Water Challenges for South in the 21st Century

Peter Cullen Thinker in Residence 2004 Water Challenges for in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century

Prepared by Professor Peter Cullen Adelaide Thinker in Residence

Department of the Premier and Cabinet c/o GPO Box 2343 Adelaide SA 5001

September 2004

©All rights reserved - Crown - in right of the State of South Australia.

ISBN 0-9752027-3-1

www.thinkers.sa.gov.au

1 PeterPeter Cullen Cullen Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

Peter is now a Professor Emeritus of the University of , where he was Dean of Applied Science. He is a member of the Community Advisory Council, the Murray- Darling Ministerial Council and is Chair of the Scientifi c Advisory Panel for the Lake Eyre Basin Ministerial Forum.

Peter is known internationally as the leader and spokesperson of the Wentworth Group, a coalition of leading Australian scientists, economists and thinkers formed to address the emerging national debate about the use and management of Australia’s natural resources.

The following partners were involved Professor Peter Cullen has worked in the fi eld in Peter Cullen’s residency: of natural resource management for over 35 years. He was awarded the Prime Minister’s Department of the Premier and Cabinet Prize for Environmentalist of the Year in 2001 Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity for his work on the National Action Plan for Conservation Salinity and Water Quality. CSIRO SA Water Peter is a graduate in Agricultural Science from the University of and his major professional work has been in the areas of nutrient dynamics, eutrophication, lake ecology and environmental fl ows. He is a member of the International Water Academy and a Director of both Land and Water Australia and Landcare Australia Limited. Peter was also founding Chief Executive of the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, where he served from 1993–2002.

2 3 ForewordForeword Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

The water situation in South Australia has More than just a report, Water Challenges become critical. The sclerosis of the River for South Australia in the 21st Century is the Murray, gross wastage of water, the impact of culmination of Professor Cullen’s extremely salinity and ineffi cient , the need to valuable work under the Adelaide Thinkers in decrease demand for water, reduced rainfall, Residence program. Following on from Thinkers and our inability to properly harness the water such as Herbert Girardet and Charles Landry, we do have – these are just some of the issues Peter truly engaged South Australians on we need to address. the issue of water. In particular, he involved the most important custodians of our I do believe, however, that South Australians are water resources: our youth. Peter has greatly coming to realise that we now need to act with improved our “water literacy” – the capacity of some urgency. We know water is fundamental the State to debate the issue of water and to to life, and that we cannot continue to use make decisions. and abuse it in the way we have for nearly two centuries. Perhaps most importantly, we Overall, Peter Cullen’s work fulfi lled the aims understand that we cannot tackle our water of the Adelaide Thinkers in Residence program, problems by using the same style of thinking which is to stimulate discussion on matters that helped get us into this situation in the vital to the State. He has successfully brought fi rst place. Obviously, a fresh, bold approach is new perspectives to the debate, while at needed. the same time transferring skills, advising government and educating community leaders. This report, by Professor Peter Cullen, clearly and compellingly outlines where South I thank Professor Cullen for his outstanding Australia fi nds itself in regard to water in 2004. contribution, and I commend this report to He explains the sources of our problems and anyone who is concerned about the future of details the many threats to a sustainable water South Australia. supply. But he also makes arguments about how we might remedy the situation – putting forward 18 specifi c recommendations.

Mike Rann Premier of South Australia September 2004

4 5 ContentsTable of Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

Preface Chapter 4 Appropriate Pricing of Water 42 List of Tables Executive Summary Table 1 Agricultural Water Use in South Australia, 2000-1 List of Recommendations 4.1 The Price of Water 42 Table 2 Comparative Water Use and Gross Margins ( $/ML) from Irrigated 4.2 Water Pricing Commitments Agriculture 43 Chapter 1 Introduction in the National Water Initiative Table 3 Average Annual Runoff and Water Use, Murray-Darling Basin 4.3 43 Environmental Externalities Table 4 South Australian Use of River Murray Water 4.4 2 16 Uniform Pricing Across the Table 5 Adelaide and Country Town Water Use 1998-2003 Chapter The Murray Lifeline 44 State Table 6 Comparative Water Usage, Selected Australian Cities, 2003 2.1 The Importance of Irrigation 18 7 5 Table Sources of Water Used in Adelaide Region, GL 2.2 The Impacts of Irrigation 18 Chapter Regional Bodies and Natural 8 46 Table Indicative Future Water Supplies GL 2.3 A Sustainable Irrigation Resource Management Table 9 Changes in per capita water usage 1997-2003 (Kl/capita/yr) Industry? 20 10 5.1 Development of Regional Table Comparative Water and Sewerage Charges 2.4 Sharing the Water of the 22 Models of Delivery in Murray South Australia 47 Acknowledgement 2.5 Water Entitlements and 5.2 Emerging Lessons from the All images used in this report were supplied by CSIRO Land and Water© 23 an Effective Water Market Regional Model 48 2.6 25 Addressing the Salinity Threat 5.3 Ensuring Regional Bodies 2.7 Improving Water Use have the Appropriate 26 Effi ciency Knowledge 48 2.8 Managing Environmental 5.4 Building Regional Capacity 49 28 Water 5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 50 2.9 Strengthening the Murray-Darling Basin References 52 Commission 30

Chapter 3 Water for Adelaide 32

3.1 The Use of Water 32 3.2 Sources of Water 32 3.3 The Squeeze on Water 34 3.4 Managing the Demand for Water 36 3.5 Futures for the Hills Catchments 38 3.6 Recycled Water 39 3.7 Urban Stormwater 40 3.8 Desalination 40

6 7 PrefacePreface Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

I had the great pleasure and privilege to live While South Australia has done some excellent Many colleagues helped make us feel welcome and work in Adelaide during the fi rst half things in its water management, there is still and provided stimulating discussions and of 2004 as a Thinker in Residence. This is a much to be achieved. In this report I seek to comments on the issues on which I report. remarkable program, established by the South lay out what might be the next steps in this In particular I would like to thank Mike Young, Australian Premier Mike Rann to bring scholars journey to sustainability. whose friendship and insights I value very from a range of fi elds to live and work in South greatly. I also would like to thank Lynn Brake, Australia. This provided me with a wonderful My work builds on the important foundations John Cugley, Peter Dillon, Tim Flannery, Kym opportunity to talk with many people and of two previous Thinkers in Residence. Herbert Good, Paul Harvey, John Hill, Peter Hoey, Rob groups and gain an understanding of how Girardet (2003) recognised the importance of Lewis, Jim McColl, Jack McKean, Dennis Mutton, South Australians view water. water in creating a sustainable Adelaide and John Radcliffe, Jane Roots, Claus Schonfeldt, identifi ed several areas that are examined Rob Thomas and fi nally the Young Thinkers As an outsider, this was a chance to identify further in this report. Charles Landry (2003) who worked with me during my visit Dr Justin and question some of the assumptions that identifi ed the economic opportunities that Brookes, Dr Brett Bryan, Mr Jonathan Clark, South Australians bring to the water issue. My could be created from the sustainability Ms Sarah Morgan, Miss Rebecca Neumann, fi ndings will not necessarily be comfortable agenda. Landry identifi ed a culture of Ms Amy Paparella, Dr Paul Pavelic, Ms Louise for those involved, but the role of a friend is constraint – that South Australians were great Tedmanson, Mr Doug Turner and Ms Mardi Van to point out things that it might be easier to at talking and less good at doing, and pointed Der Wiesen. My thanks to all of these people. ignore. As someone who lives in an upstream out the tendency for “rules to determine policy, State, I bring a different perspective to these strategy and vision – rather than vision, policy The responsibility for the opinions and issues, but I also share the passion of many and strategy to determine rules.” suggestions in the report, of course, rest with South Australians to protect the great River the author. Murray system. This report identifi es eighteen actions that South Australia needs to take in its journey to Many South Australians often feel hostage sustainability. Some are new and others have Peter Cullen to the upstream States who take so much of been considered before, but left as too hard. August 2004 the water of the Murray to support irrigation. The time is here to stop talking and start doing Since Federation, South Australia has sought to if South Australians are to be prepared for infl uence how other States use the waters of the water challenges facing us all in the 21st the Murray, and it is critical to the future of the Century. State that these efforts continue. So many people helped make our stay in However, there is much that South Australia South Australia enjoyable and memorable. itself must do to protect the health of the River Thanks to Denise Maddigan and Ann Clancy Murray. There is now an opportunity to develop from the Thinker in Residence program of the a water management system for the 21st Premier’s Department, Rob Freeman, Chief Century, to manage land and water in South Executive from the Department of Water, Land Australia and to be an exemplar for upstream & Biodiversity; Anne Howe, Chief Executive of States and other countries on how to live in a SA Water and Dr Wayne Meyer from CSIRO who dry country. were partners in my visit.

8 9 SummaryExecutive Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

Australia is entering a period of increasing This report contains eighteen recommend- . Water is wealth in rural Australia ations for action, of which seven are seen as and there are many who seek to use water for priorities. There are four areas for action. productive purposes. We are, however, realising that we have taken too much water from the First, understand and protect the sources River Murray, caused signifi cant degradation of water. These include addressing fl ow and governments are now seeking to recover and salinity issues in the River Murray and water for the environment. There is a possibility controlling land use in the Hills catchments. we are undergoing long-term climatic change Recommendations 2, 4, 7 and 9 are priorities. that may mean there is less water to share between these competing uses. Second, use water effi ciently in urban and rural communities to reduce demands on this scarce In this context of emerging water scarcity and precious resource. This will involve further it is hardly appropriate for the people of development of water entitlements and a Adelaide to go on living as though they are in water market. Recommendation 1 and 13 are a well-watered European city with abundant the priority. water. While in the past the River Murray has been a secure source of water, there is little The third area is to develop and learn how to doubt there will be increasing demands for use alternative sources of water. These include its waters and there are signifi cant concerns recycling, using stormwater and developing that irrigation in South Australia is leading to capability for desalination of seawater and increasing salinity that might restrict the use saline groundwater. These are less urgent, but of the River. they will take time, so a start should be made.

South Australia needs to harnesses the creative The fourth area is to develop the capacity of skills of its research and business community rural communities to live sustainably in their to work with governments and the regional catchments by providing appropriate support Natural Resource Management Boards to to the new Natural Resources Management develop water management strategies Boards. Recommendation 17 is the priority. appropriate for a dry country in the 21st Century. Taking this path will not only secure the future of the State by ensuring water is available, but it will also provide opportunities to export these approaches around the world. By showing leadership the State will be better able to infl uence upstream States to change their ways and address their water issues.

10 11 RecommendationsList of Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

Recommendation 1 Recommendation 3 Recommendation 6 develop a single whole-of-government water conservation program rather than have several The Government should establish a high-level Where public funds are used to assist in The South Australian Government should competing programs. review team to determine how to align South improving water use effi ciency, all or a continue to explore the ecological benefi ts Australian water entitlements with those being proportion of the water licence should revert of raising and lowering water level in weir Recommendation 9 developed in other States. This review team to the Government. Governments should pools of the River Murray, working with the will need to become familiar with changes not provide special support to least effi cient community to explore what can be done in this The Government should take the following being implemented in other States, to review irrigators; this just makes it harder for effi cient regard to improve the health of the river. actions to protect the Hills catchment: water access entitlements and the rules for operators. An effective water market allows the water trading in South Australia, ensuring they ineffi cient to leave the irrigation industry with Recommendation 7 • Proclaim the catchments under the water refl ect best practice and meet the National a fi nancial windfall as they sell their water. resource provisions of the new Natural Water Initiative requirements to be compatible South Australia should appoint one of its Resources Management Act to control with other States. The review team should be Recommendation 4 Murray-Darling Basin Commissioners to speak farm dams and bores from extracting more made up of a State offi cial with experience in from a whole-of-government perspective. water from the catchment. managing water resources, a representative South Australia should create a River The second Commissioner position should be of the irrigation community and an expert Murray Environmental Water Trust to hold used as an opportunity to appoint an expert • Require metering for all commercial in water entitlements and markets from a environmental water in South Australia, to in a relevant area, with a fi ve-year term, to extractions from surface or groundwater. research or consultancy organisation. seek additional water using whatever State, provide some substantive knowledge amongst Federal or other funding may be available and Commissioners and to ensure some stability • Demand effective land use planning that Recommendation 2 to seek philanthropic donations of money or that has not been attainable with the frequent prevents further urban development in the water, and to work with NRM Boards to deliver changes of heads of agencies. catchments and insist on the appropriate Irrigators should take communal responsibility water to protect specifi c agreed environmental infrastructure to deal with sewage. for the cost of operation of the salt interception assets. The Trust needs to work closely with 8 Recommendation • Strengthen the Mt Lofty Watershed schemes that have been built with public an environmental manager, responsible to the Protection Offi ce and let it expand its money. Salt management is a basic part of the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council. SA Water should be required initially to programs to assure compliance with irrigation enterprise and probably should be stabilize per capita consumption within three pollution control requirements. built into water prices. The Government should Recommendation 5 years, and then to reduce it by ten percent implement a salt trading system for individual within ten years. Consideration should be given • Pay landholders who contribute good landholders to provide rewards for those who The South Australian Government should to having SA Water responsible to the Minister quality water for the ecosystem services demonstrate best practice salt management. undertake a comprehensive ecological study of for Environment and Conservation, as well as they provide to the community; charge Lake Alexandrina the Coorong, Lower River and the Minister for Administrative Services, to those who contaminate waterways. The Government and the River Murray Murray Mouth to inform management about ensure sustainable water use is given equal Catchment Water Management Board or its the needs of this important environmental status with generating revenue. Recommendation 10 successor should amend the Water Allocation asset and ensure it can be managed effectively. Plan to explicitly defi ne salt interception zones, This will require a three-to-fi ve year study The Government should encourage water- SA Water should be encouraged to use recycled high and low salinity hazard zones and the and should identify future trajectories of sensitive urban developments in new areas water as a replacement for potable water in salt trading rules within each zone and ensure the ecological assets, under different salinity and in major redevelopments by a range appropriate uses and should work with the water is not traded into high salinity hazard regimes and during wet and dry periods. The of measures including zoning, subsidy and development industry to encourage this in new areas. study would benefi t by engaging indigenous development charges. The Government should developments and redevelopments. knowledge of the Coorong and how it functions.

12 13 Recommendations Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

Recommendation 11 Recommendation 14 Recommendation 18

The Government should clarify the control and The Government should consider putting the The State needs to implement an integrated responsibility for stormwater and encourage its water supply of remote communities out to water assessment program that provides use as a commercial resource, as water supply tender to foster innovation and development data on streamfl ow, water quality, river for appropriate uses. A roundtable conference of the most cost effective approach to water health groundwater depth and quality. These between the environmental regulator, the supply for these communities. Any cross- data need to meet the needs of a range of health regulator and the relevant research subsidy needs to be transparent. data users, and should be publicly available. community should negotiate an appropriate Periodic interpretative reports should be regulatory environment that encourages the Recommendation 15 made available, perhaps through State of the development of aquifer storage and recovery, Environment reporting. as well as a pricing and management regime to State agencies need to work together to protect groundwater. support the NRM Boards with resources and appropriate knowledge, and should clearly Recommendation 12 articulate the wider State interest that must be incorporated into plans. The Government should develop a State policy towards desalination that addresses planning Recommendation 16 issues, access to saline water, disposal of brine and management of other environmental The Centre for Natural Resources should impacts. The support the Government may identify appropriate research expertise for provide to appropriate proposals could be various issues within the State and elsewhere, outlined to encourage innovation in this area. and develop a knowledge strategy for regional bodies that identifi es knowledge gaps and Recommendation 13 make these known to the research community, as well as make specifi c investment in priority The South Australian Government should areas. establish an Independent Price Regulator to review and establish appropriate urban and Recommendation 17 rural water prices in South Australia. The National Water Initiative provides an excellent The Department of Water, Land and framework for implementing this without Biodiversity should facilitate and support delay. “communities of practice” of key people from each Natural Resources Management Board and the technical community, to meet three times a year to share information and experiences in the specifi c areas of interest.

14 15 1. Introduction Introduction Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

South Australia is Australia’s driest State. an option we can afford with water resources. There are concerns that our climate seems Almost ninety percent of the State has a Not taking key decisions is, in fact, a decision to to be changing and that rainfall may be rainfall of less than 300mm, and Adelaide has use the water in a particular way that may not decreasing and evaporation increasing, as we an average rainfall of 555 mm. South Australia be in the best long-term interests of the wider move into hotter and drier periods with even has the lowest mean annual runoff of any community. more variable rainfall. In the last twenty years State, with only 1937 GL in 2000-1. Not only is the rainfall in Perth has fallen by fi fteen percent the rainfall low, but also it is very variable and The wish to develop our country and create of that experienced over the previous seventy long dry spells can be experienced. wealth for rural communities has often led years. This has caused the runoff to drop to inappropriate development. Sometimes around thirty percent, with serious economic Australians have often made decisions about we have encouraged the wrong use of the consequences to the city. Some well-regarded land and water without understanding these land; in other situations we cut corners and climate experts believe the same trend is now natural resources. As a consequence, great did not invest in the infrastructure needed to starting in Eastern Australia. As we plan for the misery has been created for landholders, allow for sustainable land use. The failure to use of our water resources into the 21st Century together with considerable environmental develop drainage in irrigation developments it is prudent to develop systems that can cope damage. Optimistic assessments in a few and the failure to provide sewerage systems in with less water in our rivers. • Develop alternative sources of water, good years in the 1880s saw early attempts to urbanising areas in the Hills catchments, are including urban stormwater, recycled water develop cropping in areas of South Australia examples. In most of these situations there There are four elements to addressing this and the use of desalination of seawater that could not be sustained under more normal was a desire to transfer the costs of particular issue as we enter the 21st Century. and saline groundwater. rainfall. The stark ruins of homesteads that dot development from those undertaking the these areas are testimony to the hardship such development to the wider community at some • Protect catchments so that land uses do These are not just challenges for South misunderstandings have caused landholders. later date. The costs of the environmental not degrade the quantity and quality of Australia; they are national and indeed In more recent years, we have not understood degradation are borne by all of us and by our water entering our rivers and groundwater global challenges. If South Australia can that the salt in our landscapes would be successors. systems. take a leadership role in these issues there mobilized by the application of excessive are international economic opportunities, irrigation water and by the clearing of deep- In our two hundred years of living in this • Manage rivers and groundwater so that we since it is predicted that half of the world’s rooted native vegetation. The resulting salinity country white Australians have made many maintain the health of these systems and population will be facing water scarcity within of the River Murray continues to put at risk all mistakes and learned some harsh lessons understand that they are the foundation twenty-fi ve years. To exploit these global those who depend on the river for water, as about living in our dry country. The ways we upon which all other uses depend. They economic opportunities as well as meet the well as the River itself. think about and use our water resources are are not some optional extra that can be needs of South Australian communities, a the key to the future of our country and to the achieved after we have taken all we want more innovative approach to managing water Knowledge is essential for living in a dry State of South Australia. from the rivers. resources will be needed. South Australia continent like Australia, but it is not enough. • Demand that urban and rural Australians needs to harness the creative abilities of its Communities and governments need to use This study of water and sustainable landscapes use our limited water resources as research community and link them with the the knowledge we have and make sure that in South Australia was undertaken in the fi rst effi ciently as possible, so that we reduce water business cluster that is being built. our activities do not put at risk the resources half of 2004, a period when much of Australia the demands on our already stretched There is a need to engage the research and upon which we all depend. Charles Landry, as was in the grip of a particularly savage water resources. business community more effectively to help a previous Thinker in Residence, talked about drought which has made both urban and rural manage the water resources in the State and South Australia’s “culture of constraint” – great Australians aware of the scarcity of water to demonstrate how to do this to Australia and at talking and less good at doing. This is not meet our needs. overseas.

16 17 2. TheThe Murray Murray Lifeline Lifeline Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

Australians value the River Murray for its 2.1 The Importance of Irrigation Table 1 ecological, recreational and cultural aspects, as Agricultural Water Use in South Australia, 2000-1 well as for its value as a water resource to the Irrigated agriculture is important to South (Source – ABS Water Account) Murray-Darling Basin and to Adelaide. Many Australia and some 1300 GL of water is applied Australians feel strongly about the Murray and to 163,000 ha of land. Irrigated agriculture has 1.4 want to see it managed in a more sustainable a gross value at the farm gate of $ billion. Water Used Area Water Applied Gross Value way. Irrigation uses about eighty percent of all water GL‘ 000ha ML/ha $m $/ML $/ha extracted in the State. Pasture 474 51 9 110 232 2157 The River Murray is critical to South Australia Dairy 320 23 14 126 394 5478 570 and since before Federation has been an issue Some GL per year is extracted directly Vegetables 65 14 5 248 3815 17,714 for South Australia with the upstream States from the Murray for irrigation and there is Fruit 161 18 9 235 1460 13,056 2003 (Cullen, ). As the NSW Premier at the signifi cant use of groundwater for irrigation in Grapes 284 57 5 685 2412 12,018 time of Federation, G H Reid put it, “NSW was South Australia. Total Agriculture 1302 163 8 1405 1079 8620 not prepared to reduce itself to the status of a catchment for South Australia” (quoted by Table 1 shows how irrigation water is used in Wright, 1978). Little seems to have changed. South Australia and the gross value of each South Australians understand and appreciate industry. It must be stressed that gross value the importance of the water of the Murray does not consider the various other input to their State and frequently express concern costs, so is not a measure of profi tability or Table 2 about how the river is managed by upstream effi ciency in any way. Gross value should States. not be used as a proxy for the highest value Comparative Water Use and Gross Margins ($/ML) from Irrigated Agriculture water use. This table does however show that (Source – Derived from ABS Water Account) There is a real opportunity for South eighty three percent of the gross value created Australia to demonstrate best practice water through irrigation comes from less than forty management in the 21st Century, both to percent of the water. These values refer to the South Australia NSW maximize the value the State obtains from commodities, not the processed products that ML/ha $/ML ML/ha $/ML ML/ha $/ML Pasture 9 232 5 124 7 315 its water but also to encourage upstream come from the commodities. Dairy 14 394 6 444 5 567 States to develop better water management Vegetables 5 3815 5 2375 5 3550 practices. The National Water Initiative, This situation is made more obvious in Table 2, Fruit 9 1460 8 1042 8 1770 agreed in 2004, provides a new forum for this, which shows the relative performance of the Grapes 5 2412 5 1293 7 1378 complementing the existing Murray-Darling irrigation industries in other Southern States of 8 1079 6 324 6 691 Basin arrangements. the Murray-Darling. It would seem from Table 2 Total that pasture irrigation in South Australia produces considerably less gross value per ML of water than pasture irrigation in Victoria. This would suggest that there is much room to increase the value of pasture irrigation in South Australia, or alternatively, that it may be better to withdraw water from pasture irrigation

18 19 The Murray Lifeline Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

and redistribute it to other sectors. Care must We now have tools for assessing river health • Damage, through grazing and boating be taken in interpreting these relative fi gures that incorporate biological outcomes (initially activity, to riparian vegetation that protects since aspects like soils, rainfall and the level of invertebrate populations, but now moving to riverbanks, leading to bank erosion. investment, as well as the skill of the farming include fi sh and other biota). These measures community, are all relevant factors. of river health commonly also include the Governments and local communities are drivers of change which include water fl ow, attempting to address these various elements. Table 2 also shows that overall South Australia water quality and aquatic habitat. The most At present considerable debate is underway produces greater gross value per ML of comprehensive measure of river health is the as to how to fi nd the 1500 GL of water that irrigation water than other States. There are a tool developed as the Sustainable Rivers Audit scientifi c work indicates must be returned to number of reasons for this, including a more by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission the river to give it a reasonable chance of good effi cient delivery system to farms, more secure and released in 2004. This provides a series of health. water licenses and the mix of agricultural objective measures that can be used to assess enterprises that is supported. the overall health of a river. There is little doubt Another impact being addressed relates to the that these tools will continue to develop. sub-surface drainage water that seeps through Interstate water trading has seen a total of the plant root zone and dissolves salt from a considerable impact on the health of the 14 GL of water traded into South Australia from Assessing river health is not a simple task, the soil. This water enters aquifers and then river (Harris & Gehrke, 1997, Norris et al, 2001, Victoria and NSW between 1996 and 2001. In and there are some interest groups in the fi nds its way to the river. Commonly, irrigators Kearney & Kildea, 2004). drought years of 2001-02 and 2002-03 South community who either do not understand the apply excess water to leach the salts below Australia was a net exporter of 4 GL and assessments being undertaken, or who dispute the root zone so they will not impact on plant The major impacts have been due to: 7.5 GL respectively. The long-term future water the fi ndings that rivers are impacted by their growth. This excess water and salt causes the • Reduction in fl ow downstream of irrigation movements under a national water market are activities. The relationship between river health groundwater to become more saline. There can communities, causing slow moving reaches however hard to predict. and the range of activities in a catchment, be long lag times before these effects become suitable for algal growth. apparent in the river. Failure to address these such as water extraction, changing vegetation • Alteration to fl ow with unseasonally high salinity issues effectively is a serious risk factor and hence runoff, water pollution and the loss fl ows in summer when water is needed of riparian vegetation, is also complex and is by irrigation and low fl ows in winter and for the long-term health of the river and all of 2.2 The Impacts of Irrigation often contested. It is important to assess the spring as dams refi ll. This causes wetlands the uses dependent upon it. range of factors that might damage a river connected to the river to be fl ooded at Applying water to land has two major impacts and make judgments regarding which are unseasonal periods, causing changes in On the other hand, improved water use that have to be managed if the benefi ts of the critical factors that must be addressed to plant communities. effi ciency may lead to less water fi nding its irrigated agriculture are to outweigh the costs. restore health to our waterways. These are • Mobilising salt in the landscape that can way to rivers, hence increasing the need for The fi rst impact relates to changes in the diffi cult judgments; they are especially diffi cult degrade land and waterways. enhanced environmental fl ows. hydrologic regime through the storage of water for community groups who may have to • Pollution with nutrients and organic in reservoirs, its delivery down river to irrigators change the way they use the natural resources matter from urban sewage disposal and in summer when the river would have naturally available to them. runoff and from agricultural runoff. have had low fl ow, and the impacts of reducing • Blockage of fi sh movement with weirs. fl ood when the river and fl oodplain connect. There has been considerable scientifi c work • Maintaining constant water levels behind The second impact relates to the application of on the health of the River Murray and there is weirs, removing the riparian wetting- water to land and the mobilisation of salt that no doubt that water management has caused drying cycles important to nutrient can be induced. dynamics.

20 21 The Murray Lifeline Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

2.3 A Sustainable Irrigation Industry? It seems likely that irrigation, as practiced in 2.4 Sharing the Water of the Murray the Murray-Darling Basin in 2004, fails to be For irrigation to be sustainable, irrigation and sustainable on any of these criteria. Under the Murray Darling Basin Agreement, drainage must be conducted in a way that South Australia is entitled to 1850 GL from the does not degrade the quality of land, surface South Australia has not over-allocated the Murray and this is secure water that is available and groundwater systems and other natural available water in the way some upstream most years. However in 2003-04, only 1753 GL resources that contribute to both agricultural States have done, so is not facing the problem was received by South Australia. This reduction production and environmental quality (Oster & of recovering water from irrigation. There has in Entitlement Flow was accepted by South Wichelns, 2003). been considerable public investment in water Australia to minimise the risk of more severe delivery systems to farms that sees most restrictions late in the irrigation season, as a A sustainable irrigation system will have the water piped, rather than transported in open result of the ongoing drought. following characteristics: channels, which can lose up to thirty percent • It extracts only a sustainable amount of of water through seepage and evaporation. water from the river systems to ensure that These are fundamentally important steps and Table 3 river health is maintained. give South Australia an excellent foundation on Average Annual Runoff and Water Use, Murray-Darling Basin (GL/yr) • Water is applied to crops as effi ciently which to build. as possible so that losses in delivery and (Source – Murray-Darling Basin Commission Water Resources Fact Sheet, 2003) application are minimized. The amount Nevertheless, there are some challenges facing applied meets plant needs and a minimum irrigation in South Australia. These are: 1 of water is used for leaching salts. This State Runoff Surface water used Groundwater used • How to ensure water is used effi ciently. 11295 6265 935 requires a high level of water control. NSW • How to encourage water to move to 9319 3975 119 • Farm level and regional efforts will Victoria the best economic use, to maximise the 132 720 30 minimise, intercept, isolate, reuse and South Australia wealth created for rural communities from 3104 584 148 dispose of saline drainage water, rather Queensland irrigation. Na 33 1 than allowing it to degrade the land or ACT • How to address the salinity challenge that 23850 11576 1233 rivers. threatens the health of the river and the Total • There will be transparent accounting for uses on which it depends. 1 In Table 3, the surface water used has been taken as the cap fi gure, the net effects of irrigation on river fl ow • How to contribute and manage and aquifer yield. environmental water, ensuring both which for South Australia, is greater than the water actually used. • Irrigators will understand the capacity of the best environmental outcomes from their soils and drainage systems to support available environmental water and that various forms of agricultural production. other management actions are not unduly Table 4 They will have the skills and capacity to damaging river health. South Australian Use of River Murray Water (GL/yr, averages over fi ve years) produce a range of crops that maximise (Source – Department of Water, Land & Biodiversity) the wealth coming from the water used, These are challenges for irrigators, the without damaging our environment. agricultural industries and for the Government. Metro Adelaide & associated country areas 126 Lower Murray Swamps 97 Country Towns 36 Other Irrigation 430 Environmental 1161 Total 1850 22 23 The Murray Lifeline Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

The average runoff of the upper reaches of the elements of such an entitlement system would Water Initiative requirements to be compatible Basin has been estimated to be 23,850 GL per include irrigators being given: with other States. The review team should be year, with a further 1200 GL transferred into the • a water entitlement, which is a perpetual made up of a State offi cial with experience in Basin from adjacent catchments. share (as a percent) of the available water managing water resources, a representative of resource, which needs to be a secure asset the irrigation community and an expert in water In the Lower Murray much water goes to that can be traded entitlements and markets from a research or support extensive wetlands surrounding • an annual allocation refl ecting the consultancy organisation. the river, and under natural conditions a available water that year (in ML) median fl ow of 11,318 GL per year would have • a share in the available delivery capacity of reached the barrages. With the current level of infrastructure to get water to the property diversions, only twenty-seven percent of this • a site licence to use the water in a 2.6 Addressing the Salinity Threat now reaches the barrages. particular way on the property. This is the means by which government can require Salinity is an ongoing threat to the health There is strong scientifi c evidence that the farmers to be using Best Available Practice of the River Murray. Over half of the salt in river needs an additional 1500 GL of fl ow to irrigation. the Murray at Morgan comes from South restore its health, and that South Australia Australia. The salt load to the river has South Australian politicians, through the may need to fi nd a share of this. Urban growth doubled, due to clearing of mallee country Adelaide Declaration, undertook to “show is causing increased pressures to take more and the development of irrigation. There is a leadership in management of the Murray- water for urban users. It is assumed this will natural infl ow of salt into the Murray in South Darling Basin system in South Australia”. come from upstream irrigation, which may Australia of around 900 tonnes per day. The Both Victoria and NSW are moving to new become possible if a national water market is clearing of mallee country has added a further systems of water entitlements that have some established. 175 tonnes a day and irrigation developments, differences. There is a need, not only for South up until 1988, are contributing 550-700 tonnes Australia to update its allocation system, but a day (Cole, 2004). Irrigation developments a unique opportunity to work with the other since then will contribute a further 42 tonnes the groundwater and prevent salt coming States to harmonise the entitlement system in a day over the next thirty years and 250 tonnes to the surface. The challenge now is to fi nd 2.5 the three States that can underpin interstate Water Entitlements and an per day over one hundred years. Future trades appropriate sanctions and incentives to make trade in water. Effective Water Market and irrigation development may increase this sure this is done. South Australia signed the Intergovernmental load unless they are well controlled. Until Recommendation 1 Agreement that is the National Water Initiative recently, the Murray has been treated as a salt In irrigated areas it means reducing the in June 2004. The Agreement commits the The Government should establish a high-level drain by allowing excessive irrigation water to amount of water applied to land by using State to ensure that its water entitlement review team to determine how to align South fl ow down to the groundwater and then into modern micro-irrigation techniques, aiming system meets various criteria. This provides Australian water entitlements with those being the river. for minimal drainage. The Government has a real opportunity for South Australia to developed in other States. This review team now stopped the expansion of irrigation into review its water entitlement approach and will need to become familiar with changes We now have new tools for identifying salt high salt hazard areas and has invested in salt ensure a best practice model that gives a being implemented in other States, to review in the landscape which can be used to guide interception schemes to take salty water away real foundation for creating wealth in rural water access entitlements and the rules for management interventions. In non-irrigated from the river into evaporating basins. The communities, as well as protecting the water trading in South Australia, ensuring they areas this means appropriate planting of deep- irrigation delivery systems are largely piped, environment. It is suggested that the key refl ect best practice and meet the National rooted plants in places where they will lower which gives good system effi ciency.

24 25 The Murray Lifeline Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

It is desirable to make all irrigators accountable 2.7 Improving Water Use Effi ciency Many of our irrigation industries have made It is important for individual irrigators, for the impacts of the salt that they mobilise as considerable investments to improve their regions and industries to see how they are part of the cost of production, rather than see It is obvious that if we can transport water to a water use effi ciencies in recent years. An performing in comparison to others. The this as a public cost. farm and use it effi ciently, then less water has improvement of around thirty percent in way to do this, is to establish an effective to be extracted, meaning more is available for water use effi ciency has been achieved in benchmarking exercise that reports publicly Recommendation 2 either commercial or environmental purposes. some industries. One area where progress has on the performance of each sector and Irrigators should take communal responsibility As the House of Representatives Standing been slow is in irrigation of pastures for dairy region of the irrigation industry in SA. South for the cost of operation of the salt interception Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and production, where some irrigators produce Australia has agreed, under the National Water 2004 schemes that have been built with public money. Forestry said in its report on water, public less than thirty kilograms of milk product per Initiative, to implement the benchmarking Salt management is a basic part of the irrigation investment to improve water use effi ciency millilitre of water while others can achieve system developed by the Australian National enterprise and probably should be built into should result in water being transferred to the over one hundred. The differences relate to soil, Committee on Irrigation and Drainage water prices. The Government should implement Government. farm size, farmer skills and levels of investment (ANCID). The costs of this benchmarking will a salt trading system for individual landholders in up-to-date irrigation systems, that allow be built into water costs (section 76 National to provide rewards for those who demonstrate It is also important to recognise that improving adequate control of water. Water Initiative). If information on water best practice salt management. the effi ciency of water use may result in less use for each crop type and for each region is water in rivers. At present some of the water Some dairy farms in South Australia along the available, individual farmers can compare their The Government and the River Murray lost through ineffi cient water delivery systems Murray, between Mannum and Wellington, performance with others, while Governments Catchment Water Management Board or its fi nds its way into rivers and provides some of are reputed to have used up to fi fty-fi ve ML of can focus their investments to achieve better successor should amend the Water Allocation the current environmental fl ow. This means water per hectare. Restructuring of the dairy outcomes. Plan to explicitly defi ne salt interception zones, such saved water may not be available to re- industry in this area is underway. SA Water high and low salinity hazard zones and the salt allocate to other users. has purchased some properties, both the land Recommendation 3 trading rules within each zone and ensure water and the water in separate transactions, to use Where public funds are used to assist in is not traded into high salinity hazard areas. However, it is clearly important to maximise the water for other purposes. Managing the improving water use effi ciency, all or a the effi ciency of water use – to minimise the landscape and managing assets stranded, as proportion of the water licence should revert take of water from the Murray, to minimise water is traded out of an area, are particular to the Government. Governments should the impacts of salinisation from over-watering challenges in this region now. Modern not provide special support to least effi cient and to maximise the wealth that rural irrigation practices in vineyards have been able irrigators; this just makes it harder for effi cient communities can achieve from irrigation. The to reduce water use from 8-10 ML per hectare, operators. An effective water market allows the establishment of clear water entitlements, down to 5-6 ML per hectare. ineffi cient to leave the irrigation industry with a the development of a national water market fi nancial windfall as they sell their water. and the development of water use licences Profl igate use of water not only damages to minimize salinity and other environmental the rivers the water is taken from, but the impacts, will all help achieve this. waterlogging, salinity and other pollution that can come from such inept irrigation can On farms, losses through seepage and be disastrous to the sustainability of those evaporation of some twenty-four percent regional communities, who then commonly call are common. Reducing these losses offers for taxpayer funds to bail them out. opportunity to reduce the water being applied, with consequential benefi ts both to the rivers and to the waterlogging and salinity issues.

26 27 The Murray Lifeline Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

2.8 Managing Environmental Water jurisdictions, SA should establish such a Trust Activities by the Murray-Darling Basin harmonisation with the use of environmental as the second-best option. Its role should be Ministerial Council to date have identifi ed water for upstream environmental assets. The National Water Initiative commits to hold environmental water owned by the three environmental assets in South Australia: the States to clear statutory licences for South Australian Government and to source • The Chowilla Floodplain (including Lindsay- Our understanding of Lake Alexandrina, the environmental water and to ensure this water additional environmental water in the most Wallpolla) an area of 17,700 hectares, that Coorong and what the Lower Murray system is managed effectively across State boundaries. cost effective manner, given available State is one of the last remaining parts of the needs to be sustained over time, is rudimentary. There are two functions required: and Federal funding and the opportunities for lower Murray fl oodplain that has not been South Australia needs to work with the • to recover water for the environment in the philanthropy. This Trust should be a holding used for irrigation and retains much of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Federal most cost-effective manner possible Trust and should negotiate with the NRM area’s natural character and attributes. It Department of Environment and Heritage and • to use this water to protect the ecological Board for the River Murray, State agencies, has been designated a Ramsar wetland, the CSIRO Flagships program to build upon the integrity of identifi ed ecological assets. Commonwealth Department of Environment but requires careful management of its hydrological and sediment transport models and Heritage, indigenous interests and the fl oodplain vegetation. already under development. It is necessary to In my view, the best way of doing this is for Murray-Darling Basin Commission, to make • The Murray Mouth, Coorong and Lower undertake a comprehensive ecological study 140,000 the Southern Basin States to establish a water available for this use. The agencies’ role Lakes, covering an area of about of the Lower Murray system in order to inform Murray Environmental Water Trust to carry is to identify key ecological assets that need hectares are nationally signifi cant water management regarding the needs of this out both of these functions in the most cost- to be protected. They need to work with the wetland areas, also recognised as being icon site and the ecological trajectories that of international importance under the effective manner. It should be a skill-based freshwater ecology community to develop will arise, if various alternative management Ramsar Convention. body, reporting to the Murray-Darling Basin understanding of the watering requirements options were to be put in place. The State • The River Murray Channel holds iconic Ministerial Council, but should also be required of each asset. The Trust and the Environmental needs to understand the extent to which these status and is the ‘main artery’ of the River to protect ecological assets on tributary Manager for the Murray-Darling need to report systems contribute to tourism and recreational Murray System, forming the link between streams, as identifi ed by the States. annually on its activities, including its releases, income and the general well-being of people forest, fl oodplain, wetland and estuarine any trading of environmental water and the living in this region. assets. It provides in-stream habitat for However, given the realities of interstate state of the environmental assets. many aquatic plants and animals, including water management, it seems that this is 5 the Murray Cod and other threatened Recommendation unlikely. It is more likely that each State will 4 Recommendation species (eg trout cod, Murray hardyhead). The South Australian Government should independently develop strategies, which will South Australia should create a River Its banks support River Red Gum forests, undertake a comprehensive ecological study of need to be accepted by the Murray-Darling Murray Environmental Water Trust to hold which have strong natural and cultural Lake Alexandrina the Coorong, Lower River and Basin Ministerial Council, for recovering water. environmental water in South Australia, to values. Murray Mouth to inform management about Perhaps the best that can be expected, is seek additional water using whatever State, the needs of this important environmental asset that each State sources water through its Federal or other funding may be available and It is likely that future water planning, especially and ensure it can be managed effectively. This independent mechanism and that this water to seek philanthropic donations of money or as indigenous interests are engaged, will will require a three-to-fi ve year study and should be pooled under an effective environmental water, and to work with NRM Boards to deliver identify further important ecological assets for identify future trajectories of the ecological manager, who is responsible for delivering the water to protect specifi c agreed environmental the State. assets, under different salinity regimes and water to the agreed environmental assets and assets. The Trust needs to work closely with an during wet and dry periods. The study would reporting on the effectiveness. environmental manager, responsible to the The next step is to develop the best possible benefi t by engaging indigenous knowledge of Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council. understanding of the watering needs of the the Coorong and how it functions. Connor and Young (2003) have reviewed the assets so far identifi ed, so that the available options for a South Australian-based Water environmental water is used to the best effect. Trust, and, failing agreement with other It is critical to have this information to ensure

28 29 The Murray Lifeline Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

Given the recognition that the channel of 2.9 Strengthening the Murray-Darling the Murray system is an important ecological Basin Commission asset, it is important to use the best available ecological advice to manage the river. It is also The Murray-Darling Basin Commission has important to develop knowledge about how always been a critical forum for South Australia to manage the various weir pools along the to be able to negotiate with upstream States Murray, in order to enhance the ecological about management of the Murray as a whole outcomes. Fluctuations in river height are system. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission thought to be important drivers of the river is now at a crossroads, with some players ecology. This has been identifi ed as a priority seeking a minimalist Commission rather than action in the Draft South Australian River one that takes an active role in pushing States Murray Flow Management Strategy. Some towards improved water management. preliminary trials have been undertaken, but more work is needed to understand what is There is a rapid turnover of Commissioners and possible and desirable. This involves not only now few of them have substantive technical raising water levels to connect wetlands with skills in water management, with most coming the river, but also dropping levels to enable from a policy or management background. drying of riverbanks. Both of these fl uctuations Whilst it is desirable that all jurisdictions may cause concern with the community who correct this situation, South Australia could have been accustomed to static water levels. go it alone and lead in this endeavor. South There are also some diffi cult issues with Australia should also seek to strengthen the salt infl ow and bank slumping that require technical expertise contributed to all levels cautious and careful management. The of Commission activity, in order to provide community should be involved in the necessary substantive leadership to address key issues, decision-making processes. rather than just protect the States’ interests.

Recommendation 6 Recommendation 7 The South Australian Government should South Australia should appoint one of its continue to explore the ecological benefi ts of Murray-Darling Basin Commissioners to speak raising and lowering water level in weir pools of from a whole-of-government perspective. the River Murray, working with the community The second Commissioner position should be to explore what can be done in this regard to used as an opportunity to appoint an expert improve the health of the river. in a relevant area, with a fi ve-year term, to provide some substantive knowledge amongst Commissioners and to ensure some stability that has not been attainable with the frequent changes of heads of agencies.

30 31 3. for WaterAdelaide Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

supplied by SA Water use an additional 92 GL per Table 5 year to supply 415,000 people over this period. Adelaide and Country Town Water Use 1998-2003 (Source – WSAA Facts 2003). There are many factors that infl uence the water used by a city, including climatic patterns, the form of urban development and the habits of Year Rainfall Metro Population Total Metro Non Metro 1 the users. Adelaide has a low population density Served water Use Use with 2.4 people/property, compared to 2.6 for mm Million GL GL Melbourne and Perth and 2.8 for Sydney. Adelaide 1998-9 578 1.045 184 85 supplies less water to industry than other cities, 1999-2000 677 1.050 186 85 with seventy-fi ve percent of the total water 2000-1 594 1.053 194 94 used going to residential properties (compared 2001-2 591 1.064 173 93 to sixty-seven percent Perth, sixty-one percent 2002-3 530 1.077 178 103 Sydney, fi fty-three percent Melbourne). 2 Mean 594 182 92

Table 6 shows some comparative water usages 1 Adelaide is a vibrant and exciting city of over These fi gures relate to the overall supply to the metropolitan area and includes for several Australian cities, showing the usage one million people, widely regarded as one of industry and other uses besides direct household consumption. per residential property and per capita. The ABS Australia’s most liveable cities. Water is crucial Water Accounts 2003 show the distribution of 2 530 to the sustainability of the city, and is an issue of This is the mean for these fi ve years. The long-term mean is mm. water use between indoor and outdoor uses considerable interest to the residents. Adelaide and this is also used in Table 6. The Perth fi gure has hot dry summers, with the lowest annual may be understated due to the presence of over rainfall of any Australian capital. 100,000 un-metered domestic bores.

In 2003, people in Adelaide used more water Table 6 3.1 The Use of Water per residential property than in the other cities Comparative Residential Water Usage, Selected Australian Cities, 2003. In 2002-3 SA Water supplied 178 GL of water to shown. They also use more than others both (Source – WSAA Facts, 2003) 475,000 properties, serving a population of indoors and outdoors. The lower percentage 1.08 million people in metropolitan Adelaide of water used outdoors in Melbourne and (WSAA Facts 2003). SA Water supplies around Sydney refl ects both rainfall patterns and the Rainfall KL/ Residential KL/capita % used KL /hd water ninety percent of the State’s population with greater proportion of the population living in mm Property outdoors used outdoors 1 water. Obviously, the amounts of water used apartments with no gardens. Adelaide 530 295 124 50 62 each year vary, depending mainly on climatic Melbourne 351 217 84 35 29 conditions and recent usage is shown in Table 5. Adelaide is a city with lots of public and private Sydney 1001 255 92 25 23 gardens, which shows in the proportion of water Perth 747 260 101 50 50 Over the last fi ve years the Adelaide used outdoors. The rainfall patterns each year 1 metropolitan area used 182 GL of water a year, are obviously important in explaining these The year 2000-2001 was drier than previous years as is shown in Table 5, but refl ects the with an average per capita consumption of 172 differences, but it would seem that Adelaide is a long-term rainfall. This year was very dry for Melbourne, a little below the mean in Sydney KL/capita/yr. The non-metropolitan communities relatively high water consumptive city, due to the and Perth. Care is required in comparing fi gures for a single year. consumption of the urban residential sector.

32 33 Water for Adelaide Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

3.2 Sources of Water South Australia has pioneered the use of This assumption is worth re-examining, given • The likelihood of increasing salinity in Adelaide takes its mains water from two Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) to store the following possibilities: the River Murray and the possibility that sources, the Hills catchments and the River urban runoff so that it can be used when • While the National Water Initiative there will be signifi cant periods when it Murray. The relative importance varies, needed. This involves storing stormwater in contains an agreement to establish a is outside World Health Organizations depending on climatic conditions, but over wetlands and pumping it down into confi ned national water market that will allow desirable drinking water guidelines. the last fi ve years the average has been fi fty aquifers for storage but so far only about urban communities to purchase water 2002-3 percent from the Hills catchments. In a dry 2-3 GL is stored and used in this way. from irrigators, interstate trade has not as If we consider another average year like 370 year like 2002, only 62 GL, or thirty-fi ve percent yet been agreed between the States. and an increased demand of, say, GL, then of the metropolitan supply, comes from the • Rural communities will exert considerable the following situation might arise. These are Hills catchments. There is a fi ve-year rolling political pressure to avoid transferring rough estimates and the assumptions can be cap on what can be extracted from the Murray, 3.3 The Squeeze on Water wealth from their communities to support varied, but they show an increasing reliance on a city, especially a city that is seen as quite although this can be increased if SA Water the River Murray to sustain the city of Adelaide. wasteful in its use of water. This concern purchases water from irrigators, which it has The Government’s State Strategic Plan includes from rural communities is already obvious been doing recently. a population target of two million for South The stark situation is that Adelaide is facing Australia by 2050. They will mostly live in in South Australia where irrigation water a squeeze on its available water. It would be has been purchased for urban use. Some forty-nine percent of South Australian Adelaide and will certainly be dependent on prudent for the State to consider how it will • The climate change suggestions may mean households have domestic rainwater tanks, by water taken from the Hills catchments and meet this demand, especially if additional there is signifi cantly less water available in far the highest proportion in the country but from the River Murray. If the community still water is either not available from the River the River Murray and the competition for it 1 uses water in the present way, this will take Murray, or more likely, is excessively saline for these probably provide no more that GL. A will become more intense. domestic demand from 274 GL per year to domestic use. Contingency planning should further twenty percent of the water used in the • South Australia has been concerned about around 367 GL per year. If all of these new be underway for a situation when the River Adelaide region is groundwater, used mainly for the state of the Murray mouth and may Murray cannot sustain the city. irrigation of urban amenity plantings, playing people use water as metropolitan residents have to fi nd a share of the increased water 344 fi elds, lawns or for agriculture (Waterproofi ng currently do, the demand will be GL/yr. required for environmental fl ows. Adelaide 2004). Adelaide also recycles some 17 GL of treated water, used mainly for agriculture. The challenge for Adelaide is to understand where this water might come from and Table 8 Table 7 what are the risks associated with the Indicative Future Water Supplies GL Sources of Water Used various possible sources. There is a widely held assumption that the water needed will in Adelaide Region, GL be taken from the River Murray. Successive Current Future Future % (Source – Waterproofi ng Adelaide, 2004) governments have apparently also taken this 2002-3 view, since little attempt has been made to Total 281 370 100 protect the Hills catchments as a water supply Mains Water 200 62 50 13.5% to Adelaide, although some good work was Water from Hills catchments Reduced yield Groundwater 51 done on this in the late eighties and early due to development Rainwater tanks 1 nineties. The yield of these catchments now Water from Domestic Tanks 1 6 1.6% Possible impact of new Recycled water 16 appears to be dropping, due to farm dams and houses having tanks Urban Stormwater (ASR) 2-3 bores. Water from the River Murray 218 314 85% Assumes purchase from irrigators and that water is useable

34 35 Water for Adelaide Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

There are four strategies available to manage level of resourcing, comparing that to the Table 9 the water supply to the city and, at this stage, efforts of the other cities. Changes in per capita water usage 1997-2003 (Kl/capita/yr) all of them should be undertaken: (Source – Derived from Residential water supplied and populations from WSAA Facts, 2003) • use demand management approaches to South Australia has, along with other reduce per capita water usage, jurisdictions, now committed under the • protect the Hills catchments to try to National Water Initiative to: 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 Change maintain water quality and quantity • introduce the mandatory Water Effi ciency Adelaide 100 108 110 114 106 124 +24% • address the salinity issues in the South Labelling Scheme for agreed water using Brisbane 136 113 92 110 110 106 -22% Australian section of the River Murray, as domestic appliances Canberra 116 105 101 107 99 106 -9% outlined in the previous section on the river • develop and implement a ‘Smart Water Melbourne 90 86 89 90 81 84 -7% • develop alternative sources of water, Mark’ for household gardens, including Perth 126 113 121 128 111 101 -20% including recycling, stormwater and garden irrigation equipment, garden Sydney 90 85 87 91 90 92 +2% desalination. designs and plans • review the effectiveness of temporary water restrictions and public education strategies. Assess the scope for extending There is a need to get the water utility, another approach is to have the Minister for 3.4 Managing the Demand for Water low level restrictions as standard practice the planning department and the various Environment jointly responsible for the utility • address system losses regulators of health and environmental to ensure sustainable water use is given an Table 9 shows per capita water use based on • review the water reuse guidelines and aspects, to work together to ensure water appropriate priority. residential water supplied and the populations incentives for water-sensitive urban sensitive urban developments are encouraged. 8 for each year shown in WSAA Facts 2003. This developments. This is not seen as the case at present. The Recommendation table removes the effects of population growth, new requirements for domestic tanks are SA Water should be required initially to stabilize but comparison between cities is still diffi cult, Since more residential water is used outdoors a good start but more can be done. New per capita consumption within three years, due to rainfall amounts and patterns and on in Adelaide than in the other cities (Table 6), South Wales has recently committed to a and then to reduce it by ten percent within the base year that is chosen. In Table 9 the base there are real opportunities for saving here forty percent reduction in household water ten years. Consideration should be given to year chosen is 1997-98 and the change over the through more effi cient watering practices use in new developments while Victoria is having SA Water responsible to the Minister for fi ve-year period is shown. and substitution with recycled water or seeking a twenty-fi ve percent reduction. Environment and Conservation, as well as the urban stormwater. All local councils should These jurisdictions are not specifying how this Minister for Administrative Services, to ensure Some State Governments have required water be charged for water, to encourage less use should be done, but are seeking to stimulate sustainable water use is given equal status with utilities to undertake water conservation in urban parks, to encourage use of recycled innovation to achieve these outcomes. generating revenue. campaigns to reduce water usage, with some water and stormwater and to encourage at States having had some considerable success least some of the city landscape to use native South Australia needs a much more effective The Government should encourage water- with this. SA Water has undertaken a water grasses and native gardens. effort to reduce the urban demand for water. sensitive urban developments in new areas and conservation campaign only since 2002 and, as There is a challenge in expecting SA Water to in major redevelopments by a range of measures yet, no useful effect can be seen. Adelaide is not at this stage experiencing lead such an effort, since they are a commercial including zoning, subsidy and development rapid population growth, so does not have the body charged with selling water and expected charges. The Government should develop a It might be worthwhile having a third party extensive greenfi elds developments of some to provide a return to government. Some single whole-of-government water conservation undertake an audit of the water conservation other cities. Nevertheless, it is important to States have required the utility to reduce program rather than have several competing strategies SA Water has put in place and the ensure that both new greenfi eld developments, demand through the operating licence; programs. and any redevelopments of established urban areas, are water-sensitive urban developments.

36 37 Water for Adelaide Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

3.5 The Future of the Hills Catchments and those with cultivation adding sediment 3.6 Recycled Water to streams charged, say $50 per hectare, there Over the last fi ve years some fi fty percent of would be a marked improvement in catchment The Waterproofi ng Adelaide study has been the water used in Adelaide comes from the management. The actual amounts need to stimulating community discussion about some Hills catchments, yet the quantity and quality be determined by looking at the cost to the alternative supplies of water. There is abundant of this water is at risk, due to failure to plan and farmers to make the arrangement an attractive recycled water available from the sewage manage these catchments effectively. The yield one to them. treatment plants of Adelaide. This can be used from the catchments has already dropped, due to reduce the demands on potable water if it is to the increase in farm dams on hobby farms Recommendation 9 made available for appropriate uses in industry, and larger enterprises such as vineyards. The The Government should take the following garden watering and perhaps toilet fl ushing 2004 water quality is at serious risk from agricultural actions to protect the Hills catchment: (Radcliffe, ). We do have the technologies activities, especially the widespread use of • Proclaim the catchments under the water available to treat such water to the level that pesticides and herbicides in the catchment. The resource provisions of the new Natural it could be added directly to potable water Mt Lofty Watershed Protection Offi ce estimates Resources Management Act to control farm storages, but this is not necessary at this stage. forty-four percent of the septic tanks in dams and bores from extracting more water catchments are not working effectively. Regular • proclaim the catchments and prevent more from the catchment. What is needed, is to start using recycled inspections and pump outs are one way to farm dams and bores taking water • Require metering for all commercial water to replace the use of potable water, not treat this problem. • instigate an effective and integrated water extractions from surface or groundwater. to further expand commercial irrigation with quality monitoring program to measure • Demand effective land use planning that this valuable resource. Adelaide has already Government needs to develop and articulate the catchment management performance prevents further urban development in the achieved about twenty percent recycling of its a clear vision for the Hills catchments, as had • expand the work of the Mt Lofty Watershed catchments and insist on the appropriate treated effl uent, which is taking pressure off been intended in the Mount Lofty Ranges Protection Offi ce to ensure compliance infrastructure to deal with sewage. the sea grass beds in the coastal waters that Review in the 1990s. Are they to remain with pollution controls in the catchments. • Strengthen the Mt Lofty Watershed would have been affected by this discharge of an integral part of Adelaide’s water supply Protection Offi ce and let it expand its effl uent. However, the recycling agenda now system? If so, they need to be well managed, There is an opportunity here to show national programs to assure compliance with needs to move forward and start replacing or are they to be the location for new urban leadership. The citizens of Adelaide expect pollution control requirements. potable water use. communities and hobby farmers? There are those living in the Hills to provide them with • Pay landholders who contribute good signifi cant risks to water supply unless the adequate quantities of high quality water. The quality water for the ecosystem services they If this agenda is to be advanced, the whole catchments are managed better. It would be tension between the economic interests of provide to the community; charge those urban strategy of large trunk sewers going imprudent of South Australia not to protect upstream and downstream communities is not who contaminate waterways. to central treatment works on the coast the Hills catchments and manage them to confi ned to how other States manage water; needs to be reexamined and replaced with achieve a better water supply for Adelaide. The the same problem is evident here. Could the smaller sewage treatment works further following actions are required: urban water users pay rural landholders who up in the urban catchments, allowing • prevent further subdivision, causing more provide the city with water for these ecosystem gravity distribution of recycled water. Many hobby farms and closer settlement services? If landholders with high quality jurisdictions are now learning about third pipe • explore planning controls on agricultural native vegetation were paid an appropriate systems where recycled water is delivered to activities to prevent the situation getting sum, say $50 per hectare, those with well domestic blocks for garden watering and toilet even worse managed pasture (not overgrazed and with fl ushing. Adelaide has one example of such fenced riparian) were paid, say $25 per hectare a development at Mawsons Lakes, but more

38 39 Water for Adelaide Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

developments are needed if we are to learn on a catchment basis, ownership, liability and Desalination is an area where technological how to use such approaches in a cost-effective so on. The regulatory framework also needs development can be expected and it is certain way. There are also possibilities for using to be examined to ensure that this innovative the costs will come down. Perth is seriously recycled water to irrigate open space around technology is developed and not stifl ed by considering desalination for the city water Adelaide. inappropriate regulation. supply.

Recommendation 10 Recommendation 11 South Australia frequently gets proposals for SA Water should be encouraged to use recycled The Government should clarify the control and innovative desalination plants, some using water as a replacement for potable water in responsibility for stormwater and encourage its solar energy. There are possibilities for South appropriate uses and should work with the use as a commercial resource, as water supply Australia to take a leadership role in this area. development industry to encourage this in new for appropriate uses. A roundtable conference developments and redevelopments. between the environmental regulator, the Recommendation 12 health regulator and the relevant research The Government should develop a State policy community should negotiate an appropriate towards desalination that addresses planning regulatory environment that encourages the issues, access to saline water, disposal of brine 3.7 Urban Stormwater development of aquifer storage and recovery, as and management of other environmental well as a pricing and management regime to impacts. The support the Government may Urban stormwater is another signifi cant protect groundwater. provide to appropriate proposals could be possible source of water. The diffi culty with outlined to encourage innovation in this area. urban stormwater is that it must be trapped and stored until it is needed in drier periods. Many jurisdictions use wetlands for this and 3.8 Desalination Adelaide has some good examples of urban wetlands. However, due to innovative research Seawater and saline groundwater provide from CSIRO, Adelaide leads the country and huge reserves of water that could be available is at the international forefront in aquifer if we develop cost-effective desalination storage and recovery, where stormwater is technologies. Many believe that is not a case pumped into aquifers and later recovered of if, but a case of when, for desalination and for a variety of uses. The Salisbury Council South Australia has already developed some has been at the forefront of developing and pilot plants. demonstrating this approach. At present about 2-3 GL of stormwater is stored and used in The environmental challenges of desalination this way, but the potential to trap a signifi cant relate to the energy use and greenhouse volume, perhaps up to 40 GL exists and needs gas emissions, entitlement to a common to be actively developed. The Government property resource, the impact on the natural has a taskforce on urban stormwater and environment of point source withdrawal of hopefully, they will clarify issues relating to seawater, and the potential disposal of highly responsibility for stormwater, which must be saline brines. The other major impact is that of inducing growth in areas that have been previously restricted, due to the lack of water.

40 41 4. of WaterAppropriate Pricing Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

4.1 The Price of Water Table 10 4.2 Water Pricing Commitments under The National Water Initiative also establishes Comparative Water and the National Water Initiative some specifi c reporting requirements that will In our society we allocate scarce resources Sewerage Charges help infl uence the behaviour of water users: on the basis of price. We know that when we 2004 • Customers’ water accounts to provide based on 250KL/yr av consumption The National Water Initiative of has underprice a resource, people do not care about information on water use, relative to (Source – WSAA Facts, 2003) committed the State to implement water waste. This has been one of the tragedies of our pricing that promotes economically effi cient equivalent households. • Public reporting of the cost of water irrigation developments over the last eighty Adelaide $ 665 and sustainable use of water resources, planning and management. years, only now being redressed as we develop Brisbane $ 620 of the water infrastructure assets and • Independent benchmarking of pricing a water market. Some believe that as rain falls Canberra $ 595 the government resources devoted to the and service quality for all water delivery from the sky there should be no charge for Melbourne $ 497 management of water. agencies, urban and rural. water, but governments have charged the costs $ 505 of collecting, storing, treating and delivering $ 504 South Australia should now introduce an Recommendation 13 water to consumers. Sydney $ 638 Independent Price Regulator to establish Perth $ 695 appropriate prices for urban and rural water. The South Australian Government should In 2003 SA Water charged an access charge of This goes beyond the current arrangement, establish an Independent Price Regulator to $130 to connect to the system and 40c for the where the Essential Services Commission is review and establish appropriate urban and fi rst 125KL of water and thereafter 97 cents, required to review the transparency of pricing rural water prices in South Australia. The with a slight increase in 2004. A sewerage decisions. National Water Initiative provides an excellent charge based on property value is also charged, framework for implementing this without delay. with a minimum of $241. These water charges The following principles have been agreed to are uniform across the State. On top of this, guide the Price Regulator: many property owners pay a levy to their • Water prices must be based on actual Catchment Management Board and the River water consumption, so all surface and 4.3 Environmental Externalities Murray Levy. This sort of stepped charge for groundwater extractions of water must consumption ensures low-income users have be metered and pricing shall be on a Best practice water pricing requires a charge a basic allocation of water at a low price, but volumetric basis. for externalities, as was agreed under the means that higher users pay signifi cantly more. • Full cost recovery where feasible and 1994 CoAG Agreement, but has not been practical. Where this is not feasible, any widely implemented. When we extract water To compare water charges, WSAA provides subsidy should be transparent. from a river or aquifer and when we apply information on an average 250 KL per annum • Pricing to include the costs of it to land, we commonly cause damage to consumption. environmental externalities. the environment. The idea of charging for • Pricing to include government costs for externalities is to ensure the environment is managing the water resource, including not providing a free subsidy to water users, the costs of managing a water market. by underwriting some of the costs of their • Development of pricing policies for recycled operations and to provide a stream of funding water and stormwater that are congruent for environmental repair works. with pricing policies for potable water, and stimulate effi cient water use. • Review of trade waste pricing policies to facilitate recycling.

42 43 Appropriate Pricing of Water Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

In practice, it has been diffi cult to work Given that the Government has been keen out what is an appropriate price for such to promote an innovative water sector and externalities. One approach implemented by to exploit the export potential of its water the Victorian Government in its recent White industry, through the Water Industry Alliance Paper on Water, is to charge all urban water and its investments in water research, it is delivery agencies a fl at charge of fi ve percent perverse to have such barriers to innovation. of all revenue, and rural agencies two percent. This seems a workable approach to this Recommendation 14 problem and is worthy of consideration. The Government should consider putting the water supply of remote communities out to tender to foster innovation and development of the most cost effective approach to water supply 4.4 Uniform Pricing Across the State for these communities. Any cross-subsidy needs to be transparent. South Australians pay a uniform charge of around a dollar per kilolitre of water, wherever they are and whatever it costs to supply them. In some remote places it probably costs $4/KL to supply, although the actual costs of supply are not transparent.

This pricing strategy provides for social equity for the more remote communities and probably does not impose a large cost-burden on other water users. Nevertheless, under the 1994 CoAG Agreements, such subsidy should be transparent.

This pricing strategy also inhibits innovation. Some of these remote communities might be better served by more innovative water supply options including desalination and recycling. At present these alternatives tend to cost more than the water supplied from the main Adelaide supply and therefore, cannot compete with the subsidised product.

44 45 5. NaturalRegional BodiesResource and ManagementWater Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

Natural resource management seeks to provide 5.1 Development of Regional Models Heritage Trust program. Both of these operate a range of outcomes: of Delivery in South Australia on the same basic planning-delivery model. • management of soil, vegetation and water The fi ve NAP regions have already submitted to avoid the degradation of these resources The South Australian Government established and had accredited both their regional plans • agricultural production leading to vibrant a series of Catchment Water Management and their Investment Plans and the three NHT rural communities Boards under the Water Resources Act of regions are still fi nalising this documentation, • maintaining genetic pool through 1997. This followed the earlier establishment as at July 2004. biodiversity conservation of Catchment Management Authorities in • providing ecosystem services that includes Victoria. These two States have led the way To make this regional model work effectively, it climate regulation, water regulation, in establishing substantial regional bodies is fundamental that the State articulates what nutrient cycling waste treatment and to manage natural resources. Generally, the are the State interests and State investments biological control of pests. Catchment Water Management Boards have in every plan and insist that the community been partially funded by a catchment levy planning deliver these elements. There may Private landholders manage most of the on landholders and fees from licensed water be specifi c sites that have been designated as Australian landscape. These people have users, with considerable success and strong national parks, Ramsar sites or be known to particular attachments to the country they The growing realisation that the community support. contain ecological communities of particular manage, but many are constrained in what environmental impacts of farming were also interest. Determining the required wetting they can do, given the vagaries of climate and reducing the profi tability of farming-led to South Australia is now building on this regimes and water quality for these sites agricultural markets. The last twenty years has the development of Landcare, as a “self help” experience and is establishing a series of may be more diffi cult, but is an obligation of seen a growing realization that land and water approach that assisted landholders to work Natural Resource Management Boards in 2004 government. Governments may also set end cannot be managed effectively at the scale of together to address local problems that had to bringing water management, soil erosion of valley targets for water quality, salinity, the individual property. Communities need to be addressed on a regional basis. The success control and pest control together under a streamfl ow and biodiversity. Accredited plans work together if they are to address many of of Landcare made it apparent to governments single regional board. need to be built on sound science and identify the problems of soil degradation, water quality that local groups, who recognised and took the appropriate actions to deliver on these and pest invasion. responsibility for the impacts of managing The new Natural Resource Management targets in each catchment allocating resources land, was an effective way of managing regions are larger than many of the original so key targets are achieved. Agriculture contributes $28 billion to the much of the Australian landscape in a more Water Board regions, but will link directly with Australian economy and is signifi cant to our sustainable way. federal funding of natural resource issues. The export income. However, there has long been regional model requires local communities to concern that some of our farming practices This model of bringing together local people work to understand their resources, the threats cause impacts on downstream communities with a shared interest in natural resource and opportunities and the aspirations of their and the natural environment and, that the outcomes, developed in Landcare, has now communities. They are required to consult costs of this degradation are not factored in to developed further with governments assisting widely and to develop a regional plan that the decision-making framework of landholders. the forming of regional catchment groups. focuses energy and investment on the priority These regional groups are the means by which issues. State and Federal Governments accredit much of the Federal and State Government the plan and then invest to achieve specifi ed investment in natural resource outcomes are outcomes. The two major programs are the achieved. Federal-State National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and the Federal Natural

46 47 Regional Bodies and Natural Resource Management Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

5.2 Emerging Lessons from the 5.3 Ensuring Regional Bodies have the Federal Governments should demand a good Regional Model Appropriate Knowledge connection between the plans and the existing knowledge base as an element in accreditation. There is now enough experience with the Regional bodies need to work with three regional model, to encourage us that it is an clusters of knowledge. These are local To ensure that necessary research is identifi ed important way of delivering natural resource knowledge, scientifi c knowledge and and undertaken, the South Australian outcomes. The model achieves this by building indigenous knowledge – accessing these Government has established a Centre for regional capacity to empower landholders to clusters is diffi cult. Natural Resources to act as a broker between understand their resource and how the use of the regional bodies and the research it affects others. It is important for government Local knowledge is fi rmly held in regional community, to help ensure necessary research agencies to ensure that regional boards are communities and is well represented in is undertaken. supported, as the on-ground delivery arm regional bodies. It often focuses on shorter- • Help package appropriate knowledge of government and not seen by agencies as term issues and aspects of production, regional in forms that are useful to NRM Boards, competitors for infl uence and funds. wealth and well-being. Droughts and fl oods around key issues such as salinity, are quickly forgotten or discounted as unusual environmental fl ows, river restoration and biodiversity. A number of diffi culties have become apparent There are opportunities for the State to provide events. It is local knowledge that has created • Understand the importance of capacity with the model that can be addressed by the Natural Resource Management Boards many of the current problems. building as a learning process that is governments: with appropriate support. State agencies need driven by the community, rather than • There is a tendency to focus on the to work together in a whole-of-government Scientifi c knowledge may be diffi cult for the knowledge providers and ensure short-term interests of locals, rather than approach and see the NRM Boards as the communities to access and use. The material appropriate access to knowledge, as sought longer-term issues or the interests of those delivery mechanism for State programs, not may be complex and may introduce a real by the community. downstream. tension with the local knowledge. Certainly, as competitors. State agencies need to help • Ensure resources to boards are adequate • Regional communities feel they get little many scientists believe the best scientifi c NRM Boards focus on the most important to enable some in-house staff to be part of guidance from governments and get knowledge is often not refl ected in regional issues and ensure they take into consideration the planning team so that some learning different and at times, confl icting advice plans and that regional bodies don’t put in longer-term issues, the State interests and the stays in the community, rather than simply from different agencies. enough effort to understand what is already interests of downstream communities. benefi ts consultants. • There is a need for a national system of known. monitoring and evaluation, rather than 15 Recommendation Recommendation 16 self-monitoring. Indigenous knowledge is also hard to access • Regional communities are concerned about State agencies need to work together to support The Centre for Natural Resources should identify the NRM Boards with resources and appropriate and to understand, but there is much to be short-term funding, which makes staffi ng learned in listening to the stories of indigenous appropriate research expertise for various issues diffi cult, as well as the high administrative knowledge, and should clearly articulate the elders. There are already a few examples where within the State and elsewhere, and develop costs imposed by reporting requirements. wider State interest that must be incorporated this has been incorporated into regional plans. a knowledge strategy for regional bodies that • Regional communities have limited into plans. identifi es knowledge gaps and make these capacity in terms of both skills and time The State needs to work with the regional known to the research community, as well as to get engaged often fi nding the planning bodies and the Federal Government to make specifi c investment in priority areas. processes complex and infl exible. ensure the appropriate knowledge needed, to set and achieve outcomes, is available and accessible to the regional bodies. State and

48 49 Regional Bodies and Natural Resource Management Water Challenges for South Australia in the 21st Century | Peter Cullen

5.4 Building Regional Capacity biodiversity, river restoration and water use It is not enough to leave this to the Natural effi ciency. These should be brought together Resources Management Boards, since this One value of government investment in say three times a year to share how the is little more than self-reporting. The State regional natural resource management, is that different boards are approaching various needs to design and implement a professional it provides a way of building regional capacity issues, providing a strong connection with the monitoring program to monitor stream fl ow, so that communities are more able to cope research base. river health, groundwater depth and quality with new and emerging issues as they arise. and selected other elements. This should be Recommendation 17 designed to meet the needs of managers in This idea means we need to think about The Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity agencies and the boards, and for regulators. regional natural resource management as should facilitate and support “communities The results need to be publicly reported on the a co-learning model. It is obvious that the of practice” of key people from each Natural Web. There should be a requirement to produce community groups do need to learn from the Resources Management Board and the technical periodic interpretations of these data so that technical support people in government, the community, to meet three times a year to share data are converted into knowledge, in a way scientifi c community and from consultants. But information and experiences in the specifi c areas that is often not done at present. it also apparent that these technical people of interest. need to learn from the community as to what Recommendation 18 are workable solutions and what still needs The State needs to implement an integrated more research. water assessment program that provides data 5.5 Monitoring and Evaluation on streamfl ow, water quality, river health This co-learning model means that planning is groundwater depth and quality. These data at least as important as producing a plan and Feedback on the outcomes being achieved, need to meet the needs of a range of data may need more time than it has been given. is fundamental to the regional bodies users, and should be publicly available. Periodic Researchers and consultants are important to focusing and investment. It is also critical for interpretative reports should be made available, help the process, but they must work with local governments who are investing to achieve perhaps through State of the Environment staff that will stay in the community and retain natural resource outcomes. The health reporting. some of the learning. This is a new approach of waterways is an excellent indicator of that is based around providing knowledge catchment health and should be a core when the community is ready for it and on the element in monitoring, although there will be community’s terms. other elements as well.

Those involved in community groups often In South Australia there a number of learn as much from each other as from disconnected water quality and river health technical experts, so the State Government monitoring programs. Much more could be should consider establishing “communities achieved from current investments if these of practice” of those with an interest in a were integrated and undertaken at a high particular area, bringing them together along professional standard. with relevant experts to build the capacity and understanding of all. These need to be focused on issues of concern such as salinity,

50 51 ReferencesReferences

Anon (2003) The Australian Urban Water Murray-Darling Basin C (2003) Water Resources Industry. WSAA facts 2003. Water Services Fact Sheet, 2003 Association of Australia. Melbourne. Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (1999) Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) Water The Salinity Audit of the Murray Darling Basin Account Australia 2000–01. Canberra. – a 100-year perspective. MDMC. Cole, Phil (2004) South Australian Irrigation Norris R.H, Liston P, Davies N, Coysh J, Dyer F, Areas Salinity Management. In River Murray Linke S, Prosser I, and Young B. (2001) Snapshot Challenges and Opportunities. The Australian of the Murray-Darling Basin River Condition. Institute of Agricultural Science and Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Technology. Adelaide. Norris, Richard, H and Martin C Thoms (1999) Connor and Young (2003) Environmental Water What is river health? Freshwater Biology Bank Options for the South Australian River 41 197-209. CSIRO Land & Water Adelaide. Murray. Oster, J.D & D Wichelns (2003) Economic and Cullen Peter (2003) The Common Good. In agronomic strategies to achieve sustainable Uncharted Waters Ed. Daniel Connell. Murray- irrigation. Irrig.Sci. 22. 107-120. Darling Basin Commission. Canberra. Radcliffe, John (2004) Water Recycling in Girardet, Herbert (2003) Creating a Sustainable Australia. Australian Academy of Technological Adelaide. Thinkers in Residence Program. Sciences and Engineering. Melbourne. Government of South Australia. South Australian Water (2003) Annual Report. Harris, John H & P.C Gehrke (1997) Fish and Adelaide . The NSW Rivers Survey. CRC Rivers in Stress State Strategic Plan (2003) Government of for Freshwater Ecology and NSW Fisheries, South Australia Cronulla. Victorian Government (2004) White Paper. House of Representatives Standing Committee Department 2004 Securing our Water Future Together. on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry ( ) of Sustainability and Environment. Melbourne. . Getting Water Right(s) The Future of Rural 2004 Australia. Parliament of the Commonwealth Water Proofi ng Adelaide ( ) Exploring the of Australia. Canberra. Issues- a discussion paper. Government of South Australia. Kearney, R.E & M.A Kildea (2004) The Watershed Protection Offi ce (2003) Management of Murray Cod in the Murray- Mount 2003 Environment Darling Basin. Aust J of Environmental Lofty Ranges. Status Report . Management 11 No 1 42–54 Protection Authority. Adelaide. Wright, Don (1978) Landry, Charles (2003) Rethinking Adelaide. The River Murray: Microcosm In Capturing imagination. Thinkers in Residence of Australian Federal History. Federalism in Program. Government of South Australia. Canada and Australia: The Early Years. Ed Bruce Hodgins et al. ANU Press. Canberra

52 Adelaide Thinkers in Residence bringing world-class thinkers to Adelaide to assist with the strategic development and promotion of South Australia

t: +61 8 8226 2220 | f: +61 8 8226 2707 [email protected] www.thinkers.sa.gov.au