Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin AN OVERVIEW & GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING AND VALUING THE IMPACTS

KNOWLEDGE Landscapes & Industries Dr Suzanne M.Wilson IDENTIFYING AND VALUING THE IMPACTS AN OVERVIEW &GUIDELINESFOR Murray-Darling Basin costs across the Dryland andurban salinity Author: Dr. Suzanne M. Wilson Integrated catchment management in the Murray-Darling Basin Published by: Murray-Darling Basin Commission Postal Address: GPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601 A process through which people can develop a vision, agree on shared values and behaviours, make informed decisions and act together to manage the natural resources of their catchment: their decisions on the use of land, Office location: Level 5, 15 Moore Street, Canberra City water and other environmental resources are made by considering the effect of that use on all those resources and Australian Capital Territory on all people within the catchment. Telephone: (02) 6279 0100 Our values Our principles International + 61 2 6279 0100 We agree to work together, and ensure that our We agree, in a spirit of partnership, to use the following Facsimile: (02) 6248 8053 behaviour reflects the following values. principles to guide our actions. International + 61 2 6248 8053 E-mail: [email protected] Courage Integration Internet: http://www.mdbc.gov.au • We will take a visionary approach, provide • We will manage catchments holistically; that is, leadership and be prepared to make decisions on the use of land, water and other For further information contact the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office on (02) 6279 0100. difficult decisions. environmental resources are made by considering the effect of that use on all those resources and on Inclusiveness This report may be cited as: all people within the catchment. • We will build relationships based on trust Wilson, S.M. 2004 Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. An overview & guidelines and sharing, considering the needs of future Accountability for identifying and valuing the impacts, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. generations, and working together in a • We will assign responsibilities and accountabilities. true partnership. • We will manage resources wisely, being ISBN 1 876830 883 • We will engage all partners, including Indigenous accountable and reporting to our partners. communities, and ensure that partners have the © Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2004 Transparency capacity to be fully engaged. This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs and the • We will clarify the outcomes sought. MDBC logo) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is not sold or used Commitment • We will be open about how to achieve outcomes for commercial benefit and its sourceDryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. An overview • We will act with passion and decisiveness, taking and what is expected from each partner. & guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts, is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for the the long-term view and aiming for stability in Effectiveness purpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction for other decision-making. • We will act to achieve agreed outcomes. purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or the individual photographers • We will take a Basin perspective and a non- and artists with whom copyright applies. partisan approach to Basin management. • We will learn from our successes and failures and continuously improve our actions. To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all liability Respect and honesty to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other • We will respect different views, respect each Efficiency compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material other and acknowledge the reality of each • We will maximise the benefits and minimise the contained in it. other’s situation. costs of actions. The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. • We will act with integrity, openness and Full accounting They are presented to inform discussion for improvement of the Basin’s natural resources. honesty, be fair and credible, and share • We will take account of the full range of costs and Cover photo: Arthur Mostead, Dryland Salinity reclamation, Galong NSW. knowledge and information. benefits, including economic, environmental, social • We will use resources equitably and respect and off-site costs and benefits. MDBC Publication 34/04 the environment. Informed decision-making Flexibility • We will make decisions at the most • We will accept reform where it is needed, be appropriate scale. willing to change, and continuously improve our • We will make decisions on the best available actions through a learning approach. information, and continuously improve knowledge. Practicability • We will support the involvement of Indigenous • We will choose practicable, long-term people in decision-making, understanding the outcomes and select viable solutions to achieve value of this involvement and respecting the living these outcomes. knowledge of Indigenous people. Mutual obligation Learning approach • We will share responsibility and accountability, and • We will learn from our failures and successes. act responsibly with fairness and justice. • We will learn from each other. • We will support each other through the necessary change. Foreword

Throughout the 1980s, the prevailing view was that the main impacts of dryland salinity in the Basin were lost agricultural production due to salinised land, and declining river health due to increased salt concentration in river water. Investigations in the early 1990s suggested that off-farm costs are larger than previously anticipated, and include not only damage to rural and regional assets such as roads, railways, bridges and culverts, but also damage to urban assets such as street paving and guttering, parks and gardens, and domestic and commercial buildings. Environmental assets such as floodplain wetlands are also being damaged. In 1998 the Murray-Darling Basin Commission initiated the Determining the full cost of dryland and urban salinity across the Murray-Darling Basin project to develop and apply a method to estimate the full range of dryland salinity impact costs across the Basin. In particular, the method needed to enable comparisons of salinity impact costs on agriculture with off-farm costs on rural and regional infrastructure and urban infrastructure. These guidelines introduce and describe the methods developed through this project. The guidelines have been prepared as one document with two parts. Part 1 of the guidelines gives a catchment scale overview of the costs related to the impacts of salinity in urban and dryland rural areas, excluding costs to irrigators, the environment and cultural heritage. Part 2 of the guidelines provide the detailed instructions and tools of this approach for specialist natural resource economists to assess the costs related to the impacts of urban and dryland salinity. In combination, these guidelines should be a valuable resource to assist in local and catchment planning processes. I commend these guidelines and tools to any person considering investment in dryland salinity management. Recent research, including the work initiated by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, suggests that focus should be on protecting future damage to higher value assets, and that close attention should be paid to analysing costs and benefits before making such decisions.

Kevin Goss Acting Chief Executive

iii How these guidelines are structured

These guidelines have been prepared in two separate parts to meet the needs of different stakeholders involved in local action planning

Part 1: An overview of the dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. This part introduces this project, presents an overview of the nature and costs of salinity in urban and dryland rural areas, and demonstrates how this information fits into the bigger picture of preparing a local action plan and cost-sharing arrangements. It is suggested that readers are conversant with the material presented in Part 1 before working through Part 2.

Part 2: Guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts. This part provides the detailed instructions, tools and questionnaire forms a skilled natural resource economist will need to assess the nature and impact costs of dryland and urban salinity to various agricultural and non-agricultural stakeholders, the environment and cultural heritage in a particular catchment or area.

iv v Contents Foreword ...... iii How these guidelines are structured ...... iv Summary ...... 1 Part One: An overview of the dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin . . . 3 1 Introduction...... 4 1.1 Why have these guidelines been produced? ...... 4 1.2 Who are these guidelines for?...... 5 1.3 What information is (and is not) provided? ...... 5 1.4 How were these guidelines produced? ...... 6 2 What is dryland and urban salinity and how is it caused? ...... 7 3 Where does dryland and urban salinity occur? ...... 8 4 What are the impacts of dryland and urban salinity and who bears them?...... 11 4.1 Dryland agriculture ...... 11 4.2 Infrastructure ...... 13 4.3 Environment ...... 17 4.5 Flow-on social impacts ...... 22 4.6 Are there any benefits from dryland salinity? ...... 22 5 What are the costs? ...... 23 6 Why value the costs of dryland and urban salinity?...... 24 7 How do these guidelines assist local action planning? ...... 26 8 References ...... 29 Part Two: Guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts ...... 33 1 Introduction...... 35 2 Identifying the nature of the salinity problem ...... 36 3 Identifying the affected stakeholders...... 37 3.1 Introduction ...... 37 3.2 Proforma for identifying the stakeholders affected by dryland and urban salinity ...... 38 3.3 Unsure whether urban salinity is a problem in your LAP area? ...... 39 4 Valuing the costs of dryland and urban salinity ...... 40 4.1 Introduction ...... 40 4.2 Dryland agricultural producers ...... 40 4.3 Rural and urban households...... 48 4.4 Commerce and industry...... 53 4.5 Saline town water supplies ...... 57 4.6 Local governments ...... 61 4.7 State government agencies and public utilities ...... 68 4.8 Natural environment ...... 74 4.9 Cultural heritage ...... 78 4.10 Costs to downstream water users ...... 80 4.11 Flow-on social costs ...... 81

iv v 5 Conducting a survey or census of stakeholders ...... 82 5.1 Overview ...... 82 5.2 Preparation of a questionnaire form...... 82 5.4 Implementing a survey or census...... 84 5.5 Data analysis...... 85 5.6 Publicity ...... 85 6 Compilation of salinity cost data ...... 86 7 Analysing the data ...... 88 8 References ...... 89 Attachment A: Extent and severity of urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin ...... 90 Attachment B: Example dryland agricultural producer questionnaire ...... 98 Attachment C: Example local government questionnaire ...... 107 Attachment D: Example state government and utility questionnaire ...... 112 Attachment E: Example state governments and utilities to be considered for survey ...... 117

PART ONE Tables 1 Towns subject to urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin...... 9 2 Median stream EC (dates various) and flow weighted average river salinity at selected gauging stations (Source: MDBC 1997 and MDBMC 1999)...... 19 3 Total current annual impact costs of dryland and urban salinity to key stakeholders in the Murray-Darling Basin...... 25

Figures 1 Cause of dryland salinity in rural areas ...... 7 2 Key MDBC dryland projects and how they assist with Local action planning ...... 27

Boxes 1 Common impacts of dryland salinity on farms ...... 12

PART TWO Tables 1 Breakdown of dryland agricultural impact and preventative work cost categories ...... 44 2 Salinity cost functions for dryland agricultural producers ...... 47 3 Household salinity damage cost functions ...... 49 4 Typical no. of commercial and retail buildings in towns of varying size ...... 54 5 Salinity damage cost functions to commercial and industrial buildings ...... 55 6 Marginal salinity cost functions: Households and businesses...... 56 7 Marginal saline water cost functions: Households...... 57 8 Marginal saline water cost functions: Commercial water users...... 59 9 Marginal saline water cost functions: Industrial water users ...... 59 10 Marginal saline water cost functions: Combined commercial and industrial water users ...... 59 11 Salinity damage cost functions for local rural roads: Increased repair and maintenance (R&M) expenditure . . 63 12 Salinity damage cost functions for local rural roads: Cost from shortened expected lifespans ...... 63 13 Salinity damage cost functions: Local rural bridges ...... 64

vi vii 14 Relationship between town size and length of urban roads...... 65 15 Salinity damage cost functions: Urban roads...... 65 16 Cost of salinity to local government per head of population ...... 67 17 Marginal salinity cost functions: Local government ...... 67 18 Salinity cost functions: Highways, freeways and main sealed roads ...... 70 19 Salinity cost functions: State and national bridges ...... 71 20 Salinity cost functions: Railways...... 71 21 Salinity cost functions: Infrastructure (excl. roads, bridges and rail) ...... 72 22 Salinity cost functions: ‘Other’ salinity costs ...... 72 23 Marginal salinity cost functions: Government agencies and utilities ...... 73 24 Valuation techniques and their applicability to natural resources ...... 77 25 Proforma for recording estimated costs of dryland and urban salinity ...... 87

vi vii viii Summary

Despite the worsening problem of salinity across Where does dryland many rural and urban areas of the Murray-Darling and urban salinity occur? Basin, catchment communities have previously Dryland salinity is a significant problem across many lacked the tools to confidently answer the questions rural areas of the Murray-Darling Basin, with at least What are the impacts of dryland and urban salinity 2.5 million hectares currently affected by salt. What in our catchment, who are affected, and what are has been less well known however, is the extent the costs? and severity of salinity outbreaks in rural towns To address this information gap, the Murray-Darling and cities. Basin Commission and the National Dryland Salinity Detailed research conducted as part of the Program contracted Ivey ATP and Wilson Land Determining the full cost of dryland and urban Management Services Pty Ltd to undertake a 3- salinity across the Murray-Darling Basin project year research project entitled ‘Determining the has shown that there are also at least 220 rural towns full nature and costs of dryland salinity across the and cities located throughout the Murray-Darling o Murray-Darling Basin’ (MDBC Project N . D9008). Basin currently experiencing an urban salinity These guidelines are an important outcome from this problem caused by high saline watertables. There project and describe how to identify and value the are also likely to be many other rural towns where current impact costs of dryland and urban salinity at the current salinity problems are less well known, the catchment level. or that are likely to develop serious problems in These guidelines are produced in two separate parts future years. to meet the needs of different stakeholders involved in local action planning. What are the impacts of dryland and Part 1 describes the impacts and costs of salinity in urban salinity and who bears them? urban and dryland rural areas and outlines how this The impacts of salinity in both urban and dryland information can help improve the rigour of local rural areas fall into two main classes. Those caused action plans and cost-sharing arrangements. by saline water supplies, and those caused by Part 2 provides detailed technical guidance and tools high saline watertables. The impacts of saline for assessing the impacts and costs of dryland and water supplies include damage to household water urban salinity in a catchment. appliances, commercial water appliances and increased production costs for irrigators. How is salinity caused? The impacts of high saline watertables include Most dryland and urban salinity outbreaks in reduced dryland agricultural production, structural the Murray-Darling Basin have been caused by damage to buildings, deterioration of parks and widespread land use changes since European gardens, and damage to other infrastructure such settlement. In rural areas, these changes have as roads & sewerage supply systems. included the clearing of deep-rooted trees, shrubs There are a number of stakeholders in a catchment and perennial grasses, and their replacement with who may be affected by dryland and urban shallow-rooted annual crops and pastures. In urban salinity. These include urban householders, areas, these changes have included tree clearing, farmers, commercial and industrial businesses, over-irrigation of parks and gardens, disruption of State government agencies and utilities, and local natural drainage lines, over-flowing septic tanks councils. Dryland and urban salinity may also have and sullage pits, and leaking water, sewerage and adverse impacts on the natural environment and drainage pipes. cultural heritage.

viii 1 The broader Australian community may also be and costs of salinity in both rural and urban areas affected by dryland and urban salinity occurring in will therefore serve three main purposes. a catchment. This is because of flow-on regional • Collecting this information at the sub-catchment economic impacts, costs imposed on downstream level will help catchment communities more irrigation, household and industrial water users, and accurately gauge the importance of salinity in their damage to the downstream environment. urban and rural areas, prepare or refine their local Presented in this report is a description of the action plans, and enhance their case for funding potential impacts of dryland and urban salinity in from various programs. the Murray-Darling Basin on dryland agriculture, • Collecting this information at the regional-level infrastructure, the environment, and cultural heritage. will help catchment communities prepare or refine A brief overview of the possible flow-on social their regional strategies. impacts and benefits from dryland and urban salinity • Collecting this information at the Basin-wide is then presented. level will help all tiers of government take a more strategic approach to policy development and on- What are the costs ground investment on a broad or Basin-wide scale. of dryland and urban salinity? Furthermore, improving knowledge of the extent, The costs of dryland and urban salinity may be severity and cost of salinity in urban areas will grouped into six categories: dramatically enhance the case for boosting total 1 Repair and maintenance costs. funding available for urban salinity management. 2 Costs from the reduced lifespan of infrastructure. Dryland salinity is often considered to be primarily 3 Costs of taking preventative action. a ‘farm-level’ problem, resulting in a loss of farm 4 Increased operating costs. income and capital value of farmland. However, as the results show, it is the non-agricultural 5 The ‘value of income foregone’. stakeholders, and not the dryland agricultural 6 Environmental costs. producers, who bear the greatest costs from dryland In many cases, these costs will not occur and urban salinity across the Basin. Specifically, the independently. For example, a high saline watertable results indicate that the total current impact cost under a particular stretch of road may reduce the across the Basin is approximately $304.73 million time before major reconstruction is required, as well per annum, of which only 33 per cent is incurred as increase the ongoing funds needed to maintain by dryland agricultural producers. Current impact the road in an acceptable condition. costs are greatest on households, commerce and industry, at around $142.78 million per annum Why value the costs or 46 per cent of the total. This significant cost is of dryland and urban salinity? primarily due to the magnitude of costs imposed The last decade has seen considerable improvements on these stakeholders from their use of saline town in knowledge of the extent, severity and cost of water supplies. The results also confirm that in the dryland salinity in rural areas. In contrast, despite majority of Basin catchments (20/26), it is the non- significant salinity problems now emerging in our agricultural stakeholders in rural and urban areas, urban towns and cities, knowledge of the extent, and not dryland agricultural stakeholders, that make severity and cost of the problem in these areas is in the greatest contribution to total ‘$ per ha per annum’ its infancy. Improving knowledge of the full nature impact costs.

2 Part One: An overview of the dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin

Photo: Arthur Mostead 1-1

1-1 Introduction 1.1 Why have these guidelines 1.1.2 Aims of this study been produced? To help fill this information void, Ivey ATP and Wilson Land Management Services Pty Ltd were 1.1.1 History contracted by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission Dryland salinity has long been recognised as a (MDBC) and the National Dryland Salinity Program significant and worsening problem across many (NDSP) in 1999 to: rural areas of Australia, causing a reduction in 1 produce draft guidelines that describe how to dryland agricultural production and damaging identify and value the current impacts of dryland the natural environment. However, it has become and urban salinity at a catchment level increasingly apparent that urban salinity is also becoming a very serious and costly problem in 2 raise community awareness of the nature and cost many rural towns and cities. Indeed, across the of dryland and urban salinity Murray-Darling Basin, the current estimated cost of 3 implement the guidelines to assess the full current dryland salinity to all urban and rural stakeholders impacts and costs of dryland and urban salinity is approximately $304.73 million per annum, to key stakeholders, the environmental cultural of which only 33 per cent is incurred by dryland heritage in all catchments across the Murray- agricultural producers (Wilson 2003). Darling Basin Despite the magnitude of salinity problems in the 4 trial the guidelines outside the Basin to ensure the rural and urban areas, catchment groups have lacked approach is applicable and relevant across Australia the tools to confidently answer the questionsWhat 5 finalise the guidelines document, after taking on are the full impacts of dryland and urban salinity in board the lessons arising from objectives 3 and 4, our catchment, who are affected and what are the and costs? Without this information, it has been difficult 6 produce a centralised Basin-wide GIS database on to assess how much effort and money should be the nature and costs of dryland and urban salinity allocated to salinity management. across the Basin.

Photo: Salt Action NSW

4 PART ONE PART ONE 5 The production of this Version 2 of the guidelines 1.3 What information is 1-1 represents the completion of the fifth objective of this (and is not) provided? larger project (version 1 was published in 1999). Full The aim of these guidelines is to provide the details of the approach used to complete all project following information: objectives, together with the final project results, • the cause and symptoms of dryland and urban appear in the final project report by Wilson (2004). salinity A complete list of all reports arising from this project also appears in the ‘Reference’ section of this Part 1. • locations where dryland and urban salinity occurs • the potential impacts of dryland and urban 1.2 Who are these guidelines for? salinity on dryland agriculture, infrastructure, the environment and cultural heritage in the Murray- Part 1 has been prepared mainly for catchment Darling Basin management groups guiding the development of local action plans. The aim is to provide an overview • the various agricultural and non-agricultural of dryland and urban salinity across the Murray- stakeholders that may be affected by dryland and Darling Basin, and to demonstrate how obtaining this urban salinity information will enhance the rigour of local action • the types of dryland and urban salinity costs plans prepared for a catchment or sub-catchment. • the importance of salinity cost information Part 2 has been prepared mainly for natural resource • guidance on how to identify and value the impact economists advising catchment management groups costs of dryland and urban salinity on agricultural on the nature and costs of dryland and urban salinity and non-agricultural stakeholders, the environment in their area. Its aim is to provide the information and cultural heritage in each catchment and tools needed to actually identify and value the • case studies and examples of how these techniques costs of dryland and urban salinity in a catchment. can be used Some of the information presented may also be of • guidance on how to prepare for, and run, surveys interest to catchment management groups. or censuses of stakeholder groups In addition to catchment management groups and • references for obtaining further information. natural resource economists, there are several other groups who may find these guidelines useful, In these guidelines, the term ‘dryland and urban particularly Part 1. While not exhaustive, these may salinity’ refers to all salinity problems that occur in include: dryland rural (irrigation areas excluded) and urban • State government agencies wanting to develop areas of the Murray-Darling Basin. It includes the state level dryland and urban salinity policies or problems directly attributable to saline surface and programs groundwater supplies, rising saline watertables, and where soil erosion has exposed a naturally saline • local governments, financial institutions and sub-soil. companies with large infrastructure investments wanting to better understand their potential The guidelines are not designed to help establish exposure to dryland and urban salinity problems the cause of specific salinity problems, identify or evaluate the costs and benefits of possible • other interested members of the community such management options, or to prepare a full local action as students studying natural resource management plan. Rather, the focus is to show how to assess the related subjects nature and impact costs of dryland and urban salinity • Landcare and other farming groups. problems that are occurring in any given dryland or urban area — regardless of the underlying cause. Where appropriate however, the reader is referred to other reports where this information is presented. Finally, these guidelines only discuss dryland and urban salinity. However, salinity is not a ‘stand- alone’ issue, and catchment management groups will still need to at least consider the other important natural resource issues facing their community when developing their local action plans or

4 PART ONE PART ONE 5 regional strategies. However, many of the issues • a panel of prominent natural resource economists and instructions included in these guidelines will be to formally review this draft document equally applicable when assessing various other land • refining the draft document in response to the degradation issues, such as soil acidity, soil sodicity, comments provided by this panel 1-2 and tree decline. • convening a National Workshop to receive further state agency, catchment community and local 1.4 How were these guidelines produced? government feedback on the revised document These guidelines were produced after an extensive • finalising the draft guidelines in response to the review process. The key steps involved: comments provided by the Workshop participants • a detailed literature review of Australian studies • working with state agency staff, catchment reporting on the impacts and costs of dryland and representatives and others to apply the methods urban salinity to catchment stakeholders and the described in the guidelines across the Murray- wider Australian community Darling Basin and in two case study areas outside • extensive liaison with key individuals across the Murray-Darling Basin, and Australia at the national, state and catchment levels • using the lessons learnt during this implementation • compiling the information during these stage to finalise these guidelines. two previous steps to prepare a draft guidelines document

Photo: Salt Action NSW

6 PART ONE PART ONE 7 What is dryland and urban salinity and how is it caused? 1-2 1-2 Salinity is a degradation problem that may occur in crops and grasses (see Figure 1). In urban areas, both dryland rural and urban areas. In most cases, it salinity problems may result from increased rates is caused by a rising watertable or sub-surface water of groundwater recharge in the surrounding rural flow that brings dissolved salts to within 1–2 metres areas. However, there are several local factors that of the soil surface1. These salts can then enter the may worsen, or even directly cause an urban salinity nearby streams and rivers, causing stream salinity. problem. These include: Dryland and urban salinity associated with a high • over-watering of parks, gardens and sporting watertable has generally been caused by widespread grounds land use changes since European settlement that • disruption to surface runoff and infiltration increase rates of groundwater recharge. In rural • inefficient drainage systems areas, these changes have included the clearing of • overflowing sullage pits and septic tanks, and deep-rooted perennial trees, shrubs and grasses, and their replacement with shallow-rooted annual • leakage from water and sewerage pipes.

Figure 1 The Water Cycle and Dryland Salinity Rainfall

A cleared catchment increases A healthy tree cover uses infiltration which in turn raises groundwater reserves and the watertable. A minimal evapotranspiration keeps amount of moisture is transpired the watertable at a safe depth. while an increase is experienced in surface runoff.

Saline seepage occurs where the ground surface intercepts the A vegetative cover together watertable, usually on footslopes with minimal runoff ensures and in drainage depressions. surface stability. Decreased vegetative cover predisposes the ground surface to erosion.

A rising watertable brings natural salts toward the Land degraded by saline surface, killing the existing seepage and affected by A low watertable does not vegetative cover. a high watertable severely Surface streams become The lower slopes of a well saline through runoff from timbered catchment permit bring salts to the surface. limits productive agricultural activity. saline seepages and a range of productive interception of the watertable. agricultural land uses.

Source: Yass Valley Soil Conservation Project (1988) PP 6-7

1 A less common form of dryland salinity is caused through soil erosion exposing a naturallly saline sub-soil.

6 PART ONE PART ONE 7 Where does dryland 1-3 and urban salinity occur? 1-3 Dryland salinity is a significant problem across when the methods described in Part 2 of these many rural areas of the Murray-Darling Basin, with guidelines were implemented across the Basin. at least 2.5 million hectares currently affected by The database on urban salinity was compiled with salt. Research conducted as part of this project has the assistance of numerous state agency staff and shown that there are also at least 220 rural towns catchment representatives across the Basin, and and cities located in the Murray-Darling Basin through on-ground inspections of over eighty currently experiencing some degree of urban salinity Victorian towns. The number of salinity affected problem caused by high saline watertables. There are urban town centres is substantially higher than ever also likely to be many other rural towns where the previously documented and has a major impact current salinity problems are less well known, or that on total estimated dryland and urban salinity costs are likely to develop serious problems in the future. across the Basin. Table 1 shows a summary of the latest information In each of the towns inspected, the key visible on the towns affected, and the percentage of indicators used were salt scalding, bare patches, each town affected to some degree. More detailed and the presence of spiny rush both in the drainage tables displaying a breakdown of the percentage lines as well on the higher ground. Other indicators of each town currently experiencing very slight, were visible damage to building structures and slight, moderate and severe urban salinity problems foundations, damage to sports grounds and other appear in the regional-level project reports listed open spaces, and damage to other infrastructure in the ‘Reference’ Section and available on-line at (including roads, bridges, kerbs, footpaths and www.ndsp.gov.au. These reports were generated drainage lines).

Every effort has been taken to compile the best available information on the extent and severity of urban salinity. Despite this effort, the information must be regarded as indicative only until more definitive hydrogeological studies and on-ground inspections of towns and cities in the Basin can be undertaken.

Photo: Arthur Mostead

8 PART ONE PART ONE 9 Table 1 Towns subject to urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin

Estimated extent of high saline watertables in towns and cities (expressed as percentage of total town area)

Albury 5 % Crookwell 10 % Lake Boga 90 % Seymour 5 %

Alexandra <5 % Cudal 10 % Lake Cargelligo 20 % Shepparton- 5 % Mooroopna

Ashford 10 % Cumnock 70 % Lexton 15 % St Arnaud 5 % 1-3 Attunga 20 % Curlewis 40 % Lockington 5 % Stanhope 15 %

Avoca 10 % Deepwater 20 % Lyndhurst 30 % Stawell 5 %

Baan Baa 100% Delungra 30 % Maldon 20 % Stockinbingal 10 %

Balranald 2 % Dimboola 20 % Manildra 18 % Strathfieldsaye 10 %

Barham 5 % Donald 20 % Manilla 50 % Strathmerton 5 %

Barnawartha <5 % Dookie 35 % Maryborough <5 % Swan Hill 10 %

Barooga 5 % Dubbo 30 % Mendooran <5 % Talbot 5 %

Barraba 20 % Dunedoo <5 % Meningie 5 % Tallarook 5 %

Bathurst <5 % Dunolly 30 % Milang 5 % Tambar Springs 19 %

Bendemeer 10 % Echuca 5 % Milthorpe 5 % Tamworth 10 %

Bendigo 7 % Finley <5 % Minyip 5 % Tarcutta 7 %

Binalong 60% Forbes 30 % Moama 10 % Tatura 10 %

Bingara 10 % Geurie <5 % Molong <5 % Temora 10 %

Binnaway <5 % Gilgandra <5 % Moree 20 % Tenterfield 20 %

Birchip 5 % Girgarre 10 % Mount Russell 50 % Texas 20 %

Blayney 20 % Glen Innes 10 % Moyhu <5 % Tingha 20 %

Boggabri 50 % Glenrowan 5 % Mudgee 50 % Tocumwal 5 %

Boorowa 60 % Goolwa 5 % Mulwala 10 % Tongala 15 %

Boort 10 % Goornong 10 % Murrabit 5 % Tottenham 10 %

Bourke 20 % Graman 40 % Murray Bridge 5 % Trangie 10 %

Brewarrina 15 % Gravesend 50 % Nagambie <5 % Trundle 5 %

Bridgewater 5 % Grenfell 5 % Narrabri 20 % Tullamore <5 %

Broadford <5 % Griffith 8 % Narrandera 4 % Tumut 2 %

Broken Hill 5 % Gulgong <5 % Narromine <5 % Tungamah <5 %

Bundarra 20 % Gullargambone ? % Nathalia <5 % Tungkillo 5 %

Buronga 3 % Gum Flat 20 % Natimuk 10 % Ungarie 5 %

Campbells Creek 10 % Gunbower <5 % Newstead 5 % Upper Horton 40 %

Canowindra 20 % Gunnedah 35 % North Star 20 % Violet Town 5 %

Carcoar 10 % Gunning 20 % Nullamanna 40 % Wagga Wagga 50 %

Cargo 10 % Harcourt 5 % Numurkah <5 % Wahgunyah 5 %

Carisbrook 5 % Harden- 10 % Nyah 5 % Wangaratta <5 % Murrumburrah

Castlemaine 10 % Hay 60 % Nyngan <5 % Warialda 15 %

Charlton 5 % Heathcote 5 % Oberon <5 % Warren 10 %

Estimated extent of high saline watertables in towns and cities (expressed as percentage of total town area)

8 PART ONE PART ONE 9 Cherry Tree Hill 20 % Hillston 10 % Orange <5 % Weddeburn 5 %

Chewton 20 % Holbrook 15 % Ouyen 30 % Wellington 20 %

Chiltern <5 % Hopetoun 10 % Paringa 5 % Werris Creek 10 %

Cobar 10 % Horsham 15 % Parkes 20 % West Wyalong 10 %

Cobbadah 20 % Howlong 5 % Peak Hill <5 % Wodonga 5 %

Cobram 5 % Huntly 10 % Perthville <5 % Wongarbon <5 %

Cohuna <5 % Inglewood 20 % Portland ? % Woodstock 30 %

Condobolin 36 % Jeparit 35 % Pyramid Hill 15 % Wycheproof 5 % 1-4 Coolah 50 % Junee 40 % Quambatook 5 % Yackandandah <5 %

Coolamon 5 % Kandos 30 % Queanbeyan 3 % Yarrawonga 10 %

Coonabarabran <5 % Katamatite <5 % Rainbow 15 % Yass 12 %

Coonamble <5 % Kerang <5 % Renmark 15 % Yea 5 %

Cootamundra 75 % Kingstown 30 % Rochester 5 % Yelarbon 40 %

Corowa 5 % Koondrook 10 % Rushworth 5 % Yeoval <5 %

Cowra 10 % Kyabram 10 % Rutherglen 10 % Yetman 30 %

Creswick <5 % Ladysmith 44 % Rylstone 85 % Young 30 %

Note: This database on urban salinity was compiled from the latest information provided by numerous state agency staff and catchment representatives across the Basin, and through actual on-ground inspections of over eighty Victorian towns. However, this information must be regarded as indicative only until more definitive hydrogeological studies and on-ground inspections of towns and cities in the Basin can be undertaken. Increased groundwater recharge in irrigation areas may contribute to the salinity problem in some of these towns.

Photo: Salt Action NSW

10 PART ONE PART ONE 11 What are the impacts of dryland and 1-4 urban salinity and who bears them? The impacts of salinity both within urban and • historic buildings and other areas with cultural, dryland rural areas of a catchment fall into two main historical or natural significance. These include classes, namely: Aboriginal sacred sites and other archaeological 1-4 • saline water supplies, and sites that contain buried pottery, quartz and metal artefacts that are particularly prone to damage from • high saline watertables. high watertables. The impacts of saline water supplies include The purpose of this section is to elaborate on the increased production costs for urban businesses, adverse impacts that saline town water supplies damage to household water appliances and and high saline watertables may have on dryland reticulation systems, and damage to the natural agricultural and non-agricultural stakeholders, the environment. environment and cultural heritage across the Basin. The impacts of high saline watertables include reduced farm productivity, structural damage to 4.1 Dryland agriculture buildings such as urban households and commercial premises, damage to other infrastructure such as One of the first symptoms of dryland salinity on roads, bridges, underground telephone, water, farms is that yields of crops and pastures growing in electricity and sewerage systems, and remnant the saline environment declines. This reduction may vegetation. be followed by the death of less salt tolerant species including trees, and the appearance of bare patches There are several stakeholders in a catchment who of soil or plant species that are more tolerant of may be affected by saline water supplies and high the saline conditions such as sea barley grass (PDP saline watertables in the urban and rural areas. Australia Pty Ltd 1992). These changes may result These include: in decreased agricultural production, an increase in • dryland agricultural producers production costs, or both. • urban and rural householders Different crops and pastures vary in their tolerance • commercial and industrial businesses to salinity. The yield of each pasture or crop species • state government agencies only begins to decline once the salinity level • road and rail authorities increases beyond a threshold that is unique to that species. • water, gas, electricity suppliers, and The cost of agricultural production foregone is often • local governments. thought to be the largest cost of salinity to farmers. Dryland and urban salinity can also affect: However, dryland salinity may also have a range of • remnant vegetation, threatened fauna and flora other impacts on a farm business. species, wetlands, rivers and streams, and aquatic ecology, and

10 PART ONE PART ONE 11 Common impacts of dryland salinity on farms

Reductions in dryland agricultural and forestry production Reductions up to 100 per cent at salt affected sites

Damage to farm infrastructure Access roads and tracks Fences and stockyards Vehicles, machinery and equipment 1-4 Farm buildings including houses Water tanks, pipes & bore casings

Secondary land degradation Soil erosion of saline sites Soil structural decline and erosion along stream banks

Farm management problems Weed invasion (e.g. spiny rush) that limits livestock access and harbour feral animals such as foxes and rabbits Reduced access to waterlogged areas and the need to detour stock and equipment around these flooded areas Bogged equipment Increased cost of livestock management Increased input requirements on saline land Increased cost of farm drainage Decreased flexibility for growing salt or waterlogging sensitive pastures or crops Increased cost of fencing off wet and saline areas

Reduced water quality Increased turbidity of water supplies and siltation of farm dams and streams Increased salinity of livestock water supplies and the need to obtain and store drinking water for stock Loss of water suitable for irrigation Accelerated corrosion of water pipes and supply systems

Environmental degradation Loss of flora and fauna species from farms (i.e. reduced biodiversity) Deterioration of farm wetlands or lakes Loss of shelter and shade Loss of aesthetic value

Farm household problems The range of household impacts are discussed in a following section

Land values All the above factors are likely to lead to a reduction in land values

Source: Modified from Wilson (1995)

12 PART ONE PART ONE 13 4.2 Infrastructure ‘Salinity’ is a measure of the concentration of The purpose of this section is to describe the various dissolved salts in water and is associated with impacts of saline town water supplies and high saline corrosion. Salinity is more commonly measured watertables on non-agricultural infrastructure. The using the units of Electrical Conductivity (EC) or section on saline water supplies draws extensively microSiemens per centimetre (µS/cm). on the report by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey As the impacts of saline and hard water may be (GHD) (1999) and the latest report by Wilson and different, it may be advantageous to distinguish Laurie (2002) entitled Cost functions to estimate the between the impacts of salinity and hardness, cost of saline town water supplies to households, where possible. However, there is a strong correlation between hardness and salinity, and in commerce and industry which is available on-line 1-4 at www.ndsp.gov.au practice it will be difficult to differentiate impacts associated with each. 4.2.1 Saline water supplies Household water users There are two main non-agricultural Soap and detergent use stakeholders affected by saline water supplies: Early research suggested that saline or hard • Household water users water supplies could lead to increased domestic • Industrial/Commercial water users consumption of soaps and detergents (Cox and This section begins with a brief description of the Dillon 1982). However, GHD (1999) suggest that key factors that influence water quality. This is there is no significant relationship between soap or followed by a review of the range of saline water detergent consumption and TDS (within the range of related impacts that may be imposed on the two salinity levels recorded for the River Murray). groups listed above. Plumbing corrosion Factors affecting water quality Water pipes and fixtures (including shower rosettes Water contains both suspended substances (silts, and taps) come in a variety of materials, including clays and vegetable matter) and dissolved substances copper, galvanised iron, PVC and other plastics, (salts, metal ions and vegetable decomposition brass and stainless steel. Wilson and Laurie (2002) products). The level and type of suspended and has demonstrated that there is a direct relationship dissolved substances influence the taste, colour, between the TDS of town water supplies and the hardness, odour and salinity level of the water. expected lifespan and maintenance cost of these Hence, when investigating the cost of saline water to items in towns and cities located across the Murray- households, commerce and industry, it is desirable Darling Basin. to isolate, as far as possible, the costs attributable to • Saline corrosion results when saline water causes salinity from the other components. rust to form on iron and steel pipes and fittings. The term total dissolved solids (TDS) is sometimes • Scaling results when hard water causes deposits used to define ‘salinity’ or the total level of dissolved of calcium, magnesium and other soluble ions to salts in water. However, TDS is a simple measure build up on the internal surfaces of water pipes of the amount of total dissolved solids in water, and fixtures. These deposits eventually restrict the irrespective of the type of solids present. Therefore flow of water and can reduce the expected lifespan water samples with similar TDS levels may have of the affected materials. Generally, the rate of different water quality characteristics, reflecting the scale formation increases with the hardness, and different types / proportions of solids present in the hence the TDS, of the water (GHD 1999). water. For example, where two water samples have Over time, the extent of damage to water pipes equal TDS levels, one may be characterised as ‘Hard’ and fixtures caused by saline corrosion is likely to and the other characterised as ‘Saline’. decline. This is because plumbers are increasingly ‘Hardness’ is a measure of the concentration of using alternative materials in new houses such as particular ions in water such as magnesium and plastic piping and other materials that are corrosion calcium. The presence of excessive quantities of resistant. This change is being made for sound these elements in water supplies can cause scale economic reasons, and a side benefit is reduced build up on water pipes and fixtures. salinity impacts (GHD 1999).

12 PART ONE PART ONE 13 Hot water systems Industrial/Commercial water users Hot water systems come in a variety of forms, There are five key areas where saline water supplies including electric, gas and solar. Wilson and Laurie may impact on industrial/commercial water users. (2002) have shown that there is a direct relationship Cooling towers between the TDS of the water supply and the expected lifespan and maintenance cost of hot water Cooling towers are commonly used in commercial services in towns and cities across the Basin. This buildings, hospitals, schools and industrial premises impact is due to an increase in scale build-up on to provide air conditioning. As all cooling towers the heating elements and pressure relief valves, and rely on water in their operation, they are affected accelerated corrosion of the lining (GHD 1999). to varying degrees by the quality of the water used (GHD 1999). 1-4 The cost associated with accelerated corrosion and scale formation will decline over time as The main impact of saline water on cooling towers manufacturers sell more units supplied with is increased operating costs. This is because corrosion resistant vitreous enamel or glass linings, operators need to flush out the water contained in and as new water treatment plants that extract scale these cooling towers once the salinity of the water forming impurities from water supplies are built reaches a critical level (the salinity level of the water (GHD 1999). increases over time as the stored water evaporates). Typically, flushing is carried out before the salinity Bottled water of cooling towers reaches a maximum level of 4,000 Early research suggests that saline or hard water EC. While there is a direct cost from replacing the supplies could lead to an increase in domestic flushed water, the main cost arises from replacing the consumption of bottled water (Cox and Dillon chemicals added to the water to control corrosion, 1982). However GHD (1999) rejected this claim, scaling and microbial activity (GH&D 1999). and concluded that no significant relationship exists Saline water supplies generally do not increase between bottled water consumption and TDS at the the cost of purchasing cooling towers or decrease various salinity levels recorded for the River Murray. their expected lifespan. This is because the This situation may be different, however, in rural majority of these units are manufactured out of towns that periodically experience very saline town timber or fibreglass which are corrosion resistant water supplies. (GH&D 1999). Domestic filters Evaporative coolers may also be found in commercial buildings and industrial premises. However, as these Wilson and Laurie (2002) demonstrate that there is units are generally made with corrosion resistant a direct relationship between the average annual materials and do not require chemicals in their water cost of installing and operating domestic water supply, the impact of saline water supplies on these filters and the TDS level of water supplies across the units is only considered to be negligible at salinity Basin. However, as noted by GHD (1999), the use levels below 1,600 EC (GH&D 1999). of domestic water filters, like the consumption of bottled water, enjoy greater popularity in cities than Water supply infrastructure in country areas. It is generally thought that saline water supplies Rainwater tanks increase the rate of corrosion in water pipes and reticulation systems. However, it is the salinity level Wilson and Laurie (2002) also demonstrate that of the surrounding soils, rather than the salinity level there is a direct relationship between the TDS of the water itself, that is the critical factor affecting level of town water supplies and the proportion of the rate of corrosion and hence the expected life of households installing rainwater tanks. water supply infrastructure (GHD 1999). Water softeners The GHD report concludes the following: Wilson and Laurie (2002) demonstrate that there is • The occurrence of salinity induced corrosion in a direct relationship between the TDS level of town water supply pipes and reticulation systems is water supplies and average household expenditure likely to decline over time as towns replace their on purchasing, installing and maintaining water infrastructure with corrosion resistant plastic or softening units. cement-lined ductile iron components. This change

14 PART ONE PART ONE 15 is already being made for sound economic reasons, make significant investments to purchase and operate and a side benefit is reduced salinity impacts. water treatment equipment to improve the quality • Rural towns that retain their old cast iron pipes of the water prior to its use (including ion exchange may continue to experience corrosion. However, and reverse osmosis equipment) (GHD 1999). as a number of complex factors affect the rate 4.2.2 High saline watertables and severity of corrosion (including the presence High saline watertables can cause adverse impacts on of free chlorine ions, temperature, pH, and public and private infrastructure located in urban and hardness), it is extremely difficult to derive a rural areas including: relationship between the salinity level of the water and corrosion. • roads (including gutters and culverts) and bridges 1-4 • stone and brick buildings Boiler operation • footpaths, driveways and other concrete structures Boilers are used to supply steam under pressure for • water, stormwater and sewerage systems various commercial and industrial purposes. Saline • powerlines, fences and other steel structures, and water supplies do not generally impact on the boilers themselves. Rather, they have an impact on the • railway lines. frequency with which the water must be flushed, Roads and bridges and hence on the chemical, water and energy losses involved. As the salinity level of the water supplies Most roads and bridges have been designed for sites increase, so too does the frequency with which with a dry sub-soil and a low frequency/duration of the stored water must be flushed. Under an ideal soil saturation. Where groundwater saturates the soil regime, the water stored in a medium pressure boiler within 2 metres of the surface, the foundation often would be flushed when the salinity (TDS) reached deteriorates rapidly causing a breakdown of the base a maximum level of 3,200 EC (GHD 1999). and deterioration of the surface (Hamilton 1995). This deterioration in the road surface occurs because Municipal water treatment costs the downward pressure applied to the surfaces, Most towns have built water treatment plants especially those subject to frequent truck use, to improve the quality of town water supplies. penetrates to a depth of 1.5 m or more. When the Typically, these plants remove contaminants from the subsoil at this depth is saturated, there can often be water or modify the physical characteristics (such as considerable movement of the sub-soil, especially the hardness and pH levels). if this sub-soil has a high clay content. This sub-soil A commonly held belief is that salinity (TDS) levels movement is frequently transmitted upwards through have an impact on municipal water treatment the road base, and eventually results in localised processes and hence costs. However, the research ‘heaving’ of the road surface, followed by cracking conducted by GHD (1999) has shown that most of the bitumen surface, complete break-up of the treatment processes are designed to address daily road itself, and further penetration of surface water fluctuations in water turbidity, colour and microbial into the road foundation (ACTEW 1997; Wooldridge activity, and that they are relatively independent 1998). The end result is premature road failure, more of salinity levels. Some form of reverse osmosis frequent and costly maintenance, or a combination treatment may be needed if the salinity level of both. consistently exceeds 1,600 EC (GHD 1999). However, there are numerous factors that ultimately influence the impact of high saline watertables on Industrial water treatment roads and bridges, including the: Water is a key input into many industrial processes, • intensity of use including: • rainfall • food and beverage preparation • groundwater level and salinity concentration • paper production • soil type • electroplating, and • method and material used during construction • automotive painting (GHD 1999). • quality of the road drainage As the quality of water used in these processes is critical, commercial businesses and industry often

14 PART ONE PART ONE 15 • elevation of the road above the surrounding area, Underground water, sewerage and septic systems and As noted in the previous section, rising saline • condition of the bitumen seal (Hill 1999). watertables are the main cause of corrosion to underground concrete, cast iron, brass, copper and Buildings and other concrete structures galvanised iron water pipes and fixtures. When any High watertables can often bring moisture and such corrosion occurs, it can substantially increase salts close to the foundations of houses and other the maintenance costs and reduce their useful buildings. This periodic wetting of the foundations operating life. Any leakage of water from rusted may cause rising damp where the groundwater is pipes can also substantially increase the amount drawn into the brick, stone or cement by capillary of recharge to groundwater in the urban areas, 1-4 action (Salt Action 1997). hence exacerbating the problem. In the urban city The extent and severity of a rising damp problem of Wagga Wagga, for example, it is estimated that will depend on the materials used, the amount of approximately 47 per cent of total groundwater moisture and salt present, the amount of evaporation, recharge originates from leaking water pipes and the effectiveness of any damp-proof barrier (Slinger 1998). In many cases, however, these leaks (these barriers are designed to prevent moisture go undetected. moving from the foundations to the walls of the When the watertable rises, groundwater can often buildings). flow into underground sewerage systems. The end Salinity and rising damp damage to houses and other result is that additional, and often saline, water buildings is most noticeable when the damp-proof drains into sewerage treatment plants, resulting course is absent (common in older houses), broken in increased plant operating costs, a decrease in (common in houses with renovations), or bypassed. treatment efficiency, and less opportunity for re- Bypassing the damp proof course is the most using the treated water for other purposes such as common, and can be caused by: irrigating urban parks (Hamilton 1995, Wilson and Laurie 2002). • adding new floors High watertables can also lead to a failure of septic • rendering the outside of the building systems. Failures can result from groundwater • installing raised paths next to walls, and entering septic systems and/or poor function of • accumulation of topsoil or garden mulch against ‘rubble pits’ which accept the processed outflows walls (Salt Action 1997). from the septic systems. The end result may be raw As the building materials undergo periodic wetting sewerage overflowing from septic tanks. and drying cycles, salt crystals often grow within the Railways, powerlines and other steel structures confined pore spaces. In severe cases, these crystals There are a number of metal structures present in can cause deterioration of the brick, stone and urban and rural areas that are prone to corrosion cement, and can result in: from high saline watertables. These include: • cracked bricks or stone • railway tracks • mortar turning to dust, and • surface mounted steel water storage tanks • cement render flaking off internal and external • underground steel fuel storage tanks walls (Spennemann 1997). • concrete power poles with internal steel reinforcing While salinity damage to houses and buildings • underground cast iron gas supply lines and is often a very visible impact of salinity, other telephone cable casings brick and concrete structures found extensively in urban areas can also be affected. These include • reinforced concrete structures and tower footings footpaths and bicycle paths, paved or cemented • underground power cables areas, and driveways. • steel lattice towers and hollow or concrete filled steel poles, and • nuts, bolts, screws and flange plates (Electricity Association of NSW 1997).

16 PART ONE PART ONE 17 Corrosion of metal structures can cause an increase high watertables to the environment’ and the final in operating costs, an increase in maintenance costs, report on this ‘Cost of dryland salinity’ project by a reduction in expected lifespans, or a combination Wilson (2003). of all three. More importantly, system safety and A more detailed discussion on the environmental reliability can be compromised, and the local impacts of salinity in each catchment across the environment can be contaminated if any spill of toxic Basin is presented in the regional-level project chemicals occurs because of a corrosion-induced reports listed in Section 9 and available on-line at leak (Electricity Association of NSW 1997). www.ndsp.gov.au. Further information can also be obtained from the biodiversity reports by the Miscellaneous Standing Committee on Conservation Task Force While not strictly infrastructure, high saline 1-4 (2001) and the National Land and Water Resources watertables can also have an adverse impact on Audit (2002). urban lawns, gardens, street trees, sporting fields and parklands. The symptoms are often the same as for 4.3.1 Terrestrial impacts agricultural production, and can include the decline Naturally occurring saline soils and salt pans or death of the salt-sensitive turf, shrub and tree have always been a feature of the Murray-Darling species, and waterlogged playing areas. Depending Basin. However, widespread clearing of the native on the severity of the impacts, some areas may no vegetation and its replacement with shallow- longer be suitable for their intended use and may be rooted crop and pastures species has contributed either downgraded or abandoned. Soggy backyards to groundwater rises and a substantial increase in can also be found where rubble pits associated with the extent and severity of dryland salting across septic tanks are no longer functioning effectively. the Basin. To address this problem, households, businesses, Apart from the obvious direct economic costs and local governments often apply higher rates of associated with large areas of land either affected fertiliser and seed in an attempt to mask the adverse by high saline watertables or at risk, there is the impacts of ‘sick’ lawns, replace salt-sensitive shrubs less obvious impact on the remnant vegetation in and trees with more salt tolerant species, or install these areas. sub-surface drainage to lower the watertable. In A large proportion of remnant vegetation remaining worst-case scenarios, the affected areas are simply in catchments occurs on public land in blocks or covered up by landscaping such as concrete or brick along roadsides and railway lines. These remaining and clay pavers. sites provide refuge for plants and animals and act Similarly, high watertables can cause problems with as corridors to permit wildlife to travel between cellars and grain silo loading hoppers located below habitats. In addition, large areas of remnant ground level. These structures frequently fill with vegetation are used for recreational and commercial water and require continuous pumping. activities such as bush walking, bird watching, and timber, honey and wildflower harvesting. The 4.3 Environment impacts of salinity are magnified as little regeneration The Murray-Darling Basin is home to significant of native vegetation occurs in most catchments. biodiversity on both public and private land, and Following the widespread clearing of native in rivers, streams and wetlands. Dryland salinity is woodlands and grasslands that has occurred in the impacting on some of these areas, and is increasing Gwydir, Namoi and NSW Border River catchments pressures on endangered species and ecological for example, many of the remaining areas are now communities. home to a wide variety of shrubs and groundcovers The purpose of this section is to draw on published that are listed in urgent need of conservation and unpublished information, GIS analysis of and protection. Many of these remaining areas environmental datasets and recent output from the correspond to those same areas that are currently National Land and Water Resources Audit to highlight subject to high watertables or at risk from developing how salinity is adversely affecting the natural high watertables and salinity over the next 30 years environment across the Basin. Much of the text (Wilson 2003). draws from the 1997 ABARE report entitled ‘Loddon Similarly along the South Australian Murray and Campaspe catchments: Costs of salinity and floodplain, an estimated 25,000 hectares (or 25

16 PART ONE PART ONE 17 per cent of the total area) are visibly salt affected 4.3.3 River and stream salinity impacts (MDBMC 1999). This vegetation provides a critical Rivers and streams have a critical environmental habitat for many of the region’s remaining flora and value by providing a habitat for various in-stream fauna of important conservation value, as well as fauna and riparian vegetation. They also provide important movement corridors for other species. important commercial, recreational and educational The predicted expansion of dryland and urban values. Salinity is increasingly expressed in riparian salinity across most areas of the Basin over the environments because of increased salt loads in next 100 years will only exacerbate the extent and the Basin’s waterways and because they frequently severity of salinity impacts on remnant vegetation intersect saline groundwater discharge points (due in the region. to their location in catchments). 1-4 The environmental impact of saline rivers and 4.3.2 Threatened fauna and flora impacts streams will vary from one site to another, and Individual floral species vary in their tolerance to will be influenced by several factors including the salinity. While some species are remarkably tolerant, duration of raised salinity levels, the magnitude many are adversely affected by salinity to varying of salinity peaks, the diversity of species using degrees. At sufficiently high levels, salt-sensitive the site, and the nutrient status of the water. In vegetation may disappear completely from affected general, however, increasing salinity levels will areas, which may in turn have direct implications often be associated with a decline in the numbers on the biodiversity value of affected landscapes and diversity of species present (Wilson, 2002). On (Wilson 2003). the whole, these impacts are likely to be greater Recent research conducted as part of the National than the corresponding impacts in the dryland parts Land and Water Resources Audit suggests that the of catchments due to diverse nature of riparian current impact of salinity on fauna and flora in the environments. Victorian catchments may be significant. Specifically, At present, the quality of water flowing through the following an assessment of the recorded sightings of Basin’s main rivers is fair to moderate, with median Victorian rare or threatened fauna and flora species, and flow weighted average stream salinity levels it was observed that many species have been generally falling below 550 EC (Table 2). Despite recorded at locations subject to high watertables. this, very high salinity levels continue to be an issue In the Victorian Mallee for example, 42 of Victoria’s in many of the smaller sub-catchment tributaries, rare or threatened fauna species (including the particularly during the summer and autumn months. Malleefowl, Mallee emu-wren and Regent Parrot) In the 17 smaller tributaries above Wagga Wagga, for and 27 rare or endangered flora species have been example, some are contributing the highest salt loads sighted at locations where the watertable is less per unit area found in the NSW component of the than two metres from the soil surface (Wilson 2003). Murray-Darling Basin. Similarly, in the Goulburn-Broken Region, 40 species of fauna and 16 species of fauna listed as rare and endangered have been recorded at sites with shallow watertables (Wilson 2001).

Photo: Salt Action NSW

18 PART ONE PART ONE 19 Table 2 Median stream EC (dates various) and *flow weighted average river salinity at selected gauging stations

Salinity Salinity Gauging station level (EC) Gauging station level (EC)

SA portion of Murray-Darling Basin Lachlan Region

River Murray downstream 389 Lachlan River at Cowra 388 of Rufus River Junction

River Murray @ Morgan 595 Lachlan River at Forbes (Cotton Weir) 395

River Murray @ Murray Bridge 599 Lachlan River at Condobolin Bridge 450

Victorian Mallee and Wimmera Lachlan River at Hilston Weir 530 1-4 *River Murray @ Euston 242 Murrumbidgee Region

*River Murray @ Swan Hill 270 Murrumbidgee River at Burrinjuck Dam 157

Wimmera R at Horsham 488 Murrumbidgee River at Wagga Wagga 124

Wimmera R at Lochiel 680 Murrumbidgee River d/s of Balranald Weir 189

Wimmera R upstream of Lake Hindmarsh 680 Billabong Creek at Walbundrie 939

North Central Region Wakool River at Stoney Crossing 842

Campaspe River at Eppalock 440 Molongolo River at Coppins Crossing 235

Campaspe River at Rochester 715 Central West Region

Loddon River at Laanecoortie 770 Castlereagh River at Gilgandra 660

Loddon River at Kerang Weir 448 Castlereagh River at Coonamble 469

Barr Creek at Capel’s Crossing 5,341 Talbragar River at Elong Elong 769

Gunbower Creek at Koondrook 129 Macquarie River at Dubbo 330

Pyramid Creek at Kerang 475 Macquarie River at Warren Weir 349

*Avoca River at Quambatook 970 Gunningbar Creek below Regulator 311

*Avoca River downstream of Third Marsh 1,440 Macquarie River at Carinda 437

Goulburn-Broken Region Murra Creek at Billybingbone Bridge 270

Broken Creek at Rice’s Weir 168 Bogan River at Gongolgon 315

Gwydir, Namoi and NSW Border River *Broken Creek at Casey’s Weir 130 Regions

Goulburn River at Seymour 83 Macintyre River @ Holdfast (yelarbon Cr) 325

Goulburn River at McCoy’s Bridge 210 Gil Gil Creek @ Weemelah 365

*Goulburn River upstream of Murray River 130 Boomi River @ Neeworra 250

North East Region Gwydir River @ Pinegrove 236

Mitta Mitta River @ Tallandoon 52 Gwydir River @ Pallamallawa 450

Kiewa River @ Bandiana 50 Mehi River @ Moree 313

River Murray @ Heywoods 56 Gwydir River @ Yarraman Bridge 380

Ovens River @ Peechelba East 71 Namoi River @ Gunnedah 499

Lower Murray-Darling and Western Namoi River @ Mollee 501 Regions

Culgoa River @ Collerina (Kenebree) 186 Namoi River @ Goangra 450

Bokhara River @ Bokhara (Goodwins) 220 Queensland portion of the Murray-Darling Basin

Warrego River @ Ford’s Bridge (Channel) 100 Balonne River @ Weribone 240

Warrego River @ Ford’s Bridge (Bywash) 140 Condamine River @ Cecil Weir 420

18 PART ONE PART ONE 19 Salinity Salinity Gauging station level (EC) Gauging station level (EC)

Paroo River @ Willara Crossing 78 Condamine River @ Chinchilla 438

Darling River @ Bourke Town 344 Condamine River @ Cotswold 340

Darling River @ Wilcannia Main Channel 288 Condamine River @ Londoun Bridge 595

Darling River @ Menindee Weir 32 430 Condamine River @ Warwick 348

Darling River @ Burtundy 427 Culgoa River @ Whyenbah 236

Murray Region Dumaresq River @ Mauro 239 1-4 Billabong Creek @ Walbundrie 939 Macintyre @ Goondiwindi 295

Billabong Creek @ Darlot 218 Macintyre @ Inglewood 395

River Murray @ Swan Hill 288 Moonie River @ Nindigully 150

River Murray @ Torrumbarry Weir 106 Warrego River @ Wyandra 137

River Murray below Yarrawonga Weir 60 Weir River @ Talwood 192

River Murray @ Haywoods 56

Wakool River @ Stoney Crossing 842

Wakool River @ Kyalite 298

Source: MDBC 1997 and MDBMC 1999 *MDBMC 1998–1999 Flow weighted average river salinity.

These high salinity levels are leading to a reduction ecosystems, and mitigating the adverse impacts of in the biodiversity and total numbers of invertebrates floods by storing water during the peak flows and and aquatic plants. This is having adverse flow-on releasing it gradually (Crabb, 1997). impacts on fish, frogs and larger insects that rely on Salinity affects six key components of stream and these smaller invertebrates and aquatic plants as a wetland ecology (macrophytes and microalgae, food source, which in turn, is having an impact on macro-invertebrates, riparian vegetation, amphibians the reptiles, birds, mammals and other larger fish and reptiles, fish and waterbirds). Of these, higher up the food chain. freshwater invertebrates and aquatic plants are the most salt sensitive (Robley 1992a) and are present in 4.3.4 Wetlands most if not all rivers, streams and wetlands. Wetlands provide essential feeding and breeding Aquatic macrophytes are large plants found in river habitats for a variety of birds, mammals, fish, and wetlands that assist in the cycling of nutrients amphibians and invertebrates. They also support and provide food and habitat for herbivores. a large range of plant species that are crucial for Microalgae are single or multicellular algae that may the survival of fauna in the area. For example, attach to solid objects or float freely in the water and waterbirds such as ibis feed on agricultural pests and are an important source of food for invertebrates reduce the need for chemical pest control — which and fish. Salinity levels from 1,500 EC are expected is particularly important in the cropping areas of to result in some lethal biological effects to both Australia. Many wetlands also provide valuable macrophytes and microalgae. At 6,000 EC, it is services to the catchment community by supporting believed that most freshwater macrophytes and recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, bird microalgae will cease to exist (Hart et al. 1989). watching and camping. Macroinvertebrates are also very important to stream When combined as a linked system extending over and wetland ecologies, supplying abundant amounts vast areas of land, wetlands are critically important to of food to aquatic fauna. Invertebrates are unable the living creatures they support. Wetlands also play to regulate the dissolved salt concentrations in their a critical role in absorbing, recycling and releasing bodies and are therefore most susceptible to the water borne nutrients, trapping sediments, increasing effects of increased salinities. Although salt tolerance the productivity of associated aquatic and terrestrial differs between species, some of the more salt

20 PART ONE PART ONE 21 sensitive species can be adversely affected at salinity Waterbird species also vary in their tolerance to levels of just 160 EC units. salinity. However, waterbirds are far less confined Riparian vegetation provides a habitat and refuge to individual wetlands, rivers or streams, as they can for native plants and animals around rivers, streams move to a new location if salinity levels become too and wetlands. Waterside vegetation also provide high. Despite this ability, however, low breeding a corridor for the movement of animals between success of waterbirds has been attributed to salinity separate blocks of native vegetation. levels above 4,600 EC. Waterbirds are also directly dependent on macrophytes for food which are Eucalypts and melaleucas will begin to suffer affected by salinity levels well below 4,600 EC units significantly at salinity levels in excess of 3,100 EC (Robley 1992a). units. Rising watertables will also lead to degradation 1-4 of the vegetation as waterlogging begins to occur. In addition to the above-mentioned affects of salinity, Even for species that have adapted to waterlogged saline streams often contain areas or pools of water conditions (such as those in wetlands), the combined below the surface that contain very low levels of effect of salinity greatly affects plants’ adaptive oxygen. Without this oxygen, aerobic organisms and mechanisms (O’Donnell, Lugg, Flemming and benthic (bottom) dwelling organisms cannot survive Heron 1991). and the food chain is disrupted. Frogs are known to leave areas experiencing 4.4 Cultural heritage ecological imbalance such as salinity. However, Salinity and high watertables can also affect research suggests that they may tolerate salinity levels other places with cultural, historical or social up to 15,600 EC for short periods before leaving the significance. These include Aboriginal sacred affected area (Hart et al. 1989). sites, historic buildings and other structures, and Fish are the most salinity tolerant inhabitants of other archaeological sites that may contain buried streams and wetlands. For example, some adult fish pottery, quartz or metal artefacts that are particularly species in the Loddon and Campaspe rivers tolerate prone to damage from high saline watertables salinity levels up to 15,600 EC. It is believed that the (Spennemann 1997). tolerance levels are considerably lower for younger Old buildings, for example, are often more prone to fish and for the maintenance of normal reproduction high saline watertables than newer buildings because (Robley 1992a,b). of the more porous materials used and the frequent

Photo: Salt Action NSW

20 PART ONE PART ONE 21 absence of effective damp proof barriers between the incomes due to a lower demand for their goods and foundations and the walls. These heritage buildings services, and this may result in job losses, business are often associated with significant grounds and closures, and population declines. Due to the lower gardens that can be damaged or destroyed by population, government authorities and banks may high saline watertables. The loss or damage to then subsequently reduce (or remove completely) these gardens can further diminish the cultural the services provided to these rural centres, such as value of the properties and should not be ignored public schools, post offices, libraries and hospitals (Salt Action 1997). (Dumsday, Peglar and Oram 1989; Salinity Pilot A more detailed discussion of the impacts of dryland Program Advisory Council 1989). The cycle may and urban salinity on cultural heritage in the Basin then continue with declines in population then can be found in the regional-level reports listed in placing further pressure on the viability of businesses the ‘Reference’ section of this report and available supplying non-agricultural goods and services. on-line at www.ndsp.gov.au. 1-5 4.6 Are there any benefits 4.5 Flow-on social impacts from dryland salinity? In many areas of Australia, it is thought that salinity In some instances, there may be some benefits is having flow-on social impacts on catchment to stakeholders from dryland salinity or high communities. watertables, namely: In saline areas, marginally profitable farmers may sell • a reduction of pest populations (for example, some up or supplement their income with off-farm work. environmental weeds have lower salinity thresholds The opportunities for such work, however, will be than indigenous vegetation) reduced if the region becomes more adversely • natural ‘irrigation’ of pastures and crops (this affected. Remaining farmers may be required is evident as patches of green grass during dry to expand their scale of operation to maintain summer periods) their financial status, or experience declining net • the conversion from unsustainable cropping to incomes. They may also be required to adopt sustainable grazing (for example using deep rooted more conservative land management practices and perennial pastures) enterprises to minimise fluctuations in net farm • production of aquaculture, betacarotene products, incomes, and to spend less on goods and services and salt (Tragowel Plains Sub-Regional Working Group 1989). • production of salt tolerant seeds, and The loss of dryland agricultural income may also • reduced production of subsidised commodities generate flow-on effects on the outputs, incomes (this is uncommon in Australia, but it is not and workforce of rural towns. Businesses supplying impossible—for example, some dairying). agricultural goods or services may suffer declining

22 PART ONE PART ONE 23 What are the costs? 1-5 The impact costs of dryland and urban salinity also include the cost of undertaking research or caused by both high saline watertables and saline extension programs. water supplies may be grouped into one or more 4 Increased operating costs. These relate to the of the following six categories. cost of using additional goods and services to 1 Repair and maintenance costs. These relate overcome the adverse impacts of saline water to the additional cost of maintaining assets in an supplies and high watertables. It may, for example, 1-5 undamaged state in saline areas. For example, relate to the need to replace industrial chemicals if the annual cost of maintaining a sports oval more frequently. increases from $20,000 to $25,000 due to salinity, 5 The value of income foregone. This relates to the repair and maintenance cost attributable to the reduction in net income to stakeholders salinity equals $5,000 per year. because of salinity. Most commonly, it involves 2 Costs from the reduced lifespan of agricultural production foregone on saline infrastructure. These relate to the cost of farmland, although it may also involve other replacing infrastructure earlier than normal areas, such as reductions in rates revenue to local because of damage caused by the wet and/or governments due to lower property values of saline conditions. For example, a council usually salinity-affected rural and urban properties. resurfaces sealed roads every 15 years, but must 6 Environmental and cultural heritage do this 5 years earlier in those areas affected by costs. These relate to the adverse impacts that salinity. This imposes an additional cost on the dryland and stream salinity have on the natural council and the community. environment and on cultural heritage. 3 Costs of taking preventative action. These In many cases, these costs will not occur relate to the additional amelioration costs incurred independently. For example, a high saline watertable by the community to minimise current and under a particular stretch of road may reduce the future problems. It may, for example, include time before major reconstruction is required, as well the up-front cost of purchasing rainwater tanks as increase the ongoing funds needed to maintain and pressure pumps, planting trees in recharge the road in an acceptable condition. areas, or installing sub-surface drainage. It may

Photo: Arthur Mostead

22 PART ONE PART ONE 23 Why value the costs 1-6 of dryland and urban salinity? The last decade has seen considerable improvements • Surveys consistently show that urban stakeholders in knowledge of the extent, severity and cost of generally have a low awareness of the nature of dryland salinity in rural areas. This improvement the urban salinity problem and how it may be has been associated with a dramatic increase in the impacting on them. level of public funds available from state and federal • Public works budgets for urban salinity budgets to address the salinity problems in these management are very small or non-existent. rural areas. • There is increasing concern from farming and In contrast, despite significant salinity problems environmental groups that the limited funds now emerging in the urban areas, knowledge of the available from rural and environmental funding 1-6 extent, severity and cost of the problem in these programs will be progressively diluted to pay for 2 areas has generally been in its infancy . This lack salinity management in the urban areas. of knowledge has caused a number of problems:

Improving knowledge of the full impacts and costs of salinity in both rural and urban areas will therefore serve three main purposes. • Collecting this information at the sub-catchment level will help catchment communities more accurately gauge the importance of salinity in their urban and rural areas and prepare their local action plans. It will also enhance their case for funding from various programs. • Collecting this information at the regional-level will help catchment communities prepare or refine their regional strategies. • Collecting this information at the Basin-wide level will help governments take a more strategic approach to policy development and on-ground investment on a broad or Basin-wide scale. Furthermore, improving knowledge of the extent, severity and cost of salinity in urban areas will dramatically enhance the case for boosting total funding available for urban salinity management.

To demonstrate the importance of collecting and urban salinity across the Basin. Specifically, the information on both the costs of salinity in both results indicate that the total current impact cost the urban and rural areas of a catchment, Table 3 across the Basin is approximately $304.73 million summarises the total annual costs that have been per annum, of which only 33 per cent is incurred quantified for each catchment in the Basin as part by dryland agricultural producers. Current impact of this project. It summarises for each stakeholder costs are greatest on households, commerce and group the current annual impact costs attributable industry, at around $142.78 million per annum to increased repair and maintenance expenditure, or 46 per cent of the total. This significant cost is increased construction costs, reduced infrastructure primarily due to the magnitude of costs imposed lifespan costs, increased operating costs and on these stakeholders from their use of saline town foregone income. water supplies. The results also confirm that in the Dryland salinity is often considered to be primarily majority of Basin catchments (20/26), it is the non- a ‘farm-level’ problem, resulting in a loss of farm agricultural stakeholders in rural and urban areas, income and capital value of farmland. However, and not dryland agricultural stakeholders, that make as the results show, it is the non-agricultural the greatest contribution to total ‘$ per ha per annum’ stakeholders, and not the dryland agricultural impact costs. producers, who bear the greatest costs from dryland

2 It is hoped the regional level reports produced as part of the Determining the full cost of dryland and urban salinity across the Murray- Darling Basin project will help raise community knowledge of urban salinity issues.

24 PART ONE PART ONE 25 Table 3 Total current annual impact costs of dryland and urban salinity to key stakeholders in the Murray-Darling Basin

Urban Dryland Environment & rural Commerce Local State govt agricultural & cultural households & industry governments agencies & producers heritage Catchment ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) utilities ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) Total ($/yr) Avoca 2,290,786 2,014,162 829,440 1,391,665 8,848,917 Identified 15,374,970 Benanee 62,300 9,525 3,588 3,871 688,442 but not 767,726 Border 1,903,350 1,634,555 357,521 355,209 1,361,856 valued 5,612,491 Broken 357,623 456,599 1,154,013 2,602,184 1,547,936 6,118,355 Campaspe 1,109,528 672,119 686,798 608,063 2,362,290 5,438,798 Castlereagh 398,702 209,295 43,115 263,065 522,515 1,436,692 Condamine- 8,764,262 8,849,124 104,598 216,060 1,664,324 19,598,368 Culgoa Darling 2,304,173 4,887,825 241,799 442,269 2,430,217 10,306,283 Goulburn 2,630,580 4,475,424 2,554,407 1,958,949 2,749,413 14,368,773 Gwydir 1,365,188 453,191 385,395 540,923 2,834,356 5,579,053 1-6 Kiewa 213,231 339,933 56,699 191,290 71,629 872,782 Lachlan 8,702,369 6,306,152 6,199,723 4,127,270 12,188,255 37,523,769 Lake George 43,591 4,252 69,798 89,113 185,409 392,163 Loddon 3,852,813 1,482,730 1,713,484 2,679,811 6,121,732 15,850,570 Lower Murray 3,784,561 2,323,555 321,191 849,090 8,953,866 16,232,263 Macquarie- 12,637,915 9,148,883 1,697,558 2,302,521 6,536,874 32,323,751 Bogan Mallee 2,812,575 3,636,074 785,802 1,518,070 10,753,007 19,505,528 Moonie 8,655 36,582 0 0 152,141 197,378 Murray 1,120,326 1,942,886 148,301 339,471 690,241 4,241,225 Riverina Murrumbidgee 14,338,561 7,837,204 9,299,565 4,100,075 9,339,283 44,914,688 Namoi 3,238,610 3,611,325 661,548 568,587 2,510,228 10,590,298 Ovens 374,838 1,206,538 499,695 422,583 373,475 2,877,129 Paroo 61,302 34,444 22,208 0 385,851 503,805 Upper Murray 41,135 33,921 20,309 59,263 407,978 562,606 Warrego 555,995 857,979 0 0 238,726 1,652,700 Wimmera 4,293,686 3,046,948 3,409,274 6,814,162 14,320,762 31,884,832 Avon Total 77,266,655 65,511,225 31,265,831 32,443,564 98,239,726 304,727,001

24 PART ONE PART ONE 25 How do these guidelines 1-7 assist local action planning? Local action plans are prepared at a catchment or There are several key steps involved in the local sub-catchment level to help catchment communities action planning process and these are summarised understand the major biophysical and socio- in Figure 2. Also shown in this diagram is how these economic processes occurring in the area, and to guidelines (prepared as part of the Determining identify the best solutions for addressing the natural the full cost of dryland and urban salinity across resource management issues confronting them. These the Murray-Darling Basin project), and three plans may cover an area from 10,000 hectares to over other MDBC funded projects, provide the tools to 2,000,000 hectares in the case of the Murray Mallee help catchment communities work through this Local Action Planning area in South Australia. planning process.

Readers interested in learning more about the related ‘Tools’ and ‘Catchment Classification’ projects should refer to www.ndsp.gov.au Similarly, the MDBC Discussion Paper entitled ‘Cost Sharing for On- 1-7 Ground Works’ (1996) can be obtained from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission ([email protected]). Readers interested in learning more about preparing natural resource management and local action plans at the sub-catchment, catchment or regional scale should consider reading the following documents: • Guide to Catchment Management Committees and Assessment Panels for preparing and assessing submissions for funding from the Natural Resources Management Strategy (MDBC 2001). • Natural resource management planning framework for the Murrumbidgee River catchment (see insert in the Murrumbidgee Catchment Action Plan) (Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Committee 1998). • Guidelines for review and renewal of action plans/sub-strategies to the regional catchment strategy (Victorian Dept of Natural Resources and Environment 2002). • Local action planning resource folder (South Australian Community Action for the Rural Environment Program 1997). • Guidelines for the preparation of salinity management plans (Victorian State Salinity Program 1988). • National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (2002). • Commonwealth-State Bilateral Agreements for the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.

A fully worked example of how the information • a full economic assessment of the impacts and arising from the ‘Tools’, ‘Catchment Classification’, costs of salinity across the Glenelg-Hopkins ‘Cost sharing’ and Determining the full cost of catchment over a 30-year ‘No-Plan’ scenario dryland and urban salinity across the Murray- • the likely public and private benefits and costs Darling Basin projects can be brought together of implementing a detailed 30-year program of to help work through the steps outlined in Figure on-ground works to address this problem 2 appear in a recent report by Wilson Land • a discussion of the sensitivity of the final Management Services and Ivey ATP (2002b). recommendations to changes in the underlying This report to the Glenelg-Hopkins Catchment assumptions, and Management Authority presents: • a discussion of implementation priorities and appropriate cost sharing arrangements.

26 PART ONE PART ONE 27 Figure 2: Key MDBC dryland projects and how they assist in local action planning Source: Modified from MDBC (1996)

1-7

26 PART ONE PART ONE 27 How do you assess the costs 1-8 of dryland and urban salinity?

This section introduces the issues involved in assessing the impacts and costs of dryland and urban salinity in a particular catchment. Full details on the range of techniques available to value the costs of dryland and urban salinity in a catchment appear in Part 2 of these guidelines.

There are a variety of approaches that can be used 4 What other useful information is available? to assess the impacts and costs of dryland and urban In many instances, access to supporting salinity, and each is associated with different levels of information will help identify those areas where accuracy (and hence cost). When deciding what mix efforts need to be focussed, or to improve the is most suitable, however, the catchment community accuracy of information previously compiled. must first work through the following check-list: While not an exhaustive list, the information 1 What information do you actually need? that may be particularly useful includes GIS For example, do you need information on the datasets or other maps showing the location impact costs of dryland to feed into a ‘No-Plan’ and distribution of: scenario, do you need information on the costs and • the catchment and sub-catchment boundaries benefits of implementing a range of ‘abatement’ • local government boundaries options as part of a ‘With-Plan’ scenario, or do you • current areas of dryland and urban need information on both? salinity outbreaks 1-9 2 What level of detail will meet your needs? • current areas of high watertables For example, do you only need an ‘order of • areas at risk of rising high watertables magnitude’ estimate of the cost of dryland and urban salinity in your catchment to help assess the • land use (dryland agricultural and urban/ relative importance of dryland and urban salinity industrial) to your community, or do you need more detailed • land capability information to make a specific investment decision? • current and predicted population 3 What relevant information is already available • urban centres and localities and what are the gaps? • dryland agricultural productivity Before launching into a study of the costs of • public utilities such as roads, bridges, railway dryland and urban salinity, it will be important to: lines and power lines • compile all relevant existing information • houses • assess how useful the information is • wetlands, streams and rivers (i.e. is it accurate and up-to-date), and • areas of high natural, historic or aboriginal • identify what information still needs to significance. be collected.

28 PART ONE PART ONE 29 1-9 References Key ‘Determining the full cost of dryland selected Victorian and NSW catchments: A and urban salinity across the Murray- methodology report, Report to the Murray-Darling Darling Basin’ project reports Basin Commission and National Dryland Salinity As part of the Determining the full cost of dryland Program, Canberra. and urban salinity across the Murray-Darling Basin Wilson, S.M. 2001a, Dryland salinity: What are project, many of the recommended methodologies the costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?: North contained in Part 2 of these guidelines have been Central Region, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin implemented. The end result is numerous regional- Commission and National Dryland Salinity Program, level reports that describe the current impacts Canberra. and costs of dryland and urban salinity to various Wilson, S.M. 2001b, Dryland salinity: What are the stakeholders, the environment and cultural heritage costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?: Goulburn- across all 26 catchments in the Murray-Darling Basin. Broken Region, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Two other reports have also been prepared that Commission and National Dryland Salinity Program, present ‘costs’ data for two trial catchments located Canberra. outside the Basin. Wilson, S.M. 2001c, Dryland salinity: What are These reports are listed below. If you would like to the costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?: Central access these reports, they are available on the NDSP West Region, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin website (www.ndsp.gov.au). Commission and National Dryland Salinity Program, 1-9 All reports were prepared in four distinct batches: Canberra. • Batch 1 reports present results for 10 catchments in Wilson, S.M. 2001d, Dryland salinity: What NSW and Victoria are the costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?: • Batch 2 reports present results for the 2 trial Murrumbidgee Region, Report to the Murray-Darling catchments located outside the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and National Dryland Salinity Basin Program, Canberra. • Batch 3 reports present results for the South Wilson, S.M, 2001e, Dryland salinity: What are the Australian catchments as well as the remaining costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?: Lachlan Victorian catchments that were not analysed in Region, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Batch 1 Commission and National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra. • Batch 4 reports present results for the Queensland catchments as well as the remaining NSW Pelikan, M.R.P. 2000. Cost of dryland salinity: GIS catchments that were not analysed in Batch 1. Methodology Paper, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. Batch 1: Study of dryland and urban salinity in the Batch 2: Trials outside Basin Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Central West, Goulburn-Broken and North Central Wilson Land Management Services and Ivey ATP Catchment Management Regions 2001a, Dryland salinity—What are the current impacts & costs in the Mount Pleasant sub-catchment Ivey ATP 2001, The cost of dryland salinity to of the River Torrens (SA)?, Report to the Murray- agricultural landholders in selected NSW and Darling Basin Commission and National Dryland Victorian catchments, Report to the Murray-Darling Salinity Program, Canberra. Basin Commission and National Dryland Salinity Program, Wellington, NSW. Wilson Land Management Services and Ivey ATP 2001b, Dryland salinity—What are the current Wilson, S.M. 2000, Assessing the cost of dryland impacts & costs in the Lower Fitzroy catchment?, salinity to non-agricultural stakeholders across

28 PART ONE PART ONE 29 Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and Wilson, S.M. 2002e, Dryland salinity —The current National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra. impacts & costs to non-agricultural stakeholders, the environment and cultural heritage: North East Batch 3: Study of dryland and urban salinity in the Region of Victoria, Report to the Murray-Darling remaining South Australian and Victorian Basin Commission and the National Dryland Salinity catchments Program, Canberra. Ivey ATP 2002a, The current cost of dryland salinity Batch 4: Study of dryland and urban salinity in to agricultural landholders: Upper Murray, Ovens, the remaining New South Wales and Kiewa, Mallee, Wimmera-Avon, Murray-Riverina, Queensland catchments and Lower Murray catchments, Report to the Murray- Ivey ATP, 2002b, The current cost of dryland salinity Darling Basin Commission and National Dryland to agricultural landholders: Benanee, Border, Salinity Program, Wellington, NSW. Condamine-Culgoa, Darling, Gwydir, Lake George, Wilson S.M. 2002b, Assessing the costs of dryland Moonie, Paroo and Warrego River Catchments, salinity to non-agricultural stakeholders, the Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and environment and cultural heritage in selected National Dryland Salinity Program, Wellington, NSW. catchments across the Murray-Darling Basin— Wilson, S.M. 2002f, Dryland salinity—The current Methodology report 2, Report to the Murray-Darling impacts & costs to non-agricultural stakeholders, the Basin Commission and the National Dryland Salinity environment and cultural heritage: Lower Murray- Program, Canberra. Darling and Western Regions, Report to the Murray- Darling Basin Commission and the National Dryland Wilson, S.M. 2002c, Dryland salinity—What are the Salinity Program, Canberra. impacts & costs to non-agricultural stakeholders, the Wilson, S.M. 2002g, Dryland salinity—The current environment and cultural heritage: SA portion of the impacts & costs to non-agricultural stakeholders, the Murray-Darling Basin, Report to the Murray-Darling environment and cultural heritage: Murray Region, Basin Commission and the National Dryland Salinity Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and 1-9 Program, Canberra. the National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra. Wilson, S.M. 2002d, Dryland salinity—What are the Wilson, S.M. 2002h, Dryland salinity—The current impacts & costs to non-agricultural stakeholders, the impacts & costs to non-agricultural stakeholders, environment and cultural heritage: Victorian Mallee the environment and cultural heritage: Gwydir, and Wimmera-Avon River catchments, Report to the Namoi and NSW Border Rivers Regions, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the National Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra. Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra.

Photo: Arthur Mostead

30 PART ONE PART ONE 31 Wilson, S.M. 2002i, Dryland salinity—The current Ivey-ATP 1998a, Determining the costs of dryland impacts & costs to non-agricultural stakeholders, salinity: Dryland salinity survey of the Talbragar and the environment and cultural heritage: Queensland Little River catchments—Central West NSW: Volume Portion of the Murray-Darling Basin, Report to the 1 of 5: Methodology, Report to the Murray-Darling Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the National Basin Commission, Wellington NSW. Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra. Ivey-ATP 1998b, Determining the costs of dryland salinity: Dryland salinity survey of the Talbragar and Saline water cost function study Little River catchments—Central West NSW: Volume 3 Wilson S.M. and Ivey-ATP 2002, Validation and of 5: Costs to the Little River catchment, Report to the refinement of the Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wellington NSW. saline water cost functions, Report to the Murray- Ivey-ATP 1998c, Determining the costs of dryland Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. salinity: Dryland salinity survey of the Talbragar and Final project report Little River catchments—Central West NSW: Volume Wilson S.M. 2003, Determining the full costs of 5 of 5: Detailed data for Background Report, Report dryland and urban salinity across the Murray- to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wellington Darling Basin, MDBC Project D9008, Final project NSW. report, A Wilson Land Management Services Pty Ltd Ivey-ATP 1998d, Determining the costs of dryland report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and salinity: Dryland salinity survey of the Talbragar and National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra. Little River catchments—Central West NSW: Volume 4 of 5: Background Report, Report to the Murray- MDBC dryland salinity report Darling Basin Commission, Wellington NSW. Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2003, Dryland and Ivey-ATP 1998e, Determining the costs of dryland urban salinity: An assessment of current impacts and salinity: Dryland salinity survey of the Talbragar and costs across the Murray-Darling Basin, Canberra. Little River catchments—Central West NSW: Volume 2 of 5: Costs to the Talbragar catchment, Report to the 1-9 Other sources Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wellington NSW. AACM 1996, Guide to cost-sharing for on-ground Ivey-ATP 1998f, Determining the costs of dryland works, Report the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, salinity: Dryland salinity survey of the Troy Creek Adelaide. catchment—Central West NSW, Report to Salt Action ABARE 1997, Guidelines for quantifying the costs of New South Wales, Wellington NSW. dryland salinity and high watertables, In-Confidence Lubulwa, M. 1997, Salinity and High Watertables ABARE report to the Murray-Darling Basin in the Loddon and Campaspe catchments: Costs to Commission, Canberra. urban households, ABARE report to the Murray- Cox, S.A. and Dillon, B.I. 1982, Summary on effects Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. of salinity on municipal and industrial consumers in Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 1996, Cost-sharing respect to the Murray River, South Australia. Stage II. for on-ground works: A discussion paper, Murray- The effect of salinity on domestic consumers, AMDEL Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. Progress Report No. 2. Murray-Darling Basin Commission 1997, Salt trends: Crabb, P. 1997, Murray-Darling Basin Resources, Historic trend in salt concentration and saltload of Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. streamflow in the Murray-Darling Drainage Division, Hall, N. and Watson, B. 1998, On-farm impacts of Dryland Technical Report No. 1, Canberra. acid, sodic and saline soils in the Loddon-Campaspe Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, 1999, catchment, Report to the Cooperative Research The salinity audit of the Murray-Darling Basin—A Centre for Soil and Land Management, Canberra. 100-year perspective, 1999, Murray-Darling Basin Hill, C.M. 1998, Assessing economic impacts of Commission, Canberra. salinity in rural and urban areas, In: Managing Powell, J. 1998, A principled approach to cost sharing saltland into the 21st Century: Dollars and sense from for urban salinity, paper presented at the Urban salt, Proceedings, 5th National PUR$L Conference, Salinity Conference, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Tamworth, NSW, 9–13th March, 1998 pp. 110–13. Wagga, 11th August.

30 PART ONE PART ONE 31 Salt Action 1997, Urban salinity—a threat to cultural Wilson Land Management Services and Ivey ATP heritage places, Dryland Salinity Information Sheet 2002, Cost of dryland salinity to the Glenelg-Hopkins SSC 03/97. Region, Report to the Glenelg-Hopkins Catchment Spennemann, D. 1997, Urban salinity as a threat to Management Authority. cultural heritage places, A primer on the processes Van Hilst, R. and Schuele, M. 1997, Salinity and high and effects of chloridation, Charles Sturt University, watertables in the Loddon and Campaspe catchments: Johnstone Centre of Parks, Recreation and Heritage, Costs to the environment, ABARE report to the Albury NSW. Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. Standing Committee on Conservation Task Force, Whish-Wilson, P. and Lubulwa, M. 1997, Salinity 2001, Implications of salinity for biodiversity and high watertables in the Loddon and Campaspe conservation and management, report prepared for catchments: Costs to local councils, government ANZECC. agencies and public utilities, ABARE report to the Streeting, M. and Hamilton, C. 1991, An economic Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. analysis of the forests of south-eastern Australia, Whish-Wilson, P. and Shafron, W. 1997, Salinity Resource Assessment Commission Research Paper and high watertables in the Loddon and Campaspe no. 5, AGPS, Canberra. catchments: Costs to farms and other businesses, Wilson, S.M. 1995, Draft guidelines for quantifying ABARE report to the Murray-Darling Basin the full range of costs of dryland salinity, ABARE Commission, Canberra. paper presented at a National Workshop on Dryland Young, D. and Mues, C, 1993, An evaluation of Salinity, Convened by ABARE and the Victorian water management strategies in the Barmah-Millewa Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Forest, ABARE paper presented at the 37th Annual Bendigo, Victoria, 21–23 June. Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics Society, University of Sydney, 9–11 February.

Photo: Arthur Mostead

32 PART ONE Part Two: Guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts

32 PART ONE Photo: Arthur Mostead 0

2-1

PART TWO 35 2-10 Introduction Part 2 provides detailed technical instructions on how • examine the current cost of dryland and urban to assess the impacts and costs of dryland and urban salinity to the various stakeholder groups in a salinity in a catchment. It is assumed the reader is particular catchment or sub-catchment; conversant with the material presented in Part 1 • assess how these costs are likely to change over before working through this Part. time under a ‘No-Plan’ scenario; Originally, the project focused on presenting • assess the expected public and private costs and methods that could be used to assess the current benefits associated with implementing a large impact costs of dryland and urban salinity in the program of salinity remedial projects across this Murray-Darling Basin. However, catchment groups area; and also require information on how these impact costs • formulate equitable cost sharing frameworks. may change from this base level over time. Salinity damage cost functions are also needed to enhance This part also provides information on how the quality and consistency of cost estimates where to assess the cost of undertaking preventative community awareness of the extent and severity of works or actions. As noted in Part 1, ‘abatement’ dryland and urban salinity was low and/or where or ‘preventative’ costs can include the cost of only a relatively low cost approach was required. purchasing rainwater tanks, installing sub-surface drainage, and the cost of using higher specification To address these needs, salinity cost information materials during the construction of infrastructure has also been expressed on a marginal or ‘$ per so that it is more tolerant of the wet and unit’ basis. This information can then be used by saline conditions. catchment groups and others to: 2-1 Part 2 is presented in 6 sections. recommended that the checklist included These sections should be worked through in in Section 3 be completed prior to working order to estimate the impacts and costs of through this section. dryland and urban salinity in a catchment • Section 5 presents a discussion of how to or other local action planning area. prepare for and conduct a survey or census • Section 2 describes how to identify the of stakeholders who may be affected by broad nature of the dryland and/or urban dryland and/or urban salinity. salinity problem in the study area. • Section 6 presents a proforma that can • Section 3 presents a checklist that will help be used to summarise the cost estimates clarify which stakeholder groups are affected compiled after working through the previous by dryland and/or urban salinity in the area sections. It also highlights where readers and hence which parts of Section 4 are may obtain detailed information on the full relevant. For example, if after completing the impacts and costs of dryland and/or urban checklist it is apparent that no town centres salinity to dryland agricultural and non- in the area under investigation are either agricultural stakeholders, the environment affected by urban salinity or at risk, then the and cultural heritage that have been parts of Section 4 dealing with salinity costs compiled for all towns and catchments in the in urban town centres can be ignored. Murray-Darling Basin. • Section 4 presents the detailed instructions • Section 7 highlights key issues that should needed to estimate the impact and cost be considered when analysing the salinity of dryland and/or urban salinity to each cost data compiled for a local action planning stakeholder group, the environment and area and when feeding the information into cultural heritage in an area. It is strongly the local action planning process.

PART TWO 35 Identifying the nature 2-2 of the salinity problem 0 One of the first steps that should be undertaken 1. Salinity outbreaks in the rural areas when assessing the impacts and costs of dryland and 2. Saline town water supplies urban salinity in a particular area is to identify the 3. High saline watertables in the urban areas general nature of the problem. As noted in Part 1, the problem may take the following forms: In many instances, a combination of one or more of the above forms is likely to occur in the area being studied.

2-3

Photo: Arthur Mostead

36 PART TWO PART TWO 37 2-30 Identifying the affected stakeholders 3.1 Introduction • Is it just the stakeholders located in the rural As noted in Part 1, the three forms of dryland areas of the catchment (e.g. rural householders, and urban salinity summarised above may impose a local governments, farmers, state agencies and variety of impacts on various dryland agricultural and utilities with infrastructure in the rural areas, non-agricultural stakeholder groups, the environment the natural environment and any rural sites of and cultural heritage across an area. These adverse cultural significance)? impacts may be incurred within the local action • Is it just the stakeholders in the urban town plan area being investigated, or downstream from centres (e.g. urban households, urban commercial, the area. retail and industrial businesses, local governments, When preparing a local action plan, it will rarely be state agencies and utilities with infrastructure in practical or economically viable to identify and value the urban areas, and any urban sites of cultural all impacts on the various stakeholder groups. At significance)? some point, it is likely that the cost of obtaining the • Is it just the downstream agricultural, industrial detailed information will exceed the benefits gained and/or domestic water users? for the purposes of decision-making. Rather, what • Is it a combination of two or more of will be more important will be to first identify the these options? main stakeholders either currently affected, or likely The next step as described in Part 1 is to identify to become affected, by the various forms of dryland the likely change in salinity costs to each of and urban salinity listed above. For example: these stakeholder groups over time under a ‘No- Plan’ scenario.

The proforma on the next page can help to identify the main impacts of dryland and urban salinity on stakeholders. Once completed, the information will: • act as a checklist for the main impacts that should be assessed (or at least considered) as part of the local action planning process (see section 4), and • help identify the likely beneficiaries arising from the implementation of a local action plan. These 2-3 beneficiaries can then be accounted for when transparent cost-sharing arrangements based on a ‘Beneficiary Pays’ principle are being developed.

36 PART TWO PART TWO 37 3.2 Proforma for identifying the stakeholders affected by dryland and urban salinity

Instructions After defining the boundary of your local action planning (LAP) area, use the following checklist to identify which parts of Section 4 must be worked through to estimate the likely impacts and costs of dryland and urban salinity to dryland agricultural and non-agricultural stakeholders, the environment and cultural heritage over time.

2-3

38 PART TWO PART TWO 39 3.3 Unsure whether urban salinity is a town believed to be experiencing very slight, slight, problem in your LAP area? moderate and severe urban salinity. In recent years, considerable work has been As noted in Part 1, this database was compiled as undertaken by researchers to map the extent of part of this project with the assistance of numerous dryland salinity in the rural areas of the Murray- state agency staff and catchment representatives Darling Basin. Unfortunately, awareness of the across the Basin, and through actual on-ground worsening salinity problem in our urban areas is far inspections of over eighty Victorian towns. In each less developed. of the towns inspected, the key visible indicators Part 1 of these Guidelines highlighted that high saline used were visible salt scalding, bare patches, and watertables in urban town centres may impose costs the presence of spiny rush both in the drainage on the various stakeholders in these towns, as well lines as well on the higher ground. Other indicators as on the urban environment and sites of cultural were visible damage to building structures and significance. It also highlighted that while land use foundations, damage to sports grounds and other in the urban centre may contribute to these urban open spaces, and damage to other infrastructure salinity problems, the problems are frequently caused (including roads, bridges, kerbs, footpaths and by land use in the surrounding rural areas. When drainage lines). formulating a local action plan to address salinity in a This database should provide a useful initial particular catchment, it will therefore be essential to: checklist of whether any towns in your area are • identify the current extent and severity of urban currently subject to urban salinity, and the extent and salinity in this area severity of any impacts. However, as this database presents preliminary information only, it is strongly • predict how the extent and severity of urban recommended that further work be conducted to salinity in this area is likely to change under a ‘No- obtain more definitive data. This work could involve: Plan’ scenario • identifying whether local governments or state • identify the cause of the salinity problem in each government agencies responsible for natural urban centre either currently affected or at risk, and resource management have compiled any more • identify a range of ‘best-bet’ management detailed information on urban salinity in your area options to address the problem (this may include • implementing a groundwater monitoring program implementing a mix of on-ground works to reduce in the towns either affected or at risk, and groundwater recharge in both the affected urban centre and in the surrounding rural areas). • conducting a detailed on-ground inspection of salinity affected towns to obtain more accurate Presented in Attachment A is an initial database of information on the infrastructure and sites affected 220 rural towns and cities located in the Murray- by high saline watertables and the severity of Darling Basin currently subject to urban salinity. these impacts. 2-3 It shows a breakdown of the percentage of each

Photo: Arthur Mostead

38 PART TWO PART TWO 39 Valuing the costs of 2-4 dryland and urban salinity 4.1 Introduction 4.2.1 Background The purpose of this Section is to provide guidance The impact of dryland salinity and saline water on how to assess the impacts and costs of dryland supplies on dryland agricultural producers may and urban salinity to the various stakeholder include productivity losses resulting in foregone groups identified in the previous checklist. It is income, increased repairs and maintenance to not intended to represent an inflexible set of ‘how infrastructure, increased cost of new infrastructure, to do it’ instructions. Rather, it describes a range reduced lifespan of infrastructure, and increased of approaches for assessing these costs — each operating costs. of which are associated with different levels of Dryland agricultural producers may also experience detail and accuracy. As noted in Part 1, catchment significant costs implementing preventative works communities will need to work through the following to minimise current and future salinity problems. checklist before deciding what approach, or level This may, for example, include the up-front cost of of detail, may best meet their needs when assessing purchasing rainwater tanks and pressure pumps, these impacts and costs: planting trees or deep-rooted perennial pasture in 1 What information do we actually need? recharge areas, or installing sub-surface drainage to 2 What level of detail will meet our needs? minimise damage. 3 What information is already available and Climatic conditions and dryland agricultural what are the gaps? production throughout the Murray-Darling Basin varies significantly, as does the resulting dryland 4 What other useful information is available? salinity impacts in a given region. Therefore, Note: Once any costs of salinity have been considerable groundwork may be necessary to assess quantified, any information published or the impacts and costs of high saline watertables and disseminated should not enable the reader to identify saline water supplies across a catchment or region. costs specific to any one individual or individual The purpose of this Section is to present methods for organisation (including individual local councils). estimating these costs at a catchment level. Rather, costs should be presented at an aggregated level that ensures confidentiality. 4.2.2 Conduct a survey of dryland agricultural producers 4.2 Dryland agricultural producers Conducting a survey of dryland agricultural producers within the catchment being studied is a Dryland salinity can affect dryland agricultural very effective method of obtaining information. This 2-4 producers in several ways. High saline watertables approach may involve surveying every producer, may reduce crop and pasture production and cause or a random number of producers, depending on damage to fences, yards, buildings and roads. Saline the size of the area being considered, the depth of water supplies may cause damage to water pumps, information required, and the resources available. water tanks and supply systems, water troughs, and Combined with knowledge from local experts, irrigated pasture or crops. producer surveys also provide an excellent view • Work through this Section if you noted in your of producer perceptions and awareness of dryland checklist in Section 3.2 that there are rural areas salinity and associated costs in the area. in your study area currently affected by dryland The survey method, while relying on each individual salinity, or are at risk. producer’s perception of the problem, is effective in estimating salinity costs to dryland agricultural producers, if conducted correctly.

40 PART TWO PART TWO 41 An example questionnaire that can be used to assess 4.2.3 Enhance accuracy of survey results the current nature and costs of salinity to dryland It is difficult for producers to distinguish the agricultural producers is presented in Attachment B. proportion of total costs attributable to dryland This questionnaire helps to collect information on salinity, and is one of the main limitations of using each producer’s perception of: surveys to collect this information. Every producer • the area of dryland salinity and high watertables on varies in their understanding and awareness of their property dryland salinity impacts and associated costs. While • the severity of dryland salinity and high watertables many producers are aware that salinity is causing on their property damage to some of their infrastructure, many cannot accurately quantify these additional costs. Where • the type of land affected possible, surveys should encourage producers to • reductions in crop and pasture production and determine the increase in costs due to dryland hence foregone income salinity as a percentage or component of total costs. • components of their farm, household and other For example: a property has 5 km of road, of which property affected four kilometres are unaffected by salinity and cost • the impact on both stock and domestic supplies $150 per kilometre to maintain. One kilometre • structural damage to houses is affected by dryland salinity and costs $200 to • damage to farm roads and tracks maintain. Therefore, the increased repair and maintenance cost of roads as a result of dryland • additional expenditure on repair and salinity is $50 per annum, not the total maintenance maintenance activities cost of $200 per annum. • increased construction costs Another problem is that dryland salinity damage to • amount spent on salinity-related preventative infrastructure and land is often insidious in nature, works, and and either not recognised, or attributed to other • the cost of shortened lifespan of salinity-affected causes. This problem is multiplied when salinity is infrastructure. only an emerging problem or community awareness This type of survey requires a reasonable level is low. For example, many factors may contribute to of detail. To achieve a good response rate, a poor pasture establishment in an area of a paddock, meeting with either individual producer or group of making it difficult for the producer to recognise that producers is usually necessary. high, saline watertables is a factor, unless electrical conductivity readings or soil testing are undertaken. The individual interview ensures accurate completion of surveys, with the interviewer being able to clarify Once a survey of affected producers is complete, it sections of the survey where necessary. Time and will be highly beneficial to enhance the accuracy of expense is the main drawback for conducting the results by combining the survey information with individual surveys, compared with a group meeting, more reliable and objective information obtained where many surveys can be filled in accurately from other sources. GIS information showing the at once. current (and predicted future) areas subject to 2-4 dryland salinity is particularly useful for validating Group meetings are more difficult to organise, producer perceptions of the location of salinity and require greater explanation on the type of outbreaks in the study area. information required. There is also a likelihood that some surveys, or sections of surveys will not be filled As the cost of salinity is normally calculated on in correctly. It is easier to conduct a meeting of this an annual basis, the majority of cost information nature if producers receive the survey in advance, in collected should be for an average 12-month period. order to think about their answers. However, preventative works costs and other increased infrastructure costs that result from dryland A more detailed description of how to conduct a salinity or saline water supplies are often intermittent, census or survey of producers and other stakeholder such as tree planting or water tank installation. groups is presented in Section 5. Hence surveys should request information on costs experienced over a three or five year period, which are then averaged to give an annual figure.

40 PART TWO PART TWO 41 4.2.4 Calculating Foregone One method of estimating Production Loss of salt- Dryland Agricultural Income affected land is by assigning an estimated value of High saline watertables impact on the production agricultural production ($/ha/year) to each land of crops and pastures resulting in foregone dryland classification, and then subtractingCurrent Gross agricultural income through either reduced crop Margin from Potential Gross Margin. This approach yield, or reduced livestock production. There are is demonstrated in the following example where the several ways to calculate the cost of lost production assumed gross margins were: in affected areas. Two methods that have been used Dryland pasture, $140 / ha / year while trialling these Guidelines across the Murray- occasional cropping Darling Basin are outlined below. Dryland pasture $120 / ha / year Reduced Land Capability Limited grazing $50 / ha / year By obtaining information on both current and Tree lot $30 / ha / year potential land capability of salt-affected areas, it is possible to estimate the production loss caused by salinity. The land capability codes used in the producer surveys were:

Irrigated pasture or Good dryland cropping cropping and pasture Irrigated horticulture Dryland pasture with occasional cropping Dryland horticulture Dryland pasture with no cropping Prime dryland cropping Limited grazing No agricultural value Tree lot or regeneration area

Producer: Bill Smith

Affected paddock Top paddock Bottom paddock House paddock

Saline Area (Ha) 0.5 36.0 2.0

Dryland pasture, Potential land capability Dryland pasture Dryland pasture Occasional cropping

Current land capability Limited grazing Dryland pasture Tree lot 2-4 Salt scald, poor pasture Typical symptoms Bare ground, barley grass species and poor growth

Potential Gross Margin 120 140 120 ($/ha/yr)

Current Gross Margin ($/ 50 120 30 ha/yr)

Loss ($/ha/yr) 70 20 90

Total loss ($/yr) 35 720 180

These figures can be altered to suit different regions or catchments.Total Loss is calculated by multiplying the Loss ($/ha/yr) by the Area (Ha) affected.

42 PART TWO PART TWO 43 Percentage of production potential An alternative to comparing current and potential production is to ask producers to estimate the reduced productivity of salt-affected areas as a percentage, compared to production potential. Production Loss (per hectare) is calculated by multiplying Potential Gross Margin of an area by the % Production Loss, as shown below.

Producer: John Citizen

Affected paddock or area Hill paddock Flat paddock River paddock

Area (Ha) 3 10 15

Dryland pasture, Potential land capability Dryland pasture Dryland pasture Occasional cropping

Production Loss (%) 20% 75% 50%

salt scald, poor pasture poor pasture Typical symptoms change in pasture species species and poor growth species and poor growth

Potential Gross Margin 120 140 120 ($/ha/yr)

Loss/ha ($/ha/yr) 24 105 60

Total loss ($/yr) 72 1,050 900

4.2.5 Calculating Loss on a Catchment Scale Benchmarks To determine the cost of salinity across a large The cost of salinity to the dryland agricultural dryland area, it is usually not feasible to survey every producers surveyed were subdivided into the producer. Therefore, it is necessary to extrapolate the following six categories: cost from a survey sample. 1 Increased repairs and maintenance. To conduct a large-scale study of salinity costs to 2 Increased cost of new infrastructure. dryland producers, data may be obtained from state 3 Reduced lifespan of infrastructure. agencies, local governments and regional water 4 Increased operating costs. authorities, and by utilising the latest Geographic Information System (GIS) datasets available. 5 Foregone income from agricultural land. The following notes describe the methodology used 6 Cost of preventative works. to quantify the costs of dryland salinity in selected These costs can be further sub-divided into two Local Government Areas (LGAs) throughout the categories depending on whether they were caused Murray-Darling Basin. As well as producing an by (a) high saline watertables or (b) saline water estimate of the total salinity costs, the extrapolation supplies. Within these two categories, some costs process provided a breakdown of those costs are associated with general farm production, while 2-4 associated with saline water supplies and those others are more closely related to the livestock associated with high saline watertables. Each of these infrastructure such as fences, stockyards and water cost centres have been further dissected into the six troughs. Table 1 shows how impact and preventative cost components detailed in the following section. works costs collected in surveys were quantified into the following four categories: A Cost of surface salinity associated with the level of dryland agricultural production. B Cost of surface salinity associated with the level of livestock infrastructure (livestock DSE). C Cost of saline water supplies associated with the level of dryland agricultural production. D Cost of saline water supplies associated with the level of livestock infrastructure (livestock DSE).

42 PART TWO PART TWO 43 Table 1. Breakdown of dryland agricultural impact and preventative work cost categories

Cause: Surface Salinity Saline Water Supplies

Extrapolation Livestock DSE Production Livestock DSE Production Means:

Cost Item (A) (B) (C) (D)

Repairs and Vehicles, machinery, Fencing and Drainage systems Water supply systems maintenance tree replacement, stockyards household items.

Infrastructure costs Roads, earthworks Fencing and Drainage systems Water supply systems stockyards

Preventative works Trees, erosion Perennial pasture Water purification, Water supply systems controls, fencing, groundwater drainage, bores monitoring

Reduced lifespan of 75% of total cost 25% of total cost infrastructure

Increased operating Maintaining trees and Soap use, heating, costs gardens pumping, water purification, air conditioning

Foregone income 100% of loss

The above cost components, when assessed on from the benchmark study were then extrapolated a per hectare basis, were used as indices in the across each LGA, taking into account the relative determination of surface salinity and saline difference in salinity areas. For example, if a LGA groundwater costs within each LGA, as shown below. has twice the area of dryland salinity as the surveyed To extrapolate salinity costs in each LGA from the area, then (all other things being equal) twice the results of surveyed producers, it is necessary not only cost recorded in the survey areas would be expected to account for the areas of land affected by salinity, for that LGA. but also to apply adjustments or weighting factors Extrapolation by Relative to the benchmark catchments. These adjustment EC Levels of the Groundwater factors were to account for variations in the The level of damage to some assets is largely following parameters: dependent on the salt content of the groundwater. • Area of known dryland salinity. For example, water with lower dissolved salts • Level of salinity in groundwater. generally has less impact on water supply • Intensity of infrastructure (number of sheds, fences, infrastructure compared with water of higher salt yards and tanks). content. Therefore, the extrapolation process was 2-4 • Intensity of agricultural production (Gross Value of used to multiply the cost recorded in the surveyed Agricultural Output per hectare). areas by a factor representing the relative salinity level of groundwater in the subject catchment. The method by which each of these factors was Only costs caused by saline water supplies were applied to adjust the benchmarks during the trialling treated in this way. For example, if a catchment has of these Guidelines across the Murray-Darling Basin groundwater with twice the salinity levels of the is described below. surveyed area, then (all other things being equal) Area of Dryland Salinity twice the cost recorded in the survey areas would The area of known dryland salinity in each LGA is be expected. critical for calculating accurate salinity costs. While This approach assumes that there is a linear trialling these Guidelines, the known areas of dryland relationship between salinity levels and impact costs. salinity in each LGA of the Murray-Darling Basin In reality, it is likely that high salinity levels will result were identified from GIS data provided by several in a stepped or threshold response from farmers. state agencies. The relevant dryland salinity costs For example, once the salinity level of the water

44 PART TWO PART TWO 45 supply reaches a critical level, producers may change a higher GVAO per hectare will experience on to more salt resistant equipment, or alternatively, average, more foregone income from each hectare the water may not be of adequate quality for use. of land affected by salinity. It will also have more More detailed studies could be conducted in each infrastructure per hectare that could be affected by area to obtain better information on the current dryland salinity, compared with a less productive costs of saline water supplies at particular levels of land area with a lower GVAO per hectare. salinity. However, the costs of this more detailed Livestock Intensity work should outweigh the benefits resulting from the improvements to the information obtained. The GVAO is used to extrapolate most dryland salinity costs experienced by producers. However, General Intensity of Production this measure is limited in its ability to extrapolate the The effect that a given area of dryland salinity cost of damage to livestock infrastructure. An area or high saline watertables has on costs or loss of with a large proportion of cropping and relatively production depends largely on the general intensity little livestock would result in an inflated estimate of the area’s agricultural production. For example, a of damage to livestock infrastructure if the GVAO hectare of surface salinity in a high rainfall cropping were used to extrapolate the results from the survey area is likely to result in a greater loss of income area results. ($ per hectare) than the same area of salinity in Therefore, livestock numbers in each LGA were used low rainfall rangelands. Similarly, 10,000 hectares to reflect the degree of livestock infrastructure within of rangelands, with a low stocking density is likely that LGA. The number of livestock in a SLA was to consist of larger properties and relatively low drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) levels of infrastructure (such as sheds and fences). Integrated Regional Database (IRDB). To aggregate In contrast, a large number of smaller properties different types of livestock, their estimated feed occupying 10,000 hectares of more intensively requirements were summed in terms of Dry Sheep stocked land, will have smaller paddocks, more Equivalents (DSE). Each type of livestock was given fencing per hectare and more infrastructure per a DSE rating (DSE per head) and the total DSE for hectare. Consequently, the damage to infrastructure a SLA was summed. Therefore, it was assumed that is also expected to be greater. livestock infrastructure within an area is proportional While trialling these Guidelines, the intensity of to livestock intensity (DSE per hectare). This provides agricultural production within a LGA was calculated a method of comparing the relative amount of with reference to the Gross Value of Agricultural livestock infrastructure that may be affected by Output (GVAO) statistics published by the Australian dryland salinity in a given area. Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The GVAO takes into The following section shows how the cost of salinity account the entire value of commercial agricultural for a given dryland area can be extrapolated using production that occurs within a Statistical Local cost information collected using surveys or other Area (SLA). A more intensive agricultural area with intensive methods.

2-4

Photo: Arthur Mostead

44 PART TWO PART TWO 45 Extrapolation of dryland salinity costs C. Cost Items Extrapolated The cost of dryland salinity within a catchment area from Groundwater EC and GVAO can be quantified by extrapolation, based on the Cost C(z = Cost C(s)x[GW(z)/GW(s)]x[TGVAO(z)/ following mathematical equations. The sum of items TGVAO(s)] A-D is equal to the total salinity costs of a given Where catchment area (Z). Cost C(z) = Cost of item in Catchment Area Z ($). Refer to Table 1 to determine which of the following Cost C = Cost of item to the surveyed areas ($). equations are used for the various cost items. (s) GW (z) = Average groundwater EC of Catchment A. Cost Items Extrapolated Area Z. from Salinity Effect and GVAO GW (s) = Average groundwater EC in the

Cost A(z) = Cost A(s) x[Area(z)/Area(s)]x[GVAO(z)/ surveyed areas. GVAO ] (s) TGVAO (z) = Total GVAO in Catchment Area Z ($) Where TGVAO (s) = Total GVAO in the surveyed areas

Cost A(z) = Cost of item in Catchment Area Z ($). ($). Cost A = Cost of item to the surveyed areas ($). (s) D. Cost Items Extrapolated from

Area (z) = Salinity effect in Catchment Area Z (ha). Groundwater EC and DSE Area = Salinity effect in surveyed areas (ha). (s) Cost D(z) = Cost D(s)x[GW(z)/GW(s)]x[TDSE(z)/TDSE(s)]

GVAO (z) = GVAO in Catchment Area Z ($/ha) Where

GVAO (s) = GVAO in the surveyed areas ($/ha). Cost D(z) = Cost of item in Catchment Area Z ($). B. Cost Items Extrapolated Cost D(s) = Cost of item to the surveyed areas ($). from Salinity Effect and DSE GW (z) = Average groundwater EC of Catchment Area Z. Cost B(z) = Cost B(s)x[Area(z)/Area(s)]x[DSE(z)/DSE(s)] Where GW (s) = Average groundwater EC in the surveyed areas. Cost B(z) = Cost of item in Catchment Area Z ($). TDSE (z) = Total livestock in Catchment Area Z Cost B = Cost of item to the surveyed areas ($). (s) (DSE). Area = Salinity effect in Catchment Area Z (ha). (z) TDSE (s) = Total livestock in surveyed areas (DSE). Area = Salinity effect in surveyed areas (ha). (s) Therefore the total of all the dryland salinity DSE = Livestock intensity in Catchment Area Z (z) costs = Cost A + Cost B + Cost C + Cost D (DSE/ha). (z) (z) (z) (z) DSE (s) = Livestock intensity in surveyed areas (DSE /ha).

Presented in Table 2 is a summary of salinity These cost functions should only be used to obtain 2-4 cost functions calculated for dryland agricultural a preliminary estimate of agricultural dryland salinity producers, based on detailed surveys of landholders costs in a catchment or where no direct survey can in the Talbragar, Little River, Glenaroua, Guildford, be justified. These cost functions should be used in Harnham, Holbrook, Molly Tatong, Nullamanna, conjunction with the information provided in Table Sutton and Sea Lake catchments. The figures are 1 and the preceding text, to ensure that the annual derived by substituting (for each type of annual cost) costs are categorised properly and extrapolated using the costs and other parameters in our surveyed areas, the correct function(s) from the four choices (A–D). into the equations on the previous page.

46 PART TWO PART TWO 47 Table 2. Salinity cost functions for dryland agricultural producers

Surface Salinity Saline Water Supplies

Production Livestock Production Livestock $ per salt area $ per salt area $ per EC unit $ per EC unit (ha) per GVAO (ha) per livestock (µS/cm) per (µS/cm) per ($/ha) per intensity (DSE/ total GVAO ($m) 100,000 DSE per annum ha) per annum per annum annum Annual Costs (A) (B) (C) (D)

Repairs and maintenance 0.60 12.32 0.19 3.91

Increased Cost of New Infrastructure 0.38 10.14 0.06 1.65

Preventative Works 2.46 10.97 0.18 0.45

Reduced Lifespan of Infrastructure 0.01 4.57 - 0.09

Increased Operating Costs < 0.01 - 0.27 -

Foregone Income 1.25 - - -

Total Annual Costs 4.71 38.00 0.70 6.11

2-4

Photo: Arthur Mostead

46 PART TWO PART TWO 47 Worked example 1

In order to calculate the costs of surface salinity (Parts A & B) to a particular cost category (for example Repairs and Maintenance) in a given area using the cost functions in Table 2, it is necessary to know the salt area (ha), the GVAO ($/ha) and the livestock intensity (dse/ha). To calculate the costs arising from saline water supplies (Parts C & D) it is necessary to know the EC units (µS/cm), the total GVAO ($m) and the total DSE (in 100,000’s). In the case of the Severn LGA located in the Basin, our survey showed that the salt area was approximately 355ha, the GVAO per hectare $106, the livestock intensity 7.71 dse/ha, the EC of the water 770µS/cm, the total GVAO $28 million and the total DSE approximately 2,030,000. Therefore the annual total costs to dryland agricultural producers for repairs and maintenance in the Severn LGA was estimated by summing each of the components below: A. Cost Function: $0.60 per salt area (ha) per GVAO ($/ha) Salt Area: 355 ha GVAO: $106/ha Cost: 0.60 x 355 x 106 = $22,580 B. Cost Function: $12.32 per salt area (ha) per livestock intensity (DSE/ha) Salt Area: 355 ha livestock intensity: 7.71 dse/ha Cost: 12.32 x 355 x 7.71 = $33,720 C. Cost Function: $0.19 per EC unit (µS/cm) per total GVAO ($m) EC of water: 770 µS/cm TGVAO: $28m Cost: 0.19 x 770 x 28 = $4,100 D. Cost Function: $3.91 per EC unit (µS/cm) per total 100,000 DSE EC of water: 770 (µS/cm) Total DSE: 2,030,000 Cost: 3.91 x 770 x 20.3 = $61,120 Therefore the total annual cost for repairs and maintenance to dryland agricultural producers in the Severn LGA was estimated equal to: $22,580 + $33,720 + $4,100 + $61,120 = $121,520 To calculate the overall annual costs to dryland agricultural producers in the LGA the same steps should be repeated, but using the total cost functions on the bottom line of Table 2.

4.3 Rural and urban households With these limitations in mind, the suggested approach for estimating the cost of high saline 4.3.1 Background watertables to rural and urban households is outlined Survey-based approaches generally provide below (Details for estimating saline water costs unreliable estimates of the cost of high saline appears in Section 4.4). watertables to urban and rural households for two 2-4 main reasons: • Work through Section 4.3.2 if you noted in • Most householders have a low awareness of the your checklist that there are rural areas in nature and cost of salinity impacts. your study area currently affected by dryland • Most householders demonstrate a poor ability salinity, or are at risk. to separate costs caused by salinity and high • Work through Section 4.3.3 if you noted watertables from those caused by other factors in your checklist that there are towns or (Ivey 1988). cities in your study area suffering urban salinity problems, or are at risk (refer back to section 3.3 if you are unsure).

48 PART TWO PART TWO 49 4.3.2 Rural households • Houses displaying slight or moderate impacts are The number of rural households affected by high paying or accumulating around $250 per annum saline watertables in an area can be estimated using in repair and maintenance costs to the house the following approach. and garden. First, draw on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) • Houses displaying severe impacts require one- household census or local government data to off remedial house and garden works costing identify the total number of rural households approximately $10,000 to $20,000. The average located in each Statistical Local Area (SLA) or Local remedial cost of $15,000 is equivalent to an average Government Area (LGA). annuity of $2,135 per household per annum (based on a 7% pa discount rate and an effective lifespan Second, draw on GIS datasets to identify the of 10 years). percentage of each SLA or LGA located within the study area, the percentage of each affected by Shown in Table 3 is a summary of the dryland salinity, and if possible, the proportion assumed salinity damage costs imposed on affected by very slight, slight, moderate and severe affected households. salinity. The digitised GIS datasets that can be used to help in this process are: Table 3. Household salinity damage cost functions • areas currently affected by severe, moderate, slight Damage cost and very slight dryland salinity Salinity class ($/household/yr) • areas predicted to be affected by high saline No impact 0 watertables in 2020, 2050 or 2100 Very slight impact 75 • Statistical Local Area and Local Government Area boundaries, and Slight to moderate impact 250 • the boundaries of your study area. Severe impact 2,135

Based on the assumption that rural households are These cost functions are based on detailed studies evenly distributed across the study area, it is then of household salinity costs in the City of Wagga possible to draw on the information derived in the Wagga, NSW. While the actual impact costs may be two previous steps to estimate: influenced by a variety of factors (such as building • the percentage of rural households currently materials used, size and location of property), affected by very slight, slight, moderate and severe there are two main reasons why seeking a more high saline watertable problems (and at risk); accurate estimate of costs to individual houses is not and hence recommended for the majority of areas: • the approximate number currently affected by • First, the marginal costs of collecting more detailed very slight, slight, moderate and severe high saline estimates are likely to be very high. watertable problems (and at risk) in each SLA or • Second, the marginal benefits of collecting more LGA across the catchment. detailed estimates are likely to be low as the 2-4 Once the number of rural households affected have implementation of these Guidelines across the been estimated, the cost of this damage can then be Murray-Darling Basin has shown that high saline obtained by applying the following assumptions: watertable damage to households generally represents only a small proportion of total costs in • Houses displaying no salinity impacts are a catchment. accumulating no additional repair and maintenance costs to the house and garden. If you have access to more detailed costings • Houses displaying very slight salinity impacts are prepared for households in your particular catchment paying or accumulating $75 per annum in repair or area, then these updated figures should be used. and maintenance costs to the house and garden.

48 PART TWO PART TWO 49 Worked example 2

While trialling these Guidelines in the Avoca catchment of Victoria, the methodology described above was used to estimate the number of rural households currently subject to the four classes of salinity damage.

Local Government Total Rural Areasa Householdsb Rural Households Affected By Salinityc Total Costd

(No.) Very Slight Slight (No.) Moderate Severe (No.) ($/yr) (No.) (No.)

Avoca River catchment

Buloke 1,444 41 1 1 8 20,655

Central Goldfields 378 39 3 3 7 19,370

Gannawarra 2,176 0 2 3 8 18,330

Loddon 517 11 3 2 41 89,610

Mildura 80 4 0 1 1 2,685

Northern Grampians 761 24 10 9 65 145,325

Pyrenees 674 25 11 7 51 115,260

Swan Hill 6156 152 1 2 31 78,335

Yarriambiack 6 1 0 0 0 75

Total 297 31 28 212 489,645

a: Only Local Government Areas with salinity-affected rural households are listed. b: Rural households contained within the boundaries of each LGA but outside the boundaries of the Avoca catchment are excluded. c: The no. of households affected by each salinity class was estimated by multiplying the total no. of rural households for each LGA (Column 2) by the percentage of each LGA affected by very slight, slight, moderate or severe high saline watertables (Attachment A). d: Total cost is estimated by multiplying the no. of households affected by each salinity class by the corresponding household salinity damage cost (Table 3). In this example, the estimated cost of high saline watertables to rural houses in the Avoca catchment is currently $489,645 per year. By replacing the GIS dataset showing current high saline watertables with one showing the predicted area in say 2020, 2050 or 2100, one could then re-run the analysis to predict the likely increase in costs to rural households if no local action plan is implemented (i.e. the ‘No-Plan’ scenario).

2-4

50 PART TWO PART TWO 51 4.3.2 Urban households This information can then be combined with In rural towns and cities where detailed urban household data to estimate the total number of salinity studies have been conducted, information on urban households in each salinity-affected town, and the number of households affected by high saline hence the approximate number affected by the four watertables should be available. However, where salinity classes. Household data for each town can be this information is not available, the recommended obtained from either ABS Census data, or from your approach for estimating this number involves first Local Council. contacting state agency salinity officers operating in To help you get started in this process, the Basin- your area and asking them to draw on available data wide urban salinity database discussed in Section or personal observation to specify: 3.3 and presented in Attachment A provides a • the urban town centres currently subject to high preliminary assessment of the extent and severity of saline watertables, and urban salinity in 220 rural towns and cities across the Basin. • their best estimate of the percentage of each of these towns that experience very slight, slight, Once the number of households affected by the four moderate and severe high saline watertables. salinity classes is estimated for each town, the cost of this damage can be estimated by applying the household damage cost functions shown earlier in Table 3.

2-4

Photo: Arthur Mostead

50 PART TWO PART TWO 51 Worked example 3

While trialling these Guidelines in the Campaspe catchment in Victoria, the methodology described above was used to identify six towns currently subject to high saline watertables. The names of these towns, their population, and the estimated percentage subject to very slight, slight, moderate and severe high saline watertables are listed below:

Affected urban town centres Populationa Estimated percentage of town affected

(No.) Total % Very slight Slight % Moderate Severe % % %

Campaspe River catchment

Bendigo 62,001 1 0.5 0.5 - -

Echuca 10,216 5 - 5 - -

Heathcote 1,639 5 3 1 1 -

Lockington 5,339 5 - 5 - -

Rochester 2,682 5 - 5 - -

Strathfieldsaye 1,589 10 5 3 1 1

a: ABS Population data (1996 Census). Where an urban town centre extends beyond the boundary of the Campaspe catchment, only the urban population fully contained within the boundary of the catchment is shown here. The number of urban households affected by high saline watertables in each town centre, together with the total cost, was then estimated based on the number of households in each town and the percentage affected by the four salinity classes:

Total Urban Affected Town Centres Householdsa Estimated no. of affected urban householdsb Total Costc

No. Very slight Slight % Moderate Severe % ($/yr) % %

Bendigo 28,055 140 140 0 0 45,500

Echuca 4,623 0 231 0 0 57,750

Heathcote 742 22 7 7 0 5,150

Lockington 2,416 0 121 0 0 30,250

Rochester 719 0 36 0 0 9,000 Strathfieldsaye 1,589 79 48 16 16 56,085 2-4 Total 909 3,152 796 117 $1,259,470

a: ABS Household data (1996 Census). b: Figures estimated by multiplying the number of urban households in each town, by the percentage figures in the first table. As these figures relate to the analysis of data collated at the township level, the results should not be attributed to any specific household in these town centres. c: Total cost estimated by multiplying the no. of households affected by each of the four salinity classes by the salinity damage cost functions shown earlier in Table 2. In this worked example, the estimated annual cost of high saline watertables to urban households in the Victorian Campaspe River catchment is approximately $1.26 million per annum.

52 PART TWO PART TWO 53 4.4 Commerce and industry 4.4.1 Low cost approach The following approach provides a particularly useful 4.3.1 Background low-cost method to estimate of the cost of high There are a variety of commercial, retail and saline watertables to commercial, retail and industrial industrial businesses that may incur costs from high businesses in towns or cities with an urban salinity saline watertables. These include: problem. • retail outlets (e.g. plant nurseries, clothing stores In rural towns and cities where detailed urban and take away food shops) salinity studies have been conducted, information on • hospitality businesses (e.g. hotels, clubs, motels the number of commercial and industrial buildings and restaurants) affected by high saline watertables (or at risk) should • service centres (e.g. banks, hospitals, nursing be available. However, where this information is not homes, accountancy firms and stock agents), and available, the following three-stepped approach can • manufacturing premises (e.g. printing works and be used. food processors). Step 1 involves drawing on the information compiled on the current and predicted future extent and Survey-based approaches generally give unreliable severity of urban salinity in the study area (after estimates of the current costs of high saline working through section 4.3) to identify: watertables to urban businesses for two main reasons: • the urban town centres affected by high saline watertables • Most business staff have a low awareness of the nature and cost of salinity impacts. • their population, and • Most business staff demonstrate a poor ability to • the percentage of each town affected by very separate costs caused by high saline watertables slight, slight, moderate and severe salinity. from those caused by other factors. Step 2 then involves identifying the number of Earlier trialling of the Guidelines also demonstrated commercial, retail and industrial buildings located in that the cost of high saline watertables to businesses each salinity-affected town. This information may be was relatively low compared to the costs imposed on obtained from your local government, Chamber of the other stakeholder groups. Commerce or regional water authority. Alternatively, the numbers can be estimated using the formulas With these issues in mind, two complementary shown in Box 1. These formulas describe the approaches for estimating the cost of high saline relationship between the size of an urban centre watertables to commercial, retail and industrial and the typical number of commercial, retail and businesses are outlined below. industrial buildings. Full details of the methods • Work through this section only if you noted in your used to generate these formulas appear in an earlier checklist that there are towns or cities in your project report Wilson (2002). study area are currently suffering urban salinity problems, or are at risk (refer back to Section 3.3 if you are unsure). 2-4

52 PART TWO PART TWO 53 Box 1: Relationships between town size and the number of commercial, retail and industrial buildingsa

• The total number of commercial, retail and industrial buildings in a town can be estimated using the formula: YT = 0.14 x X0.86 (r2 = 0.89) where: YT = the total number of commercial, retail and industrial buildings in the town X = the population of the town • The total number of commercial and retail buildings in a town can be estimated using the formula:

0.85 2 YC,R = 0.15 x X (r = 0.89) where:

YC,R = the total number of commercial and retail buildings in the town X = the population of the town • The total number of industrial buildings in a town can be estimated using the formula:

YI = YT - YC,R a: These formulas are based on a detailed assessment of ABS population data (1996 Census) and the town water connection records for 98 towns located across Victoria. Source: Wilson (2002). Table 4 presented below draws on these formulas to summarise the typical number of commercial, retail and industrial buildings located in urban centres with populations ranging from 500 to 100,000 people.

Table 4. Typical no. of commercial and retail buildings in towns of varying size

Total commercial, retail and industrial buildings Commercial and retail Urban centre population (No.) buildings (No.) Industrial buildings (No.)

500 29 29 0

2,000 97 96 1

5,000 212 209 3

10,000 386 377 9

20,000 700 679 21

100,000 2,793 2,667 126

Source: Wilson (2002)

The information compiled in steps 1 and 2 can then At this stage, the advice of a local hydrologist or 2-4 be combined to estimate the number of commercial, salinity officer should also be sought to validate and, retail and industrial buildings affected by very slight, where appropriate, enhance the accuracy of the slight, moderate and severe high saline watertables estimated number of buildings affected. in each salinity affected urban town centre. For The information compiled in step 3 can then be example, if a town was estimated to (a) contain 100 combined with the salinity damage cost functions commercial buildings and (b) to have 10 per cent of shown in Table 5 to estimate the cost of high saline its area affected by slight high saline watertables, it watertables to the commercial, retail and industrial can be assumed that, all other things being equal, 10 businesses in each affected town. These cost of these buildings (i.e. 100 x 10%) can be expected estimates were derived from data presented in to experience slight damage from high saline Hardcastle and Richards (2000) and are based on 75 watertables. per cent of the combined value of (a) the physical damage cost caused by high watertables and (b) the chemical damage cost caused by salts.

54 PART TWO PART TWO 55 Table 5. Salinity damage cost functions to commercial and industrial buildings

Building type Salinity class

Very slight Slight Moderate Severe

Commercial/retail 450 1,500 3,750 6,000 ($/building/yr)

Industrial buildings 450 1,500 3,750 6,000 ($/building/yr)

Source: Hardcastle and Richards (2000)

Worked example 4

Building on Worked example 3 describing the extent and severity of urban salinity in the Campaspe catchment, the following example shows the number of urban businesses affected by high saline watertables in each town centre, together with the total estimated cost. In this example, the total number of buildings was derived from actual water connection records.

Total Affected Town Centres Buildings Estimated no. of buildings salinity affecteda Total cost

Very Slight Moderate (No.) Slight (No.) (No.) Severe (No.) ($/Yr)

Industrial buildings

Bendigo 712 4 4 0 0 7,800

Echuca 142 0 7 0 0 10,500

Lockington 89 0 4 0 0 6,000

Commercial/retail buildings

Bendigo 1,235 6 6 0 0 11,700

Echuca 329 0 16 0 0 24,000

Heathcote 49 1 0 0 0 450

Lockington 243 0 12 0 0 18,000

Rochester 48 0 2 0 0 3,000

Strathfieldsaye 48 2 1 0 0 2,400

Total 13 52 0 0 $ 83,850 2-4 a: Figures estimated by multiplying the estimated number of buildings in each town, by the percentage of each town subject to very slight, slight, moderate and severe urban salinity. As these figures relate to the analysis of data collated at the township level, the results should not be attributed to any specific building located in the urban town centres. Total costs are estimated by multiplying the number of buildings affected by the salinity damage cost functions (see Table 5). Note: Only urban town centres with salinity affected industrial buildings are listed here. In this worked example, the estimated current cost of high saline watertables to urban commercial, retail and industrial businesses in the Campaspe River catchment (Vic) is approximately $83,850 per annum.

54 PART TWO PART TWO 55 4.3.2 Summary of salinity cost functions for households and businesses Presented in Table 6 is a summary of the various salinity cost functions that have been compiled to help assess the current (and future) cost of high saline watertables to households and businesses.

Table 6. Marginal salinity cost functions: Households and businesses

Stakeholder and Cost Category Salinity Class

Very slight Slight Moderate Severe

Households and businesses

Urban and rural households 75 250 2,135 ($/household/yr)

Commercial/retail buildings 450 1,500 3,750 6,000 ($/building/yr)

Industrial buildings 450 1,500 3,750 6,000 ($/building/yr)

4.3.3 Advanced approach 4 A survey or census can then be used to collect Despite the general low level of awareness of salinity more detailed information from those businesses impacts on businesses, there may be some instances that acknowledge a salinity problem. This can be where researchers may also wish to undertake a conducted by mail or face-to-face interviews. survey or census of businesses in affected towns a. Targeting individuals who report a problem in a catchment to enhance any results obtained during the initial telephone survey minimises through implementing the approach outlined above. the time and cost involved in a mail or face-to- In these instances, the high time and cost involved face survey, and reduces the potential for non- can be minimised by adopting the following five- response bias. stage approach. b. A census of susceptible businesses is favoured 1 Draw on available information (including GIS over a survey-based approach in catchments datasets and business directories) to identify with only a small number of targeted businesses. businesses in areas that are susceptible to high A survey approach will be more appropriate in saline watertable problems, and classify them on larger targeted populations. the basis of this susceptibility (it can be assumed c. Where a survey approach is used, the results that businesses not located in areas subject to high of the survey can be extrapolated according watertables will incur zero cost). to the relative number of businesses in each 2 Depending on the numbers involved, contact classification. all (or a sub-set of) the susceptible businesses. 5 Supplement the information collected with This can be done via an initial letter that informs information from other sources. For example GIS 2-4 them of the purpose of the study and alerts them datasets may help locate infrastructure susceptible that further contact will be made to discuss any to salinity problems. potential salinity problems. The total cost of salinity to businesses can then 3 Follow up this letter with a brief phone interview be extrapolated on the basis of the number of to collect data on the nature of any impacts, and businesses in the susceptible category (assume that to ask whether they have incurred any costs related remaining businesses incur zero cost). to salinity. In a small-scale study, it may be reasonable to a. While a relatively large sample will be required derive the sample from the entire population of if the level of incidence is low, a telephone businesses, and hence overcome the need to classify survey with a large sample can be conducted at businesses according to their likely susceptibility to a relatively low cost. high watertable damage. This approach would also b. As this approach assumes that businesses that do overcome the possible limitation of the assumption not report any salinity problems incur zero cost, that businesses classified as non-susceptible do not the advice of the local salinity officer should be incur any costs. sought to help validate the initial responses.

56 PART TWO PART TWO 57 A description of how to conduct a survey or census is presented in Section 5. Where a survey or census is conducted, however, it will be essential to employ the services of a qualified statistician to ensure the survey design will minimise survey bias and produce meaningful results.

4.5 Saline town water supplies As described in Part 1 of the Guidelines, saline town water supplies may impose costs on the following urban stakeholder groups: • Households • Commercial and industrial water users

This section describes how to quantify the cost of saline town water supplies to these two groups. • Work through this section if you noted in your checklist that there are towns or cities in your study area. • Note: Water users in the towns or cities may incur saline water costs even if no urban salinity is present and if the water supply is of low salinity.

4.5.1 Households The recommended approach for quantifying the cost of saline town water supplies to households involves applying the marginal saline water cost functions developed by Wilson and Laurie (2002). These cost functions express the relationship between the average annual salinity level of town water supplies and the marginal costs imposed on households from a one unit increase (decrease) in salinity levels, expressed in the units ‘mg/L’ (Table 7).

Table 7. Marginal saline water cost functions: Households

Category Cost function ($/household/annum)

Soap and detergent use No relationship

Water pipes and fittings $0.0923 T 1.25 per household per annum

Household plumbing:

Tap corrosion $ 0.0731 T per household per annum

Cistern, ball valves etc $ 0.0231 T per household per annum

Shower roses/arms $ 0.0156 T per household per annum

Hot water systems $ 0.253 T per household per annum

Bottled water No relationship 2-4

Domestic water filters No relationship (T < 72 mg/L)

$ 0.011 T per household per annum (T ≥ 72 mg/L) Rainwater tanks No relationship (T < 132 mg/L)

$ 0.13 T per household per annum (T ≥ 132 mg/L) Domestic water softeners No relationship (T < 123 mg/L)

$ 0.0145 T per household per annum (T ≥ 123 mg/L)

Source: Wilson and Laurie (2002) (T=TDS in mg/L)

56 PART TWO PART TWO 57 To apply these cost functions, use the following • Water quality officers with the regional water six steps. authorities, water boards or local governments 1 Identify the towns in the study area connected to should be able to indicate expected trends in the town water supplies. For each town, then: quality of town water supplies in future years. 2 Identify the main water source(s) used to supply • The ABS and Department of Infrastructure (Vic) the town water supplies (these may include rivers, publish data on the predicted trend in population dams or bores). numbers at the SLA, LGA and township levels. 3 Obtain the weighted average annual TDS In situations where it is not possible to identify or electrical conductivity readings of these the number of households in an area, the number water sources. of domestic water connections may be used 4 Identify the number of households connected to as a surrogate figure. The difference between the town water supply. households and domestic water connections is that the latter relates to the number of domestic 5 Apply the salinity cost functions listed in Table 7 to accounts. For example, an apartment block will calculate the impact cost of saline water supplies to consist of several apartments, but where all water each household. consumption is billed to one meter, the number of 6 Multiply the estimated cost to each household domestic connections equals 1. Hence, the impact by the number of households in the town to of using domestic water connections is that it may obtain the total cost of saline town water to underestimate the total cost of saline domestic water all households. supplies in a catchment. These steps can be used to calculate both present and future costs for each town. The latter calculation requires estimates of the likely future salinity levels of the town’s water supply, and the future number of households connected to this source:

Worked example 5

While trialling the Guidelines in the Qld portion of the Border Rivers catchment, the cost of saline town water to urban households located were estimated. For each town, information on the number of households connected to town water supplies and the average TDS level of the water supply was collected. The TDS information was fed into the cost functions listed in Table 7 and multiplied by the number of households to estimate the cost of saline water supplies to households in each town. These costs are summarised below:

Plumbing Hot water Water Rainwater Water Total Town, by corrosiona systemsb filters tanks softeners costs catchment ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) 2-4 Qld Border catchment

Goondiwindi 89,616 150,938 4,980 43,551 5,091 294,175

Inglewood 16,131 27,448 855 6,829 812 52,074

Stanthorpe 74,483 126,710 3,952 31,654 3,760 240,559

Texas 19,407 32,361 1,116 10,379 1,201 64,463

Wallangarra 7,078 12,041 376 3,008 357 22,860

Yelarbon 1,724 3,064 53 0 0 4,840

Total 208,439 352,562 11,332 95,421 11,221 678,971

a: Plumbing corrosion costs include the estimated cost of salinity (and associated hardness) to household pipes and fixtures, taps, cisterns, and shower roses and arms. b: Hot water system costs include costs to cylinders, relief valves and electric elements. In this example, the average current cost of saline water supplies to urban households in the Queensland portion of the Border Rivers catchment was estimated at $678,971 per annum.

58 PART TWO PART TWO 59 4.5.2 Commercial and industrial water users summarised in Tables 8 and 9. These cost functions The recommended approach for quantifying express the relationship between the average annual the impact cost of saline town water supplies to salinity level of town water supplies and the marginal commerce and industry in each town involves costs imposed on commercial and industrial water applying the marginal saline water cost functions users from a one unit increase (or decrease) in outlined by Wilson and Laurie (2002) and salinity levels, expressed in the units ‘mg/L’.

Table 8. Marginal saline water cost functions: Commercial water users

Category Cost function ($/kL/annum)

General water use $0.000245 T per kL per annum

Hot water/steam generation $0.00097 T per kL per annum

Cooling towers $0.0012 T per kL per annum

Process water Nil

Australian commercial sector as a whole $0.00242 T per kL per annum

Source: Wilson and Laurie (2002), (T=TDS in mg/L)

Table 9. Marginal saline water cost functions: Industrial water users

Category Cost function ($/kL/annum) General water use 0.5 x $ 0.0003 T per kL per annum Boilers 0.23 x $ 0.0162 T per kL per annum Cooling towers 0.13 x $ 0.0096 T per kL per annum Process water 0.14 x $ 0.003 T per kL per annum Australian industrial sector as a whole $0.00554 T per kL per annum

Source: Wilson and Laurie (2002), (T=TDS in mg/L) For most regions across the Murray-Darling Basin, detailed water consumption figures at the town or LGA are available from the regional water authorities, water boards, and/or local governments. Hence, whenever possible these ‘actual’ consumption figures should be used to estimate the cost of saline town water to commerce and industry. In some situations, however, only an aggregate figure of annual water consumption by industrial and commercial water users is available. In these situations, the following Australia-wide ABS water consumption data (averaged over the four financial years 1993-94 to 1996-97) should be used as a proxy for the ‘typical’ proportional weightings of water consumption across the commercial and industrial sectors:

Industry: 59 % 2-4 Commerce: 41 % Total: 100 % Using these weightings, the cost functions that can be used to estimate the combined cost of saline water to both commercial and industrial water users in specific towns or LGAs are shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Marginal saline water cost functions: Combined commercial and industrial water users

Category Cost function ($/kL/annum)

General water use $0.000189 T per kL per annum

Boilers/hot water $0.002596 T per kL per annum

Cooling towers $0.001228 T per kL per annum

Process water $0.000248 T per kL per annum

Total $0.00426 T per kL per annum

Source: Wilson and Laurie (2002), (T=TDS in mg/L)

58 PART TWO PART TWO 59 Worked example 6

While trialling the Guidelines in the Qld Border Rivers catchment, the cost of saline town water to commerce and industry was estimated by applying the cost functions shown in Table 10. For each town, information on the average TDS level of the water supply was collected. Information on the total volume of water consumed by commercial and industrial water users was also estimated by multiplying actual figures on non-residential water consumption in each town by 72 per cent*. The TDS information was then fed into the cost functions listed in Table 10 and multiplied by the total estimated annual volume of water consumed by commercial and industrial water users to estimate the combined cost of saline water supplies to both commerce and industry in each town. These costs are summarised below:

Town, by General water Boiler operation Cooling tower Process water Total costs catchment use ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr) ($/yr)

Qld Border catchment

Goondiwindi 22,861 310,746 148,539 29,998 512,145

Inglewood 3,331 45,280 21,644 4,371 74,627

Stanthorpe 13,656 185,619 88,727 17,919 305,921

Texas 4,191 56,970 27,232 5,500 93,893

Wallangarra 3,344 45,458 21,729 4,388 74,919

Yelarbon 457 6,215 2,971 600 10,243

Total 47,840 650,288 310,842 62,776 $ 1,071,748

*Note: Only those costs fully incurred by commercial and industrial water users within each town are presented here. Commercial water users include shops, restaurants and cafes, offices, hotels, hospitals and education centres. In this example, the average current cost of saline water supplies to commercial and industrial water users in the Queensland Border Rivers catchment was estimated at $1.07 million per annum.

Note: The combined commercial and industrial cost 4.5.4 Where to go for information functions shown in Table 10 should only be applied There are several sources that provide information when it is not possible to separate out the volume on (a) the quality of town water supplies, (b) the of water consumed by industry from the volume number of domestic households or domestic water consumed by commerce in each town or LGA. This is connections and (c) the volume of water consumed because the weighting used to derive this generalised by commercial, retail, or non-residential water users. cost function represents averaged Australia-wide These include: data, while the actual weighting is likely to differ • Regional water authorities and water boards 2-4 from town to town. In small towns with no industry, • Local governments for example, the actual weighting will be 100 per cent commerce and 0 per cent industry. • The Town Water Services Division of the NSW Department of Land and Water Conservation Also note that in some towns and LGAs, only residential and non-residential water consumption • State Health Departments figures are available. In these instances, the non- • SA Water residential water consumption figure should be • Queensland Department of Natural Resources, multiplied by 72 per cent to remove the ‘typical’ Mines and Energy volume of non-residential water used for municipal • United Water and recreational purposes such as irrigation of public • Chambers of Commerce parks and ovals (see Wilson and Laurie 2002 for details). Failure to exclude this water used for non- • Australian Bureau of Statistics commercial and industrial purposes will result in a substantial over-estimation of costs in these towns.

60 PART TWO PART TWO 61 4.5.5 Methods to enhance 4.6 Local governments the accuracy of the results As noted in Part 1, dryland and urban salinity can The standard marginal cost functions for households, affect local governments in many ways. It may commerce and industry shown in Tables 7 to 10 damage local government funded infrastructure both are based on a detailed analysis of survey data in the rural areas (such as roads and bridges) and collected from numerous rural towns and cities in the urban areas (such as urban roads, footpaths, across the Basin and from other published data. and public ovals). This damage may impose a Where economically justified, the results obtained for variety of costs on local governments, including individual towns can be refined by compiling further increased repair and maintenance expenditure, early infrastructure usage and costing data specific to each replacement of the affected infrastructure, and loss town. This town specific data could, for example, of income. include the actual percentage of households installing water tanks or filters due to elevated TDS levels in This section describes how to quantify the the town water supply, or the typical percentage cost of dryland and urban salinity to local reduction in expected life spans of infrastructure governments. located in the town under consideration. This town • Work through this section if you noted in specific information could then be fed back into the your checklist in Section 3.2 that either: methodologies fully documented in the report by Wilson and Laurie (2002) to create saline water cost - there are rural areas in your study area functions that more accurately reflect the unique currently affected by dryland salinity or at characteristics of each town. risk; or It is important to recognise, however, that this - there are towns or cities in your study area more detailed assessment of the cost of saline currently suffering urban salinity. water supplies will be a time consuming and costly process, and require a detailed appreciation of the 4.6.1 Background methods used to develop the standard cost functions summarised in this report. Hence, any decision to Local governments vary greatly in their ability to adopt this more detailed approach should only be identify the impact of dryland and urban salinity on made after carefully weighing up the likely costs and their infrastructure, and to quantify the cost of the benefits involved, and the economic competency of associated damage in dollar terms. Their ability to the research team. accurately identify and value these impacts generally

2-4

Photo: Arthur Mostead

60 PART TWO PART TWO 61 decrease substantially in areas where salinity is by an introductory letter. Step two then involves only an emerging problem and hence community making follow-up phone calls or sending reminder awareness is low. facsimiles to those local governments that do not With these issues in mind, the suggested approach return the questionnaire by the due date. Where for estimating the impact and cost of dryland and more time and budget is available, a face-to-face urban salinity to local governments involves using a approach also works well. combination of techniques as outlined below. The example questionnaire recognises the limitations involved in asking local governments to allocate 4.6.2 Conduct a survey or census costs to a particular catchment. Instead, it relies on Conducting a survey or census of local governments the assumption that it is acceptable to allocate LGA- whose boundaries are located either wholly or in wide costs obtained via a survey on a pro-rata $/ha part within the study area provides an excellent basis to smaller areas. way of collecting information on their perceived For many local governments, no one person will be exposure to dryland and urban salinity and the aware of all dryland and urban salinity impacts. In associated costs. It also enables information on their smaller councils, this can be overcome by surveying actual expenditure on salinity-related preventative one or two key individuals. In the larger councils works (such as tree planting) and community such as Dubbo City Council where the costs are education, research and extension activities to incurred by several separate departments however, be collected. it may be necessary to ask the Mayor to coordinate Local government questionnaire a response from each of the relevant departments. Further details on how to conduct a census or survey An example questionnaire that can be used to of stakeholders is presented in section 5. assess the current nature and costs of dryland and urban salinity to local government is presented in 4.6.3 Enhance accuracy of survey results Attachment C. This questionnaire helps to collect One of the main difficulties with assessing the cost of information on: dryland and urban salinity damage to infrastructure • the nature and impacts of dryland and urban is that the damage is often insidious in nature and salinity in the LGA either not recognised or attributed to other causes. • additional expenditure on repair and This problem is multiplied when salinity is only an maintenance activities due to salinity emerging problem and hence community awareness • increased water treatment costs due to salinity is low. For example, local governments may often not recognise that a subtle increase in the need to • increased construction costs due to salinity repair damaged footpaths or to increase the fertiliser • the amount spent on salinity-related application on sports ovals may be attributable to an preventative works emerging salinity problem. Similarly, while council • the cost of shortened life spans of salinity engineers will generally have a good appreciation of affected infrastructure the costs involved in constructing a new road, they • the cost of reduced rate levies due to the may be less confident identifying what length of road 2-4 reduction in property values is actually affected by dryland and urban salinity, and • loss in income due to the introduction of the cost of this damage. rate rebate schemes Hence, once a survey of local governments in the • the cost of implementing community study area is complete, it will be highly beneficial education, research and extension programs to enhance the accuracy of the results using GIS analysis and the application of detailed salinity • the source of funds used to meet dryland cost functions. and urban salinity costs, and • whether salinity has led to a reduction in the Rural road impacts and costs quality of services provided to their community. To enhance the accuracy of estimated salinity costs to The following two-stepped approach generally works local government funded rural roads, the following well when conducting such a survey or census of digitised GIS datasets should first be combined to local governments. Step one involves sending the estimate the current (and predicted future) length of questionnaire to each local government accompanied

62 PART TWO PART TWO 63 minor sealed roads and non-sealed roads intersecting in Tables 11 and 12 to estimate the current (and saline sites of varying severity across the study area: predicted future) cost of dryland and urban salinity in • the location of minor sealed and non-sealed the rural areas from: roads in the study area3 • increased repair and maintenance expenditure • the current (and predicted future) areas affected on minor sealed and unsealed roads; and by severe, moderate, slight and very slight dryland • shortened expected life spans of minor and urban salinity sealed and unsealed roads. • study area boundary, and These cost functions express a relationship between • smaller scale boundaries, such as groundwater the severity of dryland salinity outbreaks on minor flow systems or Local Government Areas. sealed and unsealed roads, and the per kilometre costs imposed on local governments. Full details The length affected by each of the four salinity on these cost functions are presented in the project classes should then be multiplied by the ‘$ per report by Wilson (2000). kilometre’ salinity damage cost functions shown

Table 11. Salinity damage cost functions for local rural roads: Increased repair and maintenance (R&M) expenditure

Road class Additional annual R & M expenditure due to high saline watertables

Severe impacts Moderate impacts Slight impacts Very slight impacts ($/km/yr) ($/km/yr) ($/km/yr) ($/km/yr)

Minor sealed road 1,200 700 300 100

Non-sealed road 800 500 200 75

Source: Wilson (2000)

Table 12. Salinity damage cost functions for local rural roads: Cost from shortened expected life spans

Expected lifespan (No high saline Construction watertables) Road class cost ($/km) (yrs) Expected lifespan Salinity damage cost functions

Severe to Severe to Slight to moderate Slight to very moderate very slight impacts slight impacts impacts (yrs) impacts (yrs) ($/km/yr)a ($/km/yr)

Minor 80,000 30 20 27 1,333 296 sealed road Non-sealed 30,000 15 10 13.5 1,000 222 2-4 road

a: The ‘$/km/yr’ cost functions were derived using the following formula: (Construction cost ÷ Expected lifespan with salinity)—(Construction cost ÷ Expected lifespan with no salinity). Source: Wilson (2000)

The standard cost functions in Tables 11 and 12 were area can provide specific information on the road derived from data provided by 111 local governments construction costs and expected life spans with and located in Victoria and NSW, and from data collated without salinity, then this data should be used to from several research reports investigating the cost of fine tune the cost functions presented in Table 12 for high saline watertables to infrastructure (see Wilson your study area. 2000). However, where local governments in your

3 It is assumed that State and Federal Governments fund highways and major sealed roads

62 PART TWO PART TWO 63 Worked example 7

While trialling these Guidelines in the North Central Region of Victoria, application of the methodology described above indicated that the following lengths of minor sealed and non-sealed roads were currently intersecting high saline watertables:

Catchment Length of road intersecting high saline watertables, by severity

Minor sealed road Non-sealed road

Severe Moderate Slight Very Severe Moderate Slight Very (km) (km) (km) slight (km) (km) (km) slight (km) (km)

Avoca 140 13 15 105 4 2 0 71

Loddon 187 26 45 182 7 0 2 13

Campaspe 97 17 36 213 3 0 3 9

Total 424 56 96 500 14 2 5 93

By applying the cost functions shown in Tables 11 and 12, it was estimated that high saline watertables in the region are causing local governments to spend (or accumulate): • $646,975 per annum in additional repair and maintenance costs to these minor sealed and non-sealed roads • $47,790 per annum from the cost of the shortened expected lifespan to these roads.

Rural bridge impacts and costs likely ‘No-Plan’ scenario. In this case, however, the A similar GIS-based approach can be used to salinity cost functions incorporate both the cost from estimate the current cost of high saline watertables increased repair and maintenance costs and the costs to local government funded bridges in the rural attributable to shortened expected life spans (see areas, and the likely increase in costs under the most Table 13).

Table 13. Salinity damage cost functions: Local rural bridges

Salinity severity Damage costs to minor sealed and unsealed road bridges ($/km/yr)

Severe 3,000

Moderate 2,000

Slight 1,000

Urban road impacts and costs used to identify those urban town centres affected 2-4 If you noted in your initial checklist in Section 3.2 by high saline watertables, their population, and the that there are towns or cities in your study area percentage of each affected by very slight, slight, affected by high saline watertables or at risk, the moderate and severe salinity. cost of high saline watertables to roads in these The total length of roads in these urban centres urban areas can be estimated using the three-stepped should then be obtained. This information can be approach outlined below. sourced directly from the relevant local governments Step one: If a detailed study of urban salinity has or estimated using the formula by Hardcastle and already been completed in your study area, there Richards (2000). In their study, Hardcastle and should already be information on the length and Richards estimated the typical length of urban roads severity of salinity damage to urban roads. Where that can be found in urban centres of different sizes these studies have not been conducted, however, the (Table 14). data compiled for the urban household study can be

64 PART TWO PART TWO 65 Table 14. Relationship between town size and length of the current (and predicted future) cost of urban urban roads salinity to urban roads. Full details on the derivation of these cost functions appear in the project Urban centre population Length of urban roads (km) methodology report by Wilson (2002).

5,000 60 Table 15. Salinity damage cost functions: Urban Roads

20,000 150 Salinity Urban Roads 100,000 875 severity

Source: Hardcastle and Richards (2000) Increased R&M Cost of expenditure shortened life Step two: The data compiled in step one can then be ($/km/yr) spans combined to estimate the length of roads affected by ($/km/yr) very slight, slight, moderate and severe high saline Severe 2,400 1,833 watertables in each salinity affected town. Moderate 1,150 900 Step three: The lengths affected by each salinity class Slight 375 407 should then be multiplied by the ‘$ per kilometre’ salinity cost functions shown in Tables 15 to estimate Very slight 150 165

2-4

Photo: Salt Action NSW

64 PART TWO PART TWO 65 Worked example 8

While trialling these Guidelines in the Murrumbidgee River catchment in NSW, application of the methodology described above indicated that the following lengths of urban roads were intersecting high saline watertables:

Length of urban roads affected Total cost

Increased Salinity Length R&M Cost of affected of urban Very Slight Moderate Severe expenditure shortened life towns roads (km) slight (km) (km) (km) (km) ($/yr) spans ($/yr)

Binalong 3 - 1 1 1 3,925 4,074

Coolamon 16 1 - - - 150 407

Cootamundra 88 61 4 1 - 11,800 28,315

Griffith 125 4 2 1 2 7,300 7,944

Harden- 21 2 - - - 300 815 Murrumburrah

Hay 35 21 - - - 3,150 8,556

Junee 101 10 10 5 10 35,000 35,648

Ladysmith 5 - 1 1 - 1,525 2,241

Narrandera 56 1 1 1 - 1,675 2,648

Queanbeyan 179 5 - - - 750 2,037

Tumut 88 2 - - - 300 815

Wagga Wagga 256 13 38 51 26 137,250 161,944

Yass 59 3 3 1 - 2,725 4,278

Total 123 60 62 39 $ 205,850 $ 259,722

Notes: The costs represent the total costs fully incurred within the boundaries of the Murrumbidgee catchment. The length of urban roads affected have been calculated by multiplying the total estimated length of urban roads in each salinity affected town by the estimated percentage of that town affected by very slight, slight, moderate and severe salinity. By applying the cost functions shown in Table 15, it was estimated that salinity damage to urban roads in Murrumbidgee catchment is causing local governments to spend (or accumulate) approximately: • $205,850 per annum in additional repair and maintenance costs, and • $259,722 per annum due to the shortened expected life spans of these assets. 2-4 Other infrastructure (excl. roads and bridges) population affected by each of the four salinity Where surveyed local governments cannot provide classes in each salinity-affected town. estimates of the impact of dryland and urban salinity Step 2: The cost of increased repair and maintenance on the expected lifespan of infrastructure other than expenditure to each local government (excluding roads, or increased repair and maintenance costs road and bridge costs) can then be estimated by on affected non-road assets, these costs can also be multiplying the information obtained in Step 1 with estimated using the following two-stepped approach. the cost functions shown in Table 16. These cost Step 1: The data compiled for the urban household functions were generated from a detailed analysis of study can be used to identify those urban town data obtained from 111 local governments located centres affected by high saline watertables, their in NSW and Victoria where detailed information population, and the percentage of each affected on the relationship between the severity of urban by very slight, slight, moderate and severe salinity. salinity problems and costs to local governments was 4 This information can then be used to estimate the available (see Wilson 2002 for details).

66 PART TWO PART TWO 67 Table 16. Cost of salinity to local government per head of population

Annual R&M expenditure (excl. roads) Cost of shortened expected life spans ($/urban pop’n affected by high (excl. roads) ($/urban pop’n affected Severity of salinity saline watertables/yr) by high saline watertables/yr)

Very Slight 16 2

Slight 31 5

Moderate 56 9

Severe 105 16

Source: Wilson (2002)

It is important to note however, that in all instances where standard cost functions are used to estimate dryland and urban salinity costs to local governments, these estimates should then be validated with the individual local governments and/or regional salinity officers concerned, and amended, where appropriate.

4.6.4 Summary of salinity cost • obtain a preliminary estimate of these costs where functions for local governments the resources needed to conduct a direct survey of Presented in Table 17 is a summary of the salinity this stakeholder group cannot be justified. cost functions that have been compiled to: • enhance the accuracy of salinity cost information compiled from a direct survey of local governments; or

Table 17. Marginal salinity cost functions: Local government

Stakeholder and Cost Category Salinity Class

Very slight Slight Moderate Severe

Increased R&M costs to:

Rural minor sealed roads ($/km/yr) 100 300 700 1,200

Rural non-sealed roads ($/km/yr) 75 200 500 800

Urban sealed roads ($/km/yr) 150 375 1,150 2,400

Infrastructure (excl. roads) ($/urban population 16 31 56 105 affected by salinity/yr)

Cost of shortened life spans to: 2-4 Rural minor sealed roads ($/km/yr) 296 1,333

Rural non-sealed roads ($/km/yr) 222 1,000

Urban sealed roads ($/km/yr) 407 1,833

Infrastructure (excl. roads) ($/urban population 2 5 9 16 affected by salinity/yr)

4 An analysis of the data collated from these 111 Councils demonstrate that the majority of salinity induced costs to council managed infrastructure (excluding roads) occurs in the urban areas of a catchment. It is therefore logical to estimate costs to local governments based on an assessment of the extent and severity of salinity in urban town centres, and the size of these centres.

66 PART TWO PART TWO 67 4.7 State government Agencies and utilities vary greatly in their ability to agencies and public utilities identify the impact of dryland and urban salinity As noted in Part 1, dryland and urban salinity can on their infrastructure, and to quantify the cost of also affect government agencies and infrastructure- the associated damage. Their ability to accurately based utilities in many ways. It may damage identify and value these impacts generally decreases infrastructure both in the rural areas (such as state substantially in areas where salinity is just an roads, rail and bridges, transmission towers and emerging problem and hence community awareness underground gas pipes) and in the urban areas (such is low. as water treatment plants and underground water, With these issues in mind, the suggested approach sewerage and gas pipes). This damage may impose for identifying and valuing the costs of dryland costs on government agencies and utilities, including and urban salinity to government agencies and increased repair and maintenance expenditure, utilities is very similar to that recommended for local increased infrastructure construction costs, early governments and involves the following steps: replacement of the affected infrastructure, and loss Step 1: Conduct a literature review to collect of income. whatever relevant information has previously been compiled for the area under investigation. This Section describes how to quantify the cost Step 2: Survey each of the key agencies and utilities of dryland and urban salinity in your study operating in the study area to collect any information area to government agencies and infrastructure on the impacts or costs of dryland and urban salinity utilities. they are able to provide. • Work through this section if you noted in Step 3: Enhance the accuracy of the information your checklist in Section 3.2 that either: collected by using GIS to identify where salinity – there are rural areas in your study area outbreaks intersect with infrastructure such as roads, currently affected by dryland salinity or at bridges, and rail networks, and applying salinity risk; or damage cost functions to estimate these costs. – there are towns or cities in your study area Steps two and three are discussed in more detail in currently suffering urban salinity. the following Sections.

4.7.2 Conduct a survey or census 4.7.1 Background Conducting a survey or census of the key agencies and utilities likely to incur costs because of salinity Several government agencies and utilities (both in the urban or rural areas being studied provides an publicly owned and privatised) operate in effective method of collecting information on their catchments, and each may be affected by dryland perceived exposure to dryland and urban salinity and urban salinity to varying degrees. Agencies and the associated costs. It also proves an effective and utilities most likely to incur costs are those method of collecting information on their actual responsible for: expenditure on salinity-related preventative works • agricultural or natural resource management 2-4 (such as tree planting) and community education, • major infrastructure projects, roads, rail and research and extension activities. public housing, and • the supply of water, gas, electricity and sewerage services.

68 PART TWO PART TWO 69 Government agencies and utilities questionnaire An example questionnaire form that can be used to assess the current nature and costs of dryland and urban salinity and high watertables to government agencies and utilities is presented in Attachment D. This questionnaire helps to collect information on their perception of: • the nature and impacts of high saline watertable and saline water supplies • additional expenditure on repair and maintenance activities due to salinity • increased construction costs due to salinity • the amount spent on salinity-related preventative works • cost of shortened life spans of salinity affected infrastructure • cost of implementing community education, research and extension programs • the source of funds used to meet dryland and urban salinity costs, and • whether salinity has led to a reduction in the quality of services provided to the local community.

To maximise the relevance of the survey questions past survey experiences), and the results were and to minimise the imposition placed on each more comprehensive. survey recipient, it will often be worthwhile tailoring A simple but worthwhile inclusion in the the questions in the example questionnaire to meet questionnaire was several blank lines at the bottom the specific characteristics of each recipient group. of each question to give respondents the opportunity For example, rather than just asking recipients to to write down any further comments on the matter specify any structures managed by their organisation raised. In almost all cases, the trialling of the affected by salinity, it will be useful providing an Guidelines showed that respondents made use of example list of direct relevance to the organisation. this opportunity, and either provided qualitative In the case of water authorities, for example, the list descriptions of how salinity problems were affecting could include: specific aspects of both the organisation and the • water supply headworks infrastructure wider community, or elaborated on the cost estimates • rural water distribution infrastructure entered into the survey tables. In many cases, this information would not have been obtained if the • urban water distribution infrastructure recipients were only given the opportunity to provide • water supply treatment plants quantitative tabulated responses. • waste water reticulation assets It is also useful to include a simple map of the area • sewerage treatment plants with the questionnaire. This map should at least • corporate buildings. show the location of the area in relation to the rest of the state, its boundary, and any major roads Similarly, the length of the questionnaire could be and towns. minimised by only including questions that are likely to be relevant to the specific organisation. For logistical reasons, it is not practical to send 2-4 This approach will help to keep each survey as out survey forms to all government agencies and short as possible (a critical pre-requisite with mail- utilities operating within the area being studied. out surveys) and to avoid respondent annoyance Rather, it is recommended that survey forms only by including questions that are of no relevance to be sent to those agencies and utilities that are the organisation. considered likely to manage land or infrastructure or to undertake environment-related educational or While preparing tailored questionnaires will require research activities. While other agencies operating in more research during their development, and the area may also incur some minor costs, the cost more work in the mail-out process, the trialling of associated with valuing these additional impacts is the Guidelines demonstrated that the extra effort likely to exceed the benefits gained. As an example is well justified. Surveyed recipients generally of the type of agencies and utilities that should be seemed more willing to complete and return contacted, Attachment E lists the various agencies the questionnaire forms (when compared with and utilities operating in 10 Victorian and NSW catchments that were surveyed as part of this project.

68 PART TWO PART TWO 69 Once likely agencies and utilities are identified, the application of saline cost functions can help to location and contact details of the head, regional and enhance the accuracy of the information obtained local offices can be obtained by undertaking from a direct survey of government agencies and a search of the White Pages on the Internet utilities. These approaches may also provide useful (www.whitepages.com.au). Phone calls to the head estimates of the costs in the rural and urban areas of and/or regional offices can then be undertaken to: a catchment where only a low-cost assessment with • determine whether their area of operation falls no direct survey can be justified. within the boundaries of the area being studied Road, railway, and bridge impacts and costs • assess which office should receive a questionnaire, To obtain an objective estimate of the cost of high and saline watertables to road and rail authorities, the • obtain, if possible, the name and position of following digitised GIS datasets should first be the most appropriate person to receive the overlaid to estimate the current (and future) number questionnaire. and length of this infrastructure intersecting saline In most cases, the questionnaire form should be sent sites of varying severity: to the regional or local offices relevant to the study • the location of state and national funded freeways, area. However, where no clear regional office exists, highways and main sealed roads in the study area5 the forms should be sent to the head office. • the location of freeway, highway and main sealed The trialling of the Guidelines demonstrated that road bridges the following two-stepped approach generally • the location of railway lines works well when conducting such a survey of key • the current (and predicted future) areas affected by Government agencies and utilities. Step one involves severe, moderate, slight and very slight salinity sending the questionnaire to each agency and utility • study area boundary, and accompanied by an introductory letter. Step two involves making follow-up phone calls or sending • smaller scale boundaries, such as groundwater reminder facsimiles to those agencies and utilities flow systems or Local Government Areas. that do not return their questionnaires by the due Once the number of bridges and length of roads date. Where more time and budget is available, a and railways overlaying saline outbreaks has face-to-face approach also works well. been determined, multiplying this information by the salinity cost functions presented in Tables 18 4.7.3 Application of GIS technologies and salinity to 20 can be used to estimate the current (and cost functions predicted future) cost of dryland salinity to this While trialling these Guidelines across the Basin, infrastructure from: many government agencies and utilities stated that • increased repair and maintenance expenditure, and while salinity was having some impact on their infrastructure, they were unable to quantify the • shortened expected life spans. magnitude of this damage or to quantify this damage These cost functions express the relationship in dollar terms. This situation was most common between the severity of dryland salinity outbreaks 2-4 in those areas where salinity is just an emerging on roads, rail and bridges, and the ‘per unit’ costs problem and hence community awareness is low. imposed on road and rail authorities. Full details on The manipulation of digitised Geographic these cost functions are reported in the report by Information Systems (GIS) datasets and the Wilson (2002).

Table 18. Salinity cost functions: Highways, freeways and main sealed roads

Salinity severity Freeways/highways Main sealed roads

Increased R&M Cost of shortened life Increased R&M Cost of shortened life expenditure ($/km/yr) spans ($/km/yr) expenditure ($/km/yr) spans ($/km/yr)

Severe 31,105 5,833 3,600 2,167

Moderate 17,325 3,600 1,600 1,550

Slight 6,930 1,300 450 500

5 It is assumed that State and Federal Governments fund highways and major sealed roads

70 PART TWO PART TWO 71 Table 19. Salinity cost functions: State and national bridges

Damage costs to freeway/highway Damage costs to main sealed road Salinity severity bridgesa ($/bridge/yr) bridgesa ($/bridge/yr)

Severe 13,000 6,100

Moderate 8,500 4,000

Slight 4,000 2,000

a: Damage cost arises from both an increase in repair and maintenance costs, and the expected shortened life of the infrastructure. Note: across many areas of the Murray-Darling Basin, the GIS datasets showing the location of bridges are quite incomplete. While the location of unmapped bridges can be estimated using GIS technologies to locate where highways, freeways and main sealed roads cross over rivers and permanent streams, the time, cost and skill needed to conduct this added step must be weighed up against the likely benefits gained.

Table 20. Salinity cost functions: Railways

Railway infrastructure Total annual cost of high saline watertables, by severitya

Severe ($/km/yr) Moderate ($/km/yr) Slight ($/km/yr)

Signals 11 2 1

Cess drains 187 94 0

Formation 3,000 1,500 375

Track structure 27,750 9,750 4,200

Buried conduits 0 0 0

Concrete culverts 450 300 263

Steel culverts 900 600 525

Bridges 67 23 8

Other elements 5,625 2,175 1,088

Total 59,456 24,971 11,723 a: Cost arises from both an increase in repair and maintenance costs, and the expected shortened life of the infrastructure.

Impacts and costs to other infrastructure population, and the percentage of each affected by (excl roads, bridges and rail) very slight, slight, moderate and severe salinity. This Where government agencies and utilities cannot information can then be used to estimate for each provide an estimate of the cost of dryland and urban salinity-affected town the population affected by 2-4 salinity damage to their infrastructure other than each of the four salinity classes. roads, bridges and rail or where a time consuming Step 2: The added cost of salinity damage to survey approach cannot be justified, these costs government and utility managed infrastructure in the can also be estimated using the following two- urban areas can then be estimated by multiplying stepped approach. the information obtained in Step 1 with the cost 6 Step 1: The data compiled for the urban household functions shown in Table 21 . Full details of how study can be used to identify those urban town these standard cost functions were generated are centres affected by high saline watertables, the reported in Wilson (2002).

70 PART TWO PART TWO 71 Table 21. Salinity cost functions: Infrastructure (excl. roads, bridges and rail)

Salinity damage Salinity severity cost to urban infrastructure

Increased R&M expenditure Cost of shortened life spans ($/urban pop’n affected/yr) ($/urban pop’n affected/yr)

Severe 257 224

Moderate 141 123

Slight 77 67

Very slight 39 34

Source: Wilson (2002)

These cost functions should only be used to provide • construction of new infrastructure better suited to an indication of the costs to government agencies wet and saline conditions and utilities. Where possible, the costs obtained • preventative works such as tree planting, sub- should then be validated with the individual agencies surface drainage and damp proofing of existing concerned and/or regional salinity officers, and buildings amended where appropriate. • conducting salinity-related community education, ‘Other’ salinity-related costs research or extension programs. Conducting a survey of state government agencies However, where a time consuming survey process and utilities is the preferred method for determining is not feasible, these costs may be estimated by whether any additional funds have been spent, multiplying the current (and predicted future) areas or higher expenditure incurred, on the following of moderate to severe salinity in the study area by activities, as a direct result of dryland and urban the salinity cost functions shown in Table 227. Full salinity in the study area: details on the methods used to generate these cost functions are reported in Wilson (2002).

Table 22. Salinity cost functions: ‘Other’ salinity costs

Education, Increased research and construction Preventative extension costs ($/ha salt/ works ($/ha salt/ programs TOTAL ($/ha Group yr) yr) ($/ha salt/yr) salt/yr)

State Govt Agencies - 50 33 83

Road and Rail Authorities 40 6 16 62 Water, Gas, Electricity suppliers - 1 1 2 2-4 Total 40 57 50 147

Where possible, any area subject to naturally 4.7.4 Summary of salinity occurring primary salinity should not be included cost functions for agencies and utilities in these calculations. This is because agencies and Presented in Table 23 is a summary of the various utilities are unlikely to spend funds implementing salinity cost functions that have been compiled to preventative works to address a naturally occurring enhance the accuracy of salinity cost information saline site such as a salt lake. compiled from direct surveys, or obtain a preliminary Any figures generated using this approach should be estimate of these costs no direct survey of this taken as indicative estimates only. Detailed surveys stakeholder group can be justified. of agencies and utilities are needed to obtain more definitive results. 7 These cost functions were also developed from a detailed study of salinity costs to 102 Government Agencies and utilities operating in 10 NSW and Victorian catchments. Detailed information was compiled on the relationship between the extent of moderate and severe salinity problems in the catchment and their expenditure on high construction costs, and implementing salinity-related prevention works and community education, research or extension programs. 72 PART TWO PART TWO 73 Table 23. Marginal salinity cost functions: Government agencies and utilities

Stakeholder and Cost Category Salinity Class

Very slight Slight Moderate Severe

Increased repair and maintenance costs to:

National and state highways ($/km/yr) 2,000 6,930 17,325 31,105

Major sealed roads ($/km/yr) 200 450 1,600 3,600

Railway infrastructure ($/km single track/yr) 11,723 24,971 59,456

Infrastructure (excl. roads and railway) 39 77 141 257 ($/urban population affected by salinity/yr)

Cost of shortened life spans to:

National and state highways ($/km/yr) 2,407 10,833

Major sealed roads ($/km/yr) 481 2,167

Infrastructure (excl. roads and railway) 34 67 123 224 ($/urban population affected by salinity/yr)

Increased construction costs to:

State govt agencies ($/ha salinity/yr) 0

Road and rail authorities ($/ha salinity/yr) 40

Water, gas and electricity suppliers 0 ($/ha salinity/yr)

Expenditure on preventative works by:

State govt agencies ($/ha salinity/yr) 0 50

Road and rail authorities ($/ha salinity/yr) 0 6

Water, gas and electricity suppliers 0 1 ($/ha salinity/yr)

Expenditure on research and extension programs by:

State govt agencies ($/ha salinity/yr) 0 33

Road and rail authorities ($/ha salinity/yr) 0 16

Water, gas and electricity suppliers 0 1 ($/ha salinity/yr)

2-4

72 PART TWO PART TWO 73 4.8 Natural environment • State government agencies (National Parks and The Murray-Darling Basin is home to significant Wildlife Service, Department of Land and Water biodiversity on both public and private land, and Conservation, State Forests, and Environmental in rivers, streams and wetlands. Dryland and urban Protection Authority) salinity is impacting on some of these areas, and • Local Field Naturalists Societies and other is increasing pressures on endangered species and nature conservation groups ecological communities. • Urban and Rural Landcare/Rivercare Groups • Soil Conservation Boards and Local Action This Section describes how to quantify the Planning Committees in SA impacts and cost of dryland and urban salinity • State Environmental Protection Authorities to the natural environment. Work through • Universities this section if you noted in your checklist in Section 3.2 that either: • Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs) • there are rural areas in your study area • Murray-Darling Basin Commission currently affected by dryland salinity or at • Catchment Boards risk, or • Non-government conservation organisations such • there are towns or cities in your study area as Greening Australia, Australian Conservation currently suffering urban salinity. Foundation, World Wide Fund for Nature, and the various National and State Conservation Councils.

4.8.1 Background 4.8.3 Expanded assessment Despite the often substantial impacts of salinity If justified, the next step would involve describing on the environment, a surprisingly small number in qualitative terms the current impacts of salinity of studies have attempted to value these impacts. on the environment, and where desirable, the This may be attributed to two main difficulties: likely future impacts. The broad headings useful • separating out the effects of salinity from other for describing these impacts on public and private forms of land degradation (e.g. soil acidity, land and elaborated upon in Part 1 of these erosion), diseases, urban and industrial pollution, Guidelines are: and the presence of pest flora and fauna such as • terrestrial impacts carp and rabbits. • threatened fauna and flora impacts • placing a value on these impacts because markets • water body impacts for environmental resources and amenities are • river and stream impacts often poorly defined or absent. • wetland impacts. Presented below is a description of several GIS technology also provides an effective method of approaches for assessing the environmental impacts compiling objective information on environmental and costs of dryland and urban salinity. As each assets that intersect dryland salinity outbreaks in 2-4 approach is associated with different levels of a study area. While not exhaustive, digitised GIS accuracy and cost, the approach most appropriate for datasets particularly useful for undertaking this a particular catchment or region will depend on the task include: severity of the problem and the resources available. • areas currently affected by dryland salinity, 4.8.2 Initial assessment and those areas at risk in 2020, 2050 and 2100 In most instances, the first step should be to • recorded sightings of Victorian rare or conduct an initial low-cost qualitative assessment threatened flora species of environmentally significant areas within the • recorded sightings of Victorian rare or catchment. This can be done by collating existing threatened fauna species information, and contacting groups or individuals • Commonwealth Department of Environment and with knowledge of the environmental features of the Heritage datasets showing the location of various area. While not exhaustive, the groups include: wetland types, including RAMSAR wetlands

74 PART TWO PART TWO 75 • AUSLIG’s: – ‘Reserved Areas’ datasets showing the location – ‘Hydrography’ datasets showing the location of reserved area types (including Nature of waterbody types (including lakes, reservoirs, Conservation areas, Aboriginal areas, prohibited swamps and streams) areas and water supply reserves) – ‘Vegetation’ datasets showing the location • the environment and biodiversity datasets compiled of vegetation types (including forest and as part of the National Land and Water Resources rainforest areas) Audit (see www.nlwra.gov.au/atlas).

Worked example 9

While trialling these Guidelines in the Macquarie-Bogan River catchment in NSW, overlaying GIS datasets showing the location and type of natural waterbodies and dryland salinity suggested that the following lengths of natural waterbodies were currently intersecting dryland salinity outbreaks in this catchment:

Length (or perimeter) affected Water body types (km) Number affected

(No.) (%)

Lake 17 8 6.5

Reservoir 11 1 10.0

Sub-to-inundation 30 8 4.4

Swamp 0 0 0

Waterbody void 0 0 0

Canal 14 3 27.3

Connector 16 8 12.7

Water course (river, stream, 2,439 79 26.6 creek)

Total 2,527 107 14.5

The data suggests that there are currently 107 natural water bodies in the catchment currently intersecting dryland salinity outbreaks, or 14.5 per cent of the total. This includes: • 79 rivers, creeks and streams in the catchment (or 26.6 per cent of the total) • 8 lakes (or 6.5 per cent of all lakes), and • 3 canals (or 27.3 per cent of all canals).

2-4 4.8.4 Assessing the costs Step 1: Quantify the environmental costs that are In areas where environmentally significant sites (such more easily valued in the market place. as RAMSAR listed wetlands or national parks) are at Step 2: Use non-market valuation techniques to risk from salinity, and there are sufficient funds and estimate the environmental costs that are not easily skills available, the following steps may be used to valued in the market place. estimate the cost of these impacts: Step 3: Conduct sensitivity analysis.

74 PART TWO PART TWO 75 Before working through these steps however, it is important to note that valuing the environmental costs from salinity will require considerable specialist skills and resources. Unless the study area contains environmentally sites of national or international significance, the cost required to undertake this work is likely to be prohibitive because of two inter-related factors: • Before any valuation can be undertaken, the specific impacts that salinity has on the ‘Use’ and ‘Non- use’ benefits of the environment must be clearly defined. In many cases, this information is not available and will be costly and time consuming to collect. • The cost of conducting a statistically significant non-market valuation study varies enormously, but can range anywhere from $10,000 to several hundred thousand dollars. The cost will depend on the nature of the environmental amenity or feature being valued, the survey population and the reliability being sought.

Quantifying the environmental costs Audit also describes a study aimed at estimating non- that are more easily valued market place market values for land and water degradation using Once a decision has been made to compile a relatively new technique called ‘Choice Modelling’. information on the cost of salinity on the It is recommended that the reader also review this environment, an initial estimate can be compiled report if they are considering using non-market from existing information, such as the net returns valuation techniques to estimate the environmental from bee-keeping, timber cutting, fishing, recreation, cost of salinity in their study area. and tourism. For example, information on recreation An alternate and lower cost approach can also values may be obtained from data sources such as involve extrapolating ‘order of magnitude’ estimates entry fees, fishing licences or park registrations8. sourced from other areas to provide an indicative Initial estimates can also be compiled by asking local guide to environmental costs. AACM (1996) present environmental agencies and groups to: several tables that identify the range of values that have been estimated through studies of the • quantify their total expenditure on the following non-market environmental costs and benefits of activities in the study area: controlling dryland salinity across Australia. Similar – community education and research information is available from natural resource – policy development and program management management databases such as ENVALUE (see – assessing grants, and www.epa.nsw.gov.au/envalue).

– environmental restoration Conducting sensitivity analysis • estimate the percentage of this expenditure Even where expensive non-market valuation attributable to dryland and urban salinity, and studies have been conducted, the estimates should • estimate the number of unpaid labour hours that still be regarded as indicative estimates only since were allocated to each category. A standard ‘per the reliability of the estimate will be strongly hour’ labour rate can then be applied during the influenced by: 2-4 data analysis phase to ensure there is consistency • the characteristics of the environmental asset between the groups. being valued Using non-market valuation techniques • the relative importance of the use and non-use values of the environmental asset There are several non-market valuation techniques available to estimate the environmental costs of • the resources available and the statistical rigour salinity, and these are summarised in Table 24. A applied during the non-market valuation more detailed description of each can be found • the ability of the non-market valuation technique Wilson (1995), Tredwelland Short (1997), Bateman to provide robust answers, and and Turner (1993), and Morrison, Blamey, Bennett • the ability of the researchers and respondents and Louviere (1996). to separate out the effects of salinity from A recent report produced by van Bueren and Bennett other factors. (2001) for the National Land and Water Resources

8 Care should be used when using licence or entry fees, as they may not accurately reflect the market value of the environmental amenity or feature.

76 PART TWO PART TWO 77 One particularly useful form of sensitivity analysis is called ‘The Threshold Approach’. This approach involves assessing how large any environmental impact would have to be to induce a change in any recommended program of on-ground works for the catchment. In an earlier study by Wilson (1995), for example, the threshold approach was used to estimate that the unvalued salinity costs across the lower slopes at Warrenbayne-Boho in Victoria would need to be more than 80 times higher than the combined value of all other estimated salinity costs before native trees at a density of 250 stems per hectare would replace perennial pasture as the preferred land use. This approach will be even more useful in areas where salinity has a noticeable impact on the environment but no attempt is being made to value these impacts in dollar terms.

Table 24. Valuation techniques and their applicability to natural resources

Goods affected Characteristics Valuation technique Comments

Direct Uses

market uses, eg. honey, market goods production approach change in individual use of minerals habitat is valued

recreational uses, non-market goods travel cost nature of the relationship including fishing between travel and site, or the good, needs to be clear

proxy good clear relationship between good and proxy

contingent valuation need realistic payment mechanism

choice modelling change in the good needs to be clearly specified

Indirect uses

uses based on ecological a bundle of functions (the replacement cost may not reflect social value functions, eg. nutrient entire ecosystem) or a single – use if can replace the and pollutant filtration, ecological function service or habitat flood prevention, water recharge capacity

preventative expenditure use if costs incurred to alter environment or its effects – may be difficult to separate expenditure

contingent valuation need realistic payment mechanism 2-4 choice modelling service or habitat needs to be clearly defined

Non-use values

existence, bequest, and uniqueness contingent valuation need to clearly define option values choice modelling change in resources; amenable to dollar valuation, need realistic payment mechanism

biodiversity hedonic pricing property prices need to reflect land characteristics

Source: Van Hilst and Schuele (1997). Note: A detailed description of these valuation techniques can be found Wilson (1995), Tredwell and Short (1997), Bateman and Turner (1993), and Morrison, Blamey, Bennett and Louviere (1996).

76 PART TWO PART TWO 77 4.9 Cultural heritage 4.9.2 Salinity impacts in rural areas One of the final impacts of dryland and urban salinity The recommended approach for assessing the considered relates to its impact on sites of historical, impacts of dryland salinity on cultural heritage in natural, or Aboriginal significance. rural areas of a particular catchment or area may involve some or all of the following steps. This section describes how to quantify the Step 1: Conduct a literature review to collate any impacts of dryland and urban salinity to existing information on the impacts of cultural cultural heritage. heritage in the study area. • Work through this section if you noted in Step 2: Approaching representatives from the your checklist in Section 3.2 that either: catchment boards, the salinity officers working with – there are rural areas in your study area the state government agencies, or relevant heritage- currently affected by dryland salinity or based organisations may also provide some anecdotal at risk, or information. – there are towns or cities in your study area Some of the key heritage based organisations currently suffering urban salinity. operating throughout the Murray-Darling Basin are: • The ACT Heritage Council • The National Trust of Australia 4.9.1 Background • The Australian Heritage Commission Despite the availability of several short reports and • The Heritage Council of NSW fact sheets describing how salinity may have an adverse impact on sites with high cultural, historic or • The National Parks and Wildlife Service Aboriginal significance, a detailed literature review • The NSW Heritage office and contact with numerous with heritage-based • The Historic Houses Trust of NSW; organisations confirmed that: • Charles Sturt University in Albury, NSW; • there is a low level of awareness of the • The NSW Aboriginal Land Council; potential impacts of dryland and urban salinity • The Queensland Heritage Council on cultural heritage • The National Trust of Queensland •documented information on actual damage is scarce, and • State Aboriginal Affairs (S.A. Dept for Transport, Urban Planning and the Arts) • field surveys are needed to record the nature and extent of the problem to heritage and non-heritage • Heritage South Australia listed sites before widespread and irreversible • Parks and Wildlife (SA) salinity damage occurs. • Aboriginal Affairs Victoria The recommended approach for assessing the • Heritage Victoria impacts of dryland and urban salinity on culturally • The Heritage Council of Victoria significant sites in the rural and urban areas is • Parks Victoria. 2-4 therefore outlined below. Step 1: If GIS technology is available, then digitised datasets showing the location of dryland salinity outbreaks should be overlain with datasets identifying sites on the Register of the National Estate. This process enables the identification of recorded sites of Aboriginal, historical and natural significance that intersect known dryland salinity outbreaks in the rural areas. Digitised datasets of the Register of the National Estate are available from the Australian Heritage Commission.

78 PART TWO PART TWO 79 Worked example: 10

Application of the methodology described above in the NSW Macquarie-Bogan River catchment indicated that the following sites listed on the Register of the National Estate intersect areas subject to high saline watertables:

Total area Site name Classification of sitea Area of site affected by dryland salinity

Severe Moderate Slight Very Total (ha) (ha) (ha) slight (ha) (ha)

Burrendong Natural 151 - - - 29 29 Arboretum

Dapper Nature Natural 943 - - - 9 9 Reserve (1984 boundary)

Munghorn Gap Natural 892 - - - 44 44 Nature Reserve (1978 boundary)

Nagundie Aboriginal 121 7 2 12 100 121 Archaeological Area

Wollemi National Natural 7,053 - - - 66 66 Park

Total: 7 2 12 248 269

a: This figure excludes any area of the site that falls outside the boundaries of the catchment. The results suggest that in the Macquarie-Bogan River catchment, there are five rural sites of cultural significance that are currently subject to dryland salinity. These sites occupy a total area of at least 269 hectares, and are classed as having high Aboriginal or natural significance. The sites at risk from salinity under a ‘No-Plan’ scenario could also be assessed by replacing the GIS datasets showing current high saline watertables with predicted areas in 2020, 2050 or 2100.

On-ground inspections will still be needed to assess watertables, and the extent and severity of the the nature of actual salinity damage at the sites salinity problem in each. Step two then involves identified through GIS analysis. However, the process collating information on sites of Aboriginal, historical can focus researcher’s efforts on sites where the risk and natural significance located in the towns of salinity damage is high. identified in Step one. Much of this information is There may also be other culturally significant sites included in databases compiled by local governments and heritage agencies. located in rural areas currently affected by high 2-4 saline watertables (or at risk) but that do not appear If you wish to access the lists compiled by the on this Register. heritage agencies, refer to the Australian Heritage Places Inventory (AHPI) available online on 4.9.3 Salinity impacts in urban areas the Australian Heritage Commission’s website A literature review and discussions with local (www.heritage.gov.au/ahpi). This inventory provides governments, state agency staff and heritage-based details on all places listed on the following State, organisations may also provide details on the impact Territory and Commonwealth Heritage Registers: of salinity on cultural heritage sites located in any • The Register of the National Estate towns with an urban salinity problem. However in • The NSW State Heritage Inventory those instances where awareness of urban salinity problems is low, the following approach can be used. • The Victorian Heritage Register Step one involves using the database on urban • The Northern Territory Heritage Register salinity to identify towns affected by high saline • State Heritage Register (SA)

78 PART TWO PART TWO 79 • Queensland Heritage Register percentage of each urban town centre that is salt- • Heritage Places Database (WA) affected (and the severity of the salinity problem), it is possible to assess the potential risk from salinity • Tasmanian Heritage Register. damage. For example, if 60 per cent of a town is In the absence of detailed on-ground inspections currently subject to moderate to severe salinity, then of these sites, it is not possible to specify whether there is approximately a 60 per cent chance that each the heritage-listed sites located in towns with heritage-listed site in this town is also at risk from urban salinity are, or are not, affected by high moderate to severe salinity damage. saline watertables. However, by also specifying the

Worked example: 11

While trialling these Guidelines in the Namoi River catchment, application of the methodology described above led to the identification of 28 places on the Australian Heritage Places Inventory located in towns subject to urban salinity. The names of the salinity-affected towns, the total percentage of these towns affected, and the heritage-listed places located in each are presented below.

Namoi River Catchment

Barraba township (20%): Narrabri township (20%) a: Tamworth township (10%): Oaky Creek Rail Bridge Collins Park Grandstand Peel River Rail Bridge Narrabri Gaol (former) Power House Monument Gunnedah township (35%): Narrabri Post Office St Nicholas Catholic Church Gunnedah Court House Narrabri Telegraph Office (former) Tamworth Council Chambers Gunnedah General Cemetery Police Residence, Maitland St and Town Hall Gunnedah Railway Station Tamworth Gaol (former) Ruvigne Homestead Complex Tamworth township (10%): Tamworth Hospital (Main Block only) Dominican Convent Group and Tamworth Post Office School Manilla township (50%): Dominican Convent and Chapel Tamworth Primary School Horsley Private Cemetery Lands Office, Fitzroy St Tamworth Town Hall Namoi River Road Bridge Mechanics Institute (former) Wesley Uniting Church

Without on-ground inspections, it is not possible to confirm whether any of these sites are actually being damaged by high saline watertables. However, the reasonably high percentage of Barraba, 2-4 Gunnedah, Manilla and Narrabri being affected suggests the likelihood that a significant number of these sites are currently affected is high. In the Manilla township for example, it is reported that around 50 per cent of the entire township experiences high saline watertable problems.

4.10 Costs to downstream water users Most local action plans implemented at a sub- catchment, catchment or regional scale include This Section introduces the concept of the estimated cost of saline surface water flowing calculating saline water costs to downstream from the catchment to downstream agricultural, water users. domestic and industrial water users9. This estimation • Work through this Section if you noted in is important when developing transparent cost- your checklist in Section 3.2 that salt loads sharing arrangements as downstream water users in your local streams of rivers are likely will be beneficiaries of any salinity control works to affect water users or the environment recommended as part of the plan. downstream from your study area.

9 It will not be appropriate to calculate the costs to downstream water users when calculating the total costs of dryland salinity in numerous neighbouring catchments and then summing them to provide a regional esstimate. To do so may result in double counting of these costs.

80 PART TWO PART TWO 81 The provision of detailed instructions on how to agricultural sectors. There may also be compensating value these downstream costs is outside the Terms factors that lead to a rise in incomes and population of Reference for this project. However, where salts levels despite worsening salinity impacts. This from a catchment enter the Murray River, the process suggests that quantifying the flow-on social costs of broadly involves: salinity may be outside the scope of most local action Step 1: Estimate the current contribution of salt loads plans implemented at a sub-catchment, catchment or from the catchment to total salinity levels of the River regional scale. Murray at Morgan, SA (measured in EC units). Given these problems, considerable effort to quantify Step 2: Estimate how the salinity level of the Murray the flow-on social costs will rarely be warranted. River at Morgan will change over time in the absence Rather, available time and resources will generally be of the catchment plan being implemented. better spent quantifying the costs of salinity which are more easily identified and valued. Step 3: Apply salinity cost figures available from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to calculate the Sensitivity analysis conducted as part of the local cost to River Murray water users from this change in action planning process is one approach that permits river salinity. the importance of unvalued flow-on social impacts to be assessed in a cost-benefit analysis framework. The 4.11 Flow-on social costs ‘Threshold Approach’ introduced in the environment section is particularly useful in this regard. The presence of salinity may generate substantial An alternative approach involves the application of flow-on social impacts within the area being the Monash model described in Adams (1998 and investigated, the surrounding region, and throughout 1999) to broadly identify the change in income that Australia more generally. In practice, however, these could be expected to result from productivity changes impacts are generally difficult to clearly identify at a farm level. This model has been used with and measure. This difficulty arises because other Dynamic Programming in the Landmark Initiative general social and economic factors also contribute project (see www.mdbc.gov.au/landmark/) to assess to social problems in each particular area. These the economic and social impacts of broadscale include high interest rates, declining terms of trade, adoption of alternative dryland agricultural practices strong business competition with larger towns, and in the Condamine, Billabong and Goulburn-Broken structural adjustment pressures in the service and River catchments.

2-4

Photo: Salt Action NSW

80 PART TWO PART TWO 81 Conducting a survey 2-5 or census of stakeholders 5.1 Overview 5.3 Survey design There are 5 key steps involved when conducting a Information can be collected from stakeholder survey or census of stakeholders: groups using either a survey or census-based Step 1: Preparation of a questionnaire form approach. A census questions every person, business, farm, etc., in the target group population, whereas Step 2: Survey design a survey examines only a sub-set of the larger target Step 3: Implementation of the survey or census group and then extrapolates the results to the entire Step 4: Data analysis population. Step 5: Publicity A census, or a survey drawing on a relatively large These steps are discussed in detail below. proportion of the target group, will generally be cost effective if there are relatively few target groups 5.2 Preparation of a questionnaire form in the area. The larger the target group, the more likely that the most efficient approach will involve When preparing any questionnaire form, it is surveying only a proportion of the groups involved. important to balance the data required with the size of the questionnaire. For example, the farm There are two main techniques available for survey questionnaire contains 22 questions. This designing a survey-based approach: will generally be workable where an interviewer • a random sampling technique; and works with the respondent to fill out the form. • a stratified sampling technique. However in other situations, the form may prove too A random sampling technique involves selecting cumbersome. For example, there may be resistance a random sample from the entire population. A to a form of this size in a mail-out survey. In these stratified sampling technique involves categorising a situations, the less crucial questions could be larger population into a number of sub-populations removed. Similarly, in other situations it may not be based on a particular characteristic (eg, severity of necessary to include all questions relating to costs. salinity problems), and then applying a different This situation will arise, for example, if catchment sampling technique to each sub-population. This will communities only need information on the costs often involve surveying a higher proportion of the under a ‘No-Plan’ scenario and hence do not need to population in areas severely affected by salinity than collect information on the costs of undertaking any in areas where the salinity problem is only minor or preventative works. non-existent. Stratified sampling will generally provide more accurate results where the salinity problem is not distributed uniformly across the catchment or among 2-5 different target groups. However, the technique requires more information on the type and location of the target population affected, adding to the complexity and cost of the task.

Presented below is a broad description of how a sub-sample of a target population can be selected for a survey-based approach. When undertaking this step in practice, it will be essential to employ the services of a qualified statistician to provide detailed advice on a survey design that is tailored to the unique characteristics of the individual catchment or region. Poor survey design will lead to survey bias and unreliable results.

10 Annual costs can be converted to a capitalised value by dividing by the appropriate discount rate that reflects people’s value of money over time.

82 PART TWO PART TWO 83 Preparing a survey sample minor problem as addresses located outside the When establishing a random sample of a stakeholder catchment boundary can easily be discarded. group, it will often be useful to purchase a suitable Another problem is that it is quite common for some database from a direct marketing company. These businesses to have more than one number. Again, databases are readily available for most sectors of however, this is a relatively minor problem that can the community and areas within Australia. They be readily resolved. can provide details of names, phone numbers, The use of a database approach is suitable for addresses and business types (where applicable) of moderate to large areas. However, there may every telephone number on each local exchange be more effective methods of establishing a in the study area (each local exchange has its own database for smaller areas. These include local telephone number prefix). From these databases, it is directories, government departments or Landcare then possible to derive subsidiary lists of farms and membership lists. businesses to produce a random sample for each of To demonstrate how a survey can be conducted, the these community sectors. following worked example describes how samples of Using this approach to create a survey sample households, farms, non-farm businesses, councils and has the advantages of being relatively simple but government agencies were selected while trialling comprehensive. One drawback is that catchment an early version of these Guidelines in the Talbragar, boundaries often do not correspond to telephone Little River and Troy Creek catchments of NSW. exchange boundaries. However, this is a relatively

Worked example 12

Households and farms In the Talbragar and Little River catchments, databases on the location and contact details of urban and rural households were purchased from a direct marketing company and used to collate urban and rural properties according to geographical location. The samples were then selected within each geographical location by choosing every nth listing. The size of the ‘n’ was determined by the size of the database and the desired sample size. This resulted in a random selection of listings distributed relatively evenly across the catchments. In the more urbanised Troy Creek catchment, the salinity problems were centralised in an area of the catchment known as the Boogedar Estate. The catchment was therefore divided into 3 sampling areas to enable the problem areas to be sampled more intensively. In the final analysis, the data from these 3 sub-areas were extrapolated separately according to the relative number of houses.

Councils and government agencies A census was conducted of all local councils located in the study areas. A census of all government agencies and environmental groups considered to be susceptible to dryland and urban salinity was also conducted.

Businesses In the Talbragar and Little River catchments, the survey focused on businesses considered most 2-5 susceptible to salinity. This meant that the sampling intensity for these businesses was much higher than for other less susceptible businesses. Businesses that were not considered susceptible to salinity were not sampled. In order to avoid bias, the survey results were then extrapolated according to the number of businesses in each classification. In the Troy Creek catchment, each business was included in the census due to the small number of businesses operating in the catchment.

82 PART TWO PART TWO 83 Selecting the sample size conducting face-to-face surveys cannot be justified. The resources involved in conducting a survey will However, the response rate of mail-outs will always increase with the size of the population and generally be lower and can result in some bias as the size of the sample. However, there is a dilemma stakeholders who recognise problems are more likely with small population sizes. A small population size to reply. Furthermore, face-to-face interviews have generally means that the costs incurred by that sector several advantages, particularly the ability to: of the community will be small. However, if a large • clearly explain the objectives of the survey and the enough sample is not surveyed then the results of content of the questionnaire the study can be unreliable. • increase awareness of the likely symptoms of During an earlier trial of these Guidelines, this salinity and high watertables sample problem was most noticeable in the business • identify the most qualified individual to respond sector, and especially in the Little River catchment to the questionnaire (this is particularly important where only three businesses believed they had when dealing with agencies or utilities with a a salinity problem. With only three businesses management hierarchy within the region) affected by salinity, the response of just one business can have marked effect on the overall results of • collect more in-depth answers than would be the survey. possible with a mail-out questionnaire, and There is no simple solution to this problem. The • collect any additional supplementary or supporting survey of a larger sample (including non-susceptible material that may be useful. businesses) may not result in any more positive responses, and will add to the cost of the survey with 5.4.1 Training seminar little potential benefit. It is therefore essential to seek the advice of a qualified statistician when defining In some situations it may be advantageous to use the population and selecting a sample size. This students or other individuals to conduct the survey will be even more critical when small population or census. In these situations, it will often be useful sizes exist. to run a one or two day training session. Generally, state agency staff or others with a thorough 5.4 Implementing a survey or census knowledge of dryland and urban salinity issues The way in which a survey or census is conducted in the local area and good liaison skills should be will depend on the time and resources available. In approached to conduct these seminars. general, there are three basic approaches available The main purposes of these seminars should be to: (e.g. mail, telephone and face-to-face), and more 1 Improve the individual’s communication skills. than one approach can be used as part of a multi- 2 Increase their awareness of the problems caused stepped approach. by dryland and urban salinity. When sample numbers are manageable, it will often 3 Discuss the logistics of the survey. be useful to make initial contact with the targeted group in the sample via a letter detailing the purpose To increase the level of salinity awareness in the and motive of the study. These letters will often catchment and to gain stakeholder support for increase the effectiveness of the initial personal the survey, it will also be useful to invite key contact, as respondents will have time to consider stakeholders (such as Landcare members and local the impacts of salinity before speaking with the council members) to observe or participate in the interviewers. training session. 2-5 Conducting an initial brief telephone survey of the Communication skills sampled stakeholders will generally offer a relatively The training seminar should include a session with a quick and low cost way of determining which person trained in promoting good liaison skills, and individuals or organisations are affected by dryland should focus on promoting communication skills and and urban salinity. If they indicate that they are (or demonstrating how these skills will enable them to have been) affected, one can then arrange to either improve the effectiveness of the survey. send them a more detailed mail-out questionnaire or to participate in a face-to-face interview. Salinity awareness Mail-out questionnaires will always be cheaper This session should give the trainees a good and may be appropriate where the higher cost of understanding of the salinity problems in the

84 PART TWO PART TWO 85 catchment and the critical issues involved in 5.5 Data analysis conducting a survey of key stakeholder groups. It Regardless of how many people are actually involved should enable the trainees to become clearer on in conducting surveys or collecting supporting what is expected of them, and to become familiar information, it is recommended that the analysis with the other team members. As many of the of the data be undertaken by one person or small tasks involved in undertaking a survey will rely on team at a centralised location. This will ensure cooperation between team members, this training that all the data is analysed and presented in a will be very important to the success of the survey. consistent manner. In many instances, it will also be beneficial to give When analysing the data, it is important to look for the trainees a tour of the catchment to give them double counting of expenditure as respondents may a more practical understanding of the impacts of sometimes double count expenditure under two salinity in both the urban and rural areas. different headings (e.g. repairs and reduced lifespan). Survey logistics Conducting a face-to-face survey using a trained interviewer will generally minimise this occurrence, This session should involve the survey coordinator but these problems are likely to be greater if a mail- discussing in detail the logistics of the survey. This out survey approach is used. should include a detailed examination of the survey forms to permit the trainees to become familiar with the format and purpose of each question. 5.6 Publicity It is important that the interviewer has a good idea of Before conducting any surveys, it will always be the expected outcomes of the survey. If they have a beneficial to promote the work and to discuss its good understanding of this, then they are less likely benefits with the relevant state agency staff and the to overlook crucial information during the interview catchment community. process. It is the nature of many respondents to One important way to raise awareness of the want to finish a survey form as quickly as possible pending survey is to prepare a media release and and with minimal effort. A well-trained and attentive to distribute it to the local media (print and radio) interviewer will allow such a respondent some just before the survey is due to commence. Another latitude, but will ensure that the crucial data is way is to prepare a short fact sheet that discusses the collected. Emphasis during the training session aims and expected outcomes of the survey, and to should therefore be on which questions, or which distribute it, as appropriate. parts of questions, were ‘non-negotiable’ and had to be answered. Other issues that should be covered include interview technique, questions for the initial telephone contact, coordination of telephone contacts and interviews, and data entry.

2-5

Photo: Matt Kendall

84 PART TWO PART TWO 85 2-6 Compilation of salinity cost data Table 25 presents a pro forma that can be used to not been valued in dollar terms. Where this situation record the impacts and costs of dryland and urban arises, sensitivity analysis should be conducted as salinity to the catchment stakeholders and the wider part of the benefit-cost analysis process to determine community. The costs are separated into three broad the likely impact of excluding these costs on the final headings to correspond to the broad headings that results. may be useful when identifying the beneficiaries of The Table also includes a column entitled ‘Capital salinity control works: costs’. This enables the researcher(s) to express the • rural farms current (or future) annual impact costs imposed • non-farming catchment community, and on each stakeholder groups in a capitalised value format10. This will, for example, enable local councils • wider community and financial lending institutions (such as banks) to The Table includes two columns entitled ‘Impacted?’ get a much better appreciation of how dryland and and ‘Valued?’. This enables the researcher(s) to urban salinity in the catchment may be affecting the quickly identify where salinity is affecting a particular capital value of farms, houses and businesses. stakeholder group, but where these impacts have

While trialling these Guidelines, a detailed database on the current impacts and costs of dryland and urban salinity to dryland agricultural producers, households, businesses, local governments, state government agencies and utilities, the environment and cultural heritage has been compiled for the entire Murray-Darling Basin. Results are available at the: • township level • Local Government Area level • catchment level, and • Murray-Darling Basin level. Full details of these results are available from the project reports listed in Part 1 of these Guidelines and are available on-line at www.ndsp.gov.au. They are also available from the ‘Cost of dryland salinity’ project CD available from the MDBC and Land & Water Australia.

2-6

Photo: Salt Action NSW

10 Annual costs can be converted to a capitalised value by dividing by the appropriate discount rate that reflects people’s value of money over time.

86 PART TWO PART TWO 87 Table 25. Proforma for recording estimated costs of dryland and urban salinity Impacted Valued? Current Future Capital Stakeholders and ‘impact’ costs’ (Y/N) (Y/N) costs ($/yr) costs ($/yr) cost ($) Rural Farms Foregone income Repair and maintenance Increased construction costs Shortened lifespan of infrastructure Increased operating costs Sub-Total Non-farm Catchment Community Rural households High saline watertable damage Sub-Total Urban households Saline town water supply cost High saline watertable damage Sub-Total Urban businesses Saline town water supply cost High saline watertable damage: Sub-Total Local governments Increased repair and maintenance expenditure: Rural roads Urban roads Other infrastructure Increased water treatment costs Increased construction costs Cost of shortened life spans: Rural roads Urban roads Other infrastructure Cost of reduced rate levies and rebate schemes Sub-Total Wider Community State agencies and utilities Increased repair and maintenance expenditure: Rural roads Railway infrastructure Other infrastructure Increased construction costs Cost of shortened life spans: Rural roads 2-6 Railway infrastructure Other infrastructure Loss of income Sub-Total Environment Cultural heritage Downstream water users Social Total

86 PART TWO PART TWO 87 2-7 Analysing the data 2- Once information on the current and predicted This may occur, for example, if the value of net future costs of dryland and urban salinity has been income foregone from a cancelled horse-racing event compiled, it will generally be fed into the overall (due to a salinity affected track) was included in the local action planning process (as introduced in Part analysis. If the money that may have been spent at 1). Some of the key issues to be considered when this racing event was spent on the consumption of undertaking this process are outlined below. other goods and services in the catchment, there may When analysing collated data, you will need to assess have been no net economic costs to the catchment its likely accuracy and to assess the implications of community. Similarly, if the money saved was spent this accuracy on the overall local action planning on the consumption of goods and services outside process. For example, it will be important to assess the catchment but within the region, there would the likely implications of not valuing some or all of be a financial cost to the catchment community, but the more intangible environmental or social impacts not an economic cost to the wider community. This through approaches such as threshold analysis. demonstrates the need to be clear on the scale and purpose of the study, and the implications of the Similarly, it will be important to assess the results. implications of uncertainty in the information used to derive the cost estimates. This includes possible Finally, it will be important to assess the wider variations in annual salinity levels of town water implications of the results to the catchment or supplies, or uncertainty over future estimates. One regional communities as a whole. For example, if useful approach to help in this process will be to dryland and urban salinity is currently a major issue, record confidence levels for each of the datasets or is likely to become a major issue in future years, used, or to record a ‘Lower Estimate’, an ‘Upper then this may have major implications for structural Estimate’ and a ‘Most Likely’ estimate. adjustment pressures in the region. For example, it may have major implications for future land use Another useful step is to ensure there is no over- and urban development in the catchment, or on the estimation of the costs obtained. In most cases, this financial ability of stakeholders to implement the can be done by clearly identifying the purpose of the preferred mix of on-ground works needed to control study and defining the study area boundaries. the problem. Individuals interested in learning more Over-estimation of costs may result when costs about the structural adjustment issues associated with compiled for several local action planning areas, dryland salinity and its management across the Basin including the downstream costs, are aggregated to can read Adjusting for catchment management: provide an estimate at the Catchment Management Structural adjustment and its implications for or Basin-wide level. Similarly, over-estimation of catchment management in the Murray-Darling Basin costs may result when the financial costs of foregone (MDBC 2000). income to stakeholders in a catchment are included.

2-8

88 PART TWO PART TWO 89 2-8 References AACM International 1996, Guide to cost-sharing for van Bueren, M. and Bennett, J. 2000, Estimating on-ground works, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin community values for land and water degradation Commission, Adelaide. impacts, Report to the National Land and Water Adams, P. 1998, Effects of technological improvements Resources Audit Project 6.1.4 Unisearch, University of in resources and other industries, Report to Natural NSW, Australia. Resources and Environment, Victoria, Centre of Van Hilst, R. and Schuele, M. 1997, Salinity and Policy Studies, Monash University. high watertables in the Loddon and Campaspe Adams, P. 1999, Options for growth, A paper Catchments: Costs to the environment, ABARE report supporting a presentation to the Growing Horizons to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. Expert Committee, Victoria, Centre of Policy Studies, Wilson S.M. 2002a, Assessing the costs of dryland Monash University. salinity to non-agricultural stakeholders, the Bateman, I.J. and Turner, R.K. 1993, Valuation environment and cultural heritage in selected of the environment, methods and techniques: catchments across the Murray-Darling Basin— The contingent valuation method—Sustainable Methodology report 2, Wilson Land Management environmental economics and management, Services Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Belhaven Press, London. Commission and the National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra. Hardcastle and Richards 2000, Impact of rising water and salinity on infrastructure, Draft report to Dames Wilson S.M. and Laurie 2002, Validation and and Moore Pty Ltd. refinement of the Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey saline water cost functions, Wilson Land Management Ivey ATP 1998, Determining the costs of dryland Services and Ivey ATP Report to the Murray-Darling salinity, Dryland salinity survey of the Talbragar Basin Commission, Canberra. and Little River Catchments—Central West NSW (volumes 1–3). Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Wilson, S.M. 1995, Draft Guidelines for quantifying Commission, Wellington NSW. the full range of costs of dryland salinity, ABARE paper presented at a National Workshop on Dryland Morrison, M., Blamey, R., Bennet, J. and Louviere, Salinity, Convened by ABARE and the Victorian J. 1996, Choice modelling research reports: A Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, comparison of stated preference techniques for Bendigo, Victoria, 21-23 June. estimating environmental values, Research Report No. 1, University of New South Wales, Canberra. Wilson, S.M. 2000, Assessing the cost of dryland salinity to non-agricultural stakeholders across Treadwell, R. and Short, C. 1997, Nonmarket selected Victorian and NSW catchments: A valuation of dryland salinity: Guidelines for methodology report, Wilson Land Management incorporating nonmarket values, ABARE Services Report to the Murray-Darling Basin report, Canberra. Commission and the National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra.

2-8

88 PART TWO PART TWO 89 Attachment A Extent and severity of urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin

Affected urban town centre, by catchment Estimated percentage of town affected

Total % Very slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe %

Avoca

Avoca 10 0 5 5 0

Charlton <5 5 0 0 0

Lake Boga 90 0 10 40 40

Quambatook <5 5 0 0 0

St Arnaud <5 5 0 0 0

Wycheproof <5 5 0 0 0

Swan Hill 10 0 10 0 0

Benanee

Buronga 3 0 3 0 0

Border Rivers (NSW)

Ashford 10 0 5 5 0

Deepwater 20 10 10 0 0

Glen Innes 10 5 5 0 0

Tenterfield 20 0 10 10 0

Yetman 30 10 20 0 0

North Star 20 10 10 0 0

Cherry Tree Hill 20 0 10 10 0

Graman 40 10 20 10 0

Nullamanna 40 5 30 5 0

Border Rivers (Qld)

Inglewood 20 0 10 10 0

Texas 20 5 15 0 0

Yelarbon 40 10 10 20 0

Broken

Cobram 5 0 5 0 0

Dookie 35 15 12 5 3

Glenrowan 5 5 0 0 0

Katamatite <5 5 0 0 0

Nathalia <5 5 0 0 0

Numurkah <5 5 0 0 0

Strathmerton 5 0 5 0 0

90 PART TWO PART TWO 91 Affected urban town centre, by catchment Estimated percentage of town affected

Total % Very slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe%

Tungamah <5 5 0 0 0

Yarrawonga 10 0 0 10 0

Campaspe

Bendigo 1 0.5 0.5 0 0

Echuca 5 0 5 0 0

Heathcote 5 3 1 1 0

Lockington 5 0 5 0 0

Rochester 5 0 5 0 0

Strathfieldsaye 10 5 3 1 1

Castlereagh

Binnaway <5 5 0 0 0

Coonabarabran <5 5 0 0 0

Coonamble <5 5 0 0 0

Gilgandra <5 5 0 0 0

Gullargambone ? 2 0 0 0

Mendooran <5 5 0 0 0

Condamine-Culgoa

None

Darling

Cobar 10 0 0 10 0

Bourke 20 0 0 5 15

Broken Hill 5 0 0 5 0

Goulburn

Alexandra <5 5 0 0 0

Barmah <5 5 0 0 0

Broadford <5 5 0 0 0

Girgarre 10 0 10 0 0

Kyabram 10 0 10 0 0

Nagambie <5 5 0 0 0

Rushworth 5 0 5 0 0

Seymour 5 0 5 0 0

Shepparton-Mooroopna 5 0 5 0 0

Stanhope 15 0 15 0 0

Tallarook 5 0 5 0 0

Tatura 10 0 10 0 0 2-A Tongala 15 0 15 0 0

Violet Town 5 11 0 0 0

Yea 5 5 0 0 0

90 PART TWO PART TWO 91 Affected urban town centre, by catchment Estimated percentage of town affected

Total % Very slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe %

Gwydir

Bingara 0 5 5 0 0

Bundarra 20 5 15 0 0

Delungra 30 10 10 10 0

Moree 20 20 0 0 0

Tingha 20 10 10 0 0

Warialda 15 5 10 0 0

Gum Flat 20 5 15 0 0

Gravesend 50 5 20 25 0

Cobbadah 20 10 10 0 0

Mount Russell 50 10 10 30 0

Kingstown 30 10 20 0 0

Upper Horton 40 0 20 20 0

Kiewa

Wodonga 5 5 0 0 0

Yackandandah <5 3 0 0 0

Lachlan

Blayney 20 5 5 10 0

Boorowa 60 15 15 15 15

Canowindra 20 5 10 5 0

Carcoar 10 5 5 0 0

Cargo 10 5 5 0 0

Condobolin 36 10 13 5 8

Cowra 10 0 5 5 0

Crookwell 10 5 5 0 0

Cudal 10 5 0 5 0

Forbes 30 0 5 15 10

Grenfell 5 0 0 0 5

Gunning 20 5 5 10 0

Hillston 10 0 5 0 5

Lake Cargelligo 20 0 5 5 10

Lyndhurst 30 5 5 15 5

Manildra 18 18 0 0 0

Milthorpe 5 5 0 0 0

Parkes 20 0 5 10 5

Stockinbingal 10 0 5 0 5

Temora 10 0 5 0 5

Trundle 5 5 0 0 0

92 PART TWO PART TWO 93 Affected urban town centre, by catchment Estimated percentage of town affected

Total % Very slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe %

Ungarie 5 5 0 0 0

West Wyalong 10 5 0 5 0

Woodstock 30 5 5 15 5

Young 30 5 10 10 5

Lake George

None

Loddon

Bendigo 7 0 5 2 0

Boort 10 0 5 5 0

Bridgewater 5 0 5 0 0

Campbells Creek 10 5 5 0 0

Carisbrook 5 0 5 0 0

Castlemaine 10 5 5 0 0

Chewton 20 15 5 0 0

Cohuna <5 5 0 0 0

Creswick <5 5 0 0 0

Dunolly 30 10 10 5 5

Goornong 10 0 10 0 0

Gunbower <5 5 0 0 0

Harcourt 5 0 5 0 0

Huntly 10 0 10 0 0

Kerang <5 5 0 0 0

Koondrook 10 0 10 0 0

Lexton 15 0 15 0 0

Maldon 20 0 10 10 0

Maryborough <5 5 0 0 0

Newstead 5 0 5 0 0

Pyramid Hill 15 0 10 5 0

Talbot 5 0 5 0 0

Weddeburn 5 0 5 0 0

Lower Murray River

Goolwa 5 0 3 3 0

Meningie 5 0 5 0 0

Milang 5 0 3 3 0

Murray Bridge 5 0 0 2 3 2-A Paringa 5 0 5 0 0

Renmark 15 0 10 5 0

Tungkillo 5 5 0 0 0

92 PART TWO PART TWO 93 Affected urban town centre, by catchment Estimated percentage of town affected

Total % Very Slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe %

Macquarie-Bogan

Bathurst <5 0 5 0 0

Brewarrina 15 0 10 5 0

Coolah 50 0 0 20 30

Cumnock 70 10 20 20 20

Dubbo 30 0 15 10 5

Dunedoo <5 0 5 0 0

Geurie <5 0 5 0 0

Gulgong <5 0 5 0 0

Kandos 30 5 10 15 0

Molong <5 0 5 0 0

Mudgee 50 10 20 10 10

Narromine <5 0 5 0 0

Nyngan <5 0 5 0 0

Oberon <5 0 5 0 0

Orange <5 0 5 0 0

Peak Hill <5 0 5 0 0

Perthville <5 0 5 0 0

Portland ? - - - -

Rylstone 85 25 25 15 20

Tottenham 10 0 2.5 7.5 20

Trangie 10 0 2.5 7.5 0

Tullamore <5 0 5 0 0

Warren 10 0 2.5 7.5 0

Wellington 20 0 5 15 0

Wongarbon <5 0 5 0 0

Yeoval <5 0 5 0 0

Mallee (SA)

Coomandook 8 2 2 2 2

Moorook 8 0 8 0 0

Waikerie 3 0 3 0 0

Mallee (Vic)

Burgona 20 10 10 0 0

Dareton 20 10 10 0 0

Euston 15 10 5 0 0

Gol Gol 15 10 5 0 0

Irymple 15 10 5 0 0

Merbein 15 10 5 0 0

94 PART TWO PART TWO 95 Affected urban town centre, by catchment Estimated percentage of town affected

Total % Very Slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe %

Mildura 20 10 5 5 0

Ouyen 30 0 20 10 0

Red Cliffs 15 10 5 0 0

Robinvale 15 5 10 0 0

Sea Lake 15 5 10 0 0

Walpeup 10 0 10 0 0

Wentworth 20 5 10 5 0

Moonie

None

Murray Riverina

Albury 5 3 2 0 0

Barham 5 0 5 0 0

Barooga 5 5 0 0 0

Cobram 5 5 0 0 0

Corowa 5 0 5 0 0

Echuca 5 5 0 0 0

Finley < 5 3 0 0 0

Howlong 5 5 0 0 0

Koondrook 5 0 5 0 0

Moama 10 10 0 0 0

Mulwala 10 0 10 0 0

Murrabit 5 0 5 0 0

Nyah 5 0 5 0 0

Swan Hill 10 0 10 0 0

Tocumwal 5 5 0 0 0

Yarrawonga 10 0 10 0 0

Murrumbidgee

Balranald 2 2 0 0 0

Binalong 60 0 20 20 20

Coolamon 5 5 0 0 0

Cootamundra 75 70 4 1 0

Griffith 8 3 2 1 2

Gunning 10 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Harden-Murrumburrah 10 8 2 0 0

Hay 60 60 0 0 0 2-A Holbrook 15 5 5 5 0

Junee 40 10 10 5 10

Ladysmith 44 7 15 15 7

94 PART TWO PART TWO 95 Affected urban town centre, by catchment Estimated percentage of town affected

Total % Very Slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe %

Leeton 5 2 1 2 0

Narrandera 4 2 1 1 0

Queanbeyan 3 3 0 0 0

Tarcutta 7 3 2 2 0

Tumut 2 2 0 0 0

Wagga Wagga 50 5 15 20 10

Yass 12 5 5 2 0

Namoi

Attunga 20 10 10 0 0

Barraba 20 0 15 5 0

Bendemeer 10 5 5 0 0

Boggabri 50 5 10 35 0

Curlewis 40 10 20 10 0

Gunnedah 35 0 10 15 10

Manilla 50 10 30 10 0

Narrabri 20 5 5 10 0

Tamworth 10 0 5 5 0

Werris Creek 10 10 0 0 0

Tambar Springs 19 5 5 0 0

Baan Baa 100 20 20 60 0

Ovens

Barnawartha <5 3 0 0 0

Chiltern <5 3 0 0 0

Corowa 5 5 0 0 0

Wahgunyah 5 5 0 0 0

Howlong 5 5 0 0 0

Moyhu <5 3 0 0 0

Rutherglen 10 5 5 0 0

Wangaratta <5 3 0 0 0

Yarrawonga 5 5 0 0 0

Paroo

None

Upper Murray

None

Warrego

None

96 PART TWO PART TWO 97 Affected urban town centre, by catchment Estimated percentage of town affected

Total % Very Slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe %

Wimmera-Avon

Birchip 5 5 0 0 0

Dimboola 20 5 10 5 0

Donald 20 5 10 5 0

Hopetoun 10 5 5 0 0

Horsham 15 5 5 5 0

Jeparit 35 10 15 10 0

Minyip 5 5 0 0 0

Natimuk 10 5 5 0 0

Ouyen 30 0 20 10 0

Rainbow 15 0 10 5 0

Stawell 5 5 0 0 0

2-A

96 PART TWO PART TWO 97 1-1 Attachment B

Example dryland agricultural producer questionnaire

Number Salinity/high Watertable Questionnaire

Farms

If you have any questions or queries regarding this questionnaire please contact on Please read through the questionnaire first before completing it. Unless otherwise specified, answer all questions with reference to the whole property including the farming business assets and the homestead facilities. Property Name

Address:

Contact Person:

Phone Number (optional):

Facsimile Number (optional):

Terms used in the survey Your property Please include all land owned or managed by you in the . Salinity/high watertables refers to any one of the following problems: • Watertables at or near the soil surface. • Saline groundwater such as bores and wells. • Saline surface water such as rivers, creeks and dams. • Saline soil conditions. Discharge areas are defined as areas with salinity/high watertables problems. Recharge areas do not have salinity/high watertables problems but contribute to the problem through infiltration of rain or irrigation into the groundwater system. Capital infrastructure could include structures such as roads and bridges, electricity distribution facilities, septic systems, buildings, fencing, water supply systems, gardens, and gas supply systems.

98 PART TWO PART TWO 99 1 On the attached map of the , indicate the approximate location of 1-1 your property. 2 What is the area of your property? Please subdivide this area between the following land use types:

ha ha Irrigated pasture/cropping Good dryland cropping and pasture Irrigated horticulture Dryland pasture with occasional cropping Dryland horticulture Dryland pasture with no cropping Prime dryland cropping Limited grazing No agricultural value Tree lot or regeneration area

3 Are you a member of a Landcare group or any other information sharing producer group? (e.g. TopCrop, Farm Cheque)

Y N

For questions 4, 5 and 6 below, please use the following scale to indicate how serious you think the salinity/high watertable problem is on your property and in the surrounding area.

Serious Moderate Slight No Problem Don’t know 1 2 3 4 5

4 Using the above scale, how do you rate the problems of rural salinity/high watertables in your immediate area?

Code

5 Using the above scale, how do you rate the problems of rural salinity/high watertables on your property?

Code

For question 6 below, please use the following scale to indicate your perception of the change in the salinity/high watertable problem over time on your property.

Seriously Moderately Some Worse Worse Slightly Worse No Change Improvement Don’t know 1 2 3 4 5 6

6 Please answer the following questions in relation to the overall change in salinity/high watertables on your property over time. How long have you been associated with your current property?

Years

Using the above scale, how do you describe the change in salinity/high watertables over the period of your association with your current property?

Code

Using the above scale, how do you expect salinity/high watertables to change on your property over the next 10 years?

Code 2-B

98 PART TWO PART TWO 99 7 What impact has salinity/high watertables had on the operation of your property? Answer questions in columns A, B and C by ticking the appropriate boxes. Questions A. Do you experience any of the following Impacts due to salinity/high watertables? B. From those impacts indicated in A, which are the three most serious today? C. Which three impacts will be the most serious in 10 years time? (These may include impacts not currently experienced). B: 3 most C: 3 most A: Salinity serious serious Question: impact today in 10 years Farm Agricultural production foregone Forestry production foregone Decreased enterprise flexibility Damage to water pipes or supply systems Damage to water tanks Damage to access roads & tracks Damage to farm buildings Damage to fences and stockyards Damage to vehicles, machinery & equipment Soil erosion of saline sites Weed invasion (e.g. spiny rush) Access to waterlogged sites Higher drainage costs Turbidity of water supplies Salinity of livestock water supplies Secondary erosion along stream banks Household Salinity of household water Damage to houses & other domestic buildings Damage to driveways and paths Damage to swimming pool Damage to gas pipes & supply systems Corrosion of domestic appliances Reduced efficiency of septic systems Damage to gardens and lawns Increased use of soaps & detergents Other Other Reduction in farm flora and fauna Deterioration of farm wetlands or lakes Other (specify)

100 PART TWO PART TWO 101 8 Please specify the source(s) of domestic water for your household (exclude water used for farm purposes—eg stock water, irrigation, spraying, etc). If more than one source is used, please estimate the relative proportion of each source. If known, please estimate the average salinity level of the water from each source used.

Relative proportion Salinity level Town water supply % EC Bore or well % EC River % EC Runoff collecting dam % EC Spring fed dam % EC Rainwater tanks % EC Other (specify) % EC

9 Do any houses on your property suffer structural damage due to high watertables?

Y N

If Yes, please specify the number of houses affected by minor/moderate high watertable problems, and the number severely affected. If No, go to Question 10

Households affected by high watertables (no.) Minor or moderate affect Severe affect

10 What is the total length of access roads and dirt tracks on your property? What is the estimated length of roads currently or potentially affected by salinity or high watertables?

Estimated length affected by salinity/high Total length potentially Type of Road Total length of road (km) watertables (km) affected (km) Access roads Dirt or gravel tracks

11 What is the frequency of periodic maintenance on your access roads and dirt tracks, and what is the average amount spent?

No. of years between Road type each periodic maintenance Average amount spent Roads not affected Roads affected by Roads not affected Roads affected by by high watertables high watertables by high watertables high watertables (yrs) (yrs) ($/km) ($/km) Access roads Dirt or gravel tracks

2-B

100 PART TWO PART TWO 101 12 What is your routine annual repair and maintenance (R&M) expenditure on the following items? What percentage would you attribute to the damage caused by salinity/high watertables? How much unpaid labour was used in repair and maintenance activities as a result of salinity/high watertables?

Your best estimate of Unpaid labour used Total R&M expenditure R&M expenditure on for R&M on item on each item $ item due to salinity $ due to salinity Hrs Water pipes or supply systems Water tanks Groundwater bores Drainage systems Farm buildings Fences and stockyards Vehicles, machinery and equipment Gas supply systems Septic systems Driveways and paths Swimming pool Other (specify) Comments:

13 What new infrastructure (such as sheds, fences, yards) have you built in the last 3 years (or plan to build in the next 2 years) which has (or will) incur greater costs to minimise damage from salinity/high watertables? Has any unpaid labour been used during the construction phase? Examples of increased construction costs may include: • use of high grade materials • raising the height of a road • extra drainage systems • extra damp coursing • marine grade concrete • PVC or other piping material • relocation to a better site

Estimated part Estimated unpaid of total cost due construction labour Total cost of Expected to salinity/high due to salinity/high Structure the structure ($) lifespan (yrs) watertables watertables (hrs) Roads, tracks, etc. % Buildings % Fences & yards % Water supply systems % Drainage systems % Driveways, paths, etc. % Other (specify): % Comments:

102 PART TWO PART TWO 103 14 In the past 3 years, what preventative works have you carried out on your property to minimise the current and future impacts of salinity/high watertables?

Total cost of Estimated part of total Estimated unpaid labour preventative works over cost due to salinity/high due to salinity/high Preventative Works the past 3 years ($) watertables (%) watertables (hrs) Saline Water Supplies Installed % rainwater tank(s) Installed water % purifier/filter Installed dam(s) % Installed bore(s) % Other (specify): % High Watertables/Saline Soils (discharge areas only) Sub surface drainage % Tree plantings % and fencing Saline tolerant pasture % Bore sinking % Erosion controls % Land management % fencing Damp proofing % existing building Other (specify) % %

15 In the past 3 years, what preventative works have you carried out on the recharge areas of your property to minimise the current and future impacts of salinity/high watertables?

Total cost of preventative Estimated part of total Estimated unpaid labour works over the past 3 cost due to salinity/high due to salinity/high Preventative Works years ($) watertables (%) watertables (hrs) Commercial % tree plantings Non-commercial % tree plantings Perennial pastures % Other (specify): % % Comments:

2-B

102 PART TWO PART TWO 103 16 Do you expect that the lifespan of any major capital infrastructure to be shortened due to salinity/ high watertables?

Y N If so please provide details below:

Estimate of Current total Expected total expenditure expected lifespan given Amount of needed to replace lifespan of capital no salinity and infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure high watertable Features affected (unit) km ($/unit) $/km (years) problems (years) Fences Other (specify)

Comments:

17 Have you adjusted the nature of your farming operation in response to the problems of salinity/ high watertables? (e.g. changing enterprises, reduced irrigation)

Y N

If Yes, please provide details

18 Have any of the changes outlined in Question 17 led to a decrease in net income?

Y N

If yes, please provide details

19 Have any of the items outlined in Question 17 led to a decrease or increase in the farming equipment required on your property?

Y N

If Yes, please provide details

2-8

104 PART TWO PART TWO 105 20 Do salinity/high watertables result in increased operating costs to your farm business (do not include costs to your household)? (See examples below)

Y N

If Yes, please provide details below If No, go to question 21.

Questions A. Which of the following increased costs have affected your farm as a result of salinity/high watertables? B. Estimate the total expenditure on each item during the last completed accounting period (optional). C. Estimate the proportion of the total expenditure that is due to salinity/high watertables. D. Estimate the expenditure ($) that is due to salinity/high watertables.

Question: A B C D High watertable/ High watertable/ Costs incurred Total costs saline water saline water (Y/N) incurred ($) expenditure (%) expenditure ($) Higher use of soaps & detergents Increased cost of water cooling Increased cost of water heating Pumping costs Water supply costs Maintaining tree plantations Maintaining gardens, lawns. Other (specify)

Comments:

21 In the past 3 years, have you paved or concreted any external areas of your property to cover bare patches of ground that may have been caused by salinity/high watertables?

Y N

If yes, please estimate the cost of this paving or concreting.

Materials and any paid labour $ Unpaid labour hours

2-B2-8

104 PART TWO PART TWO 105 22 Do you believe that your household has foregone any other income, or incurred any other costs because of the salinity/high watertables during the last 12 months? (e.g. reduced vegetable yields)

Y N

If Yes, please provide details

If you have any further comments on any matter please write them below:

106 PART TWO PART TWO 107 Attachment C

Example local government questionnaire Salinity in the Region

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SHIRE & CITY COUNCILS

Council Area Name:

Postal Address:

Contact Person:

E-mail address:

Contact Telephone no.

Facsimile Number:

Terms used in the survey Salinity/high watertables refers to any one of the following problems: • Watertables at or near the soil surface. • Saline groundwater such as bores and wells. • Saline town water supplies & saline surface water. • Saline soil conditions. Local government area (LGA) and Council area both refer to the area administered by your Local Government Council.

If you have any questions or queries regarding this questionnaire please contact on or

Please return the completed form to by

2-C

106 PART TWO PART TWO 107 For question 1, please use the following scale to indicate how serious you think the salinity/high watertable problem is in your LGA.

Serious Moderate Slight No Problem Don’t know 1 2 3 4 5

1 How do you rate the problems of salinity in the portion of your LGA that falls within the boundaries of the Region (see attached map)? Rural areas Urban areas Code 2 Please identify which of your Council assets, if any, are currently affected by salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region.

Affected by salinity? Yes/No Roads (incl. kerbs & gutters) & bridges Street lighting Footpaths and bicycle paths Aerodromes Water pipes and supply systems Sewerage pipes & disposal systems (excluding septic systems) Septic systems Public fencing and stockyards Houses (incl. sheds and garages) House gardens Other buildings (shops, schools etc) Sportsgrounds and showgrounds Municipal parks & gardens Cemeteries New housing estates infrastructure Other

108 PART TWO PART TWO 109 3 Is salinity/high watertables causing your Council to spend more repairing and maintaining affected infrastructure (such as roads, gardens and buildings) within the boundaries of the Region? If Yes, please complete columns A. and B. OR column B. for the relevant sections of the following table.

Your best estimate Your best estimate Total R&M of R&M expenditure of R&M expenditure expenditure on on item due to on item due each affected item salinity to salinity A. ($/yr) B. (%) C. ($/yr) Bridges & culverts Roads Municipal parks, gardens, sports & show grounds and playing fields Public buildings Street lighting Footpaths and bicycle paths Aerodromes Cemeteries Public fencing and stockyards Other (specify)

4 In the past 3 years, has your Council paved or concreted any external areas within the boundaries of the Region to cover bare patches of ground that may have been caused by salinity/high watertables?

Y N

• If Yes, please estimate the cost of this paving. Materials & paid labour $ Unpaid labour Hrs

5 What, if any, new infrastructure has your Council built in the last 3 years which has incurred greater costs because of salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region? Examples of increased construction costs may include: • use of high grade materials • raising the height of a road • extra drainage systems • extra damp coursing • marine grade concrete • PVC or other piping material • relocation to a better site

Estimated part of total Total cost of the cost due to salinity/high Structure structure ($) Expected lifespan (yrs) watertables (%) Please specify:

2-C

108 PART TWO PART TWO 109 Comments:

6 In the past 3 years, what preventative works has your Council carried out to minimise the current and future impacts of salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region?

Total cost of preventative Estimated part of total cost due Preventative Works works over the past 3 years ($) to salinity/high watertables (%) Sub surface drainage % Tree plantings % Bore sinking % Erosion controls % Groundwater pumping % Damp proofing existing building % Other (specify % % Comments:

7 Do you believe that the lifespan of any major capital infrastructure managed by your Council has been shortened due to salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region? If Yes, please provide details below:

Y N

Current expected Expected lifespan Amount of Total cost lifespan of capital given no salinity or infrastructure to replace infrastructure high watertables Features affected (unit) infrastructure ($) (years) (years) Bridges & culverts No. Street lighting No. Footpaths & bicycle paths m Aerodromes No. Public fencing m Public buildings No. Municipal parks & gardens No. Sportsgrounds & showgrounds No. Cemeteries No. Other (specify)

110 PART TWO PART TWO 111 8 Has your Council had to reduce rate levies on some properties as a result of lower land values due to salinity/high watertable damage within the boundaries of the Region?

Y N If yes, please provide an estimate of the lost revenue (both urban and rural rates) during the last completed accounting period. $ Rural/Urban

9 During the last accounting year did your Council need to attract additional funds to meet extra costs due to salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region?

Y N

If No go to Question 11 10 From what sources did the Council raise the revenue required to meet the costs due to salinity/ high watertables?

Yes/No Re-allocation of existing resources Increase in rate levies Special Commonwealth/State Government grants General Purpose Commonwealth/State Government grants Community/private funding Borrowed funds Unable to raise all revenue required Other (specify)

11 How much does your Council spend each year, if any, on salinity related community education, research or extension programs within the boundaries of the Region? $

12 Are the Council’s services and infrastructure being reduced as a result of spending on salinity/ high watertables within the boundaries of the Region?

Y N

If Yes, please provide details. For example: • Reverting bitumen roads to gravel surfaces. • Increased frequency of road closures or service disruption.

If you have any further comments on any matter please write them below:

2-C

110 PART TWO PART TWO 111 Attachment D

Example state government and utility questionnaire Salinity/high Watertable Questionnaire Gas and electricity suppliers in the Name of Company:

Postal Address:

Contact Person:

E-mail:

Phone Number:

Facsimile Number:

Terms used in the survey Salinity/high watertables refers to any one of the following problems: • Watertables at or near the soil surface. • Saline groundwater such as bores and wells. • Saline surface water such as rivers, creeks and dams. • Saline soil conditions.

If you have any questions or queries regarding this questionnaire please contact

112 PART TWO PART TWO 113 For question 1 below, please use the following scale to indicate how serious you think the salinity/ high watertable problem is in your area of responsibility.

Serious Moderate Slight No Problem Don’t know 1 2 3 4 5

1 Do you believe that salinity or high watertables are a problem in the Region? (see attached map) Y N Unsure

If Yes how would you rate the seriousness of the salinity/high watertable problem in non-irrigated rural land and in urban town centres (using the above code)? Dryland areas Urban areas

For question 2 below, please use the following scale.

Large extent Moderate extent Slight extent No Problem Don’t know 1 2 3 4 5

2 To your knowledge, to what extent have the following symptoms been observed on or around infrastructure or facilities managed by your Company in the Region?

Code Bare patches of ground often with white crusts on the surface Boggy or waterlogged ground Higher than normal rates of corrosion of steel/iron fences, tanks, water & sewerage infrastructure, etc. Cracked pavements or driveways Potholes and other damage to roads Rising damp in buildings Soil structural decline and the resulting breakdown of building foundations Higher than normal rates of deterioration of concrete posts/poles Unhealthy or dead grass, shrubs and trees

3 Please indicate which infrastructure and facilities your Company manages in the Region and then which, if any, you believe are being adversely affected by salinity or high watertables.

Managed by your Authority Affected by salinity/high (Y/N) watertables (Y/N/?) Gas pipes Electricity transmission towers Concrete or steel power poles Underground cables Corporate buildings & surrounding gardens Corporate plant and equipment Fences Access tracks and roads Other (specify) 2-D

112 PART TWO PART TWO 113 If you have any further comments on this matter, please write them below:

4 If you reported in Question 3 that salinity or high watertables are adversely affecting infrastructure in the Region, please indicate whether your Company has spent money to repair or maintain the affected infrastructure in non-irrigated rural land or urban centres during the last 3 years. Please also specify your best estimate of the average annual amount that your Company has spent repairing and maintaining this affected infrastructure.

Spending money to repair or Your best of estimate of maintain affected infrastructure R&M expenditure on asset due to salinity? Y/N due to salinity $/yr Gas pipes Electricity transmission towers Concrete or steel power poles Underground cables Corporate buildings & surrounding gardens Corporate plant and equipment Fences Access tracks and roads Other (specify)

If you have any further comments on this matter, please write them below:

5 Has your Company built any new infrastructure in the Region during the last 3 years (or plans to build in the next 2 years) that has incurred greater construction costs to minimise any current (or potential) damage from salinity/high watertables?

Y N

Examples of increased construction costs may arise from: • use of higher grade materials • raising the height of a pipeline • extra drainage systems, • extra damp coursing on buildings • marine grade concrete, • use of corrosion resistant materials • relocation to a better site. If Yes, please provide details below:

Estimated percentage of total Total cost of the new Expected cost attributable to salinity/ Structure infrastructure ($) lifespan (yrs) high watertable problems (%) Please specify:

114 PART TWO PART TWO 115 If you have any further comments on this matter, please write them below:

6 Has your Company undertaken any preventative works in the Region during the last 3 years to minimise the current or future impacts of salinity/high watertables in non-irrigated rural areas or urban centres?

Y N

Examples of preventative works may include: • revegetation • installing sub-surface drainage around infrastructure • installing extra damp coursing in existing buildings • installing groundwater pumps If Yes, please provide details below:

Total cost of preventative works Estimated part of total cost due Preventative Works over the past 3 years ($) to salinity/high watertables (%) Sub surface drainage Revegetation Damp proofing existing building Other (specify):

If you have any further comments on this matter, please write them below:

7 Do you expect that the lifespan of any of your Company’s infrastructure or facilities in the Region are being shortened due to salinity/high watertables in non-irrigation rural areas or urban centres?

Y N

If Yes, please provide details below:

Current expected Expected lifespan Infrastructure or Cost to replace lifespan of capital given no salinity or high facility affected infrastructure ($) infrastructure (years) watertables (years)

If you have any further comments on this matter, please write them below:

2-D

114 PART TWO PART TWO 115 8 In the last year, did your Company spend any money on the following salinity-related education, research, extension or environmental conservation activities in the Region? If YES, please specify.

Part of total expenditure due to Total Expenditure ($) salinity/high watertables (%) Staff education programs Community education programs Research activities Environmental conservation activities Other

If you have any further comments on this matter, please write them below:

9 Has salinity/high watertables led to a reduction in quantity or quality of the goods and services provided by your Company?

Y N

If Yes, please provide details. For example: • Increased frequency of service disruption.

If you have any final comments on how salinity or high watertables are affecting your Company, please write them below:

116 PART TWO PART TWO 117 Attachment E

Example state governments and utilities to be considered for survey

NSW Victoria Australian Gas Light (AGL) Company Environment Protection Agency Boral Energy Victorian Roads Corporation Advance Energy Various regional offices Great Southern Energy Telstra Australian Inland Energy Origin Energy North Power Boral Energy Transgrid Stratus (Gas Company) Energy Australia Integral Energy Energy Corporation of NSW Enertek Pacific Power Vencorp Department of Mineral Resources TXU Australia Pty Ltd Head Office Energy 21 Various regional offices Powercor Australia Department of Housing United Energy Environment Protection Authority AES Transpower Holdings Department of Conservation and Land Management GPU Gasnet Various regional offices GPU Powernet Telstra UE Com Telecommunications Department of Public Works and Services Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria Parramatta Land Management Branch GASCOR Various regional offices Westar Environmental Trusts Hazelwood Power National Parks and Wildlife Services Agriculture Victoria (Head Office) Various district and area offices Department of Energy and Minerals NSW Agriculture Department of Natural Resources and Environment Head Office Various regional offices Various district offices Department of Infrastructure NSW Department of Transport Various regional offices NSW Heritage Office Parks Victoria Historic Houses Trust of NSW Heritage Council Victoria Road and Traffic Authority Victorian Rail Track (Vic Track Access) Various regional offices V/Line NSW Aboriginal Land Council Central Highlands Water Dubbo office Coliban Water Parramatta office Goulburn-Murray Rural Water Authority State Rail Authority of NSW Goulburn Valley Water Rail Access Corporation Lower Murray Region Water Authority Rail Services Australia North East Region Water Authority Broken Hill Water Board Grampians Region Water Authority Cobar Water Board ACT Hunter Water Corporation Department of Planning and Land Management Goldenfields Water County Council ACT Housing Trust Riverina Water County Council Environment ACT 2-E ACTEW Corporation Ltd Australian Gas Light (AGL) Pipelines

116 PART TWO PART TWO 117 Cost of dryland and urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin CD

What is on this CD?

The primary purpose of this CD is to answer the following questions about dryland and urban salinity in each of the 26 surface water catchments located in the Murray-Darling Basin: • What are the current impacts of dryland and urban salinity? • Who are affected? • What are the costs?

Cost of dryland and urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin

MDBC Publication 37/04 ISBN 1 876830 89 1 Author: Dr. Suzanne M. Wilson Integrated catchment management in the Murray-Darling Basin Published by: Murray-Darling Basin Commission Postal Address: GPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601 A process through which people can develop a vision, agree on shared values and behaviours, make informed decisions and act together to manage the natural resources of their catchment: their decisions on the use of land, Office location: Level 5, 15 Moore Street, Canberra City water and other environmental resources are made by considering the effect of that use on all those resources and Australian Capital Territory on all people within the catchment. Telephone: (02) 6279 0100 Our values Our principles International + 61 2 6279 0100 We agree to work together, and ensure that our We agree, in a spirit of partnership, to use the following Facsimile: (02) 6248 8053 behaviour reflects the following values. principles to guide our actions. International + 61 2 6248 8053 E-mail: [email protected] Courage Integration Internet: http://www.mdbc.gov.au • We will take a visionary approach, provide • We will manage catchments holistically; that is, leadership and be prepared to make decisions on the use of land, water and other For further information contact the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office on (02) 6279 0100. difficult decisions. environmental resources are made by considering the effect of that use on all those resources and on Inclusiveness This report may be cited as: all people within the catchment. • We will build relationships based on trust Wilson, S.M. 2004 Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. An overview & guidelines and sharing, considering the needs of future Accountability for identifying and valuing the impacts, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. generations, and working together in a • We will assign responsibilities and accountabilities. true partnership. • We will manage resources wisely, being ISBN 1 876830 883 • We will engage all partners, including Indigenous accountable and reporting to our partners. communities, and ensure that partners have the © Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2004 Transparency capacity to be fully engaged. This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs and the • We will clarify the outcomes sought. MDBC logo) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is not sold or used Commitment • We will be open about how to achieve outcomes for commercial benefit and its sourceDryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. An overview • We will act with passion and decisiveness, taking and what is expected from each partner. & guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts, is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for the the long-term view and aiming for stability in Effectiveness purpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction for other decision-making. • We will act to achieve agreed outcomes. purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or the individual photographers • We will take a Basin perspective and a non- and artists with whom copyright applies. partisan approach to Basin management. • We will learn from our successes and failures and continuously improve our actions. To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all liability Respect and honesty to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other • We will respect different views, respect each Efficiency compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material other and acknowledge the reality of each • We will maximise the benefits and minimise the contained in it. other’s situation. costs of actions. The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. • We will act with integrity, openness and Full accounting They are presented to inform discussion for improvement of the Basin’s natural resources. honesty, be fair and credible, and share • We will take account of the full range of costs and Cover photo: Arthur Mostead, Dryland Salinity reclamation, Galong NSW. knowledge and information. benefits, including economic, environmental, social • We will use resources equitably and respect and off-site costs and benefits. MDBC Publication 34/04 the environment. Informed decision-making Flexibility • We will make decisions at the most • We will accept reform where it is needed, be appropriate scale. willing to change, and continuously improve our • We will make decisions on the best available actions through a learning approach. information, and continuously improve knowledge. Practicability • We will support the involvement of Indigenous • We will choose practicable, long-term people in decision-making, understanding the outcomes and select viable solutions to achieve value of this involvement and respecting the living these outcomes. knowledge of Indigenous people. Mutual obligation Learning approach • We will share responsibility and accountability, and • We will learn from our failures and successes. act responsibly with fairness and justice. • We will learn from each other. • We will support each other through the necessary change. Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin AN OVERVIEW & GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING AND VALUING THE IMPACTS

KNOWLEDGE Landscapes & Industries Dr Suzanne M.Wilson IDENTIFYING AND VALUING THE IMPACTS AN OVERVIEW &GUIDELINESFOR Murray-Darling Basin costs across the Dryland andurban salinity