NSWIC Monthly Update IRRIGATORS’

COUNCIL October 2013

Thank you for agreeing to receive our monthly update. We appreciate you taking the time to keep abreast of what NSWIC is doing to represent Water Access License holders in NSW. This electronic bulletin is a collation of our weekly updates which are sent to our Member organisations.

If you would like more details about your local Member of NSWIC, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Basin Plan Related

Recommitting to Buyback Cap

A win! Or, at very least a reaffirmation of a previous win.

You'll recall that then Opposition Leader and now Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, wrote to NSWIC last year committing to cap buybacks at 1,500 gigalitres. We distributed that letter far and wide to make certain it couldn't be walked away from.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment (the bloke in charge of water), Senator Simon Birmingham, gave his first interview in the role to Lauren Wilson from The Australian. In the article, published on Thursday (10 Oct) and available here, he again committed to the buyback cap. This time, of course, the commitment is from the Government - and hence has practical implications. We issued a media release (here) calling it a "great result".

Well done to all who were involved in securing this commitment in the first instance. It's always good to see a real, material outcome after such a prolonged engagement.

Constraints Management Strategy

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority released its draft Constraints Management Strategy (available here).

It doesn't provide solutions (and probably wasn't designed to) but rather identifies both physical and rules-based constraints that need to be "further investigated".

It isn't often that we call the MDBA to give them a heads up about a media release that we're issuing. In this instance, we did - to explain to them that yes, we understand their role and, no, there probably isn't much else they could have done.

The MDBA were tasked as part of the Basin Plan process with writing this report. It is therefore incumbent on them to identify which rules make delivery of their ideal environmental outcomes difficult or impossible. We wanted to let them know that we were aware of that, but also to make it very clear that changes to fundamental rules isn't something that we'll willingly embrace. So whilst their Strategy merely identifies the rules, our response takes it one step further to say that identification is paramount to suggesting change that won't be countenanced.

We needed to stake our position immediately on this issue - so this pre-emptive step is a tactic to position ourselves such that adverse rule changes are identified in as something that will be difficult to achieve. You can access our release here.

Despite our courteous approach to the Authority on the matter, a video appeared on their website (here) in which Chairman Craig Knowles decries the "media clips" that he's been reading saying that some of the responses to the CMS are "simply not true". Note that we were not advised of the intent to place the video prior to it being publicly available nor was it the MDBA that alerted us to it.

He says the aim of the document is "merely to start a conversation". (Of course, the last time a "conversation" was started was in 2007 - and we ended up with a Basin Plan.) What that statement clearly misses is that such a discussion - led by regulatory authorities - has massive implications for the market. How can confidence been instilled in the market when the entity responsible for the Water Trading Rules is "starting a discussion" about the fundamental rules governing that market...?

MDBA "Engagement"

Following on with the Constraints Management Strategy, we advised that we'd attempted a more cordial engagement with the MDBA by contacting them prior to releasing it to both give them a "heads up" and also to explain the reason for the content (we want to draw a 'line in the sand' now on the concept of rules changes).

We regret to advise that said 'more cordial' approach was well and truly rejected by the MDBA via their CEO, Rhondda Dixon. At a meeting in Griffith, Dr Dixon took aim at NSWIC (and Andrew) over the release and its content. We don't so much mind a stoush on the issues - that's all part of the job. What we do mind is a question of personal integrity. When a representative of a Member of NSWIC pointed out to Dr Dixon that we had contacted the MDBA prior to the release, she said "that is not true," which is a pretty confronting accusation.

We contacted Dr Dickson via email to seek clarification and to provide the (significant) evidence that we had, indeed, contacted the MDBA. Dr Dickson responded via email that the comment was that we had "consulted" on our release "with the implication that (they) had the opportunity to comment on its content before publication." We checked this further with our Members in attendance and came to the conclusion that Dr Dickson had a quite different recollection of the exchange.

There's obviously no point getting further involved in an argument over this. We have let Dr Dickson know that we're disappointed that what started out as an approach by us to a more cordial engagement has ended in this fashion. Obviously we won't continue that approach. Minister Hodgkinson on Constraints Management

The NSW Government responded pretty positively, from our perspective, to the MDBA CMS document. Minister Hodgkinson simply said that there was no way they'd be party to removing constraints that allowed an additional 450 gigs to be diverted to environmental use. The only constraints that they will look at being party to addressing are those which allow better delivery (i.e. offsets) under 2,750. That's a fantastic result - and one confirmed by the Minister's letter to the Griffith Area News as kindly provided by one of our Members (see the clipping here).

Constraints Management Strategy Submission

We've been publicly critical of the CMS for good reason - it contemplates (or "starts a conversation" in the words of Chairman Craig Knowles) about changing rules that underpin the water market. Moreover, the "strategy" is designed to allow acquisition of a further 450 gigalitres over and above 2,750.

The leadership of the MDBA - particularly Dr Dickson - has been very critical of NSWIC in discussing our response. In light of that, they're certainly not going to like our draft submission. No matter how many times we read the CMS or consider the detail of the issue or reconsider the first draft that we wrote in response, though, we cannot find positives. Our Members don't want an additional 450 gigalitres being acquired, they don't want to see the water market foundation undermined with "conversations" about rules and many believe they've been mislead into thinking the CMS was about explaining how flow regimes associated with 2,750 would be delivered.

We've little doubt that the MDBA will launch another attack on NSWIC - so we need to be able to act with your authority.

Many thanks to our Members who provided input to our submission, the as-submitted version of which can be seen here. We understand that they've received a number of submission, many of which reflect the same dissatisfaction in ours. We don't think they'll be left in much doubt...

CEWH Temp Trade

We were asked by a Member to look into a rumour getting about the 'bidgee that the CEWH was on the verge of doing a large trade deal with a Chinese consortium to grow cotton.

We spoke with David Papps who advises "absolutely not", notes that they are still struggling to finalise how they will trade and noted again their intention to ensure everybody was aware of their actions well before they were undertaken.

ACCC / State Water Update

As submissions to the ACCC on State Water's bulk water pricing submission have closed and the draft determination is not expected until February 2014, we have inquired with the ACCC on interim stakeholder meetings between now and the end of the year. We were told that the ACCC is planning to meet with NSWIC and its Members over the next few months to discuss the submissions.

We suggested the ACCC could join the pre-council meetings on 6th November as many Members would already been in in preparation for NSWIC's AGM on 7th November. The ACCC agreed and will be joining us for a session in the afternoon.

Whilst we're on this issue, a submission has been made to the ACCC by the Peel Valley Water User Association that is perhaps less than flattering of NSWIC. It serves to underscore the necessity of sticking together in the face of regulators such as the ACCC. The Peel Valley Water User Association is entirely welcome to its own views - as are any Member or stakeholder of NSWIC (it says so in our submission) - but remember that regulators look for and dissent in order to discount a submission that doesn't accord with their own view.

Here's what the issue is:

3.13.21 - Additional comments - NSW Irrigators Council

We acknowledge that our position will probably differ from that which will be presented by the NSW Irrigators Council.

However, our Association does not have representation on the NSW Irrigators Council, nor do we have any communication with them, so they cannot possibly represent the views of the Peel Valley Water Users Association. They obviously represent their own membership, but they do not represent valleys such as the Peel Valley. While they are a self appointed peak body, they are not a genuinely NSW wide organisation that represents all irrigators in the state.

Further, we acknowledge that the NSW Irrigators Council predominantly represents the interests of larger irrigators in the southern parts of NSW, and consequently they have no reason to be concerned about State Water’s perverse pricing policies which deliver extremely cheap water usage prices to them, and exorbitant prices to irrigators in the Peel Valley.

Therefore, we believe that the position of the NSW Irrigators Council is just one point of view that the ACCC should take into consideration when reviewing State Water’s pricing submission

Mining & Coal Seam Gas

On Wednesday (02 Oct) we met with Scot Macdonald (Upper House Lib) to discuss a forward path, presenting him with our "any two of three" position (see further below). Scot was looking for something to take to Minister Hazzard and seemed pretty keen to present the aquifer interference becoming a regulation position. He advised later that he has written to the Minister, so we'll follow that result with some interest. Thanks to NSW FA and Cotton for being part of that meeting.

We also met with Sean O'Connell from the Deputy Premier's office who was likewise keen to receive a copy of the paper. His focus was on the baseline data issue and, particularly, what we'd uncovered in Colorado. He seemed largely on side in that respect.

Later that day we issued a media release to accompany our position paper (see here). We'd judged that there's an opportunity in the next while to revisit some of the "headline" issues on regulation of mining and gas. Having dealt for nearly two years in detail, we need to make sure that the detail sits under the framework that we want. For instance, there's no point in having a finely detailed aquifer interference policy if it isn't enforceable - we need a Regulation.

We received a briefing on 02 Oct on the updated assessment process for mining and CSG operations. The details were publicly released Thursday 03 Oct.

We've prepared a Briefing Paper on the changes and what they mean. It's two pages long and accessible here.

Don't think this issue affects you? The new material includes maps of all strategic agricultural land in the State. You might be fascinated to see that the vast majority of the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Darling aren't in that category...

The reaction from most agriculture groups was as you'd expect - they weren't happy. It led Premier O'Farrell to comment that "farmers and miners are both unhappy, so it must be about right." With that in mind, we joined with Cotton Australia to attempt a slightly different approach. We're seeking a meeting with the Premier to pursue our "choose two of three" approach, so wanted to differentiate our public response a little to achieve that end. We're aware that some of our stakeholders will be perturbed at the headline - Water Users Offer to Break CSG Deadlock - but we hope that you'll see the tactic behind it. To get what we want at this stage, we need to get in front of the Premier. To do that, we need to be offering something positive. You can access the release here. A letter has gone to the Premier requesting the meeting and the Twitter version of the release was directed to him as well. We'll keep you up to speed as it progresses.

Irrigation as Critical Industry Cluster

In our July Council meeting a motion was passed seeking to have irrigation farms determined a Critical Industry Clusters pursuant to the Strategic Regional Land Use Policy. This would have required any CSG (oh, alright - natural gas from coal seam...) projects to pass through the Gateway Process whether on Strategic Ag Land or not.

We've received a letter from Minister Hodgkinson advising that "it is (her) opinion that land used for commercial irrigation purposes does not match the CIC criteria as it does not focused (sic) on a specific agricultural product, and does not qualify as an identifiable "cluster" and is "unique" or "iconic"". (Presumably "and is NOT unique or iconic".)

In light of this, individual commodity Members of NSWIC may like to pursue this matter.

Critical Industry Cluster Status

As we reported previously, Minister Hodgkinson knocked back the submission of NSWIC that all irrigation farms be considered Critical Industry Clusters for the purposes of coal seam gas approvals.

Both the rice and cotton industry (through RGA and Cotton Australia) have now made submissions for critical industry cluster status. It will be intriguing to see how the Minister deals with this.

Land Access Legal Advice

Several months ago, we identified an issue in the land access negotiation where emergency access was required to CSG operations in the absence of notice to the landholder. That potentially brought about significant liability issues for farmers given the nature of farms as workplaces. Working with Jock Laurie as Land and Water Commissioner and with Government funding, we briefed Mallesons on the matter. They provided a 10 page response (only lawyers can call ten dense pages a "brief"...) which we finished reviewing.

The advice vindicates our early concern. There is a blanket indemnity on claims made by a license holder or their representative, but not for representatives of other agencies (fire, EPA, NOW and the like). Mallesons recommend a change to the Act, which we're taking to a meeting of that group next week.

Mallesons picked up the further issue of indemnity to landholders where protestors illegally access land without notification, recommending an indemnity against claims. We'll attempt to have that incorporated into access agreement information, but will have to note that a liability for personal injury may still attach.

This one has been a lengthy and exhausting legal matter. We're now at the pointy end of it and hope to see some material change come of it. The last thing you want after having had to give access to a third party operator is then to be legally liable for accidental injury based on their actions, not yours!

Access Agreements Cont.

A package of amendments to the Petroleum (Onshore) Act will come before the Parliament very soon. It will include a Regulation (the Code) that sets minimum terms for access agreements for CSG operations. These have been the subject of lengthy consultation and are generally positive.

That said, we will still be recommending that landholders do not execute access agreements until a significant point is dealt with. It's the issue of liability for injury to third parties on the property without notice. I've been banging on about this for a while - there are circumstances where personnel will come onto property without notification in the event of an emergency. The personnel from the gas operation aren't your responsibility as there's an express exclusion in the Act. If personnel from other entities - think NOW, EPA, fire service and the like - enter to deal with a gas emergency without notice and the landholder causes damage (particularly personal injury), the liability attaches to the landholder as the farm is a workplace.

The Commissioner - with our assistance - took legal advice from King & Wood Mallesons on the issue. Mallesons confirm that it is a significant risk, that it cannot be excluded by contract and that change to the legislation is necessary to protect the landholder. Jock has accepted the advice and notes the strong representation of stakeholders (led by NSWIC) that the advice must be heeded.

Department representatives yesterday argued that it is a major change that needs to be well considered before it occurs and, as such, is unlikely to appear in the amendments about to come before Parliament. "Fine," we said, "but remember we'll be advising landholders not to sign agreements until it is done." They respond that it could take a long time. We pointed out that only the Government and the gas companies are in a rush - we certainly aren't. They tried another angle, noting that the risk of occurrence was low. We responded that farming (and business) was all about risk management - and this risk was too great, particularly when it was occasioned by others with zero reward to the farmer. It's unacceptable and must change. They're off having a long, hard think about it - but we can't see any reason to back down, particularly when the Commissioner is right behind us on it.

Gas Conference

The East Coast Gas Outlook Conference took up a fair bit of Monday and Tuesday (21 / 22 Oct). We presented at it, in conjunction with Cotton Australia, presenting the findings of our Colorado Study Tour. You can access the slides from that presentation here. The presentation was pretty well received from industry players in attendance with a reasonable degree of acceptance of our requirements.

We attended a range of sessions over the two days that covered plenty of ground. Much of it wasn't necessarily relevant to upstream operations but to the gas outlook more generally in terms of supply, demand and price. The networking with industry players was useful.

Meeting with NSW Minerals Council

Andrew met with David Frith from the NSW Minerals Council on Wednesday (23 Oct) to discuss the range of mutual issues that we're dealing with. They're not involved with CSG, but are watching land access developments. Access for mining developed quite differently to CSG - they went for a template access agreement that was negotiated with NSW Farmers. For a range of reasons, Farmers withdrew their support for the template.

Land and Water Commissioner - Water Sub-Group

The Land and Water Commissioner, Jock Laurie, has established a separate sub- group of the land access group to deal with water issues (although it's the same people involved). That group met on Wednesday (30 Oct).

The NSW Chief Scientist, Mary O'Kane, noted that water is the "key question" in the CSG issue. She notes that "we already collect a lot of data" but collation of it is the key. She agrees wholeheartedly with our position that baseline data is key, and presentations from the key personnel to the meeting noted that it's about water as well as soil and air quality. They note that 2 years is current best practice for establishing a baseline.

They've provided funding and support to a modelling project which troubled us. That team is now building a predictive tool to deal with various uncertainties on the basis of assumptions. They're clearly involved in groundbreaking work, but we pointed out to the meeting that it isn't what we - as stakeholders - want. We're after a monitoring regime, not a predictive model. (We did point out we had some experience on the wrong end of decisions being made on the basis of models rather than reality - think Basin Plan).

Mitchell Isaacs represented NOW at the meeting and provided a presentation on their "rigorous" water monitoring regime. At the conclusion of the presentation, we asked Mitch "can NOW set requirements for a water monitoring regime and ensure they are implemented?" We knew the answer was no - we just wanted NOW to acknowledge it. We had to ask the question three times - and the answer was eventually given by another representative around the table. Any water monitoring regime will be a condition of licenses, which are implemented by either Planning or the EPA (in respect of produced water discharge). So whilst the Government are seeking a "single point of engagement" for CSG development, development of water regulation isn't a single point - and isn't even with the Office of Water...

Canberra

Industry Round Table with Environment Minister Greg Hunt

Richard and Andrew travelled to Canberra for a round table convened by Environment Minister Greg Hunt.

Minister Hunt is well known to NSWIC. We met with - and briefed - him on several occasions through the Basin Plan campaign. He was always keen to listen and engage. He provided assistance at several key points.

The round table was mainly business and business peak groups with interest in the carbon tax debate. We were provided with an embargoed draft (now public) of the Carbon Tax Repeal legislation together with a briefing on the Emissions Reduction Fund terms of reference. It's this second matter that may be of interest to many of our Members. Interestingly, Minister Hunt said it will work "in the same way as water buybacks". They will be "provider and source blind" and simply look for the cheapest unit of carbon equivalent. They're seeking industry groups to act as aggregators. He specifically mentioned soil carbon and clarified that they were, indeed, looking for "carbon equivalent" not just carbon dioxide. In other words, greenhouse gases that are far more potent than carbon dioxide (methane, nitrous oxide) may be favourably viewed by the new scheme as reduction sources for funding.

The last third of the meeting focused on their new "one stop shop" for environmental approvals. We were given the basis of the referral to the States information and had the opportunity to ask questions. We asked how bilateral agreements with states would play out in the scenario where cumulative impacts on water resources needed to be considered across jurisdictions - say the GAB or Border Rivers or, indeed, the Murray. Minister Hunt noted that the "Windsor Amendment" won't let them devolve the water trigger to the States (although we're not sure how long that will last). He noted that the Department has looked at this issue on borders between Commonwealth and State land - and have noted the responsibility of the State still lies in fulfilling the requirements of the EPBC Act.

Canberra Meetings

Whilst in Canberra, Richard and Andrew also took the opportunity to meet with the new Secretary of the Environment Department (Dr Gordon de Brouwer) and the Deputy for Water (David Parker) along with Tom Chesson from NIC. We discussed the change of Government being an ideal opportunity to "reset" the relationship between us, noting that we are prepared to assist in finding minimum-impact methods for achieving the aims they have been set, particularly pursuant to the Basin Plan.

We also met with the Board of the NFF for introductions all around as their newest member body.

We met with Assistant Minister for Health, Senator Fiona Nash, noting the rather vast portfolio responsibility that she has gained (including several areas of interest to agriculture such as the Gene Technology Regulator). Senator Nash was at pains to note that she remains a Senator for NSW with significant interest in rural and regional issues - she asked us to ensure that we kept engaged with her on our key issues.

Our final meeting was with one of only two policy advisers that Minister for Agriculture, Barnaby Joyce, has at present. Richard Hyett will be well known to many of you as a previous CEO of Southern Riverina Irrigators. We discussed the need for water to remain of significant interest in the Ag Minister's office and were reassured that the Minister has already stated that he wants this to be the case.

Canberra Staffers

It has been slow going in Canberra with the engagement of Ministerial staffers. There are plenty of unhappy people up there as many who had expected (in many cases legitimately so) advancement aren't receiving it and offers are being made that in many cases see demotion or pay cuts. It was only a matter of time before the media got hold of it (see the ABC story here) as the "payback" leaks began. Watch to see this one play out in coming days.

Some appointments have now been made that might interest you. Lyall Howard (yes, related - nephew) who was recently the head of APPEA in NSW is off to be an adviser to Minister for Trade, Andrew Robb. Joining Richard Hyett (see above) in the graduate school of SRI CEO's is Monica Marona. Fresh from her stint with Victoria Water Minister, Peter Walsh, Monica will be joining Senator Birmingham as an adviser. Remember that the SRI CEO role is currently vacant if you're looking for a proven career trajectory!

Finally, we understand that a Chief of Staff for Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce has been identified and approved. He's well known to many of you and is certainly familiar with our sector and the issues that we're dealing with.

Local Land Services

Thank you to all our Members who have provided comments to our draft submission to IPART's Review of a funding framework for Local Land Services NSW.

Our submission to IPART on the Funding Framework for Local Land Services can be found HERE.

We also attended IPART's LLS Roundtable on 28th October.

The 11 LLS regional Chairs were also announced by Minster Hodgkinson on Thursday. (3 Oct). The media release can be accessed HERE.

Electricity Report

The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has published the final report of its review of competition in the electricity market in NSW. The final report can be accessed HERE.

The report highlights that the focus of the electricity debate is centred on households and small businesses and not on large scale users like irrigators. We have prepared a short Briefing Note highlighting the AEMC's findings, recommendations and drawbacks of the review. The Briefing Note can be accessed HERE.

We have issued a media release highlighting the fact that competition in rural NSW is significantly smaller and that irrigators continue to battle with rising electricity costs. The media release can be accessed HERE.

AER Better Regulation Guidelines

As part of the Better Regulation Reform Program, the Australian Energy Regulator has published a Draft Rate of Return Guideline for network service providers - HERE. These Guidelines will inform the next determination of electricity networks providers in NSW (commencing early 2014). The Draft Rate of Return Guidelines are open for submission until 11 October. We have prepared a draft submission which can be accessed HERE.

IPART Review of Early Termination Charges

IPART is currently undertaking a review of early termination charges for electricity contracts in NSW. This review is of interest to us as it might enable more and cheaper opportunities to switch electricity retailers in the future. We have put together the main parts of IPART's Draft report in a short Briefing Note - HERE.

The full report and the timeline for the review can be accessed HERE.

Changes to Water Management Act

Many of you will be aware that a package of changes to the NSW Water Management Act has been proposed for a while. There was a hope within NOW that they'd reach the Spring sitting of the NSW Parliament.

We understand that the timeframe is a possibility. We further understand that one of our key policy goals for many years - Supplementary Entitlements to be issued in perpetuity - may be part of that package. No guarantees, so we continue to keep pushing hard on that one.

Bulk Water Operations Review

One of our Members made us aware this week of a review being undertaken by Terry Charlton (ex Snowy Hydro) into bulk water operations in NSW (including State Water). We contacted the Minister's office to get an understanding of what it was, what it aims to achieve and whether it will seek external input.

We're advised that it is internal. Its main focus is governance and optimal organisational structures. We've offered to provide external input if required - and will certainly be keeping a close eye on it.

Water Sharing Plan Reviews

We provided an update on the review of Water Sharing Plans in our update of 20 September. We've had some questions about the process, so it might be useful to provide that update here again:

You'll recall that a significant number of Water Sharing Plans - those commenced in 2004 - are due to expire next year. Just prior to Christmas last year the NSW Government embarked on a review process in advance of that. NSWIC made a submission, as did others. Those submissions are available on the Natural Resources Commission website, although the easiest way to access all information on one place (including the process) is the NOW website here.

On 16 September, the NRC advised those that have been involved in the process to date that reports have been forwarded by both the NRC and NOW to the Minister in respect of the matter. You can access those via the link above also.

Plans could either be extended or remade. For any changes (whatsoever), a remake is necessary. From our discussion with Commissioner Harris we understand that the vast majority (if not all) Plans will be remade as changes are proposed. The NOW site states that the intent of Plans will not change. We are advised that targeted (rather than public) consultation in respect of those changes is now proposed. That will include relevant valley organisations and also NSWIC.

The timeframe for remaking the Plans is June 2014 (when they expire). They will be remade for a further 10 years.

It is important at this juncture to note the role of NSWIC as a statewide organisation. We are not equipped - either in personnel, knowledge or resources - to conduct the detailed work required on each and every Plan. We believe that the detailed work is best undertaken by valley representative bodies (i.e. the Members of NSWIC). We will provide assistance in that process upon request. We will also be conducting an overall view of Plans at a statewide level to identify any broader issues that need to be addressed - and will appreciate your assistance in that process.

Mark has spoken with an officer at NOW in respect of particular questions and advises that:  Notifications will be sent to all Water Access Licence holders that are affected by proposed changes. This will include stakeholder groups and representative bodies. Notices will outline the process by which submissions and comment can be made.  Interagency panels are exactly that - inter-agency. They do not involve stakeholders. Separate arrangements are made for further stakeholder input (noting the initial submissions process that commenced late last year).  NSW Irrigators Council will be kept updated through this process and will continue to update Members as information is known.

Letter from NOW – Review of 2004 Water Sharing Plans

Further to our advice over the last few weeks with respect to review of 2004 Water Sharing Plans, we've received a copy of the letter and brochure that will be send to affected Water Access License holders. You can access a copy here.

EPA Risk-based Licensing & Licence Fees

This is a reminder that the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is considering amendments to the Protection of the Environment Operations (General) Amendment (Licensing Fees) Regulation 2013 and the introduction of an environmental risk-based licensing system. Information on the proposed amendments can be found HERE and a letter outlining the proposed changes is available HERE.

Murrumbidgee Allocations

The email below went to those of our Members with an interest in the Murrumbidgee:

Like you, we've received a number of calls from irrigators concerned at current allocation levels, particularly in light of the announcement that they weren't to increase.

We understand that some are unhappy about the perceived conservativism in allocation practice. We've not become involved in that discussion at this point.

What we have spent some time doing today is discussing with decision makers and infrastructure operators the possibility of opening trade in from the Murray system. The concept was to open that trade for a strictly limited period (say a week). Following that, total trade volume would be calculated and the RAR figures for Snowy Hydro between the Murray and Murrumbidgee would be altered by that figure.

The problem then becomes one of deliverability. Snowy drops water into Blowering, which is already running at full release capacity. That is, further water into Blowering couldn't be delivered in any event. (And let's not even bother addressing the demands of the "scientists" who are currently demanding that NOW run the Tumut River at variable flows rather than constant high flow...)

That was an obvious problem, so we tried to come at it from another angle - delivering the water from Tantangara (top of the Snowy scheme) into the old Murrumbidgee River channel. That flows past Cooma, around Canberra and then back to the top of the system near Gundagai. Sounded reasonable...

...until we worked out the delivery losses associated under currently conditions. They're well over 50% (at a guestimate that is likely to be low) which essentially doubles the cost of the water purchased. There are some conditions under which that loss would be considerably lower - but those conditions are likely to occur when it is wet over the 'juck catchment in any event.

Even if that cost assessment wasn't a problem, we had set aside in this consideration the position of Snowy Hydro. In the first instance, they generate more on the Snowy development than on the Tumut development - so a transfer over the top results in an economic loss to them. We may have been able to overcome that as a favour (maybe), but then asking them to drop it from Tantangara into the 'bidgee sees them forgo the generation capacity through the three Tumut development stations. That would be considerable.

In short, the concept is possible - but the implied cost of the water by the time it gets to the irrigator would be so high as to render it uneconomic.

Sorry. We're trying every angle.

Healthy Floodplains Committee

As part of the process to issue entitlement for floodplain harvesting, a committee will be formed to review applications where anomalies may occur. We were asked to nominate a delegate to participate in that process. We’re pleased to advise that Bernie George from Auscott has been nominated.

NSWIC AGM

Information was sent out to members regarding our AGM taking place on Thursday 07 November.

Link to our website for all the relevant forms is HERE.

We had several guests and presenters at this meeting, including; Warwick Pelly the new Water Advisor from Katrina Hodgkinson's office, Representatives from the Bureau of Meteorology, Matt Linnegar from the NFF and Troy Grant the Parliamentary Secretary for Natural Resources.

NSWIC Board - Three positions will fall vacant at out AGM in November. Pursuant to our Constitution, nominations closed three weeks prior. Three nominations were received - Ted Morgan, Michael Murray and Richard Stott.

March 2014 Meeting

We didn't receive any objection to shifting the 06 March 2014 meeting date back one week (to 13th), so we're assuming you're happy with it. Mark will make the changes to confirm this change.

Meetings of Interest

With the Federal Election out of the way and the new Government finding its feet, various issues are on the move again. To keep up to speed, we've met with the Australian Water Brokers Association (attended their meeting in Shepparton on Tuesday (08 Oct) to discuss water markets and broker regulation), Santos' Stakeholder Relations Manager (CSG, access agreements and an inspection tour for irrigation industry leaders), Matt Linnegar (CEO of the NFF), Gillian Kirkup (Chair of Murrumbidgee Irrigation, as a brief prior to a meeting with the new CEO of Snowy Hydro) and Brett Tucker (CEO of State water to discuss pricing and the ACCC).

Meeting with SEWPaC in Sydney

On Wednesday (16 Oct), Jol Taber from the Environment Department met with Mark in our office. Jol is the Environment Department Liaison Officer at the NFF. He sits in the NFF offices to assist farmers with National Environmental Law.

The discussion centered around his role in providing information to farmers. He has been quite busy, but recently got busier with the listing of the Murray River and the Macquarie Marshes as critically endangered. The implications of these listings are still not completely understood. This topic will be discussed at our upcoming Council Meeting.

For an example of the type of work Jol is doing, the publication "Rumours, Myths and Misconceptions... Farming and National Environment Law" is available HERE.

Meeting with NSW Commissioner

Mark and Andrew met with Commissioner Harris. At the top of the agenda was the NSW response to the MDBA's Constraints Management Strategy. David backed the statement of his Minister when he told a meeting in Deniliquin that NSW had no intention of removing any constraint in this state as part of a process to acquire an additional 450. Blunt and very effective - and we let both Minister Hodgkinson and Commissioner Harris that we were pretty pleased with that position.

We also discussed Menindee Lakes. Apparently the Commonwealth have finally recognised the wisdom of the NSW proposal and have agreed with it, but sign off is one of the slowest processes ever seen.

There's a package of amendments to the Water Management Act in the works which we expect to be formally consulted on in the near future. We understand that one of the key issues in it is something that NSWIC has been seeking for a very (very) long time. It'll (hopefully) be a very positive outcome.

National Water Commission

Triennial Assessment of Water Reform Progress

The NWC have commenced the process of completing their assessment of water reform progress under the National Water Initiative. They've published a discussion paper and are calling for submissions (see here).

We have put together a short draft submission which can be accessed HERE.

Coastal Valley Bulk Water Charge Review

We received an updated fact sheet on IPART's 2015 review of bulk water charges in the coastal valleys - HERE. The fact sheet indicates that individuals can make submissions to IPART on specific coastal valley bulk water charge issues by 31 July 2014 - this is 4 weeks after the final ACCC determination of bulk water charges in the Murray Darling Basin portion of NSW but before IPART's full scale review in 2014/15.

IPART has indicated on several occasions that it will utilise the results of the ACCC determination. As such, we would recommend to keep a close eye on the current ACCC determination and consider any coastal valley specific issues that you would like to highlight to IPART.

SRI Annual General Meeting

Andrew attended the SRI AGM on Tuesday (29 Oct).

Congratulations to John Bradford on having been elected to the role of Chairman - and many thanks to outgoing Chairman Denis Tinkler for his engagement in that role.

Irrigation NZ – Conference and Tour

Our good friends at Irrigation New Zealand have opened online registration for the Conference and tours in April next year (here for details and registration).

You'll recall that INZ brought a significant contingent to our Conference in Canberra in July, so we'd love to repay the favour. If you're interested in attending, please email Andrew and we'll look at putting together a delegation.

National Farmers Federation

The NFF put out a weekly newsletter for its members, much like the one NSWIC distributes. To access these newsletters, click on the link beside the date of each issue.

04 October – HERE 11 October – HERE 18 October – HERE 25 October – HERE 01 November – HERE

ABARES REPORTS

Climate, Water and Agriculture ABARES Updates

The last two months of reports can be accessed on our website page link HERE.

ABARES Crop Report

ABARES has released its quarterly Australian Crop Report for September 2013. The full report can be accessed HERE.

We put together a short Briefing Note outlining all aspects relevant to irrigated agriculture can be accessed HERE.