the river community expressed their astonishment and disappointment when the flow back to the Snowy River stopped.

The Snowy River experience In 1996 people in the Snowy River catchment region had formed the Snowy River Alliance movement to lobby for the return of some water to their river as all but one per cent of the flow had been diverted to the Hydro-Electric Scheme during the 1970s. Under the Snowy Mountain Hydro-Electric Scheme, the farmers lost much of their access to the river water sources. The Snowy River water level dropped and the community experienced social loss. There was a fragmentation of the social order when people left, due to a lack of employment opportunities (Miller, 2005). The political leaders were indifferent to the protests of the Snowy River community people who spoke against the project at the time of construction (Miller, 2005: xiii). The lack of concern about local people and the impact of changes in water access was due largely to an overarching ideological belief in national development principles 275

that permeated society in the post-Second World War years. The Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victorian Governments were involved in the construction of the Snowy Scheme between the 1940s and the 1970s (Miller, 2005). Fullerton (2002) drew attention to the Snowy River district as nationally significant in the history of inland European settlement. The region had further national significance as it embodied the history of multiculturalism in Australia. The Snowy River Hydro-Electric Scheme construction symbolised cooperation between Australian born people and migrants to Australia following the Second World War (Fullerton, 2002: 175). Miller (2005) wrote the Snowy River Story about the formation of the lobby group, the Snowy River Alliance, in 1996. The group successfully challenged ‘powerful commercial interests’ and the relevant State (New South Wales and Victoria) and the Commonwealth Governments to stop the Snowy River from dying (Miller, 2005). The Snowy River Alliance was promised that twenty- one per cent of the original water flow would be returned to the river system (Miller, 2005: 190-91). The Premiers of the New South Wales and the Victorian governments turned on the tap to release the flow below the Jindabyne Dam. Drew, the engineer commissioned to expand the release piping in 2004, told me that when the project had run out of money his work was finished. Then a respondent Mary, in the Snowy Mountains region said that the water release had stopped. My awareness of changes in government policy towards the Snowy water releases had commenced some months before when Leisha, a farmer in the Upper Lachlan region, learned that irrigation farmers in the Murray and Murrumbidgee river catchment areas had received 276

telephone requests to take part in a survey. The questions centred on the irrigation water they used and its cost. Some of the farm irrigation water from the Murrumbidgee and Murray rivers came from the Snowy-Hydro system (Smith, 2001). The New South Wales, Victoria and the Commonwealth Governments decided to sell the Snowy Hydro Corporation through share subscriptions. I was surprised to learn of the sale when I discovered it through an advertisement in a national newspaper, seeking potential investors. The rise of the protest movement, seeking return to the Snowy River of at least eighteen per cent of the flow and the public act of turning on the tap, that allowed water to flow to the river again, by the Premiers of Victoria and New South Wales, is recorded by Miller, (2005) in the Snowy River Story. I followed the media records of the growing public outcry against the sale. Eventually the wishes of the people prevailed and firstly the New South Wales Government, then the Federal Government and finally the Victorian Government abandoned the sale. I had answered the advertisement in the national paper to request information. I received an email in July (2006) in reply, announcing that there was no prospectus to be issued due to cancellation of the share issue. The decision by the State and the Federal Governments to cancel the sale illustrated how policy can change if sufficient public pressure is applied. The decision affirmed Durkheim’s claim that for a thing to be understood as privately owned property it must gain public approval (Durkheim, 1984a: 159). Decisions taken without adequate consultation with the major water users, the farmers, led to their lack of trust and caused them to wonder 277

what the government wanted whenever there was a new regulation. Geoffrey of Lachlan Water explained that when there was a new policy then farmers wondered how the government planned to benefit.

Water policy The intercultural studies place Australian water management in an international perspective, revealing that the challenges to water managers in Australia and to policy makers are universal challenges. The institutional arrangements for water policy in the United States of America followed the principles of private ownership. Reisner (1993), as an authority on the history of water and water law in the United States of America, argued that the present generations face having to right the ‘wrongs caused by earlier generations’. Each generation tries to do what they think is ‘right’ (Reisner, 1993: 512). He indicates that the challenge for water research science is to ensure that it provides the information so that water managers are aware of potentially contentious outcomes of decisions they make. Reisner mentioned the demands made on the Owens River water by the water planners of Los Angeles, on the western coast of the United States of America. The city has a low average rainfall and will forever need to draw water from elsewhere, particularly the Owens River Valley, because the rainfall in the city catchment area will never supply the city needs. The farmland and water take-overs in the Owens River Valley were legal, argued Reisner (1993) although the moral and ethical implications were not part of the planning schedule. Future research may need to discover how moral and ethical implications may be included in water management schedules.

278

Kahrl (1983) examined the ‘water and power’ struggles in the Owens River Valley and underlined the fact that the local people who live near the river elect ‘the people and the institutions’ that do not understand how to manage water (Kahrl, 1983: 443). His view supports the fact that research can throw light and give understanding to the complex problems of meeting multiple demands on supplies while ensuring that the environmental needs are included, what is termed by Pigram (2006) the triple bottom line approach, when social, economic and environmental demands are included in decisons. The Water Act 1912 (New South Wales Government) retained water as a public utility. This ensured that water was equally available to stakeholders for a minimal charge. Alfred Deakin, as Attorney General of Victoria, had rejected the principles of privatisation, private ownership and control of water, water trade and transferability. The keys to water distribution were in the administrative arrangements. Deakin ensured that a strong, impartial administrative body took control of water. The principles of privatisation came under the scrutiny of Phillip, an electoral candidate for the Greens Party, in the March 2003 state elections. He was determined to have the natural resources and the river environments of New South Wales restored and rejuvenated. When I interviewed Phillip in 2003 he pointed out that the ‘sustainable’ water resource policy aimed to maintain the water systems as they are rather than restore them. For this reason, Phillip rejected the concept ‘sustainable water resources management’. Adrian Piccoli, the politician, expressed the fear that the next generation of farmers was becoming lost to the farming industry. The tradition of intergenerational change was at risk, explained Adrian. 279

Marcus’ experience as a dryland farmer threw light on what was happening. His plans to expand the size of his dams, to allow him to cope with watering his livestock during several consecutive years of low rainfall, had stalled. Under the Water Management Act 2000 he is restricted in the volume of water he can harvest and the size of the dam he can build. He argued that it was ridiculous to apply the same water policy to cover an entire river catchment area in the long slow flowing western rivers of the inland regions. The farms closer to the Great Dividing Range needed to store far less water than the farms in the western regions that have a lower average rainfall. The rules for water sharing, water allocation and harvesting under current policy appeared indifferent to local conditions and rainfall variability.

Institutional reform The sociologist Durkheim (1984a) held that water resources should be publicly available. He regarded ‘springs and streams and the sea’ as: ‘things which belong to no one because they belong to all and by their nature elude any appropriation’. Durkeim considered some things as ‘sacred’ and beyond human appropriation (Durkheim, 1984a: 159). These things included major waterways whose water, in New South Wales, became a ‘property’ under the Water Management Act 2000. Comparing and contrasting the ideas Durkheim presented about the ownership of water resources and maintaining ‘springs, streams and the sea’ as belonging to everyone, it is apparent that his ideas agree with those of Deakin, who rejected the principles of private ownership and control of water when laying the foundations of Australian Law. Durkheim wrote that ‘the law of any nation’ determined the objects that are liable to appropriation. Public opinion allowed some objects 280

to be available for ‘appropriation’ and some other objects are not to be available for private ownership (Durkheim, 1984a: 159). The ‘sacred’ nature of water, as something beyond a commodity for trade, was lost under the reform regulations from 2001 onwards. Two shifts in ideological thought emerged during the 1970s to shape current water policy. Firstly, economic rationalism became the driving force for Australian Federal and State government management of public utilities including water utilities (Sheil, 2000: 31-3). Sheil described the task of government water managers as establishing an ‘ensemble of arrangements’ that encourage effective and efficient representation of the public interest. In this sense, the senior officers balance the economic, environmental and social aspects of water reform. Sheil rejected the ideology that is focused on economic arrangements arguing that the economic system is not ‘divinely ordained’ to possess special powers to allocate water. He claimed that water ‘is a special substance in society and must have a special place’ (Sheil, 2000: 171). His views agree with Durkheim in recognising the special place that water sources hold in ensuring life. The other significant change in ideological thought was the emergence of ‘environmental politics’ traceable from the 1970s (Smith, 2001: 174-6). The movement captured national and international attention and raised public awareness of our endangered natural resources. The Federal Government, as part of institutional water reform, in 2008 established a fund for improving infrastructure for water delivery and for water buybacks. This would allow two significant outcomes: limit loss of water through evaporation and buy water to put back into the river systems. 281

The government had earlier encouraged the larger irrigation agribusinesses to purchase water licences to expand their irrigation businesses, as George, the owner and director of a large agribusiness, explained. Now, little more than a decade later, the government purchased large volumes of the water from the agribusinesses for environmental flows. Institutional reform allowed the government to use the economic instruments at its disposal, under the principle of water as a commodity for trade, to return water to the river system. Prospective rural water users enter the contest for a share of the ‘continent’s limited water endowment’ (Pigram, 2006: 193). Conflict centres on priority for access to abstraction rights. The senior officers’ as representatives of government in their role in managing water on behalf of the State authorities is pivotal. The officers ensure that water is allocated to needs of emergency supplies, such as town water supply and environmental flows; they manage water and perform the administrative tasks of natural resource management (Geoffrey, Lachlan Water).

Directions for future research Connell (2007) pointed to areas of water management that could benefit from further research. He is concerned that, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, relatively little training in the appropriate fields of knowledge and practical management of water is available for people seeking a career and a future in the water industry. The initial research could cover training and the skills essential to manage increasingly in demand water resources. Research needs to include the perceptions and values of local people in connection with the environmental and social needs of river 282

communities. Researchers of Australian waterways and researchers discovered through intercultural studies endorse the need for future research in water management, control, environmental and hydrological matters. Connell endorsed the need for scientific research to glean knowledge of local conditions from local people. This indicates that there is a considerable need for sociologists and anthropologists to undertake a research project similar to that undertaken by Strang (2004). The study by Strang was an ethnographic study of the ‘meaning of water’ adapted to discover its multiplicity of meanings to the population involved in river community living. She focused on the cultural, economic, social and political aspects of society, in their living and working relationship with others located on the Stour River in the United Kingdom. Connell wrote of the gap in knowledge about the important contribution that local people at the regional level make in understanding the needs of the river. They would be useful in ensuring the health of a river system, working in restoration programmes and informing local water policy. Connell wrote that while ‘many spheres of governance have an interest’ in integrating the ‘contending forces and influences’ of policy the ‘people who will have to live with the immediate consequences’ of decisions have the greatest interest in establishing cohesive and integrated policies. Connell’s thought is echoed by Strang (2004) who observed that the control of the water of local rivers in the United Kingdom, where the River Stour the focus of her research is located, was given to small elite groups. The members of the groups were located in places far distant from the river system they controlled. Therefore, the local people felt alienated from their river as decisions excluded them from 283

presenting local opinions about management. It means that perhaps the wrong decisions are taken up that otherwise may not have been made if local considerations were included. Connell argued that research should focus on the people at all levels of society; this would included those taking part in water management in Local, State and Australian Governments, as each research project needs the skills of those who understand local people who perhaps will lose their livelihood or be displaced following the implementation of a reform. The decision-makers undertake the complex task of coordinating different facets of water management (Connell, 2007: 210) as they balance different demands. They need to ensure that people with first-hand knowledge of the impact of reform on their river and on their lives have a voice and research projects should contribute to filling this gap in knowledge and ensuring that their voices and views receive a hearing. Research is required to focus on Durkheim’s ideas about ‘property’ relations and ownership of former public utilities. The research could discover whether the people are accepting the change to private ownership, whether they feel responsible for sharing the move towards water savings or if they feel alienated and that their contribution to caring for their river no longer matters. It is important that people remain connected to their river to protect it from exploitation in a period of high demand on water sources. Connell’s statement about the importance of integrating multiple stakeholder interests in water research, accords with Kahrl (1983). He wrote that the problems in water resource management are not attributal only to the people who live near the river and depend on it for water resources but also to: ‘the people and the institutions they construct’ (Kahrl, 1983: 443). Kahrl is referring to the opportunity in 284

democratic societies to elect responsible people to positions of authority. Sometimes the people are elected who have little understanding of the social and environmental impact of their decisions. Water problems are complex and the electorate needs to think carefully before making a final decision about who will best serve the interests of water security for their community in the future. As mentioned on Page 35, supporting the need for further research, Meinzen-Dick wrote: three factors are critical to successful transformation to the new policy direction in water management: ‘the institutional organisers and training programmes; the partner bureaucracy; and the enabling conditions’ (Meinzen-Dick, 1997: 109). Each of these writers understand the difficulty of bringing together all the complex matters and stakeholder interests that bear on decisions about water control, management and administration and then to integrate them with environmental, economic, cultural and social responsibilities. The researchers need to be accomplished in various areas of water control that include: law, regulation, agreements and initiatives at the Local, State and Australian Government level. Interdisciplinary research is required to examine also International responsibilities related to the principles ‘integrated water resource management’. There is a need to explore the role of government and the role of stakeholders in each of these fields. Sociologists, economists, agricultural economists, hydrologists, political scientists and health professionals would offer valuable knowledge to build on the research of other scientists in the field of water management. Connell (2007) considered the direction that future research on water matters should take and the skills that researchers need. They 285

fall into a broad category and include technical, scientific, political and communication skills. These are in accord with the three levels of ‘trust’ that Luhmann (1979) and Barber (1983) researched, that underpinned research in my thesis. The interrelations between senior officers and the farmers in water management processes were explored at three levels. Firstly, expectations for the continuity of the social order, that is known and understood. Secondly, expectations of competent decisions and management by senior officers implementing the reforms, their interrelation with the farm sector as they carried out the responsibilities required of senior water managers. Thirdly, the research focused on interrelations between the farm sector and the authorities at the institutional level of regulatory control. In securing trust across these criteria for effective collaboration, the skills required range from practical knowledge of the application of water for environmental purposes to knowledge of complex water legislation. Future research could clarify legislation and facilitate protection of a local water supply from controversial water sales and diversion. Such research would require analysis of legislation and regulation to ensure compliance with policy and regional water source sustainability. The research of Strang (2004) has found that water as a commodity for sale means that local people feel that their water savings may make little difference when the water saved can be diverted from the river without consent from local people. This level of management and possible outcome needs clarification. Political scientists could clarify how to protect local water sources from harmful exploitation.

286

Barlow and Clarke (2002: 133) argue that few global waterways are safe from ‘corporate theft’. They assert that water may be diverted to generate income in a distant region or nation and that the impact on local communities needs to be explored. Research by sociologists, anthropologists and political scientists and by lawyers could perhaps prevent costly litigation for those interested in preserving river environments and local industries that rely on their water sources. An engineer’s report (Institute of Engineers, 2000) indicated that maintenance work is essential for the repair of government owned water infrastructure throughout New South Wales, infrastructure that is falling into disrepair. Research could identify what needs repairing and the type of maintenance that saves water from wastage through leakage of rusting pipes or infrastructure that needs replacement. My field notes (April/May 2005) report that farmers, such as Dominic and Marcus, both dryland farmers, are not clear where funding is to come from for maintenance and infrastructure repair of the pipes, that bring domestic and town water supplies to outlying areas in regional New South Wales. Research is required to clarify the rights and responsibilities of Local Government and State Governments in the provision of infrastructure services and the responsibilities that now fall to the water users, under ‘user pays’ policies guided by economic rationalism. If irrigation farms lose their water and transform into dryland farms, then the charges for the land rates for dryland farming require reassessment. Research needs to explore the economic impact of reform on Local Government authorities and the provision of Council services to people living in that community.

287

Research by students of law, history and economists, into the role and responsibilities of Local Government authorities in relation to a water source, would clarify the rights and priorities for water sharing among Local Government authorities. Contests over water, as it becomes more valuable, mean that water rights sold to other Local Government authorities, intended to offset drought, may become a means to earn extra income for the purchasing Local Government authority. Selling the water entitlement rights to an industry that can pay a higher price for the water may seem appealing. Research could discover if local communities have secured their priority for water access to safeguard their water supply during the next long drought. The history of water trading, particularly in the Owens Valley in the United States of America (see pages 85-6), suggests that sales take place and the seller is ignorant of the impact on their business and their community. A Local Government could sell water to help a neighbouring Local Government in times of drought, unaware that they had handed the priority for water access to an industry that might retain the priority of access to water during a long drought. This may leave communities and possibly essential services, short of water. In the Owens Valley, sellers of water rights thought they were selling to other farmers and that the water would remain available for local use. Instead, the water buyers were from the distant city of Los Angeles. The sales led to the demise of most farming industries. Nadeau (1997: 80) described the struggle between local people in the United States of America as they tried to save water from the Owens River Valley from diversion to the city of Los Angeles. Research into the potential outcome of change when water sales are 288

made, would benefit society if taken from a legal, sociological, economic and political perspective. Research could predict outcomes of the ‘legal’ diversions of water. It could discuss where the ‘ethics’ and ‘moral’ considerations stand in such transactions and if these receive attention if a sale could dislocate large sectors of a population. Local Government, according to Adrian Piccoli the politician, needs to clarify what changes it is prepared to make when a farmer sells irrigation water and the farmland reverts to a dryland farming area. Political science research could examine whether a Local Government’s rate levy charged to landholders should fall in accord with the fall in farm income as irrigation water is sold, given the fact that per hectare, farmland produces far less income when it becomes a dryland farm (Piccoli). The skills associated with water delivery include those of hydrologists who have the knowledge of the waterways including the surface water, river systems, groundwater and floodplains. In an ‘integrated’ approach, there is a need for research co-ordination by those who understand the biophysical relationship between human activities, the land and water sources. The needs of particular water users, the impact of their use of water on the river systems and the effects of modern technology require co-ordinated studies. Connell suggests that the agricultural economist would be a useful addition to a research team, to ensure that the use of water results in ‘reasonable economic outcomes’ (Connell, 2007: 211). Sociologists could fruitfully examine the river catchment areas of New South Wales to discover the social impact of water reform on those communities that experience the changes first hand. Environmental water is increasingly free of ties to irrigation land, but 289

who understands the scientific outcome on humans, flora and fauna that follows the release of large environmental water flows? As Stirzaker (2010) explained, when there are water diversions on a significant scale, it is important to know where the water goes and how useful it is (see page 62). Stirzaker examined the complexity of water management, such as altering watering points when caring for animals or of an unwanted outcome that change may leave. Researchers, such as Stirzaker, could bring knowledge of agricultural science to discover what skills could enable people to earn the income to stay in a community if they so choose. It is also important to learn how the community experiences and responds to change. ‘Resilient’ action, as Alston (2010) applied the sociological concept, offers a productive method to examine social response. Although the concept is not sufficiently defined to gain general acceptance as yet, ‘resilience’ remains a useful tool to examine avenues for a protest movement or people acting to retain things as they are and rejecting participation in pro-active movements. Research needs to understand how those who remain cope with various forms of economic, social, familial, cultural and environmental loss as communities change. Reisner (1993) wrote about the gradual process of change, significantly that now aiming towards restoring the rivers while increasing the economic return of water: ‘What it all boils down to is undoing the wrongs caused by earlier generations doing what they thought was right’ (Reisner, 1993: 512). The ‘marketisation’ of former government utilities and the impact of the increased charges for health services under the privatisation process, charging for services that were formerly free, frequently finds 290

rural people struggling with employment problems while taking up responsibilities for costs of services that were formerly free. As Alston (2010) argued, psychologists, social workers and other health workers in regional Australia could play a role in bringing an understanding of isolated regional people and the need of the impoverished, or those unable to travel to places where essential services are available, to the attention of the appropriate authorities. The service providers who formerly lived in the remote regions, under the more recently introduced centralisation of services, now travel long distances to the people in outlying communities. They no longer live in the regions among their clients. Therefore, it is difficult for them to understand the stress on people in outlying regions in paying for medical fees or medicines or for travelling long distances to access services when unemployment levels are high. Researchers in the social sciences, sociology or anthropology and health related disciplines, could profitably examine who goes without essential services or does not buy prescribed medicines because of cost. Alston (2010) explained how people respond to a challenge in various ways, each providing a different interpretation of and a different way to address a problem. The response may range from the conservative: attempting to keep things as they are; to pro-active responses where the stakeholders take an active role attempting to alter the situation. Alston (2010) suggests that it is most common to change: ‘just enough to accommodate new circumstances without destabilising social relations’ (Alston, 2010: 35-6). To be proactive is to move towards ‘greater social sustainability’ by challenging the social structure responsible for disadvantage and change. The

291

proactive person is ‘treating the causes of potential dysfunction’ (Alston, 2010: 36). Such was the situation at the Parkes Drought Summit meeting in 2005 when more than 2,000 people came together in protest about change in drought and water management regulations. Research programmes may benefit from understanding the responsibilities of various levels of government towards water users, the farmers, at different levels of interaction with the authorities and the other stakeholders, such as miners or environmentalists lobbying for their share of water. As Barber (1983) explained, three levels of trust useful for research are: trust in the continuity of the social order; trust in a competent performance by senior officers who make decisions on behalf of government; and trust at the institutional level that makes it possible for us to function in daily life. The focus on ‘trust relations’ offered a methodology to examine how people function in society and how they simplify complex situations to make them manageable. Smith (2001) wrote that the water legislation designed by Alfred Deakin (1885) established water law throughout Australia that came into operation in New South Wales at the turn of the twentieth century. Deakin reform stressed that the ‘rights of the individual and the state need to be properly defined in order to avoid lengthy and costly legislation’ (Smith, 2001: 153). The range of research areas that need further clarification is very broad as water control changes from ‘administative’ processes to ‘management’ processes. Future research could fruitfully examine the: responsibilities of water managers; the social, environmental, cultural and economic outcome of reform; and

292

the right that individual people have to access a clean fresh water supply wherever they are in the world. It would be productive to discover the benchmarks to ensure that the water we have is handed on to the next generation, in the same, if not a better condition than current generations enjoy, that is to ensure water resource sustainability. Connell wrote that there is a considerable shortage of people with skills to undertake the many tasks linked to water management and productively integrate their knowledge with that of others in complementary fields (Connell, 2007: 210).

Management decisions The drought conditions continued through the first decade of the twenty-first century. Some commentators referred to it as the ‘great dry’. When travelling from northern Victoria to southern and central New South Wales the evidence of drought was all around me in the dry earth, in September 2009. The dry dams in farm paddocks and low levels of water in the rivers suggested the stress that farm managers experienced. The eastern landscape of Australia needed a massive drink of water to recover. October 2009 saw the drought beginning the first month of its ninth year, having started when the 2001 Spring (September) rains failed in New South Wales. In the ‘Weekend Australian Magazine’ (Guilliatt, October 31- November 1, 2009: 26) a photographer, Michael Silver, has captured the ‘huge orange dust cloud’ hovering above wheat lands in central New South Wales. It symbolised the dry earth further west where the wind had gathered the dust. I passed through the region on the day of the dust storm and realised how restricted visibility would become so I 293

took shelter quickly, leaving the Hume Highway to the trucks as their lights glowed dimly orange in the thick red dust that reduced the visibility expected in the early afternoon. The dust carried on strong winds spread for hundreds of kilometres. The ‘Weekend Australian Magazine’ (Guilliatt, October 31-November 1, 2009: 26) captured the scene in an article: ‘Drought and Flooding Rains: A group of Australia’s finest photographers capture dramatic images of the Great Dry’. Farmers had cause to reflect on their future. At the time, farmers were apparently making business decisions about their continuity in their industry, these ideas were mentioned on regional radio, notably the ABC regional radio country programmes. The Land (4 June, 2009: 1) led its page one headline with the information that one of the largest water licence owners in New South Wales was selling off water under the Federal Government ‘buy-back’ policy. A lead article read, ‘Twynam’s bonanza. How Canberra’s $300m water deal rocked NSW (New South Wales)’. Managers of the agribusinesses and the managers of the smaller farms or the medium size farms had to decide their options and their future in farming: to leave the industry or to stay. The good price offered by the Commonwealth Government ‘buyback’ scheme was an incentive to sell irrigation water. The options for the farmers included to move away, run their irrigation farmland as a dryland farm (as Gregory, a farmer in central New South Wales, had done) or sell the water perhaps to the Federal Government under its ‘buyback’ scheme. The other choice was to wait out the drought period, only possible if there were the economic resources to do so.

294

Managing change As Geoffrey a senior officer employed by Lachlan Water explained, the water authorities controlled water flows and decided on water diversions. Farmers wondered where the water diversions for environmental flows went. Leisha thought water went to service larger towns in southern New South Wales. There appeared to be no clear information about water diversions or environmental flows available for the farmers. One farmer (John) monitored the water from the cutbacks to irrigation allocations in his water district. He was angry to find the water intended for environmental restoration did not get the results desired as there was no essential follow-up water application and the growth from the initial watering died. Gregory, a dryland and irrigation mixed farm manager, saw things going wrong but did not know where the fault lay. He was reluctant to blame the government and relied on his own judgement to check water levels in the Wyangala dam to decide whether to sell his water licence or keep it. He decided to sell. He did not believe in accepting government assistance, he managed so that he remained independent. Connell (2007: 217) examined the political aspects of water reform in the Murray-Darling Basin and asked: ‘What should be the place of agriculture in Australia?’ In a world with an increasing population that will make larger demands on water and food supplies, it would be imposing our problem of feeding Australian people on to other people in other societies, if the Murray-Darling Basin farming industry declined to the extent that we relied far more on imported food than on Australian grown food. This may not seem logical to people concerned with the economic outcome of industrial activity. However the environmentalist may applaud the logic of it because home-grown 295

food places a smaller ecological footprint on the earth, as it uses less fuel because food is not carted across such vast distances. It would also be an imposition to deprive other people on other continents of their river waters to feed Australians, through the ‘hidden’ water component that would be imported in that food. Water control is becoming more centralised. Deakin predicted that Federalism would tie the States to the decisions of the Federal Government, a prediction notably occurring in Federal-State relations under the Commonwealth Government water buy-back schemes. Alston (2010) drew attention to the Australian Government’s 10-point $10 billion national water plan, introduced under Prime Minister John Howard’s government, that allowed the Commonwealth Government to play a more active role in water management (Alston, 2010: 53). The New South Wales Government disputed the right of the Commonwealth Government to take more water out of the agricultural industry in its State, until the Victorian State Government ‘agrees to sell more of its water’ under the Federal water ‘buyback’ scheme (Peatling, 2009: 7). The New South Wales Government placed an embargo on further water trade under the Federal Government scheme in mid 2009, following several large water buybacks. The rural weekly paper The Land (2009:13) reported an address by the New South Wales Water Minister, Phil Costa to the ‘New South Wales Shires Association conference in Sydney’. Costa said that for each 32 litres of water purchased by the Commonwealth Government from New South Wales only one litre was taken from ‘farm production in other states’ (The Land, 2009, 4 June p.13). The embargo by New South Wales on water sales to the Commonwealth for environmental flows, made mid-year, ended in late 2009. 296

The Chairman of the Murray Irrigation organisation had feared that the embargo on further water sales would lead to a flood of ‘mortgagee-in-possession’ sales. ‘Many farmers’ are ‘desperate to sell water’ and were experiencing hardship that could force them off the land (The Land, 2009, 12 August). Some farmers are caught in a complex situation: they must sell their water to alleviate economic hardship although that is water to earn income when the drought breaks. Twynam Agriculture sold $303 million of water licence entitlements to the federal government in July 2009 marking the ‘single largest purchase of water in Australia’. State government representatives were reportedly concerned that ‘Water restrictions may lead to flood’ (The Land, 2009, 12 August), where the ‘flood’ referred to a ‘flood’ of farmland sales. The Commonwealth Government purchased a considerable proportion of the Lachlan River Catchment general security water licences in its purchase of water from the Twynam pastoral group. A large purchase of water from the Clyde agricultural organisation (Clyde is part of an international investment organisation) included the farmland as well as the water licences on Toorale station, located south of Bourke, north-west New South Wales. The New South Wales and the Commonwealth governments purchased Toorale Station in September 2008, as part of the programme to return water to the environment. The property receives water from the Warrego-Darling Rivers and the Barwon River systems that flow across the border between New South Wales and Queensland. Water from Toorale station was to return to the river (The Land, 2009, 4 June). I found no mention from respondents or the media of monitoring the water 297

releases to ensure the water remained as an environmental flow, or if it would be safe to release the water downstream and cause no flood damage. Changing water flows may have unwanted outcomes. As a farm, the Toorale Station employed people from Bourke, a service centre for rural industries located on the Darling River. Employment centred on cotton growing and other agricultural activities. As a National Park there would be fewer employees required on ‘Toorale’ and townspeople in Bourke would have less opportunities for employment. Penny, a dryland grazier from a farm north of Bourke provided me with this information, she knew of people searching for work once work on the cotton farms stopped. The health of unemployed people deteriorated as they searched for employment to replace work on cotton farms (Penny, farmer, 2009). Gary Johnston, of the Lachlan Valley, quoted in a media report: ‘We Won’t Pay’ (Thomson, 2009: 3) said that many farmers must sell their irrigation water to have the capital to continue farming. The farmers would need to enlarge their farmland size to continue as a dryland farm because most irrigation farms are too small to change. Media interest in the Lachlan River Catchment broadened as farmers threatened to boycott the payment of water licence fees when they had zero water allocations in five out of six years. Thomson (2009) wrote a report about the Lachlan farmers launching a protest about their charges when there was no water delivery. Their protest was not successful. Senior officers, quoted as speaking as representatives of the New South Wales Government Minister for Water Resources, replied to the protest organisers that the Minister would remain ‘steadfast’ in expecting payment of the fixed water charges. The charges were ‘determined by the Independent Pricing 298

and Regulatory Tribunal’ (IPART) and were ‘essential whether or not water was supplied’. The expenses for the management of water did not stop because there was no water delivered. The infrastructure needed maintaining. The article failed to mention that the farmers could argue the same case (Thompson, 2009 3). The Coalition Parties, as the New South Wales Government Opposition, promised to waive licence fee charges if elected in the 2011 State elections. The promise would apply if zero water was allocated for irrigation farming for two consecutive years. Water was not available for much of the Lower Lachlan River region in late 2009 because of low river levels (Thomson, 2009). Large agribusinesses were struggling to stay viable. In 2008 Cubbie Station, the largest agribusiness of all, was put up for sale. The large agribusinesses examined for this study each have sold their irrigation water rights. In one case the entire agricultural branch of the Australian business interests was put up for sale by the British parent company. The company wanted to change direction and concentrate on recycling and other businesses. In the other case, the owners retained the right to buy water for irrigation should the future again seem promising. Increasingly irrigation farms were evolving as dryland farms. Each of my respondents from smaller farms or medium size (family) farm operations had remained in the industry and on their land. None of the next generation of farmers returned to farm full time. They had professions or trade occupations off-farm and returned to the farm to help with shearing, sowing crops or harvesting. The findings belie the common wisdom that large-scale farms would survive water reform

299

better than smaller farms. This area would benefit from further inquiry from agricultural science and related disciplines. Pigram (2006) predicts that the farmers who survive will make water go further, ‘control waste and adopt efficient, economic practices for water management’. Pigram cited the ‘Irrigation Association of Australia, 2005’, as offering this perspective of the farm of the future (Pigram, 2006: 150). The prediction is that smaller farms in marginal areas would lose their water and therefore could no longer be part of the irrigation industries. Much of the water would transfer away from irrigation farming. The farms surviving, in the main, would be the ‘large-scale integrated corporate’ agricultural enterprises evolving as the only feasible type of farm in a ‘sophisticated, competitive and demanding world’ (Pigram, 2006: 150). My research indicates that the farming family that managed small and medium size farms survive because the workforce is flexible. The farm family take off-farm work to boost the family income and return to work on the farm to perform seasonal tasks. This area requires further research to draw a profile of the modern farmer. Farms in the Murrumbidgee irrigation area had 100 per cent of their water allocation delivered to the farm gate ‘from 1914 to the late 1990s’. From 1997 the allocations started to fall and by 2009 there was less than 10 per cent of the licence allocation, creeping up to twenty per cent in 2010. Water allocations are unlikely to reach 100 per cent in the future as the water landscape has changed. The media report in The Land (Cawood, 2010: 12-13), stated that more recent high temperatures and droughts influenced water availability and were partly due to climate change.

300

Cawood (2010) found that irrigation farming was becoming less dependent on water resources from irrigation as the central component. The irrigation farmers were taking their guide from dryland farmers and maximising their farm returns by using different management strategies, a finding that my research supports. The issue of irrigation licences from the 1970s to 1989 expanded the number of licences from approximately 14,500 to more than 21,000 in twenty years (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2004-05). The concepts: ‘sustainable water resources management’ and ‘integrated water resources management’ offered the integration of different ideas and policies to meet the needs of the increased number of stakeholders. The idea underpinning ‘sustainable’ management would ensure that waterways did not deteriorate further and that the water supply available for future generations is passed over in the same condition as previous generations enjoyed. The concepts ‘sustainable’ and ‘integration’ in relation to water use offered reference points for comparison with management practices in other societies and across state borders where distinctive rules in different water jurisdictions apply. The problems with water access, management and use are universal problems as world water supplies are feeling the pressure of the multiple demands of a complex modern society. The knowledge and skills and the advisory capacity of water managers, whether they are senior officers employed by government or farm managers, may be under-valued as decision makers at the institutional level of authority appeared indifferent to their vast store of local knowledge. This attitude ensured an erosion of trust.

301

An article in The Land by Fox (28 October 2010: 22) carried the heading, ‘After 10 years the State finally greens up again’. In 2010 and 2011 flooding rains were reported over much of the Murray- Darling Basin.

Changing values The social and environmental values of the late twentieth century are different to those accepted one hundred years earlier when the survival of the smaller farming holdings was prominent in the thought of policy makers contemplating irrigation law and farmland development. Farming has lost its influence as the major export dollar earner. The Greens Party, the environmental movement and the general population want fresh water resources, wetlands to purify water and the flora and fauna of the river systems to thrive. The policy makers want water to drive hydro-electricity turbines, to provide the hidden component of water in goods for the export trade and to provide for the mining and other industries. They represent people generally who want the modern goods society has learned to expect. Increasingly scholars are stating that these demands come at the expense of our rivers. The problem is how to share water resources effectively to bring social and economic benefit and simultaneously conserve our rivers, waterways and natural resources. What is the social impact, the outcome of water reform? Water reform and water management is necessarily an ongoing process as populations, institutional objectives and societal values change. Looking back over two and a quarter centuries of farming in Australia, life was difficult for the initial European settlers. They were attempting to secure a reliable food supply through farming. In the 302

twenty-first century, food security is once more a significant factor to consider particularly for world leaders in the nations that have recently suffered from famine. In the twentieth century, farmers developed a massive agricultural industry based on the model of water management that supplied plentiful and cheap water to farmers. That agricultural industry is now under pressure from globalisation, marketisation, centralised control and the trend towards the privatisation of public utilities. The farming industry also faced drought throughout my research. Water reform brought economic pressure along with the pressure of water shortfall in the river catchments. Among the family farmers, ‘resilience’, a willingness to accept change and actively seek solutions, was evident. The emerging generation of farmers in the twenty-first century are commuting to the farm when work needs doing. They too are resilient in using modern transport and communication systems to allow them to cope with combining farm work with earning an off-farm income. Water laws since the New South Wales Water Act 1912 needed changing. They allowed the over allocation of water resources and this needed readjustment as was attempted under the Water Management Act 2000. The predicted world food crisis, mentioned by social theorists, such as Connell (2007), Cork (2010) and Cribb (2010) should generate a reassessment of social values. Perhaps a decision to keep the old car in the garage and an understanding that the natural resources are finite, will be a first step in addressing water reform. Connell (2007) regarded a stable river system as one that included environmental, political, social, cultural and economic stability. The issue facing all water managers and decision makers is to secure the Basin as a working, stable hydrological system (Connell, 2007: 218). 303

Reisner (1993: 518) argued that in the future water left in the rivers might be worth more than the water diverted to earn the highest market value. I have analysed the interrelationship between farmers and senior government officers as an ongoing relational interaction to discover the social impact of water reform on farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin, New South Wales. The trust by farmers in policy decisions has eroded, although not completely as some farmers remained convinced that the government authorities would act in their interests if food security was becoming a national problem once again. As Luhmann (1979) explained: ‘Trust increases’ the ‘tolerance of uncertainty’. He suggested that: ‘Trust is required for the reduction of a future characterized by more or less indeterminate complexity’ (Luhmann, 1979: 15). It became apparent throughout my research that water as a ‘property’ is an integral part of water reform, yet it adds complexity to the role of water management for the farmers in their everyday water use and also for the senior officers who are managing water on behalf of a government or semi-government authority. Research is required in the many fields associated with water from the administrative to the managerial aspects of reform to the institutional levels of major decisions. The transformation from water as a public utility, to water as a property may generate feelings of security and order if current management directions are clarified by further research. As stated on page 12 of this thesis, Luhmann (1979) and Barber (1983) assert that we need structure and order in our daily routine. Barber explained that we expect ‘persistence, regularity, order and stability’ from one day to the next. Our emotions, feelings and 304

attitudes change if expectations are not realised. This is observable in anxiety, bewilderment or anger as we observe that the social order that we know and understand is changing (Barber, 1983: 11-2). Future research could follow the path that I took. It could examine the social impact of water reform on farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin where I explored trust relations at three levels. Future research could also focus on one or other of the two groups at the centre of water reform implementation, the farmers and the senior officers. A third commercial sector has become prominent over the period of my research, that is the mining industries that are changing the economic, social, environmental and cultural appearance of parts of rural Australia. Mining is altering the population mix as well as changing the physical environment. Water management and water reform could be usefully researched as it interconnects to mining personnel and the industrial management and attitudes towards the mining industries. It is important to understand what the water needs of the mining industries are. These include the industry and its use of water resources, how access is achieved, what conservation programmes are in place, what are the rules for granting a water access licence and what legal entitlements do mining industries have to access water on the farms. Research should focus on the resilient action of people in relation to water sharing and conservation. Thr research processes could be applied to all industries that use large volumes of water. The hydrologist researcher could place a scientific lense on the human interaction with water sources - both surface and groundwater sources - as these interrelate with mining industries. It would be fruitful to know if water is contaminated, how long it will take to cleanse? How are the water aquifers that are found during mining 305

exploration, sealed off so that minerals do not seep out to contaminate the lower level water aquifers particularly those with water that was suitable for human consumption. In sinking the 600 metres deep farm bore in southern Queensland, sealing off different levels of water penetrated was mandatory. A senior officer inspected the work in progress. In parts of the Great Artesian Basin region, the deeper level water is essential to supplement water for human drinking purposes. The ‘senior officers’ were the focus for my research as well as the farmers as they interrelate over water problems. The officers work under the principles of the new ‘managerialism’. This involved a change ‘in theory and function’ of the senior officers’ role. The managers are innovative, achieve results and take individual responsibility for the outcome of their management (Hughes, 2003: 6). Sociologists, political scientists and historians may productively explore aspects of change to the ‘managerial’ role of the officers from their ‘administrative’ role. ‘Trust’ in the competence of the senior officers to perform their work satisfactorily was expected ‘many decades ago’, Vanclay (2011) explained. ‘The extension officers (then) felt important delivering useful information to an eager and receptive farming population. Those days have gone’. Farmers have become ‘sceptical and dubious about stated claims’. Therefore, ‘Extension in its various new forms needs to win back the trust of farmers’ (Vanclay, 2011: 62). Connell (2007, 212) found that a ‘good working knowledge of water law and policy’ is essential. He made it clear that much of the food to feed the expanding world population must come from irrigation. However, he predicts that the people who have provided the knowledge and resources to allow irrigation to expand have created 306

the problem of feeding the population in the next twenty years. The plentiful food supply chain, made possible by irrigation, has encouraged food ‘dependencies’ that Connell (2007: 1) argues will be difficult to maintain as adequate water resources and suitable farmlands diminish. The focus in regional research appears to be shifting gradually towards adapting the concept ‘resilience’ as a useful tool for social inquiry. Cork (2010: 3) observed that ‘sustainability’ was a ‘prime focus for policy relating to interactions between the environment, society and economies for many years’. Cork views resilience as an aid to ‘ensure that ecological and social systems are able to find their way towards sustainability’. Resilience ‘is a key component’ in ‘defining problems and proposing solutions’. Cork found that few researchers are explicit about what ‘resilience’ means ‘in terms of governance and management’ (Cork, 2010: 3). The hydrologist explores ‘the different movements of water’, the movement of water through the atmosphere and on and beneath the earth’s surface (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 2007). The input of this professional group is important in researching the relationship between people and water in a particular industry at a particular time. Farms need water as an essential component of food production. Food security is vital to maintain social order as hungry people may riot. I have a sense that the study of water reform is taking place in the wrong ‘field’ where many major players and stakeholders are absent from the ‘field’, from the ‘game’ itself and from the debates over water. Transparent discussion of all matters concerning the stakeholder interests is essential. The debates should include those seeking economic, social, cultural, political and environmental 307

objectives and the miners, investors in water, farmers, local representatives of the immediate river community and senior officers from each level of government. Subject matter for debate should include the laws and regulations binding water control to local government, state, national and international agreements on environmental and trade obligations. Alston (2010), wrote about the provision of human services in rural communities and argued convincingly that ‘all Australians must engage’ in debate in order to share the resources and strengths of our country (Alston, 2010: 192). The respondents in my study are representative of differing aspects of water and its history in the Australian context, of stakeholders seeking water in the driest inhabited continent. I set out to gain a wider understanding of the social impact of water reform to contribute to knowledge of its impact on farming in the Murray-Darling Basin. The privatisation of water may have opened the floodgates for the situation that Deakin sought to avoid, long, costly legal battles over water. Barlow and Clarke (2002) maintain that water is becoming comparable to gold as demand escalates. The father of Australian water law, Alfred Deakin, considered that the value of water lay in its acceptance as a public utility, a value that water reform has displaced.

308

Bibliography Alston, M 2000, Breaking Through the Grass Ceiling: Women, power and leadership in agricultural organisations, Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam. Alston, M 2010, Innovative Human Services Practice: Australia’s changing landscape, Palgrave Macmillian, South Yarra. Alston, M 2009, ‘Generation X-pendable: The social exclusion of rural and remote young people’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 45, no. 1, Sage Publications. pp. 89-107. Alston, M 1995, Women on the Land: The hidden heart of rural Australia, University of New South Wales Press, Kensington. Anderson, J and Poole, M 1998, Assignment and Thesis Writing, third edn, John Wiley and Sons Australia Ltd, Brisbane. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2004-05 (ABS), ‘Water use on Australian farms’. Abstracted 25 July, 2006. Barber, B 1983, The Logic and Limits of Trust, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick. Barling, D Lang, T and Sharpe, R 2010, ‘The re-emergence of national food security on the United Kingdom’s Strategic Policy agenda: Sustainability challenges and the politics of food supply’, in Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability, eds G Lawrence, K Lyons, and T Wallington, Earthscan, London. pp. 61-78. Barlow, M 2008, Blue Covenant: The global water crisis and the coming battle for the right to water, Black Inc, Melbourne. Barlow, M and Clarke, T 2002, Blue Gold: The battle against corporate theft of the world’s water, Earthscan Publications, London.

309

Beilharz, P 2004, ‘Rewriting Australia: The way we talk about fears andhopes’, Journal of sociology, vol. 40, no. 4 December, Sage Publications. pp. 433-445. Beilin, R and Reichell, N 2009, ‘Community Landcare. A key player in building social-ecological resilience networks’, Discussion Paper, University of Melbourne, Department of Sustainability and Environment, State Government of Victoria, pp 1-39. Bell, C and Newby, H 1971, Community Studies, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, London. Bergen, R K 1993, ‘Interviewing survivors of marital rape’, in Searching Sensitive Topics, eds, CM Renzetti, and RM Lee, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, pp. 197-211. Bessant, J and Watts, R 2002, Sociology in Australia, second edn, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest. Biswas, A K 2004, ‘Integrated water resources management: A reassessment’, Water International, vol. 29, no. 2. pp. 248-256. Botterill, L C 2003a, ‘Beyond drought in Australia: The way forward’, in Beyond Drought: People policy and perspectives eds, LC Botterill and M Fisher, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp. 197-207. Botterill, L C and Fisher, M 2003, ‘Forward and acknowledgements’, in Beyond Drought: People, policy and perspectives, eds LC Botterill and M. Fisher, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp. vii- ix. Bourdieu, P 2002, Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste, Routledge, London. Bourdieu, P 2008, Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bourdieu, P and Wacquant, LJD 2002, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Polity Press, Cambridge. 310

Brunori, G and Guarino, A, 2010, ‘Security for Whom? Changing Discourses on Food in Europe in Times of a Global Food Crisis’ in Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability, eds, Lawrence, G Lyons, K and Wallington, T. Earthscan, London. pp. 41-60. Bryson L and Thompson F, 1972, An Australian Newtown: Life and leadership in a new housing suburb, Penguin Books Australia, Ringwood. Burns, R 2000, ‘The banks of Nith’, verse 2, lines 7-8, in The River’s Voice: an anthology of poetry, eds King, A and Clifford, S, Green Books Ltd. Dartington Totnes. p. 30. Cascao, A E 2008, ‘Ethiopia: Challenges to Egyptian hegemony in the Nile Basin’, Water Policy: Official Journal of the World Water Council, vol. 10 supplement 2. pp. 13-28. Cathcart, M 2009, The Water Dreamers: The remarkable history of our dry continent, The Text Publishing Company, Melbourne. Catchment Management Authorities, 2003, ‘Catchment Mangement Authorities – Board Information, New South Wales Government, October, Cawood, M 2010, ‘Irrigations’s big dilemma: Plant the lot or not?’ The Land, 8 July. pp. 12-13. Collection of Papers to December 1978: History of the Cunnamulla district. Warrego and south west Queensland Historical Society, Cunnamulla. Connell, D 2007, Water Politics in the Murray-Darling Basin, The Federation Press, Annandale. Cork, S 2010, ‘Introduction and synthesis of key themes’ in Cork, S ed, Resilience and Transformation: Preparing Australia for uncertain futures, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. pp 3-4. 311

Cork, S 2010, ed Resilience and Transformation: Preparing Australia for uncertain futures, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Cribb, J 2010, The Coming Famine: The global food crisis and what we can do to avoid it, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Cullen, P 2004, ‘The challenges of water policy for Australia’, in Water and the Australian Economy, Growth, vol. 52, March. pp. 8-15. Daniel, A 1998, Scapegoats for a Profession: Uncovering procedural injustice, Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam. Day, DG 1986, Water and Coal: Industry, environment and institutions in the Hunter Valley, NSW, Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, Canberra. Dayton, L 2003, ‘7 billion to face water crisis within 50 years’, ed J Healey, Issues in Society: Water use, vol. 189. The Spinney Press. p. 1. . Dempsey, K 1990, Smalltown: A study of social cohesion and belonging, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Denzin, NK and Lincoln, YS 1998, ‘Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research’, Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks. Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) 2005, ‘Annual Report 2004-05’, New South Wales Government, Sydney. Department of Land and Water Conservation 1998, ‘Lachlan Catchment State of the Rivers Report - 1997’, New South Wales Government, Sydney. de Vaus, DA 2002, Surveys in Social Research, fifth edn, Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest.

312

DIPNR, 2005 ‘Annual Report 2004-05, Water Management’, New South Wales Government, Sydney. DIPNR, 2003 ‘Catchment Management Authorities, Board Information’, Catchment Management Authority, New South Wales Government, Sydney. Disco, 2002, ‘Remaking “Nature”. The ecological turn in Dutch water management’, Technology and Human Values, vol 27, no 2, Science Sage Publications. pp. 206-235. abstracted February 25, 2009: Dodson, J Sipe, N Rickson, R and Sloan, S 2010, ‘Energy security, agriculture and food’, in Food Security: Nutrition and Sustainability, eds, G Lawrence, K Lyons, and T Wallington, Earthscan, London. pp. 97-111. Durkheim, E 1982, The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method, ed, S Lukes, Trans, WD Halls, The Free Press, New York. Durkheim, E 1984a, ‘The nature and origins of the right of property’, in Durkheim and the Law, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. pp.158-191. Durkheim, E 1984b, ‘The nature and evolution of contract’, in Durkheim and the Law, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. pp. 192-237. Durkheim, E 1984c, ‘Introduction’, S Lukes and A Scull in Durkheim and the Law, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. pp. 1-32. Egan, J 1999, Buried Alive: Sydney 1788-92: Eyewitness accounts of the making of a nation, Allen and Unwin, Sydney. Encel, S 1972, Equality and Authority: A study of class, status and power in Australia, Cheshire, Melbourne. Esterberg, K 2002, Qualitative Methods in Social Research, McGraw Hill, Boston. 313

Four Corners, 2005, ‘Gambling the farm’, 1 August, ABC TV, Sydney. Fox, R 2010, ‘After 10 years the State finally greens up again’, The Land, 28 October. p. 22. Fullerton, T 2002, Watershed: Deciding our water future, ABC Books, Sydney. Fullerton, T 2003, ‘Water: Australia’s challenge’, The Sydney Papers, Autumn 2003,vol. 15, no. 2, The Sydney Institute Publications, Sydney. pp. 112-24. Garfinkel, H 1967, Studies in Ethnomethodology, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs. Gerth, HH and Mills, Wright C 1974, From Max Weber: Essays in sociology, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Giddens, A 1991, Modernity and Self-identity: Self and society in the late modern age, Polity Press, Cambridge. Glaser, BG and Strauss, AL 1967, The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research, Aldine, Chicago. Glesne, C and Peshkin, A 1992, Becoming Qualitative Researchers: An introduction, Longman, New York. Gramsci, A 1975, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, International Publishers, New York. Gray, I and Lawrence, G 2001, A Future for Regional Australia: Escaping global misfortune, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Guba, EG and Lincoln, YS 1998, ‘Competing paradigms in qualitative research’, eds NK Denzin and YS Lincoln, The Landscape of Qualitative Research, Sage, Thousand Oaks. pp.195-220. Guilliatt, R (2009) ‘Ghost of the Billabong’, Weekend Australian Magazine, Weekend Australian, October 31-November 1. p. 26. 314

Hall, E Lobina, E and de la Motte, 2005, ‘Public Resistance to privatisation in water and energy’, Development in Practice, vol. 15, no. 32, pp. 286-301. Hardy, B 1968, Water Carts to Pipelines: The history of the Broken Hill water supply, Halstead Press, Sydney. Hay, P 2002, Main Currents in Western Environmental Thought, University of New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney. Hayman, P and Cox, P 2003, ‘Perceptions of drought risk’, in Beyond Drought: people, policy and perspectives, eds, LC Botterill, and M Fisher, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. pp. 153-73. Heathcote, IW 1998, Integrated Watershed Management: Principles and practice, John Wiley and Sons Inc, Brisbane. Hegel, GWF 1977, Phenomenology of Spirit, translated by AV Miller, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. Hobbes, T 1968, Leviathan, ed C B Macpherson, Pelican, Ringwood. Hughes, OE 2003, Public Management and Administration, Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmill Basingstoke. Institute of Engineers, 2000, A Report Card on the Nation’s Infrastructure: Investigating the Health of Australia’s Water Systems, Roads, Railways and Bridges, GHD Pty Ltd, Barton. Irrigation Association of Australia, 2005, ‘Irrigation in Australia’, Natural Resource and Water Management Review. pp. 68-70. Jayasuriya, RT 2004, ‘Modelling the regional and farm-level economic impacts of environmental flows for regulated rivers in New South Wales Australia’, Economic Services Unit, NSW Government, Orange. pp. 77-91. Kahrl, WL 1983, Water and Power, University of California Press, Berkeley. 315

Kellehear, A 1993, Unobtrusive Researcher: A guide to methods, Allen and Unwin, St Leonards. Kiernan, I 2003, ‘In touch with the environment’, Justice Trends, no. 108, March. King, A and Clifford, S 2000, The River’s Voice: An anthology of poetry, Green Books, Foxhole, Dartington Totnes. Kuhn, T. S 1970, The structure of scientific revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Lachlan Valley Water Inc, 2005 Submission to the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, 27 November, Original document is in the hands of Lachlan Water Inc. Forbes. Lachlan Water Authority, 2005 Lachlan Water Inc, New South Wales Government, Forbes. Lang, T 2010 ‘Conclusion – Big Choices about the Food System’, in eds, Lawrence, G Lyons, K and Wallington, T, Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability, Earthscan, London. pp. 271-83. Larsen, H 2000, ed ‘Integrated Water Resources Management’, comp, by Agarwal, A delos Angeles, M Bhatia, R Cheret, I Davila-Poblete, S Falkenmark, M Villarreal, FG Jonch-Clausen, T Kadi, MA Kindler, Rees, J Roberts, P Rogers, P Solanes, M and Wright, A TAC (Technical Advisory Committee), Committee background paper no. 4, Global Water Partnership, Global Water Partnership, Stockholm. Lawrence, G 1987, Capitalism and the Countryside: The rural crisis in Australia, Pluto Press, London. Lawrence, G, Lyons, K and Wallington, T 2010, ‘Introduction, Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability in a Globalized World’, in eds G Lawrence, K Lyons, and T Wallington, Earthscan, Food Security, Nutrition and Sustainability, London. pp. 1-23. 316

Local Government and Valuation of Land Amendment (Water Rights) Bill 2005, New South Wales Legislative Council, second reading, 22 July, report of Parliamentary Debate, D Harwin, New South Wales Legislative Council, Hansard. pp. 1-6. Abstracted 22June, 2006 Luhmann, N 1979, Trust and Power: Two works by Niklas Luhmann, John Wiley and Sons, Brisbane. McCully, P 1998, Silenced Rivers: The ecology and politics of large dams, Zed Books, London. May, T 2008, Social Research: Issues, methods and process, third edn, Open University Press, Maidenhead. Melville, F and Broughton, P 2004, ‘Trading in water rights’, Water in the Australian Economy, Growth, vol., 52, March. pp. 38-48. Meinzen-Dick, R 1997, ‘Farmer Participation in Irrigation’, Irrigation and Drainage Systems. pp. 103-118. Miles, MB and Huberman, AM 1994, Qualitative Data Analysis, second edn, Sage Publications, London. Miller, C 2005, Snowy River Story, ABC Books, Sydney. Mills, C W 2000, The Sociological Imagination, fortieth Anniversary edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Minichiello, V Aroni, R and Hays, T 2008, In-depth Interviewing, third edn, Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest. Mitchell, DS 2004, ‘The philosophy of water: Water is Life’, Paper presented as opening address at the 21st Commonwealth Royal Agricultural Society Conference, The Power of Water, Charles Sturt University, March, Albury-Wodonga. 317

Nadeau, R 1997, The Water Seekers, revised fourth edn, Crest Publishers, Santa Barbara. National Competition Council, 2011, ‘Timeline of the National Competition Policy’, Council of Australian Governments. National Farmers Federation, 2011, ‘Farm Facts’. Abstracted July, 2011. National Water Commission, 2004, ‘Overview of the National Water Initiative’. Abstracted 25 June, 2004, National Water Initiative 2004, National Water Commission, Australian Government, Canberra, ACT. http://www.nwc.gov.au/reform/nwi National Water Reform Framework COAG (1994) 25 February Communication, Hobart. Environment Australia, Canberra, ACT. Newell, P 2003, The River, Penguin Books, Camberwell. New South Wales Government, 2005, Letter to IPART the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, Lachlan Water, copy from Lachlan Water, Forbes. New South Wales Parliament, Water Act 1912 (Act no. 44, 1912), Sydney. Nice, R 2008, ‘Translator’s Forward’ in Bourdieu, P Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge University Press, New York. pp. vii- viii.

318

O’Dea, G & Cooper, J 2008, ‘Water scarcity: Does it exist and can price help solve the problem?’ Water – Working Paper, Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART), New South Wales Government. Williams, R 2009, producer Ockham’s Razor, ‘Water Wars’, W Barnaby guest speaker, ABC RN broadcast, 6 August, Sydney. Osbaldiston, N 2010,‘Elementary forms of place in seachange’, Journal of Sociology, vol. 46, no. 3 September. pp. 239 - 256. Pannell, D and Vanclay, F 2011 ‘Changing land management: multiple perspectives on a multifaceted issue’, in Pannell, D and Vanclay, F, eds Changing Land Management: Adoption of new practices by rural landholders, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. pp. 1-9. Pearce, RA1999, The Owens Valley Controversy and A A Brierly: The untold story, Dageforde Publishing Inc, Crete, Nebraska. Peatling, S (2009) ‘New South Wales my join court challenge to water cap’, Sydney Morning Herald, 30-31 May. p. 7 Pigram, J 2006, Australia’s water resources: From use to management, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Pigram, J, Delforce R, Coelli M, Norris V, Antony G, Anderson R, and Musgrave W 1992, Transferable Water Entitlements in Australia. Centre for Water Policy Research, University of New England, Armidale. Pusey, M 1991, Economic Rationalism in Canberra: A nation- building state changes its mind, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

319

Reimer, B 2004, ‘Social exclusion in a comparative context, Sociologia Ruralis, 44/1 cited in Alston, M 2010, Innovative Human Services Practice: Australia’s changing landscape, Palgrave Macmillan, South Yarra. pp. 76-94. Reisner, M 1993, Cadillac Desert: The American west and its disappearing water, revised and updated edn, Penguin Books Australia, Ringwood. Robins, B (2009) ‘Township put on drip feed as dam levels reach record low’, Sydney Morning Herald, 15 December. Roper, H. Sayers, C and Smith, A 2006, ‘Stranded Irrigation Assets’, Staff Working Paper, Productivity Commission, Australian Government. Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, 2004, ‘Rural Water Usage’, Senate Committee Report, April, Canberra. Ryan, S Broderick, K Sneddon, Y and Andrews, K 2010, ‘Australia’s NRM governance system: Foundations and principles for meeting future challenges’, Australian Regional NRM Chairs, Canberra, Accessed 16 August 2010. < [email protected]> Sarantakos, S 2005, Social Research, third edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. Sheil, C 2000, Water’s Fall: Running the risks with economic rationalism, Pluto Press, Annandale. Shorter Oxford Dictionary on historical principles. sixth edn, 2007, Oxford University Press, Oxford. Silverman, D 2000, Doing Qualitative Research: A practical handbook, Sage, London.

320

Smith, A 1973, The Wealth of Nations, ed A Skinner, Penguin Books Australia, Ringwood. Smith, DI 2001, Water in Australia: Resources and management, Oxford University Press, South Melbourne. Smith, R 2003, ‘New South Wales’, in Australian Politics and Government: The Commonwealth, the states and the territories, eds J Moon and C Sharman, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. pp. 41-73. Snowy-Hydro, 2006, 5 July. ‘The Snowy Hydro Share Offer’, Commonwealth Government of Australia, New South Wales Government and the Government of Victoria, AGPS Canberra. downloaded 7 July 2006. Spriggs, S 1999, Participatory Decision Making: New Democracy or New Delirium? Unpublished M Sc. thesis, University of Western Sydney, Faculty of Environmental Management and Agriculture, Hawkesbury. Stehlik, D 2003, ‘Australian drought as a lived experience: Social and community impacts’, in Beyond Drought: People, Policy and Perspectives, eds LC Botterill, and M Fisher, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. pp. 87-108. St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, 2003, ‘Waterfall plunge kills young activist’, 18 December. Stevens, F 1975, ‘Aborigines’, in Australian Society: A sociological introduction, second edn, eds AF Davies, and S Encel, Cheshire, Melbourne. pp. 362-412. Stewart, J. 2002, ‘Public sector management’, eds J Summers, D Woodward and A Parkin, Government, Politics, Power and Policy in Australia, Seventh edn, Longman, Frenchs Forest. pp. 67-87. 321

Stirzaker, R 2010, Out of the scientists’s garden: A story of water and food, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. Strang, V 2004, The Meaning of Water, Berg Publishers, Oxford. ‘Sustainable development in Australia’, August, 2002, Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra. Sydney Morning Herald, 2009, ‘Letting the rivers run free’, 22-23 August. The Constitution as altered to 1 December 1977, Commonwealth of Australia, Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra. The Land 2009, 4 June, ‘New South Wales water burden’. The Land, 2006, 18 May, ‘Rebel against Snowy sale’. The Land, 2006, 25 May ‘Snowy Opposition Grows’. The Land, 2006, 15 June, ‘Snowy saved – and people make a point’. The Land, 2009, 4 June, ‘Twynam’s bonanza. How Canberra’s $300m water deal rocked NSW’. The Land, 2003, 29 May, Upfront News ‘Irrigators set to test the waters’. The Land, 2009, 19 March, ‘“Toorale” flows’. The Land, 2009, 12 August, ‘Water restrictions may lead to flood’. Abstracted 13 August 2009 . Thomson, P 2010, ‘Murray water action thrown out of High Court’, The Land, 10 February, Farmonline, Abstracted 18 February .

322

Thomson, P 2009, ‘We Won’t Pay: Lachlan farmers launch water charges protest’, The Land, 8 October. p. 3. Tonnies, F (1957) Community and Society, New York, Harper Torchbook. Vanclay, F 2011, ‘Social Principles for agricultural extension in facilitating the adoption of new practices’, in Changing Land Management: Adoption of new practices by rural landholders, eds D Pannell and F Vanclay, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. pp. 51-67. Wacquant, LJD 2002, ‘Toward a social praxeology: The structure and logic of Bourdieu’s sociology’, In Bourdieu, P & Wacquant, LJD, An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, Polity Press, Cambridge. pp. 2-59. Wahlquist, A 2003, ‘Media representations and public perceptions of drought’ in Beyond Drought: People, policy and perspectives, eds LC Botterill, and M Fisher, Collingwood, CSIRO Publishing. pp. 67- 86. Wahlquist, A 2007, ‘Water Wars’, Australian, 9 February. p. 11. Walker, B 2010, ‘Foreword’ in Resilience and Transformation: preparing Australia for uncertain futures, ed S Cork, CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood. pp. vii-viii. Watts, P 2006, ‘Irrigators get Snowy link’, The Land, June. 15, p. 33. ‘Water for the environment and water reform’, Updated 18 November 2009, National Water Commission, Australian Government, Canberra, abstracted 9 June 2010. Water Act 2007 Australian Government, Attorney General’s Department, Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Canberra. Water Act 2007 Australian Government, Act no 137 of 2007 as amended, Attorney General’s Department, Legislative Drafting and Publishing, Canberra. 323

Water Management Act 2000 no 92, reprint no 1. 4 February 2003, New South Wales Government Information Service, Sydney. Water Management 2000 Amendment Bill, 1 December, 2005, Hansard (Proof), New South Wales Second Reading (Article 43), New South Wales Government, Legislative Council, Sydney. Water Resources Commission (WRC), 1984, ‘The Role of Water in the Development of New South Wales’, North Sydney. Water Sharing Plan for the Lachlan Regulated River Water Source, 2003, Minister for Land and Water Conservation, New South Wales Government, Sydney. Weber, M 1964, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, ed. Talcott Parsons, The Free Press, New York. Weber, M 1974, The Protestant Eethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Unwin University Books, London. White, ME 2000, Running Down: Water in a changing land, Kangaroo Press, Roseville. Wild, RA 1978, Bradstow: A study of class, status and power in a small Australian town, revised edn, Angus and Robertson, Sydney. Williams, R 2009, ‘Water wars’, Ockham’s Razor. ABC Radio National, 6 August. Abstracted from Wordsworth, W 2000, ‘Derwent River’, verse 1, lines 1, 11-12, in The River’s Voice: an anthology of poetry, eds King, A and Clifford, S, Green Books Ltd. Dartington Totnes. p. 50. Zeller, RA 1993, ‘Focus group research on sensitive topics: Setting the agenda without setting the agenda’, in DL Morgan, ed Successful Focus Groups: Advancing the state of the art, Sage Publications, Newbury Park. pp.167-183. 324

Zeitoun, M and Allen, JA 2008, ‘Applying hegemony and power theory to transboundary water analysis’, in Water Policy: Official Journal of the World Water Council, vol. 10, supplement 2. pp. 3-12.

325

Appendix

Appendix 1. 1

Murray-Darling Basin

326

Appendix 1. 2 River catchments

Source: Murray-Darling Basin Commission (2000); and Pigram (2006:170)

327

Appendix 1. 3 Timeline for water and farm development European settlement 1788 New South Wales – request that year to the British Government for experienced farmers to migrate as free settlers to establish food security

1864-66 Drought spreads throughout all states except Tasmania

1884 – Royal Commission on water supply chaired by Alfred Deakin as Attorney General of Victoria. He takes a study tour to the north west of the United States of America

1885 – Deakin presents his report that will inform water law in Australia for more than a century. Key features are: ownership, care and control of water in Australia is retained by the people; private ownership is rejected

1886 - Irrigation Act Victoria – model for Australian water law

1886 - Chaffey brothers through encouragement from Alfred Deakin commence irrigation schemes in eastern Australia

1895- 1903 Widespread drought and devastating stock losses in Australia

1900 - Federation of Australia. Section 100 of the Australian Constitution establishes that no Commonwealth ‘law or regulation of trade or commerce’ shall ‘abridge the right’ of a State or its residents to ‘reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation’

1906 – Burrinjuck Dam construction commences

Water Act 1912 - New South Wales follows Victoria and Commonwealth Governments in establishing rights to equable access to water

1912 – Irrigation water is available and the initial state administered irrigation settlements are established in New South Wales 328

1914-15 – Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australian Governments endorse the River Murray Waters Agreement

1916 - Land size for irrigation farms proves too small to earn a farm family living and repay debt. Farmers default on loans and irrigation farm sizes are increased

1917 – River Murray Commission established

1923 – Returned soldier settlers took up farms following the First World War and the Second World War. The soldier settlers following the First World War added to irrigation farm settlers, doubling their numbers

1923 - Soldier settler Batkin won a court judgement banishing state hopes of recouping costs to itself of initial capital outlay on water storage and delivery infrastructure. Farmers should pay operating costs of irrigation schemes. They are not responsible for interest on capital invested in major water infrastructure

1937 - The vision of Australia’s future as the food bowl of Asia is presented in a book by Ernestine Hill (1937) Water into Gold

1939-45 - Second World War follows the years of economic depression and water development slows

1945 - Marks the end of war and commencement of post-war reconstruction including further development of rural water resources

1949 – Snowy Mountain Hydro-electricity scheme begins construction

1970s – Environmentalism emerges as a powerful force in water politics. In Tasmania, Australia the Franklin Dam protest movement becomes the symbol of the many conflicts emerging globally between developmental forces and conservation forces

1980s – Institutional reform follows new economic principles for the restructure of state authorities including water authorities. Water reform uses market forces and an enforceable system of property

329

rights to rely on market forces to allocate water. The new management model replaces subsidised water administration

1983 – The construction of the Franklin Dam in Tasmania is a central political issue in the 5 March 1983, Federal election campaign. Aspiring politicians may no longer ignore environmental politics. The Franklin Dam protest movement generates legal battles as far as the High Court of Australia and demonstrates the influence an international Convention previously signed by the Commonwealth may have on water policy

1992 – Council of Australian Governments (COAG) adopted the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development

1994 – Water Policy Agreement through the COAG applies nationally accepted principles for sustainable and integrated water management. These include environmental flow, pricing, privatisation or corporatisation of water utilities, community consultation, education, and social outcome

1995 –Following an Audit of Water Use in the Murray-Darling Basin an interim ‘Cap’ is placed on surface water abstractions limiting them to 1993-94 levels. The Cap is made permanent in 1997.

1995 – National Competition Policy is approved by the COAG. It endorses the 1994 Water Policy Agreement. The Competition Policy seeks to remove all barriers to trade and competition requiring government and private businesses to work under similar market rules. Anti-competitive behaviour is perceived as against the public interest

1996 – Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) established principles for charging for bulk water services in New South Wales. Pricing should encourage ecologically sustainable water management. The theory holds that paying more for water ensures that it is used most beneficially, to its highest value purpose

2000 – The Water Management Act 2000 New South Wales is passed through Parliament. The legislation applies the principles contained in the concepts integrated water resources management and sustainable 330

water resources management. Key changes are: the separation of irrigation farmland from irrigation water resources; water becomes a property in its own right; facilitation of trade in water and water transferability. It overturns Deakin rules and equable sharing inherent in the Water Act 1912.

2003 – New South Wales State elections, March 2003. The Greens Party increases its political power base following the return of the Labor Government and the Liberal/National Parties to Opposition

2004 –National Water Initiative. Designed to review the 1994 water reform COAG agreements, controversially it discouraged recompense to farm managers for economic loss due to water cutbacks.

Appendix 1. 4

Major droughts in Australia 1864-66 All states affected except Tasmania 1880-86 Southern and eastern States affected 1895-1903 Termed the federation drought. Massive sheep and cattle loss 1911-16 Loss of 19 million sheep and two million cattle 1918-20 All of Australia, save parts of Western Australia, in drought 1939-45 Massive sheep loss 1963-68 Widespread drought. Central Australia in drought from 1958-67 1972-73 Drought mainly in eastern Australia 1982-83 New South Wales. Total loss estimated in excess of $3000 million South west Queensland drought extended from 1978-83 1991-95 Widespread drought 2002-10 By April 2003, 95.5 per cent of New South Wales was drought declared. The State is declared drought free in October, 2010 although 10.8 per cent of the State

331

remains in marginal conditions and the social, economic and environmental impact will last for years Source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology (ABS); Botterill and Fisher (2003); Yerinan Station records. Cunnamulla; Fox (2010).

Appendix 1. 5

Catchment Management Authorities in New South Wales

Source: http://www.cma.nsw.gov.au/ ; and Pigram (2006:16)

332

Appendix 2. 1 Industries in the Lachlan Catchment Agricultural related industries, wool growing, viticulture and orcharding. Abattoirs, animal processing industries, pet food production, mining, quarrying, manufacturing, furniture production, tourism, freight, horse and trotting industries, professional services, Source: Department of Land and Water Conservation (DLWC) (1998) Lachlan Catchment State of the Rivers Report 1997.

Appendix 3. 1 Regulatory change A list of natural resource management laws, reports, agreements and initiatives is complex as they incorporate federal and state policy decisions. Those listed below are among the most influential in regulating the rural water access of the farm manager: Deakin (Victoria) Royal Commission report 1884 Irrigation Act 1886, Victoria; Water Rights Act 1896, New South Wales Australian Constitution, 1900 Water Act 1912, New South Wales National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, 1992 National Competition Policy, 1992, referred to as the Hilmer Report Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, 1996, New South Wales Water Management Act 2000, New South Wales and Amendments Catchment Management Authorities 2003, New South Wales 333

National Water Initiative 2004 Murray Darling Basin Water Agreement 2004 National Water Commission, 2004 Water Act 2007, Commonwealth Government Murray-Darling Basin Authority 2008.

Appendix 4. 1 List of respondents – Farmers The ethical requirements of privacy require pseudonyms for the informants, indicated through using italic print. Informants who gave permission for their real name to be used are in plain print, for example, Adrian Piccoli, the parliamentarian. General questions relevant for all respondents as well as farmers are answerable through personal, unobtrusive observation undertaken prior to an interview. The questions cover: Qualifications - formal education and or experience and training Position - such as politician or senior officer, farmer Age - that has bearing on future in the industry Gender - and income earning options Ties to one or more water jurisdictions - knowledge derived as ‘insider’ (person living permanently in the catchment area such as farmer, town business person or local community worker) or ‘outsider’ (environmental representative from a state or national movement who does not live locally or senior officer employed in a government agency or private organisation). The list of persons who agreed to a formal or an informal interview is presented in the following pages:

334

Andrew has two dryland farms and has two irrigation licences that he will use within a year or two when his grandsons’ schooling ends. Dominic is a dryland farmer with several mixed farms. The homestead farm is a dryland farm and originally it was taken up as a soldier settlement block from the First World War. Dominic took over in an intergenerational change process during the 1950s. Ellen is a cattle stud and sheep grazier and employed off-farm in a semi-government, not for profit, organisation. Fran is an irrigation farmer and is semi-retired. She moved from the farm to town and pulled down the family farm home to allow more land development to support an overseer. George is a dryland broadacre and irrigation farmer. He is a Director of a national and international family owned agribusiness. Glen is a retired dryland farmer who ‘helps out’ the next generation going daily to the farm from town where he now lives. Grant is a dryland farmer retired but working on the family farm most days. His family has owned it for 100 years. Gregory is an irrigation and dryland farmer from west of Condobolin. He has young children and his wife is a teacher. Harry works in the city and shares the ownership of the family farm where he grew up. He holidays at the farm and helps with the work when needed. He wanted to sell his irrigation licence to mining companies however the transfer was refused. James was an irrigation farmer who sold the irrigation farm and changed to dryland farming. He thought it was an economically much safer branch of the mixed farming industry. John is an irrigation farmer in the Forbes region. He was organised and planned well ahead. However, unexpected water cutbacks for 335

irrigation have left him angry, anxious, insecure and claiming that consultation between farmers and the senior officers in government departments and agencies about water diversions is practically non- existent. Kate is in partnership with her husband on a dryland grazing area north of Bourke in the Murray-Darling Basin. She agisted cattle in the Lachlan River Catchment during the worst of the drought. Kath was a retired dryland farmer in central New South Wales. Ill health prevented herself and her husband from developing irrigation. Leisha is a farmer on a dryland property she works as a teacher and now commutes weekly to the farm from town as her children reach school age. Liam owns a property with limited irrigation that is largely a dryland farm. He did not agree to an interview. However, his family connections and the media articles allowed me to trace his story. He had constructed a dam large enough to carry his dairy herd through drought, he cannot get a permit to capture enough water from the flow over his farm to fill the dam. Lilly has sold the family farm due to mining near the Condamine River, southern Queensland. Marcus is a dryland farmer and grazier and has off farm work in the health services. Mary is a retired farmer who lived near the Victorian border, in the Snowy River Catchment area. Penny is a dryland grazier on a family property in the north west of the Murray-Darling Basin. Ruth is a dryland farmer on a mixed wheat and sheep property

336

Sandy is a co-manager of two dryland mixed family farms located near Forbes who also runs an office in a rural town earning off-farm income. Sally, whose family had a mixed agricultural farm business in grazing and crop growing, reluctantly decided to sell the farm to a mining company. She would have been surrounded by coal mining with problems of the dust and pollution of dams and farmland. Vince is a dryland grazier who runs the family farm and his own farm. Warren is the manager of the Australian agricultural arm of an international company. Warren agreed to a telephone interview at an appointed time.

Appendix 4. 2

List of respondents - government officers, experts and other informants Alex is a journalist employed by a central west New South Wales newspaper. He offered the experience of water reform and drought from the perspective of people from differing age and status groups and the effect on different occupational groups such as shopkeepers, tradespeople, farmers, teachers and school children. Ann is a community social worker employed by the New South Wales State government. Her work takes her hundreds of kilometres across the centre of the state. She organised groups of people to discuss the developing situation as water reforms are introduced. Drew is an engineer working for a private enterprise organisation. He worked at Jindabyne in the Snowy River Mountains to open the pipe and release the water flow promised by Victoria and State governments to return some of the water to the Snowy River.

337

Elizabeth is a community and social worker in the western Lachlan region. She directs people who enquire after different services, about how to access them and travels to smaller regional centres where she finds people stressed by income loss. Geoffrey is a senior officer employed with the Lachlan Water Authority. He was a member of the River Management Committees from 1997 for the following years until their mission was complete and he is an active member of the local community. He was a broadacre farmer and now owns a smaller farm in partnership with his wife, a farm that will use high security water, rather than the general security water used on his former farm. His farm enterprise has a higher chance of gaining a water allocation as general security water licences had zero allocation in 2003-2004 and from 2004-2005. Jane is a government agency officer with the Lachlan Water Authority and describes her role as acting ‘for farmers’. She was an independent representative and a Chairperson on a River Management Committee and, as part owner of a local farm, supplements farm income with her full time employment. Jean is an office manager and co-ordinator of information services to the rural sector and works in the office at least two days each week. Her work links various services offered in the region and she travels to outlying areas for this purpose. She owns a farm in partnership with her husband. She finds that people are moving to dryland areas from irrigation areas uncertain that irrigation water resources will continue. On the other hand, farmers are moving to the district from coastal regions that have been drought stricken for several years. She feels that knowledge of water availability could be more widely circulated

338

so that people do not jump from the frying pan to the fire with inadequate knowledge. Jack is an Agricultural Science graduate and part time farmer. He is employed in a corporate authority as a senior officer. Jon is a crop duster pilot in central New South Wales. Libby is a Real Estate agent employee in a central western town in regional New South Wales. She has knowledge of the Dubbo Water Exchange, a business that opened briefly at the start of water trading, then suddenly closed. Lisa is a secretary to a New South Wales rural parliamentarian. Maurice is a State Government Field Officer who works in Orange, central New South Wales. He ensured that information about water licences, water reform and water use was supplied to stakeholders in 2004. Nancy is employed in a community relations’ occupation, her family are farmers and town business people. She is prominent in local groups and travels many hundreds of kilometres for her work, visiting people in isolated regions. Pat is a part time tour guide and an irrigation farmer. Adrian Piccoli is a politician and I have used Adrian’s real name with his permission. He is a New South Wales parliamentarian representing the southern Murrumbidgee region. He wants licence fees for farmers waived instead of postponed when they have zero water allocation for two consecutive years. Phillip is an environmentalist and was a Greens Party candidate in the 2003 New South Wales State elections. He contested a safe Liberal seat to represent environmentalist views.

339

Robert is employed in private enterprise and manages a branch of a nation-wide Stock and Station Agency. Ronald is a banker in southern New South Wales. He answered questions on water legislation and the impact of the rules cutting the tie between farmland and irrigation water on farm loans. Roland is a senior officer with the Department of Primary Industry. All water licences and abstraction licences in the region of my research in southern New South Wales go through his office. Sandy is an agricultural graduate in farm management. Formerly employed by government she now co-manages the family farms and earns off-farm income in office management and farm accounting. She wears the two ‘hats’ each day of farmer and business woman. She is also listed among the farm respondents. Shari is an Agricultural Economist employed by the state government. He is a prolific writer of papers relating to the economic features of water reform and its impact on farms. He is a firm believer in economic rationalism and the discipline it gives to research on economic interrelations with farm and water management. Sue is a secretary in the New South Wales Parliament. She has a wide knowledge of state legislation on water. She monitored water legislation and the relevant debates for parliamentarians.

340

Appendix 4. 3 Farmers questionnaire The questions were asked in person in most instances in face-to-face interviews. In three cases the interviews were conducted via email (twice) and by telephone (twice). The questions to farmers are open-ended to allow an interviewee to expand on their knowledge and experience of water reform. An email was sent to one interviewee who was overseas and another who required to know beforehand what the study covered. Another required a telephone appointment to complete his interview and another phoned me and said that he would be pleased to answer questions immediately.

Questions How do the regulations of the New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 affect your farm management strategies? How effective for you are consultative processes with the government officers administering the Act? What do you do with irrigation water allocations, use them on the farm? Do you buy more water to add to your entitlement, sell or lease your water entitlement? If the person interviewed is a dryland farmer I ask them about their water storage plans, whether the restrictions on the size of dams influences their plans for farm development. Was your voice heard at the River Management Committees when water share plans were drawn up? Are there aspects of water reform that you want to raise? How do the options to trade in irrigation water or transfer water entitlements affect your farm management strategy? 341

Have the interrelations between yourself and senior officers in charge of water reform been helpful and informative for you? Can you fruitfully approach your parliamentary member about water reform? Could the reform process be improved from your perspective? Dryland farmers were encouraged to discuss plans for farm expansion and environmental management? Irrigation farmers were encouraged to talk about restrictions on water access, cutbacks and environmental matters?

Appendix 4. 4 Person to person interviews – local people, experts and others The person-to-person interviews for other respondents, for example experts and observers are open-ended to allow respondents to expand on a subject of interest. The questionnaire allows flexibility although it is important to follow the questionnaire format to ensure coverage of each point. The researcher loses control over the place of interview and the movements of people nearby when interviewing in certain geographically isolated settings, such as a farm, or a public space where other people have access. This situation impacts on the sequence of questions as other family members or visitors may want to have an input. At this point I found it more useful to treat the interview as a focus group activity rather than pursue the one-on-one interview line. It was a time of change in both policy and the landscape as the drought continued. People were busy on the farms whereas in towns some businesses were struggling to survive. It was important to fit in 342

with the activities and time frame allowed for interview by my respondents. My questions were asked in various places including during farm stays and taking part in farm walks, or meeting in a coffee shop, library or university grounds or building.

Questions How does water reform affect your work and life? What is happening in the town, are people moving into the district or moving away? How are local business people managing water reform and drought? Are the numbers of people as students at schools, players in sporting groups, church congregations or belonging to other groups changing? Are people coming in from farms for work or leaving to seek work elsewhere? Questions were directed at particular areas of change, such as farm mortgages when water for irrigation and farmland ties were cut. Agents were queried about farm property sales.

Appendix 4. 5 Questionnaire – senior government officers, politicians and experts The government officers were helpful in agreeing to be interviewed about water reform. They were interviewed at conferences, at their government offices or by telephone and in one case a senior officer came to my motel to provide an interview

343

The open-ended questions gave respondents the opportunity to expand on subjects such as economic modelling of irrigation farming when water cutbacks are made, water allocation, water licences and water management including manipulation of water flows, fees and charges.

Questions Would you comment on your role in relation to water reform? Are there aspects of the reform that is important to your work on which you would like to comment further? The functions of the River Management Committees were to carry out the appointed tasks; prepare a draft management plan for the area; investigate matters referred to it; report to the Minister on management issues; and advise the minister on relevant matters. Farmers, senior officers and experts who attended the meetings offered their views of the procedure when asked whether the process was satisfactory from their viewpoint

344

345