Murray Irrigation Limited A.C.N. 067 197 933

MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED COMPLIANCE REPORT

2003/04

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 1 Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Supply Management ...... 4 Diversions Deliveries and Losses...... 4 Irrigation Water Quality...... 5 Supply Refurbishment & Review ...... 5 Telemetry ...... 7 Water Trade ...... 8

Chapter 2: Stormwater Management ...... 9 Water Quality Analysis ...... 9 Pesticide Monitoring ...... 16 Blue-Green Algae Monitoring...... 17 Impact on Receiving Waterways...... 18 Pumping Drainage Water into Supply Channels ...... 20 Noxious Aquatic Weeds ...... 20 Agricultural Chemical Use ...... 21

Chapter 3: Groundwater Management ...... 22 Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme ...... 22 Other Tubewell Pumping ...... 25 Trends in Regional Watertable Levels ...... 26 Risk of Salinity (Benchmark)...... 32 Rootzone Salinity (Benchmark) ...... 32

Chapter 4: On-Farm Management...... 34 Climatic Conditions ...... 34 Landuse ...... 35 Irrigation Layout ...... 36 Water Use ...... 36 Total Farm Water Balance ...... 37 Rice Water Use ...... 38 Waterlogging (Benchmark) ...... 39 Farm Water Use Efficiency (Benchmark) ...... 39 Adoption of Best Management Practices (Benchmark) ...... 43 Soil Acidity (Benchmark) ...... 44 Status of Native Vegetation (Benchmark) ...... 44 Socio Economic Status (Benchmark) ...... 46 Community Understanding of Best Management Practices (Benchmark) ...... 46

Chapter 5: Murray Land and Water Management Plans ...... 47 LWMP Implementation ...... 47 Berriquin LWMP ...... 50 Cadell LWMP ...... 54 Denimein LWMP ...... 63 Wakool LWMP ...... 69 Murray LWMP R&D Program ...... 74 Stormwater Escape Construction ...... 76

2 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Appendix One: Benchmark and Compliance Index...... 81 Appendix 1.1: Table of Benchmarks...... 81 Appendix 1.2: Table of Compliance Items...... 81

Appendix Two: Pesticide Summary ...... 82 Appendix 2.1: Pesticide Summary October-December 2003 ...... 82 Appendix 2.2: Exceedence Levels of Molinate and Thiobencarb ...... 83

Appendix Three: Environment Report Compliance Issues 2002/03...... 84 Appendix 3.1: DIPNR...... 84 Appendix 3.2: NSW Department of Primary Industry ...... 85 Appendix 3.3: Department of Environment and Conservation ...... 85

Appendix Four: Published Documents ...... 86 Appendix 4.1: Murray LWMP Documentation Produced ...... 86 Appendix 4.2: Environmental Documentation Produced ...... 86

Appendix Five: Landholder Chemical Usage Report ...... 87

Appendix Six: Stormwater Escape Additional Information ...... 88 Appendix 6.1: Summary of Total Flow Discharges from MIL Area of Operations ...... 88 Appendix 6.3: Monthly Turbidity and Nutrient Data for MIL Discharge Sites ...... 88 Appendix 6.2: Salinity Levels Discharged from MIL Area of Operations ...... 89 Appendix 6.6: Total Nitrogen Levels within MILs Stormwater Escape System...... 90 Appendix 6.4: Turbidity Levels of Surface Water...... 91 Appendix 6.5: Total Phosphorus Levels within MILs Stormwater Escape System ...... 91

Appendix Seven: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey...... 92 Appendix 7.1: Annual LWMP Landholder Survey Form ...... 92

Appendix Eight: Theiss Report ...... 104 Appendix 8.1: Theiss Services Drainage Water Report ...... 104

Appendix Nine: LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Audit Draft Report..177 Appendix 9.1: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Audit Report - Draft...... 177

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 3 Chapter 1: Supply Management

Diversions Deliveries and Losses The bulk water allocation for Murray Irrigation in 2003/04 was 892,171ML (55% of Table 1.1: Summary of Diversions Deliveries and Losses (ML) allocation). Figure 1.1 and Table 1.1 illustrate by month 2003/04 diversion figures in detail. Diverted Delivered Loss Loss % August 26,371 4,315 22,056 83.64 September 53,579 37,740 15,839 29.56 Determining supply efficiency October 91,582 64,139 27,443 29.97 (Benchmark) November 89,661 67,858 21,803 24.32 December 69,554 48,719 20,835 29.96 Irrigation supply efficiency is measured in terms January 143,284 116,564 26,720 18.65 of the water delivered on farm expressed as a February 100,710 74,076 26,634 26.45 percentage of the water diverted. Table 1.2 March 162,226 118,723 43,503 26.82 shows the annual allocation to the Murray April 125,610 111,593 14,017 11.16 Irrigation area of operation and the delivery May -6,902 14,881 -21,783 efficiency for the period 1993/94 to 2003/04, Totals 855,675 658,608 197,067 defined by:

Escape Credits Source Volume (ML) Escape Volume (ML) Total Delivered Carried over 2003/04 85,196 Edward River 307,248 658,608ML Allocation 2003/04 892,171 Finley Escape 27,000 Off Allocation 70,064 Wakool River 28,061 Transfers in 114,726 Yallakool Creek 2,649 Snowy Payback -124,000 Pericoota Escape 3,761 Tuppal Creek 1,122

Resource Available Gross Diversions Net Diversions 1,038,157ML 1,225,616ML (Mulwala Canal, Wakool Canal)

Carryover 2004/05 Losses 182,482ML 197,067ML 23.03% of Net Diversion

Figure 1.1: Diversions and Deliveries Flow Chart 2003/04

Table 1.2: Delivery Efficiency of Murray Irrigation Operations 1993/94 – 2003/04

Supply = Water Delivered x 100 Year Diversions (ML) Deliveries (ML) Loss (ML) Efficiency (%) Efficiency Water Diverted 1 1993/94 1,269,336 1,015,469 253,867* 80 1994/95 1,565,891 1,298,515 267,367 82.9 1995/96 1,511,956 1,291,181 220,775 85.4 The relationship between annual 1996/97 1,761,812 1,471,910 289,902 83.5 allocation and delivery efficiency 1997/98 1,381,656 1,045,658 335,998 75.7 highlights the relative consistency of 1998/99 1,468,662 1,167,755 300,887 79.5 delivery efficiency for the range of 1999/00 891,127 675,155 215,972 75.8 annual allocations received. 2000/01 1,557,785 1,295,437 262,348 83.2 2001/02 1,509,356 1,239,536 270,356 82.1 2002/03 529,329 399,740 129,589 75.5 2003/04 855,675 658,608 197,067 77 Average 1,300,235 1,050,815 226,387 80.1 Max 1,761,812 1,471,910 335,998 85.4 Min 529,329 399,740 129,589 75.5 NB: The 1993/94 deliveries and losses are estimates only. 4 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Irrigation Water Quality In order to monitor the quality of irrigation water DIPNR and MIL measure the salinity and total phosphorus entering the irrigation supply system. DIPNR monitors water quality at the Mulwala Canal offtake and Stevens Weir. Murray Irrigation monitors water diverted back into the Edward River from the Mulwala Canal at the Edward River Escape. In 2003/04, salinity and total phosphorus levels were maintained between the Mulwala Canal offtake and Edward River escape. Both the salinity and total phosphorus levels were slightly higher at Stevens Weir than at the Edward River escape. The results for 2003/04 are shown in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3: Quality of Irrigation Water 2003/2004

Mulwala Canal at Mulwala Mulwala Escape into Edward River at Steven's Offtake (409026) (2) Edward River (409029) (1) Weir (409023) (2) Total Total Total Salinity (EC) Phosphorus Salinity (EC) Phosphorus Salinity (EC) Phosphorus (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) Range 22 -44 0.023 - 0.048 53 -59 0.009 - 0.027 38 -83 0.027 - 0.037 Average 33 0.036 56 0.017 48 0.032 Median 35 0.036 56 0.016 42 0.033 Source: (1) Murray Irrigation (2) DIPNR

Blue-Green Algae in the Supply System Historically, blue-green algae have not affected the Murray River between the Hume Dam and Lake Mulwala. However, in 2002/03 the record low levels of water in the Hume Dam resulted in blue-green algae blooms in the Hume Dam being transported downstream into the Murray River and Lake Mulwala. The movement of blue-green algae caused high alert levels in Lake Mulwala. The entire Murray Irrigation supply system supplied by the Mulwala Canal was affected by the presence of blue-green algae.

In 2003/04 high alert levels of blue-green algae were once again present in the Hume Dam and transported down stream to Lake Mulwala. High alert levels were present in Lake Mulwala, but unlike the previous year the algae was not transported into Murray Irrigation’s supply system. This year the species of algae dominating the bloom were different to previous years and predominately affected the southern areas of Lake Mulwala.

Supply Refurbishment & Review In 2003/04 MIL, as per the asset renewal program approval, carried out bank building, refurbishment of channels, replacement of stock stops, replacement of dethridge outlets, road culverts and access culverts. These works were audited by Sinclair Knight Mertz, the independent auditor appointed by the NSW Government, for review by DIPNR.

The following works were completed during 2003/04: ƒ replacement of 18 access culverts; ƒ 6 road culverts; ƒ 1 road bridge.

In 1995, Halliburton KBR (then Kinhill) began review of Murray Irrigation’s maintenance and asset management practices. A five-year cyclic program of inspection commenced in 1996. This external annual review program has been revised, given the ongoing internal review of works. The program of external review of the maintenance and asset management program is expected to recommence in 2005.

The maintenance works on MIL structures were carried out as required on a provisional manner. The asset database for MIL structures is now being updated and being entered into the GIS database for auditing purposes.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 5 Maintenance & Operation of Floodplain Structures In 2003/04 MIL operated and maintained floodplain structures in accordance with the floodplain guidelines. All maintenance and operation of these structures was conducted as per the ‘Guidelines for floodplain development – Stage 1-4’.

Construction of the floodgates on the northern branch canal regulator was completed last year and is now in operation. New floodgates at the recently constructed Frasers Rd bridge are being completed and will be in operation in the near future.

As this report is written, DIPNR is finalising the floodplain management plans and due to this the construction of a siphon at Papanue Creek on the northern branch canal and the lowering of the northern branch canal is anticipated to be completed in 2004/05. Pending this, lowering of Mallan Number 1 channel for Byjantic Creek will also take place. Following this, construction of all required works for floodplain management should be completed.

Seepage and Erosion Control

Major seepage remediation and Table 1.4: Seepage and Erosion Control Works 2003/04 erosion control works were undertaken by the company at Site Problem Length of several sites across its area during Rectified works (m) 2003/04 at a cost of approximately Berrigan No. 6 Seepage 200m $1,700,000. These works are Moulamein No. 3 Seepage 1,100m outlined in Table 1.4 below and Southern Branch Canal No. 6D Seepage 1,000m sites are indicated in figure 1.2. Mundiwa No.1 Seepage 3,000m Finley No. 3 Seepage 600m Mulwala No. 13 Seepage 774m Berrigan No. 5 Seepage 400m Yallakool No. 3 Seepage 7700m Mulwala Canal D/S of Offtake Erosion 100m Mulwala Canal U/S of Railway Bridge Erosion 100m Mulwala Canal D/S of Railway Bridge Erosion 800m D/S of Dawes Regulator Erosion 200m

Channel Seepage Investigations Mallan Branch Canal

Northern Branch Canal Moulamein

Northern Branch Canal

Dahwilly Sandridge Blighty 2E Finley Main

Jerilderie

Wakool

Southern Branch Canal Deniliquin

Finley Berrigan Jimaringle Berrigan Main

Caldwell Jimaringle No 1 Retreat Bunnaloo Thule Creek

Geraki

Legend Mulwala Canal (Drop) Mulwala

Seepage Investigation Sites Boomanoomna Supply Channels ® MIL Boundary 105 0 10 20 Kilometres

Figure 1.2: Channel Seepage Investigation Sites

6 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Telemetry Murray Irrigation now has 250 sites in its telemetry system that can be either remotely controlled or monitored (Figure 1.3). Of these 16 are now environmental monitoring sites while the remainder are located within the supply or drainage systems. Upgrades to software have seen all remote information available to all environment staff through MIL’s intranet.

In the 2003/04 season the following works were undertaken: ƒ Remote monitoring of a further 2 environment sites; ƒ Trials of mechanised and manually operated regulators; ƒ Installation of portable monitoring sites on drains and in the supply system; ƒ Upgrades to SCADA software and database.

The 2004/05 program is projected to involve: ƒ Upgrade of communications system; ƒ Continuing upgrade of SCADA software functionality; ƒ Remote monitoring of an extra environment site plus upgrades to existing sites; ƒ Remote control and automation of selected key structures. MIL’s main focus is to now, as a first step, mechanise all regulating structures before possibly integrating them into the telemetry system in the future.

Low allocations will again see remotely monitored regulators, escape structures and drains used as one of the important tools for MIL’s continuing push to become a more efficient water user and to minimise losses in the system.

Remote Monitoring & Regulator Control

!

!

! ! ! ! ! [` ! ! ! [` ! ! ! ! ! ¡[ ! [`¡ ! ! ¡[ ¡[ ¡[ ! ! ! ¡[ ¡[ ¡[! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! X ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! [` ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ? ? ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ¡[X! ! ¡[ ! !! ! ! ! ! ! [` ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Legend ¡[ ! ! !! !!![`! ! ! ! [` ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Regulators & Monitoring Structures ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Radio Communication Tower ¡[ ! ? ! ! ! ! ! ! ` Communication Node ! ! [ ! ! ! ! ¡[ ! ¡[ Environmental monitoring !! ? X Manual operation ! !! ! ! !.[`!. ! ! Mechanised on site operation !! ! ! ! Remote control ! !. ¡[ ! !. Remote level monitoring !.

! autoesc Stormwater Escape Channels ® Supply Channels 105 0 10 20 MIL Boundary Kilometres

Figure 1.3: Remotely monitored and controlled structures.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 7 Water Trade

Transfers There were three permanent external transfers into the Murray Irrigation area during 2003/04, which equated to 377ML. There were no external transfers out of Murray Irrigation during 2003/04.

Within Murray Irrigation, permanent transfers totalling 3,406ML occurred in 2003/04. The majority of these transfers were to or within the Berriquin District. The net result of the transfers are summarised in Table 1.4 along with records back to 1997.

Table 1.4: Summary of Internal Permanent Transfers 1997/2004 Temporary Transfers Net Transfer (ML) District In (ML) Out (ML) 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 A total of 126,613ML was temporarily transferred into Berriquin 2485 1455 838 822 2,200 -207 -100 -618 1030 Murray Irrigation during the Deniboota 580 805 -69 -133 -106 -43 -10 -5 -225 2003/04 irrigation season. Denimein - - -613 152 -913 - - 837 - Wakool 456 1261 -156 -841 -1181 250 110 -214 -805 The major sources of transfer TOTAL 3521 3521 ------water were the Murrumbidgee Valley, Western Murray and South Australia. An increasing number of transfers were made from Victoria. Table 1.5: Temporary Transfers into Murray Irrigation Volume Changes to Ownership Year (ML) In 2003/04, 146 landholdings (or 6.04% of the total landholdings) changed 1997/98 98,764 ownership. The majority of these transfers occurred within the Berriquin 1998/99 89,533 District (Table 1.6), although the relative proportion was higher in the 1999/00 175,812 Denimein District. 2000/01 84,550 2001/02 85,819 There were 15 subdivisions and 11 amalgamations in 2003/04 (Table 1.7). 2002/03 238,797 Environmental assessments were made prior to approvals being granted. 2003/04 126,613 An environmental assessment considers water use intensity, farm drainage and farm management. Landholdings can only be amalgamated when they have common ownership, a common boundary and a supply and/or drainage system linkage between landholdings. Table 1.6: Summary of Landholding Transfers within Murray Irrigation 2003/04

No. of Transfers Proportion of landholdings (%) District 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 Berriquin 76 100 89 87 92 5 6.6 6 5.8 6.2 Deniboota 17 40 28 28 25 5 11.7 8 8 5.2 Denimein 6169 9103.28.54.74.77.1 Wakool 20 12 19 19 19 5.3 3.2 5 5 5 TOTAL 119 168 145 143 146 4.9 6.9 6 5.9 6.04

Table 1.7: Summary of Subdivisions and Amalgamations No. of Landholding No. of Subdivisions Amalgamations 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 Berriquin 3 8 3 118 181623149 Deniboota -224122-1- Denimein ---31---2- Wakool 1-23522- -2 TOTAL 4 107 21152220231711

8 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Chapter 2: Stormwater Management

Water Quality Analysis A summary of the water quality for each stormwater escape outfall has been shown in Figure 2.2. Water quality data has been summarised as good, fair and poor. Water quality meeting the 2000 ANZECC guidelines for aquatic systems has been rated as good. Where the quality is between one and three times the ANZECC guideline it has been rated as fair. Where the water quality has exceeded three times the ANZECC guidelines it has been rated poor.

Water quality data has been analysed for three data periods; June 2003 – August 2003, September 2003 – December 2003 and January 2004 – May 2004. The data for the January to May time period includes irrigation supply escape flows at the close of the irrigation season. This is consistent with the request made by DIPNR as part of the agency review in 1998, which enables a separate analysis of winter runoff, and runoff during the irrigation season. In 2003/04 water samples were collected on a weekly basis where flow exceeded 5ML/day for salinity and turbidity analysis. Nutrients (total phosphorus and total nitrogen) were analysed at least once a month. Water quality analysis was conducted at the Murray Irrigation laboratory in Finley. The laboratory holds National Association of Testing Authorities Australia (NATA) accreditation (no. 14844) for electrical conductivity, turbidity and total phosphorus analysis.

Continuous monitoring equipment maintained by Thiess Environmental Services in line with AS3778/ISO772 standards has been used to record flow and salinity data. All licensed sites are visited weekly to check gauge height readings and samples are taken if necessary.

Discharges There was an increase in discharges from the stormwater escape channels during 2003/04 compared to the previous year. This increase is directly related to the higher rainfall experienced during 2003/04; the majority of the rainfall was in July and August.

Summaries of discharges Table 2.1: Summary of discharges from Murray Irrigation area for 2003/2004 from the drainage system are presented in Table 2.1 for each monitoring site. Total Stormwater Escape Channel Site % contribution Discounting Finley Escape June ’03 - May '04 (BIFE), which is used to Back Barooga SEC BBR1 495 transport flow to Billabong 1.4 Creek, the major Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 1,991 5.6 contributors of stormwater Box Creek MOXM 2,589 7.3 discharge from Murray Burraboi SEC JIBU 20 0.1 Irrigation’s area were Box Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 390 1.1 Creek contributing 25% and Berrigan Creek Escape DC 2500 East JIJS 0 0.0 contributing 20%. Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 1,252 3.5 Deniboota Canal Escape Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 25,731 72.2 contributed 13% and Lalalty SEC TUPJ 1,074 3.0 Lalalty SEC contributed 11%. The change in the Neimur SEC TCND 488 1.4 major contributors to North Deniliquin SEC DENI 118 0.3 discharges from SECs this Pinelea SEC TCPL 32 0.1 year is a direct reflection of Wakool SEC DRWK 237 0.7 the areas that received higher winter rainfall. Wollamai East Escape BIWE 307 0.9 A comparison of total flows Wollamai Escape BIOW 934 2.6 from the Murray Irrigation Total 35,659 100.0 area over the last six years shows a correlation

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 9 5 1 0 1 # 4 4 410 # 40902 BBRI Berrigan 410016 # Kilometres Barooga BIBE LALI Finley # BIFE TUPJ TCPL ± 409202 5 BIWE 10 0 10 20 BIOW Blighty 410017 # # 41010997 409056 BOXC # 409008 40910031 409075 # # DENI # # 409015 # MLAW 409047 # 409003 Pretty Pine Mathoura 409023 # Moama MOXM 0 Bunnaloo # 409207 # 40910028 DBCE Wakool # JIJS Burraboi JIBU 409045 # DRNM DRWK 409005 TCND # NMBR 409014 # 409062 # DIPNR Monitoring Sites Monitoring DIPNR EPA Historic Edward RiverEscape Storm Water EscapeChannels Rivers Main Roads MIL Boundary 409061 # # 409035 # Legend DIPNR Sites Monitoring Sites Monitoring MIL #

Figure 2.1: Water Quality Monitoring sites

10 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Water Quality Monitoring JIBU Flow Ec P 0.1 553 * 0 451 * 0 1007 * JIJS DENI Moulamein BIOW BIWE BIFE ! Flow Ec P MOXM Flow Ec P Flow Ec P Flow Ec P Flow Ec P 0 689 * Flow Ec P 0 234 * 9 219 0.16 0 217 0.07 1 131 0.31 0 1739 * 6 2156 0.08 0 166 * 1 193 0.32 0 295 0.32 19 63 0.035 NMBR 0 ** 5 1033 0.053 0 140 * 0 133 * 0 297 * 133 62 0.029 Flow Ec P 4 1558 0.053 0 286 * 0 111 0.11 0 114 * Conargo NMBR ! (! TCND (! BIFE JIBU MOXM Jerilderie (! (! ! (! JIJS BIWE BIBE (! BIOW (! (! (! Burraboi ! Pretty Pine BIBE ! Flow Ec P 2 129 0.21 Wakool ! 4 103 0.109 DRWK DENI TCND (! (! 2 90 0.104 Deniliquin Flow Ec P ! 1 337 0.07 0 336 0.22 DBCE Blighty (! ! 0 143 0.323 Finley DRWK Barham ! ! Berrigan Flow Ec P ! 0 269 1.19 TCPL 1 222 * (! 0 412 * TUPJ (! Bunnaloo ! Tocumwal Mathoura ! Legend DBCE ! Flow Ec P (! Monitoring Sites 1 2113 * 4 949 0.026 Barooga ! Storm Water Escape Channels 2 316 * BBRI TCPL (! Rivers TUPJ Flow Ec P Flow Ec P Mulwala ! 0 225 * 0 822 0.19 Main Roads BBR1 0 317 * 0 666 0.12 Flow Ec P 0 315 * 0 342 * MIL Boundary 0 129 0.44 0 103 * Median Ec (uS/cm) Site Identification DBCE Moama 0 90 * ! Median Flow ML/Day Flow Ec P Total Phosphorus June '03 - Aug '03 <800 >0.05 Good Sept '03 - Dec '03 800-2000 0.05-0.15 Fair Jan '04 - May '04 >2000 >0.15 Poor * ® Insufficient Data 105 0 10 20 Kilometres

Figure 2.2: Water Quality Monitoring between rainfall and the total net discharge (see figure 2.3). The timing of the rainfall influences the volume of discharges from the stormwater escape channel system. For example, the flows in 2000/01 are associated with significant spring thunderstorm events. The exceptionally dry conditions experienced in 2002/03 resulted in the stormwater escape system essentially ceasing to flow. During 2003/04 the influence of rainfall in July and August can be clearly seen with increased discharges from the stormwater escape channels during the winter period, June to August.

Total Flow (ML) Rainfall Deniliquin (mm) Jan - May 30000 600 Sept - Dec Jun - Aug rainfall

25000 500

20000 400

15000 300

10000 200

5000 100

0 0 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Figure 2.3: Comparison of total volume discharged and rainfall from Murray Irrigation’s area for the period 1998 to 2004.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 11 Salinity Salinity levels within the SECs varied from a low of 38EC to a high of 7,225EC, with median levels of 70- 1,459EC. High salinity levels were associated with conditions of no or very low flows. Low salinity levels were recorded in the SECs at times when irrigation supply escape water was being discharged. There were no discharges from Dry Creek into Lalalty SEC in 2003/04.

Median salinity levels remained similar Table 2.2: Summary of salt discharged from Murray Irrigation area or decreased compared to previous 2003/2004 (tonnes) years at all SECs except Neimur Drain and DC2500 East. The median salinity levels in Box Creek decreased from 4,220EC in 2002/03 to 1,459EC in 2003/04. This appears to be due to an increase in discharges from Box Creek.

A summary of total salt load for each monitoring site is presented in Table 2.2. Discounting Finley Escape (BIFE), which is used to transport flow to Billabong Creek, the major contributors to salt load discharges from Murray Irrigation’s area were Box Creek contributing 55% and Deniboota Canal Escape contributing 19%. Lalalty SEC contributed 13% of the salt load discharged. Based on daily flow and salinity recordings, the net salt discharge load was approximately 4,280 tonnes and the net salt import (water delivered on farm) was approximately 21,100 tonnes.

A comparison of the total tonnes of salt discharged from our area over the last six years and rainfall is presented in figure 2.4. Over the last two years there has been a dramatic reduction in salt load from the Murray Irrigation area, the increased rainfall and associated flows in the June to August winter period did not impact on the salt load. Over the years salt load in the winter period remains relatively constant regardless of rainfall.

Rainfall Total salt Deniliquin (mm) (tonnes) 25000 Jan - May 600 Sept - Dec Jun - Aug rainfall 500 20000

400 15000

300

10000 200

5000 100

0 0 1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Years

Figure 2.4: Comparison of total salt discharged and rainfall from the Murray Irrigation area for the period 1998 to 2004.

12 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Total Phosphorus Total phosphorus levels in the SECs ranged from of 0.01mg/L to 0.84mg/L in 2003/04. The high levels of total phosphorus were associated with the rainfall during July and August, especially in the Jerilderie area. The median total phosphorus levels increased in all stormwater escape channels, except Box Creek which remained similar to previous years.

Total phosphorus load for each SEC is calculated using the total monthly discharges from the continuous recording equipment and the total phosphorus concentration from the monthly sample (the median value is used where there is more than one sample for the month).

A summary of total phosphorus load for each monitoring site is Table 2.3: Summary of phosphorus discharged from Murray Irrigation area presented in Table 2.3. 2003/2004 (tonnes) Discounting Finley Escape Total % (BIFE), which is used to transport Stormwater Escape Channel Site June ’03 - contribution flow to Billabong Creek, the May '04 major contributors to the Back Barooga SEC BBR1 0.12 5.7 phosphorus discharges from Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.33 15.6 Murray Irrigation’s area were Box Creek MOXM 14.2 Berrigan Creek Escape 0.30 contributing 25% and Box Creek Burraboi SEC JIBU * 0 contributing 23%. The minor Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 0.01 0.5 contributors to phosphorus DC 2500 East JIJS * 0 discharges were the Wollamai Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 0.01 0.5 Escape contributing 17% and Lalalty SEC contributing 12%. Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 0.80 37.7 Based on daily flow and total Lalalty SEC TUPJ 0.16 7.5 phosphorus recordings, an Neimur SEC TCND 0.04 1.9 estimate of the total phosphorus North Deniliquin SEC DENI * 0 loads can be calculated. The net total phosphorus discharge load Pinelea SEC TCPL * 0 was approximately 1.32 tonnes Wakool SEC DRWK 0.1 4.7 and the net total phosphorus Wollamai East Escape BIWE 0.03 1.4 imported through the supply water Wollamai Escape BIOW 0.22 10.4 was approximately 13 tonnes. Total 2.12 100 A comparison of the total tonnes of phosphorus discharged from Murray Irrigation’s area over the last six years and rainfall is presented in figure 2.5. The relationship between total phosphorus load and rainfall is dependent on the timing of the rainfall. In 2000/01 the increase in total phosphorus load for September to December is related to significant spring thunderstorms. In 2003/04 there was a significant increase in the total phosphorus discharges in the winter period, June to August. This increase is associated with rainfall events in July and August, especially in the Jerilderie area.

Figure 2.5: Comparison of total phosphorus discharged and rainfall from the Murray Irrigation area for the period 1998 to 2004.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 13 Total Nitrogen Total nitrogen levels in the SEC system ranged from of < 0.5mg/L to 3.0mg/L across the region in 2003/04. The high levels of total nitrogen were associated with the rainfall during July and August, especially in the Jerilderie area. The median total nitrogen levels remained largely unchanged compared to previous years in all SECs.

The total nitrogen load for each SEC Table 2.4: Summary of nitrogen discharged from Murray Irrigation is calculated using total monthly area 2003/2004 (tonnes) discharges from the continuous Total recording equipment and total % Stormwater Escape Channel Site June ’03 - nitrogen concentration from the contribution May '04 monthly sample (the median value Back Barooga SEC BBR1 0.6 4.8 is used where there is more than one sample for the month). Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 2.5 20.2 Box Creek MOXM 2.2 17.7 A summary of total nitrogen load Burraboi SEC JIBU * 0 for each monitoring site is presented Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 0 0 in Table 2.4. Discounting Finley Escape (BIFE), which is used to DC 2500 East JIJS 0.1 0.8 transport flow to Billabong Creek, Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE * 0 the major contributors to the Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 4.1 33.1 nitrogen discharges from Murray Lalalty SEC TUPJ 1.1 8.9 Irrigation’s area were Berrigan Creek Escape contributing 32% and Neimur SEC TCND 0.1 0.8 Box Creek contributing 28%. The North Deniliquin SEC DENI * 0 minor contributors to nitrogen Pinelea SEC TCPL * 0 discharges were Wollamai Escape Wakool SEC DRWK 0.1 0.8 contributing 18% and Lalalty SEC contributing 14%. Wollamai East Escape BIWE 0.2 1.6 Wollamai Escape BIOW 1.4 11.3 A comparison of the total tonnes of Total 12.4 100 nitrogen discharged from the Murray Irrigation area over the last six years and rainfall is presented in figure 2.6. The relationship Total nitrogen (tonnes) between the total nitrogen load Rainfall Deniliquin (mm) and rainfall is dependent on the 20 500 Jan - May timing of rainfall. In 2000/01 the Sept - Dec Jun - Aug increase in total nitrogen load for 18 rainfall 450

September to December is 16 400 related to significant spring thunderstorms. In 2003/04 there 14 350 was a significant increase in the 12 300 total nitrogen discharges in the winter period, June to August. 10 250

This increase is associated with 8 200 rainfall events in July and August, especially in the 6 150

Jerilderie area. 4 100

2 50

0 0 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Figure 2.6: Comparison of total nitrogen discharged and rainfall from the Murray Irrigation area for the period 1998 to 2004.

14 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Turbidity MIL revised our weed control strategies for SECs during 1998/99 to reduce the sediment load discharging from SECs particularly during periods of low flow. Future management will involve the retention of vegetation on batters and banks, and active vegetation of new SECs. Individual weed species such as cumbungi and sagittaria will continue to be spot controlled to minimise the spread of weeds.

Turbidity levels were extremely variable in the Table 2.5: Summary of turbidity levels discharged from SECs throughout 2003/04. Low turbidity levels Murray Irrigation area 2003/2004. were recorded when salinity levels were high. High turbidity levels (above 200NTU) were recorded Median with high discharge rates following rain. The Stormwater Escape Channel Site Turbidity turbidity levels in all stormwater escape channels (NTU) increased in 2003/04. The increases are directly Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * related to rainfall events during winter. Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 195 Box Creek MOXM 26 A summary of turbidity results for each monitoring site is presented in Table 2.5. Burraboi SEC JIBU * Burragorrimma SEC NMBR * DC 2500 East JIJS * Other Monitoring Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE * Council development consent conditions on some Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 55 SECs require installation of flow and salinity TUPJ 87 monitoring equipment. These are: Lalalty SEC ƒ DC18 Lalalty SEC (LAL18); Neimur SEC TCND 471 ƒ Warragoon North (BCMS); North Deniliquin SEC DENI * ƒ Pinelea SEC (TUP1 and TUPL). Pinelea SEC TCPL * Wakool SEC DRWK * The data for Pinelea SEC (TUPL) is presented on page 6 relating to summary of discharges from Wollamai East Escape BIWE 369 the Murray Irrigation region. Wollamai Escape BIOW 292

Some of the more recently constructed SECs have a consent condition regarding the analysis of water Table 2.6: Summary of discharges and salt load at the council consent conditions sites for 2003/2004. quality following a rainfall event of over 25mm in 24 hours. No water samples were collected from Stormwater Escape Total Flow Total tonnes Site the SECs with this consent condition attached Channel (ML) salt during 2003/04 as no rainfall events reached DC18 Lalalty SEC LAL18 98 15 25mm in 24 hours. Warragoon North SEC BCMS 232 93 Tuppal Creek TUP1 2374 676 Three monitoring sites established prior to 1995 to record flow and salinity levels have been Table 2.7: Summary of discharges and salt load at the historic removed from the Environment Protection sites for 2003/2004. Licence. Murray Irrigation has chosen to continue to operate these sites for our own Total Total Stormwater Escape Channel Site tonnes information. These sites are: Flow (ML) ƒ Box Creek at Conargo Rd (BOXC); salt ƒ Lalalty Drain at railway bridge (LAL1); Neimur Drain (Barham/Moulamain Rd) DRNM 714 118 ƒ Neimur Drain at Moulamein Road Box Creek (Conargo Rd) BOXC 2194 2793 (DRNM). Lalalty Drain (Railway bridge) LAL1 1350 1010

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 15 Pesticide Monitoring The ELIZA molinate tests were not undertaken in 2003/04 after discussions in late winter 2003 between the Environment Protection Authority and the three irrigation companies (Murrumbidgee, Coleambally and Murray) regarding the anticipated low allocations, reduced rice plantings and costs of the kits. A variation of the Environment Protection Licence removing the requirement for the use of the ELIZA molinate kits for one year was issued.

In 2003/04 the pesticide monitoring program was undertaken in accordance with Section M2 of the Environment Protection Licence from October to December 2003, excluding the use of ELIZA molinate kits. Pesticides monitored during this period were molinate, thiobencarb and atrazine. Intensive monitoring commenced in the first week of October and continued for six weeks, less intensive monitoring continues until the end of December. Samples are only collected when flow exceeds 5ML/day.

The water quality limits for pesticides monitored are listed in Schedule 1 of the Environment Protection Licence. The schedule was changed significantly with the issuing of the revised licence in July 2003 (table 2.8). All data presented has been revised to reflect the changes. The pesticide monitoring program results are dominated by the lack of drainage flows and reduced rice plantings associated with low water allocations. There were no significant spring rainfall events during 2003. Table 2.8: Water quality limits for pesticides, Pesticide Analysis using ELIZA kits Environment Protection Licence (Schedule 1) Data for the ELIZA molinate tests from previous years has been reviewed in line with changes in the Environmental Action Notification notification and action levels on Schedule 1 of the Pesticide Guidelines Level Level (µg/L) Environment Protection Licence. Only licensed sites (µg/L) (µg/L) at the time of testing have been included in the Molinate 2.5 3.4 14 analysis. The influence of significant spring Thiobencarb 12.84.6 thunderstorm events in 2000 in the western area of Atrazine 21345 Murray Irrigation can be clearly observed. A summary of the results is presented in Figure 2.7. The ELIZA molinate tests were not used in 2003/04 as discussed above.

External Analysis Murray Irrigation submits samples to an external NATA Num be r accredited laboratory for Exceedence of 35 Environmental Levels thiobencarb and atrazine Exceedence of Notification analysis. Molinate was also 30 Levels tested externally this year as 25 Exceedence of Action Levels ELIZA kits were not used. 20 In 2003/04 a total of 29 tests 15 were undertaken for 10 thiobencarb, 33 tests for atrazine 5 and 53 tests for molinate. All N/A samples were below the level of 0 detection for all chemicals. 1995/96 1997/98 1999/00 2001/02 2003/04 Figure 2.7: Summary of the Eliza Molinate levels at Murray Irrigation’s The data for the thiobencarb tests licenced discharge sites from previous years has been reviewed in line with changes in the notification and action levels on Schedule 1 of the Environment Protection Licence. Only external sites at the time of testing have been included in the analysis. A summary of the results is presented in Figure 2.8.

16 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Num be r Exceedence of Environmental Levels 9 Exceedence of Notification 8 Levels 7 Exceedence of Action Levels 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Year 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Figure 2.8: Summary of Thiobencarb levels at Murray Irrigation’s licenced discharge sites

Blue-Green Algae Monitoring Blue-Green Algae samples were taken from the EPA monitoring sites as required by the DIPNR Environment Management conditions A.2.1. The results are presented in table 2.9.

The presence of blue-green algae at Finley Escape is a direct result of contaminated water in the supply system being transferred through the escape to Billabong Creek, to supplement river flows.

Table 2.9: Summary of Blue-Green Algae for the Murray Irrigation area 2003/2004

Blue- Green Algae Date (cells/ml) Site: BIBE Berrigan Creek Escape 11-Nov-03 < 1000 09-Dec-03 < 200 20-Jan-04 < 200 03-Feb-04 < 200 Site: BIFE Finley Escape 11-Nov-03 < 1000 09-Dec-03 2291 06-Jan-04 2014 03-Feb-04 1363 02-Mar-04 1936 06-Apr-04 7703 Site : DBCE Deniboota Canal Escape 25-Nov-03 < 200 Site: MOXM Box Creek 11-Nov-03 < 200 02-Dec-03 < 200 06-Jan-04 2983 03-Feb-04 < 200 02-Mar-04 435 Site: NMBR Burragorrimma SEC 25-Nov-03 3278

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 17 Impact on Receiving Waterways Murray Irrigation nutrient data was collected at different times to the DIPNR data and does not take into account travel times. As such the information presented should only be considered indicative of the changes in stream discharges and quality. The information does however provide general trends in changes to water quality.

Murray Irrigation met with EPA, DIPNR and the Murray Catchment Management Committee Water Quality working group in 1998/99 to determine what changes needed to be made to the Murray Irrigation and DIPNR monitoring programs to enable integration of data. This meeting recommended DIPNR undertake additional monitoring or relocate the water quality monitoring stations and review the timing of sampling. There was however no changes made to the monitoring schedules since that meeting, making it difficult for Murray Irrigation to draw definite conclusions regarding the impacts of its discharges on receiving waters.

Billabong Creek Water quality of Billabong Creek has been summarised in Table 2.10. The data does not include discharge or water quality from Yanco Creek. Yanco Creek flows include discharges from the Coleambally Irrigation District. As such any conclusions drawn regarding the impact of Murray Irrigation need to be done in recognition of these limitations.

Salinity levels of water entering Billabong Creek from Murray Irrigation infrastructure was of better quality than Billabong Creek at Jerilderie. Total phosphorus concentration increased in Billabong Creek between Jerilderie and Conargo. It is not possible to determine the impact of the discharges during July and August from Berrigan Creek Escape on Billabong Creek as the water quality of the discharges from Yanco Creek is unknown.

Table 2.10: Water Quality recorded within Billabong Creek and within the outfalls into Billabong Creek 2003/2004

Billabong Creek at Berrigan Creek Escape Billabong Creek at Finley Escape (3) Wollamai East Escape (4) Jerilderie (1) (2) Conargo (5)

410016 BIBE BIFE BIWE 41010997

Total Median Total Median Total Median Total Total EC EC Month Phosphorus EC Phosphorus EC Phosphorus EC Phosphorus Phosphorus (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (uS/cm) * (mg/L) (uS/cm) * (mg/L) (uS/cm) * (mg/L) (mg/L) Jun 95 0.032 133 (0.1) 120 (0.9) 392 (0) 122 0.038 Jul 126 0.046 129 (4.0) 0.28 134 (3.2) 0.22 179 (0) 103 0.069 Aug 1143 0.059 129 (18.6) 0.20 141 (1.5) 0.39 224 (1.1) 0.07 157 0.064 Sep 206 138 (4.7) 0.23 122 (5.0) 0.064 239 (1.4) 0.32 Oct 247 111 (3.9) 0.104 69.1 (18.4) 0.051 264 (0.1) Nov 214 91.7 (3.6) 0.052 58.4 (60.4) 0.015 550 (0) Dec 150 85.6 (4.7) 0.175 55.2 (15.3) 0.041 611 (0) Jan 114 91.2 (2.2) 0.099 57.6 (131) 0.033 Feb 73 85.1 (1.1) 0.108 66.7 (152) 0.030 Mar 71 69 (1.7) 61 (242) 0.024 Apr 40 111 (1.3) 57.9 (65.1) 0.023 297 (0) May 49 96.1 (0.9) 101 (1.3) 0.034 *: Median EC values from continuous monitoring with median daily flow in brackets (1): Billabong Creek at Jerilderie, DIPNR (2): Berrigan Creek Outfall (BIBE), M.I.L (3): Finley Escape Outfall (BIFE), M.I.L (4): Wollamai East Outfall (BIWE), M.I.L. (5): Billabong Creek at Conargo, DIPNR

18 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Edward River Water quality is measured within Edward River downstream of the outfall, at Deniliquin, Stevens Weir and downstream of Baratta Creek Outfall. The water quality is measured within the main outfall systems into Edward River, Mulwala Escape and Box Creek upstream of Baratta Weir. Water quality levels for Edward River sites are presented in Table 2.11.

Given the limited data available, Edward River water quality between Edward River escape and downstream of Baratta Creek outfall remained constant during 2003/04.

Table 2.11: Water Quality recorded within Edward River and within the outfalls into Edward River 2003/ 2004.

Edward River D/S Edward River D/S Edward River Stevens Mulwala Escape (2) Box Creek Outfall (4) Baratta Creek Junction Offtake (1) Weir (3) (5) 409008 W 409023 MOXM 4910028 Total Total Total Median Total Total EC EC EC EC Month Phosphorus Phosphorus Phosphorus EC (uS/cm) Phosphorus Phosphorus (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (uS/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) * (mg/L) (mg/L) Jun 53 0.008 83 2160 (0.0) 0.03 Jul 60 < 0.005 57 0.033 3690 (6.3) 0.04 67 0.029 Aug 53 0.073 57 0.027 1460 (23.6) 0.21 77 0.043 Sep - 0.037 1170 (14.0) 0.170 60 0.03 Oct - 55 0.01 40 1340 (4.9) 0.037 Nov - 53 0.015 42 981 (0.8) 0.056 Dec - 55 0.027 42 909 (2.8) 0.050 Jan - 58 0.025 40 1270 (4.4) 0.053 Feb - 59 0.016 41 1980 (4.2) 0.062 Mar - 56 0.009 58 2020 (3.0) 0.054 Apr - 43 1470 (3.8) 0.047 May - 45 1430 (4.3) 0.022 *: Median EC values from continuous monitoring with median daily flow in brackets (1): Edward River Offtake D/S, DIPNR (2): Mulwala Canal Escape, Deniliquin (MLAW), M.I.L (3): Edwards River Stevens Weir, DIPNR (4): Box Creek, upstream Barratta Weir pool (MOXM), M.I.L. Flow median values from daily automatic monitoring (5): Edwards River D/S "Barratta", DIPNR

Tuppal Creek Water quality is measured at the headwaters of the creek upstream of Pinelea Drain outfall, and at Aratula Road. Both Lalalty SEC (TUPJ) and the Pinelea SEC (TCPL) outfall into Tuppal Creek.

When the salinity in Lalalty SEC is above 800EC the discharge is diluted with supply channel water in order to meet the salinity concentration condition of Murray Irrigation’s Water Management Works Licence. The dilution water is sourced from a Murray Irrigation supply channel that enters the creek between Lalalty SEC outfall and the monitoring station in Tuppal Creek upstream of Pinelea escape.

The Lalalty SEC reached capacity in late July as result of winter rainfall. Supply channel water was unavailable for dilution and minimal discharges of above 800EC were released, these were reported to DIPNR. Dilution of the discharges from Lalalty SEC commenced in August using off allocation water approved by DIPNR and continued into September. The discharges into the headwaters of Tuppal Creek took approximately 2 weeks to reach Aratula Road with approximately 50% losses.

Total Phosphorus and salinity levels for Tuppal Creek sites are presented in Table 2.12.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 19 Table 2.12: Water Quality recorded within Tuppal Creek and Lalalty SEC 2003/2004 Tuppal Creek U/S Tuppal Creek at Lalalty Drain (1) Pinelea Drain (3) Pinelea Drain (2) Aratula Rd. (4) TUPJ TCPL 409056

Median Total Median Total Median Total Total EC Month EC Phosphorus EC Phosphorus EC (uS/cm) Phosphorus Phosphorus (uS/cm) (uS/cm) * (mg/L) (uS/cm) * (mg/L) * (mg/L) (mg/L) Jun 2700 (0) 196 (0) Jul 611 (0) 530 (0) 169 (0) Aug 1080 (9.8) 0.19 1200 (3.6) 236 (0.5) Sep 919 (9.9) 0.12 318 (47.4) 327 (0.1) 431 (29) 0.155 Oct 416 (0.3) 332 (1.8) 286 (0) 279 (0.4) Nov 656 (0) 213 (0) 380 (0) Dec 718 (0) 426 (0.1) 184 (0) Jan 157 (0.2) 315 (0) Feb 1231 (0.7) Mar 109 (0.2) Apr 683 (0.2) May 342 (0.4) 345 (2.4) *: Median EC values from continuous monitoring with median daily flow in brackets (1): Lalalty Drain (TUPJ), M.I.L. Median Total Phosphorus levels (2): Tuppal Creek U/S Pinelea Drain outfall (TUP1), M.I.L (3): Pinelea Drain (TCPL), M.I.L. (4): Tuppal Creek at Aratula Rd., DIPNR

Pumping Drainage Water into Supply Channels In 2003/04, during July and August there were 35 requests for pumping into supply channels, mainly from the area south of Jerilderie. Water quality was generally below 200EC, with high turbidity (over 200NTU) and variable total phosphorus concentrations (0.76mg/L – 0.02mg/L). The majority of requests were approved.

Noxious Aquatic Weeds The noxious aquatic weeds in the region are listed below (Table 2.13). There were no reported sightings of any of these aquatic weeds within either the drainage or supply network of Murray Irrigation during 2003/04.

A survey of chemical usage is undertaken annually as a component of the LWMP Landholder Survey (Appendix 7). Landholders are requested to provide details concerning the types of chemicals used throughout the year.

Table 2.13: Reported sitings of noxious weeds – 2003/04 Noxious Aquatic Weed Reported sitings Alligator Weed Nil Water Hyacinth Nil Golden Dodder Nil Water Lettuce Nil Salvinia Nil

20 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Agricultural Chemical Use Table 2.13 provides a summary of the commonly used herbicides and pesticides by landholders during 2003/04. These results are considered indicative of the range and type of each chemical commonly used. No assessment as to the quantity of chemical has been undertaken. However, the number of responses provided as to the use of a particular chemical is indicative of how widespread the use of the product is. Table 2.13: Summary of major chemical usage by landholders – 2003/04

Landholder usage (no. of Situation Chemical used positive responses to use of the chemical) bensulfuron 55 benzofenap 3 chloropyrifos 53 Rice MCPA 42 molinate 53 thiobencarb 5 chlorsulfuron 52 diclofop-methyl 14 dimethoate 8 glyphosphate 183 Winter crops omethoate 25 simazine 41 triasulfuron 81 trifluralin 66 diflulenican 16 Winter Pasture MCPA 57 omethoate 91 2,4 D ester 4 Summer Cropping / pasture diquat + paraquat 5 trifluralin 5 2,4 D ester 51 diuron 17 Channels/ Drains glyphosphate 151 imazapyr 10

400 1996/97 1997/98 350 1998/99 1999/00 300 2000/01 2001/02 250 2002/03 2003/04

200

150 Number of Holdings

100

50

0

n s n n -D on o at er yr te im r ro ate p PA a ate d ro ,4 thri u ethyl qu uron est C in o 2 a i os l xy fen m r D h aza M ol o i rsulf p M lk sulfu B o Clopyralid Pa y Im a a Trifluralin l Gl Ometh r ri Bensulfu Chlorpyrif h t + ThiobencarbT T C iclofop- a u -R methy D iq p D loxyfo a H Active Chemical Figure 2.7: Trends in chemical usage for the period 1996/97-2003/04 Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 21 Chapter 3: Groundwater Management

Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme

Overview The Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme (WTSSDS) is a salt interception scheme that pumps highly saline groundwater into two evaporation basins (Figure 3.1). The scheme protects approximately 50,000ha of farmland in the Wakool area from high watertables and salinity.

The scheme is owned and operated by Murray Irrigation. It was handed over to the company in 1995 as part of the privatisation process. State Government continues to fund approximately 30% of the operation and maintenance of the scheme with the remainder paid by landholders through a system of levies based on the level of influence and benefit they receive from the scheme.

In 1981 there were 19,200ha in the Wakool area with a watertable within 1.5m of the surface. The high watertable brought salt to the plant root zone with dramatic effects on agricultural productivity and biodiversity. To combat these problems, the interception scheme was built between 1978 and 1988 by the NSW Department of Water Resources and Public Works. Stage I commenced operation in 1984, and stage II in 1988. Additional pumps were added in 1992.

The scheme has successfully controlled shallow groundwater, with the watertable now stabilised below 2m over an area of around 25,000ha. Significant watertable control is detectable over a further 25,000ha. Groundwater control has resulted in significant environmental, social and community benefits for the area.

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! Burraboi ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! Legend ! ! ! ! ! Pumps ! ! ! Channels ! ! ! ! Drains ! ! ! ! ! Rivers ! ! ! Pipelines Stage Wakool ! ! ! 1 ¯ ! ! 2 Evaporation Ponds 021 Kilometers Farm Boundaries

Figure 3.1: Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme

22 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 2003/04 Operation The WTSSDS continues to have a positive effect on watertables with only 2,350ha of the 75,500ha area monitored with a watertable within 2m of the surface in March 2004 (Figure 3.2). Of the 54 pumping wells, only one had a watertable within two meters of the surface and 35 registered watertable levels of 3m or greater.

W.T.S.S.D.S Water Table Levels March 2004

61 ##Sump D

Evaporation Murray Irrigation Limited Ponds 60# A .C. N . 0 6 7 19 7 93 3

T' F ER # #Sump A # Sump C #45 49#

62# Sump B # 63# #59 46# 64 # Evaporation Ponds

52# #51 54 # 58 43# 24# # # B'BOI #23 21#

07# 19#

17# 42 22# # 20#

37# 16# 38# 08 18# # 47# 10# 41# 12# 36# 06# 04# N 15# #39 09 # #02 40 35 # # 13 14 # 05# 01# 34# 33 # # 11# #03

LEGEND 30# 27# 26# # Pumpsites 28# #29 Water Table Depth 3/04 0-0.5m 0 ha 0.5-1m 71 ha 1-1.5m 396 ha 1.5-2m 1883 ha 2-2.5m 5983 ha 2.5-3m 17578 ha Scale >3m 47421 ha 1234Kilometres Farm Boundaries

Figure 3.2: WTSSDS Watertable levels, March 2004

In 2003/04, continued short-term optimisation of pump rates in response to continued dry conditions meant pump operation remained below average (figure 3.3). Operating hours were reduced for all pumps; up to 18 pump sites were switched off. The remaining 36 sites operated throughout the year, although most worked at a reduced capacity. As a result, in the past 12 months, the scheme extracted a total of 3,306ML of saline groundwater resulting in 3,264ML or nearly 50% less water extracted in 2003/04 than in 2002/03. Figure 3.4 compares the total volume of groundwater discharged into the basins between 1995 and 2004 and shows the amount of saline groundwater extracted in the previous two years to be significantly less than average.

500 435.448

450 368.543 400

350

300 238.57 222.064 250 202.893 163.883 200 168.38 138.064 Total amount pumped (ML) pumped amount Total

150 91.319 91.65 81.587 69.747 69.094

100 66.98 65.53 60.345 57.313 53.255 52.352 51.635 49.831 48.889 48.286 46.903 44.503 43.782 47.74 48.8 37.372 36.601 25.987 24.676 21.726 14.713 50 13.902 3.674

0 PS1 PS3 PS5 PS7 PS9 PS11 PS13 PS15 PS17 PS19 PS21 PS23 PS26 PS28 PS30 PS34 PS36 PS38 PS40 PS42 PS45 PS47 PS51 PS54 PS59 PS61 PS63

Pumping sites Figure 3.3: Volume of Water Discharged from each Pump Site into the WTSSDS Basins 2003/04

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 23 In 2003/04 groundwater salinity levels at the pump sites of stage 2 were measured and are shown in Figure 3.5. Groundwater salinity ranges from 1,587EC to >206,310EC with an average of 26,419EC.

16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000 Groundwater Discharged(ML)

4000

2000

0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 3.4: Volume of Groundwater Discharged into the WTSSDS Basins 1995-2004

1 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 ! 80 W.T.S.S.D.S. 0 00 0 7000 0 00 80 60000 Ground Water Salinity 70000 ! at Pump Sites 7 0 0 0 60000 0 0 00 60 5 00 00

0 ! 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0000 0 5 7

!0 0 8 0 !130000 ! 00 0 5 ! 0 0 !

0

1 1 0 0 60000 0 ! 0 4 0 ! 0 0 ! 0 ! 0 ! ! 0 4 0 40 0 00 Burraboi 5 0 ! ! 30000 00 300 ! 0000 ! 2 1 0 20000 0 ! 0 ! ! 0 !

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 2 4 40 0 00 0 0 ! 0 0 ! 4 ! ! ! ! Legend ! ! ! ! ! ! Pumps 1 ! ! 00 00 ! ! Pipelines 1 0 ! ! 0 0 0 0 ! ! 00 0 0 0 ! 200 0 ! 0 Evaporation Ponds 2 ! 0 ! 0 ! 0000 1 ! 2 1 EC at Pump 0 00 1 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 00 2 00 0 Value ! ! 0 ! Wakool ! ! High :150000 Ec 021 ¯ Kilometers Low :2100 Ec

Figure 3.5: Groundwater Salinity levels at WTSSDS pump sites, 2004

24 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Other Tubewell Pumping Since privatisation in 1995, Murray Irrigation in conjunction with landholders have operated 17 tubewells in the Berriquin district to control watertable levels. These tubewells were designed to discharge into the district supply system, or be used as an irrigation source on the neighbouring farms. In 2003/04 these tubewells were handed over to landholders. The rationale for handover included reduced risk of shallow watertables causing salinity problems, difficulty in controlling pump operation and cost to the company given the benefits were generally local. Table 3.2 shows the total volume pumped between 1996/97 and 2002/03, as well as average groundwater salinity from 1996 to 1999.

Table 3.2: Groundwater Extraction in Murray Irrigation Tubewells in the Berriquin District, 1995-2004

Total Volume Pumped Average salinity EC Pump 96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 June 96 June 97 June 98 June 99 East Berriquin Geraki 1 533 804 260 273 178 - 160 1,000 1,082 - - Geraki 2 402 593 297 167 120 255.9 444 950 1,077 992 - Retreat 1-000000---- Retreat 2 94 550 194 63 65 0 0 - - 2,000 - Retreat 3 224 752 386 302 0 24.54 560 1,500 1,493 1,611 1,868 Lochiels Road 98 136 0 30 0 0 0 3,830 - - - Campbells Road 21 279 64 0 0 0 0 3,800 - 3,780 - Piney Lane 203 723 424 564 569 - 389 1,050 1,029 1,071 -

Caseys Lane - - - - 0 - 247 - - - - Dalgeish Road - - - 150 111 - 270 - - - - Logie Brae 322 211 190 137 156 14.74 87 500 1,304 1,437 - West Berriquin Hub - 30 4 27 0 1.969 18.61 - - - - Mokanger - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - Wandook 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 1,270 - - Wandook 2 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - - Wandook 3 - 2 3 1 2 2.455 2 - 1,540 - - Wandook 4 - 641 340 398 443 688.2 328.8 - 1,270 860 1,024 TOTAL 1,897 4,721 2,162 2,112 1,644 987.8 2,506.40

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 25 Trends in Regional Watertable Levels Murray Irrigation undertakes biannual monitoring of a network of 1,500 shallow piezometers. This is undertaken in March (during the irrigation season) and in August (during the normal off-season, prior to refilling of the supply system). Figure 3.6 - 3.13 show spatially the areas with a shallow watertable in August 2003 and March 2004. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 as well as figures 3.14 and 3.15 outline the trends in watertable change since groundwater monitoring began in 1995.

Conargo

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Finley Berrigan

Legend Mathoura To c u mwa l Water Table Depth 0-1m 1-2m 2-3m ± >4m 010205 Main Roads Kilometres Mulwala

Figure 3.6: Depth to Watertable in Berriquin LWMP Area, August 2003.

Conargo

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Finley Berrigan

Legend Mathoura Toc umwa l Water Table Depth 0-1m 1-2m 2-3m ± >4m 010205 Main Roads Kilometres Mulwala

Figure 3.7: Depth to Watertable in Berriquin LWMP Area, March 2004

26 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Conargo

Legend Deniliquin Water Table Depth 0-1m 1-2m 2-3m ± >4m 010205 Main Roads Kilometres

Figure 3.8: Depth to Watertable in Denimein LWMP area, August 2003

Conargo

Legend Water Table Depth Deniliquin 0-1m 1-2m 2-3m ± >4m 010205 Main Roads Kilometres

Figure 3.9: Depth to Watertable in Denimein LWMP, March 2004

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 27 Wakool

Deniliquin

Barham

Mathoura

Legend Water Table Depth 0-1m 1-2m 2-3m ± >4m 010205 Main Roads Kilometres

Figure 3.10: Depth to watertable in Cadell LWMP area, August 2003

Wakool

Deniliquin

Barham

Mathoura

Legend Water Table Depth 0-1m 1-2m 2-3m ± >4m 010205 Main Roads Kilometres

Figure 3.11: Depth to watertable in Cadell LWMP area, March 2004

28 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Moulamein

Legend Water Table Depth Wakool 0-1m 1-2m 2-3m ± >4m 010205 Main Roads Kilometres

Figure 3.12: Depth to watertable in Wakool LWMP area, August 2003

Moulamein

Legend

Water Table Depth Wakool 0-1m 1-2m 2-3m ± >4m 010205 Main Roads Kilometres

Figure 3.13: Depth to watertable in Wakool LWMP area, March 2004

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 29 Table 3.3: Depth to Watertable in Murray LWMP area, March 1997-2004

Year Depth to watertable (m) Total area 0-2 2-3 3-4 > 4 (ha) 1997 110,636 189,728 147,267 301,571 749,202 1998 32,576 202,748 165,492 348,386 749,202 1999 69,988 197,324 141,400 340,490 749,202 2000 38,684 204,824 147,640 356,955 748,103 2001 75,016 182,668 151,108 387,896 796,688 2002 64,576 183,300 146,472 402,340 796,688 2003 5,132 152,496 183,324 460,055 801,007 2004 10,056 133,392 186,612 470,108 800,168

Table 3.4: Depth to Watertable in Murray LWMP area, August 1997-2004

Year Depth to watertable (m) Total area 0-2 2-3 3-4 > 4 (ha) 1997 84,252 193,488 154,912 316,550 749,202 1998 55,728 194,736 160,032 338,706 749,202 1999 53,604 193,244 144,436 357,918 749,202 2000 21,788 182,920 164,400 378,995 748,103 2001 47,676 189,376 160,024 399,612 796,688 2002 35,988 190,819 151,424 418,457 796,688 2003 14,060 138,456 177,748 470,743 801,007 2004 7,704 111,308 192,468 485,208 796,688

Change in Water able Levels

Moulamein July 1995 - August 2004

Conargo

Jerilderie

Wakool

Deniliquin

Finley Barham Berrigan

Mathoura To cu m wal

Legend

>2m Rise Mulwala 1-2m Rise 0-1m Rise 0-1m Fall Moama 1-2m Fall µ >2m Fall 010205 Main Roads Kilometres

Figure 3.14: Change in regional watertable levels July 1995-August 2004

30 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Change in Water able Levels

Moulamein August 2003 - August 2004

Conargo

Jerilderie

Wakool

Deniliquin

Finley Barham Berrigan

Mathoura To cu m w al Legend aug03_aug04 > 1m Rise Mulwala 0.5 - 1m Rise 0 - 0.5m Rise 0 - 0.5m Fall Moama 0.5 - 1m Fall µ > 1m Fall 010205 Main Roads Kilometres

Figure 3.15: Change in regional watertable levels August 2003-2004

6120000 Moulamein

6100000 Jerilderie

6080000 Wakool Deniliquin

6060000 Barham FinleyBerrigan

6040000 BunnalooMathoura Tocumwal Barooga 6020000 Mulwala

Moama 6000000 200000 220000 240000 260000 280000 300000 320000 340000 360000 380000 400000 Figure 3.16: Directional flow of groundwater in the MIL region.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 31 Risk of Salinity (Benchmark)

Area of Land with a Watertable within 0 - 4m The area of land with a watertable within 0 – 4m is to be seasonally adjusted to take account of the influences of rainfall. The watertable level monitoring results have been presented in tables 3.6-3.13 of this report.

Groundwater Salinity The benchmark for groundwater salinity was determined to be the area of land with shallow groundwater salinity of less than 5,000EC. Groundwater salinity was measured in 1997, 2000 and 2003. Table 3.5 is a summary of the results. Table 3.5: Groundwater salinity for the Murray Irrigation Area of The area of land with groundwater salinity Operations less than 5,000EC was 41,300ha in 2003, Proportion of Piezometers Samples (%) 65,470ha in 2000 and 46,726ha in 1997. Salinity Level (EC) 1997 2000 2003 These results are not directly comparable <3,000 23 19 18 due to the lower number of piezometers 3,000-10,000 23 19 20 sampled in 1997. A map showing the 10,000-30,000 25 30 31 groundwater salinity levels for 2003 is 30,000-50,000 18 21 22 presented in Figure 3.16. >50,000 11 11 9 Total Piezometers 1,088 1,437 1,412

Area of Land with High Salinity Risk The benchmark committee determined the need to quantify the area at risk of salinity. A collaborative research project is being undertaken by CSIRO and Murray Irrigation to develop a method to assess the salinity risk of the landscape.

The salinity risk assessment will involve a weighted ratio of: ƒ groundwater salinity; ƒ watertable depth; ƒ soil type; ƒ landuse.

Rootzone Salinity (Benchmark) The Murray LWMPs and Murray Irrigation’s Works Licence requires a detailed soil salinity assessment to be undertaken every three years in high watertable areas and every six years in deep watertable areas. Understanding the changes in soil salinity provides a greater ability to target strategies to avoid groundwater accessions or modify management practices.

Murray Irrigation uses watertable levels and groundwater salinity as an indicator of rootzone salinity given the cost and level of accuracy likely to be obtained from soil sampling.

32 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Moulamein

Conargo

Jerilderie

Burraboi Pretty Pine

Wakool

Deniliquin

Blighty

Finley Barham Berrigan

Bunnaloo Mathoura Tocumwal Legend Main Roads Barooga Salinity Levels Ec Mulwala 100-3000

3000-5000

5000-10000 Moama 10000-20000 µ 20000-40000 Kilometres 40000-90000 105 0 10 20

Figure 3.16: Groundwater salinity in Murray Irrigation piezometers, 2003.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 33 Chapter 4: On-Farm Management

Climatic Conditions Climatic conditions are a critical aspect of irrigated agriculture, therefore it is important to set the scene for the irrigation season by reporting the climatic conditions for the year.

The autumn of 2003 started off dry but had some good widespread rains which allowed Table 4.1: Weather data - 1st July 2003 to 30th June 2004 for significant winter crop plantings. Reasonable rains throughout winter assisted Finley Tullakool* the winter cropping program for many Total Rainfall (mm) 416.3 382.4 farmers. The 2003/04 irrigation season was Long-& Short term Average Rainfall met with some wet conditions and a delay (mm) 387.1 362.5 to the opening of the irrigation season until Long-term Rainfall Comparison 108% 106% the 12th August 2003. Supplementary water was made available from 26th August until Total Evaporation (mm) 2010.2 2093.2 the 26th September. Spring 2004 had Long-& Short term Average moderate rainfall with conditions favourable Evaporation (mm) 1848.1 2038.6 for non irrigated crops and pastures. The Long-term Evaporation Comparison 109% 103% 2003/04 rice growing season experienced cooler conditions than normal in October *Note Long Term average for Finley calculated from 1986-2004 and and early November. Conditions were warm Tullakool short term average calculated from 1996-2004. and favourable in November and December, a cool January created concern for growers with the results of the cooler conditions having some effect on the yield of some varieties. February saw the return of dry conditions with rainfall from February to April nearing a record dry spell. Compared to long-term averages, rainfall and evaporation during the 2003/04 season was just above average at Finley and Tullakool as shown in table 4.1 and figures 4.1 and 4.2.

350

300

250

200 (mm) 150

100

50

0 July August September October November December January February March April May June

Rainfall ETo Average Rainfall Average ETo

Figure 4.1: CSIRO Finley Rainfall and Evapotranspiration data 2003/04

34 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 450

400

350

300

250 (mm) 200

150

100

50

0 July August September October November December January February March April May June

Rainfall ETo Average Rainfall Average ETo

Figure 4.2: CSIRO Tullakool Rainfall and Evapotranspiration 2003/04

Landuse Murray Irrigation’s area of operations covers 748,000ha of farmland. In addition to this, 156,753ha outside of this area is included within the Cadell Land and Water Management Plan area. Landuse of the total area as summarised in Table 4.2, demonstrates the diverse nature of agriculture within the region. Winter crops, including cereal and oilseeds, annual pastures, used for extensive sheep and cattle enterprises, and rice are the major commodities. There is also a major dairy industry presence in the region that produces around 17% of the NSW milk supply.

Table 4.2: Landuse in the Murray LWMP Region Landuse Proportion of Total Area (%)

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Dryland Pasture 31 34 34 24 10 7 5 10 Winter Irrigated 16 Pasture20201819161514 Winter Crops 18 21 26 25 32* 36* 43 41 Rice10665--- 2 Rice Stubble / Fallow 6 4 2 2 8** 5** 0.3** Lucerne / Summer 3 Pasture4276433 Other Crops/Fallow22191118 Native vegetation 5 3 4 4 22 17 23 14 6 Infrastructure / Other 4 7 5 5 11 16 11 *Includes winter cereal fallow and winter crops sown into rice stubble **Includes rice and rice stubble Source: LWMP Annual Surveys NOTE: Comparisons of recordings between years for the minor landuses should be made with caution as the sample of landholders were not the same. The total may not equal 100% due to rounding of data.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 35 The area grown to rice rose significantly in 2003/04 compared with the 2002/03 season due to an increase in Murray valley water allocations.

Irrigation Layout Across the Land and Water Management Plan area approximately 51% of the land area has been developed for irrigation and the remaining 49% is dryland farming. Variation in irrigation development exists between areas. In the Cadell LWMP area, 60-70% of the area is dryland farming. In contrast, the Berriquin area has approximately 70% of land developed for irrigation.

The area developed for irrigation has stabilised in recent years. The area irrigated in any single year depends on annual water availability and spring/autumn rainfall, and is commonly between 30% and 50% of the area developed. Smaller proportions (20%-30%) are irrigated on mixed cropping and rice farms and larger proportions (60%-80%) are irrigated on dairy farms.

The focus of farm development is the improvement of existing irrigation layouts to enable improved irrigation efficiency and increased productivity. In 2003/04, $9.4 million was invested by landholders in landforming, $11.7 million in associated improvements to irrigation layouts and $7.7 million for irrigation recycling on-farm. This investment was somewhat lower than that recorded in 2001/02 ($34.6 million), but significantly greater than in 2002/03 ($27.4 million), 2000/01 ($21.1 million) and 1999/00 ($18.8 million). The result is somewhat surprising given the climatic circumstances, but demonstrates a commitment and willingness to re-invest in on-farm works which will improve landholders’ productivity and environmental sustainability.

Water Use Murray Irrigation delivered 658,608ML of irrigation water on-farm in 2003/04 (Figure 4.3). This compares with a 14 year average of 1,200,000ML, and represents 58% of the average. Use of irrigation water has been classed into six major categories over the past ten years. These include rice, annual pasture, perennial pasture, winter crops, other (including summer crops) and stock and domestic. The crop water use records are based on water orders placed by landholders. Figure 4.4 shows the main four categories over time.

An analysis of the relative water use compared with previous years shows a recovery of the use of water on rice since the previous drought year. A major trend in crop water use between 1992/93 – 2003/04 (Figure 4.4) has been an increase in water applied to cereals from 2% to 37%, this increase can be attributed to good commodity prices

1,800,000

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000 Deliveries (MLs) Deliveries

600,000

400,000

200,000

0

91 92 93 94 /96 97 98 99 00 02 03 04 90/ 91/ 92/ 93/ 95 96/ 97/ 98/ 99/ 01/ 02/ 03/ 19 19 19 19 1994/95 19 19 19 19 19 2000/01 20 20 20 Figure 4.3: Water deliveries to landholdings 1990/91 - 2003/04 36 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 for cereals and to some degree the timing of increases in allocation announcements, which have been too late for further rice plantings.

900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000 Volume (ML)

300,000

200,000

100,000

0 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Rice Annual Pasture Perennial Pasture Cereals

Figure 4.4: Crop Water Use 1992/93-2003/04

Total Farm Water Balance In 1997 Murray Irrigation introduced a Total Farm Water Balance (TFWB) policy as a result of concern about watertable rise and the associated threats of salinity. The TFWB policy aims to reduce accessions to the watertable, increase water use efficiency and encourage adoption of best management practices across our area of operations. The policy is based on research by CSIRO for the Murray Valley, indicating that the maximum water use intensity to achieve a farm water balance is between 1.5ML/ha and 5ML/ha depending on depth to watertable, soil type, land use and rainfall. In short, the policy limits irrigation intensity to 4ML/ha. If certain ‘best management practice’ works have been implemented the limit may be increased up to 6ML/ha.

For 2003/04 average irrigation intensity ranged from 1.07ML/ Table 4.3: Irrigation Intensity for each district within MIL ha in the Berriquin District to 0.855ML/ha in the Denimein Season 1999/00** 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 District (Table 4.3). The regional District (ML/ha) (ML/ha) (ML/ha) (ML/ha) (ML/ha) average irrigation intensity of Berriquin 1.2 2.05 2.15 0.77 1.07 0.84ML/ha was an increase from Deniboota 0.3 1.23 1.23 0.31 0.55 the previous year’s drought Denimein 0.51 1.7 1.59 0.37 0.67 however less than half the 2001/ Wakool 0.48 1.57 1.46 0.34 0.84 02 irrigation intensity. Region 0.9 1.73 1.74 0.53 0.84

After taking into account the limits set for individual landholdings and making allowances for the volume of shallow groundwater pumping, six landholdings exceeded their TFWB limit. Penalties will be applied and the volume that the limit was exceeded by will be deducted from next years limit.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 37 Rice Water Use Murray Irrigation has a rice growing policy aimed at reducing accessions to the watertable, increasing water use efficiency and encouraging best management practices. A component of this policy is a soil suitability criterion to select soils that minimise leakage to the watertable from irrigation of the rice crop. Rice can not be grown on a field unless it has been tested and approved by Murray Irrigation as suitable for rice growing. Applications for rice growing are reviewed each year and the area of rice grown is quantified using satellite imagery. The criterion was previously based on the percentage clay in the soil. This year, in a move toward a more accurate system, suitability is now based on soil sodicity measured by exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP).

Rice water use accounted for approximately 37% of the total Table 4.4: Area (ha) Grown to Rice 1999/00 – 2003/04 water used within the Murray District 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Irrigation area during 2003/04. East Berriquin 15,460 25,530 21,407 382.9 6,916 The area sown to rice in 2003/ 04 was 22,729ha as seen in Table West Berriquin 4,680 8,218 5,869 184.8 2,834 4.4. This was a significant Denimein 2,901 5,578 4,078 119.9 1,462 increase from the previous Deniboota 4,849 10,471 8,394 483.1 3,344 season, however the total area Wakool 10,526 19,728 15,402 374.3 8,173 is still relatively low compared Total 38,416 69,525 55,150 1,545 22,729 to previous seasons. Table 4.4 also shows the area sown to rice for each district since 1999/00. Figure 4.5 shows the spatial distribution of rice in the Murray Table 4.5: Number of landholdings who Irrigation region and the water use of those rice crops. exceeded their rice water use

Year Number % exceeding The average rice water consumption for the 2003/04 season was exceeding 12.3ML/ha. The rice crop water use target was set at 15.3ML/ha for 1995/96 212 17% all districts this season, in line with the Rice Environment Policy 1996/97 37 3% Advisory Group (REPAG) agreed method of calculation. There were 1997/98 N/A N/A 26 landholdings exceeding the crop water use target in 2003/04 as 1998/99 62 6% shown in table 4.5. These growers will be required to re-test their 1999/00 38 4% fields using the latest criteria prior to approval to grow rice again. 2000/01 24 2% 2001/02 27 2.50% 2002/03 0 0% 2003/04 26 4.60%

Farm Rice Water Usage 2003-2004

Moulamein

Conargo Jerilderie

Wakool Deniliquin

Finley Barham Berrigan

Legend Main Roads Mathoura Tocumwal MIL Boundary Rice Crops 2003_04 0 - 7.0 ML/ha Mulwala 7.1 - 12.0 ML/ha

12.1 - 14.0 ML/ha 14.1 - 16.0 ML/ha Moama ® 105 0 10 20 >16 ML/ha Kilometres Figure 4.5: Farm Rice Water Usage 2003/04 38 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Waterlogging (Benchmark) The waterlogging benchmark was to be established by using a landholder survey to assess surface ponding each year.

The annual survey is used to assess the proportion of each landholding considered to be waterlogged during the previous 12 months. The results are presented in Table 4.6. There was very minimal waterlogging experienced during 2003/04. Table 4.6: Area of land waterlogged in 2003/04

Area Waterlogged District 1 – 5 Ha 6 – 10 Ha > 10 ha Berriquin 0.041% 0% 0% Cadell 0% 0% 0.211% Denimein 0% 0% 0% Wakool 0.009% 0% 0%

Farm Water Use Efficiency (Benchmark) Farm water use efficiency influences the potential level of groundwater accessions and the risk of downstream impacts caused by farm drainage. Three benchmark areas have been identified to assess farm water use efficiency.

Water Usage on Major Land Use Types Water delivered from the MIL supply system is recorded against six major landuses by landholders at the time of water ordering.

The water use for each major landuse is presented in Figures 4.6 to 4.9 in each of the districts for the period 1997/ 98 – 2003/04. The figures show similar water use in Deniboota, Denimein and Wakool. A higher proportion of water is used on perennial pastures and other crops in Berriquin, reflecting the presence of the dairy industry and greater diversification.

60% 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 50% 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 All years 40%

30%

Percentage of water used 20%

10%

0% % Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D Landuse Category Figure 4.6: Change in Water Use (% of Total Used) – Berriquin 1997/98 – 2003/04

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 39 80%

1997/98 1998/99 70% 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 60% 2003/04 All Years

50%

40%

30% Percentage of water used

20%

10%

0% % Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D Landuse Category

Figure 4.7: Change in Water Use (% of Total Used) – Denimein – 1997/98 – 2003/04

70% 1997/98 1998/99

60% 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 50% 2003/04 All Years

40%

30% Percentage of water used 20%

10%

0% % Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D

Landuse Category

Figure 4.8: Change in Water Use (% of Total Used) – Deniboota – 1997/98 – 2003/04

40 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 70% 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 60% 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 50% All Years

40%

30% Percentage of water used 20%

10%

0% % Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D

Landuse Category Figure 4.9: Change in Water Use (% of Total Used) – Wakool – 1997/98 – 2003/04

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 41 Rice Water Use Efficiency Rice water use accounted for approximately 37% of the total water used within the Murray Irrigation area during 2003/04. Rice water use efficiency is measured as the average water use per hectare expressed as a percentage of the crop water use requirement (crop evapotranspiration minus rainfall) as shown in figure 4.10.

The efficiency of rice crop water use varies considerably. The apparent efficiency levels above 100% are caused by the lower water use requirement of short season varieties used on some landholdings, measurement inaccuracy of water supplied from river pumps and deep bores and the impacts of high watertable levels in some areas.

140.0%

120.0%

100.0%

80.0%

60.0% Rice Water Use Efficiency (%) 40.0%

20.0%

0.0% 1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Eastern Murray Valley Western Murray Valley

Figure 4.10: Rice Crop Water Use Efficiency 1992/93 – 2003/04

Please note: the 2002/03 figures have not been presented because of some concerns on Murray Irrigation’s behalf of the accuracy of the water use figures.

Rice crop water use efficiency can also be expressed as the tonnage of rice grown per megalitre of water used. The tonnes of rice grown in the Murray Irrigation area is based on information from Grower Services, Ricegrowers Cooperative Limited. This information has been matched to the volume of water applied to rice as recorded by Murray Irrigation’s Water Ordering System to derive a tonnes per megalitre figure for rice production. Water from sources other than Murray Irrigation’s water recording system are included, where the information is available.

Table 4.7: Rice Production (t/ML) 1995/96 – 2003/04

Year 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Tonnes/ML 0.52 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.86 0.67 1.3 1.48

These results indicate a trend of increased water use efficiency of rice production. This reflects an overall lower water usage relative to the higher yields recorded. As noted above, Murray Irrigation believes the water use values attributed to rice production from sources other than Murray Irrigation’s water ordering records in 2002/03 significantly under-estimates the true amount of water that was supplied to rice. The company is considering what actions can be taken to improve water recording from sources other than Murray Irrigation’s supply.

Dairy Water Use Efficiency This indicator is not reported on this year as the method of reporting was not displaying water use efficiency but merely trends in pastures grown for dairy. This benchmark will be reviewed along with all of the other benchmarks before the 2004/05 report. 42 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Adoption of Best Management Practices (Benchmark) The adoption of best management practices is assessed using three indicators: perennial pastures, drainage and reuse, and groundwater pumping.

Perennial Pastures The benchmark established for perennial pastures is the percentage of farm area under deep-rooted perennial pasture species as assessed by the annual landholder survey (Table 4.8).

In addition to this information, a further question was asked in the landholder survey concerning the total amount of perennial vegetation. This included areas of woody vegetation, perennial pastures such as lucerne, areas of native grassland (which contained greater than 50% native grasses) and saltbush. The results are summarised in Table 4.9.

Table 4.8: Area of land with deep rooted Table 4.9: Area of land under perennial vegetation perennial pasture species established.

LWMP 2003/04 1995/96 – % total % Area (ha) 2003/04 (ha) Area LWMP perennial Area of Berriquin 3,517 25,164 1% Area vegetation District (ha) Cadell 8,109 59,304 3% Berriquin 7.06% 23,847 Denimein 301 2,729 1% Cadell 25.92% 77,413 Wakool 6,716 31,952 3% Denimein 12.03% 6,416 Wakool 40.79% 85,897 TOTAL 193,573

Drainage and Reuse The benchmark established is the percentage of landholdings (over 50ha) with a LWMP approved drainage and reuse system as shown in table 4.10.

Table 4.10: Landholdings that have accessed or completed a Drainage and Reuse System 1995/96-2003/04 Number of Reuse Landholdings > LWMP Area Systems 50ha Proportion (%) Berriquin 345 1,235 27.9% Cadell 185 794 23.3% Denimein 61 136 44.9% Wakool 135 358 37.7%

Groundwater Pumping The groundwater pumping benchmark was established as the number of shallow groundwater pumps operating and the volume pumped each year.

The Annual Landholder Survey indicated that 9% of landholdings pumped 14,739ML of shallow groundwater during 2003/04. The percentage of landholdings is the percentage of landholdings interviewed that undertook shallow groundwater pumping.

This corresponds to an average annual extraction rate of approximately 80 ML per shallow bore.

The Denimein groundwater pumping incentive provided incentives for 7 landholdings, with 816ML pumped in 2003/04.

Approximately 3,306ML of shallow groundwater was pumped by the WTSSDS in 2003/04.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 43 Soil Acidity (Benchmark) Soil acidity is a key indicator of soil condition. The Murray Catchment Management Plan has identified it to be a key catchment issue. In 2002 a soil monitoring and analysis project was initiated by the Murray LWMPs to assess the current status of soil condition, and to determine benchmark levels. The methodology was developed in conjunction with NSW DPI.

Twenty-eight primary sites were identified with two rounds of soil sampling completed throughout 2002 and 2003. The analyses showed that lighter soils acidify at a faster rate than heavier textured soils and that certain landuse/soil type combinations can increase the acidity of soils. Such combinations include horticulture and legume crops/ pastures grown on sandhill soils, or rice grown on transitional red brown earths (TRBE). The monitoring concluded that priority sites for liming programs and further monitoring could be easily identified based on their soil types and landuses. Further monitoring will be undertaken in the future to benchmark changes over time.

Status of Native Vegetation (Benchmark) There have been five benchmarks established for native vegetation. Table 4.12: Area of remnant vegetation fenced in 2003/04 The Area of Remnant Vegetation Fenced Annually and in 2003/04 Total District (ha) Total (ha) The information obtained from the annual landholder survey is detailed in Berriquin 1,383 4,893 Table 4.12. Cadell 379 7,594 Denimein 145 1,759 See chapter 5 for information on the fencing of remnant vegetation through Wakool 3,444 6,394 each of the LWMPs. TOTAL 5,351 20,640

Table 4.13: Number and area of trees planted within the LWMP The Area of Trees Planted areas The benchmark established is the number of District 2003/04 Total 1995/96 - 2003/04 trees planted annually and the total since 1995/ Area (ha) Number Area (ha) Number 96 (Table 4.13). This information is obtained Berriquin 449 161,673 5462 1,288,869 from the LWMP annual landholder survey. Cadell 543 100,957 13963 1,160,908 Denimein 53 5,216 567 156,056 Wakool 10 574 1149 56231 TOTAL 1,055 268,420 21141 2,662,064 Vegetation Health Vegetation health discussions have been ongoing between the Murray LWMPs, the DIPNR, the Murray Catchment Management Authority (MCMA) and other organisations in order to develop a cost-effective monitoring program to measure the health of existing native vegetation.

General concepts have been agreed to however the specific methodologies have not been fully identified. One outstanding issue is the monitoring of native vegetation health that will be required as part of the implementation of the Murray Catchment Management Plan. Discussions have established that any monitoring undertaken as part of the catchment management process needs to fulfil the requirements of the LWMP program, and vice versa.

It is anticipated that monitoring sites established as part of the Murray LWMP monitoring program will form part of the network established to meet the monitoring requirements of the catchment management plan.

44 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Vegetation Cover Mapping of the existing native vegetation was completed in 2001/02, which was based on a desktop analysis of satellite imagery.

Tables 4.14 and 4.15 detail the area of native woody vegetation (not including saltbush or cottonbush shrublands) with a canopy density of greater than 5%. This involved using satellite imagery to identify existing woody vegetation by means of grouping areas of similar canopy density into categories using standards developed by the DIPNR for use across the state. Individual paddock trees were not included.

Identifying areas of native grasslands and shrublands is significantly more difficult. Currently, there is no accurate estimate of these areas, but it can be assumed that in the less intensive irrigation districts, their extent is likely to be significant.

Table 4.14: Extent of existing woody vegetation

LWMP Total area 5-10% 10-20% 20-50% 50-100% Total On Farm (ha) Cover (ha) Cover (ha) Cover (ha) Cover (ha) Cover (ha) (ha)

Cadell 320,763 14,100 8,457 9,745 9,956 42,257 34,166 Wakool 228,766 6,495 8,673 14,197 12,501 41,865 34,484 Denimein 62,679 2,937 3,837 2,877 2,462 12,112 8,314 Berriquin 358,324 10,299 7,015 5,145 2,932 25,481 22,467 Total 970,532 33,831 27,982 31,964 27,851 121,715 99,431 Source: Murray Irrigation, 2001

Table 4.15: Percentage of existing woody vegetation cover

Plan area 5-10% 10-20% 20-50% 50-100% Total On Farm Cover Cover Cover Cover Cover Cadell 4.40% 2.60% 3.00% 3.10% 13.20% 10.70% Wakool 2.80% 3.80% 6.20% 5.50% 18.30% 15.10% Denimein 4.70% 6.10% 4.60% 3.90% 19.30% 13.30% Berriquin 2.90% 2.00% 1.40% 0.80% 7.10% 6.30% Total 3.40% 2.80% 3.20% 2.20% 12.50% 10.20% Source: Murray Irrigation, 2001.

Status of Wetlands The benchmark established is the status of selected wetlands. A wetland watering program was initiated by the Murray Wetlands Working Group and Murray Irrigation during 2003/04. Detailed monitoring of these sites occurred including fauna and flora surveys. This work is continuing, with further sites earmarked for watering during 2004/ 05.

Whilst not necessarily a representative sample of the wetlands in existence throughout the area, the results of this work did give an indication of the health, resilience and ability to respond to inundation of such areas.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 45 Socio Economic Status (Benchmark) The benchmark established is selected farm financial indicators including debt/equity ratios.

A farm financial survey was established in 1993/94 and again in 1997/98. Details of the previous surveys were reported in the 1997/98 Environment Report.

Community Understanding of Best Management Practices (Benchmark) The benchmark established is the cumulative percentage of farmers attending courses.

123 landholders completed Irrigation Training Program or Property Management Planning courses during 2003/ 04. This brings the cumulative total of landholders having successfully completed either course to 1140 by the end of 2003/04. This represents approximately 47% of total landholdings (excluding East Cadell landholders).

46 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Chapter 5: Murray Land and Water Management Plans The Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMPs) are a natural resource management program developed around a strong community-government partnership. The LWMP program has 15 years of government funding with contributions from federal and state natural resource management programs. The landholder contributions are in the form of levies on water fees, council rates, and cash and in-kind contributions to works on their properties. Government-landholder cost shares vary from 100% landholder funded to 100% government incentives based on public and private good.

Murray Irrigation is the implementation authority for the plans that were endorsed by the NSW Government in 1995. The four component plans are based on the geographic sub-districts of Cadell, Denimein, Wakool and Berriquin. While the boundaries of the Berriquin, Denimein and Wakool LWMPs reflect the boundaries of Murray Irrigation’s supply and stormwater escape operations, the Cadell plan extends beyond these to incorporate dryland farming, private irrigation schemes and trusts, and river pumpers along the Murray River. The Murray LWMPs address the full spectrum of land and water management issues and include the following programs.

LWMP Implementation Tables 5.1 outlines the achievements where incentives are available and progress against targets. This information is presented in terms of landholdings that have accessed LWMP incentives to date. 2003/04 marked year 9 of the 15 year government funded program.

Table 4.2: LWMP On-Farm Implementation Summary 1995- 2004

Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool Works Target Works Target Works Target Works Target Incentive Item Completed Achievement Completed Achievement Completed Achievement Completed Achievement Total Landholdings 1,481 1,015 189 384 3,069 Commercial Landholdings1 1,207 794 135 354 2,490 Irrigation Training 1140 Program 829 holdings 63.0% 99 holdings N/A 63 holdings N/A 149 holdings N/A holdings

Farm Plans2 479 holdings 44.0% 242 holdings 34.0% 76 holdings 58.0% 148 holdings 46.5% 945 holdings Drainage Reuse Systems3 357 holdings 33.0% 111 holdings 15.5% 34 holdings 26.0% 95 holdings 30.0% 597 holdings Groundwater Pumps Installed 91.00 350.0% N/A N/A 8.00 80.0% N/A N/A 91 Pumps

Groundwater Pumps Upgraded 22.00 85.0% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 22 pumps

Perennial Vegetation Establishment4 N/A N/A 22,906ha 39.0% 1,888ha 32.0% 411ha 45.7% 25,025ha Revegetation 0ha5 N/A 665ha 8.3% 50ha 6.8% 55ha 2.1% 770ha Regeneration 42ha5 N/A 1003ha 9.6% 94.7ha 3.0% 1,438ha 10.6% 2,578ha Irrigated Woodlot Establishment N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.5ha 4.5% 4.5ha 6.6% 18ha Revegetation of Saline Land N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 141ha 118.0% 141ha 1 Commercial holdings are defined in Berriquin, Denimein and Wakool as greater than 50ha, with greater than 50ML entitlements. For Cadell commercial holdings are defined as greater than 50ha. 2 Defined as fully approved whole farm plans. 3 Defined as farms meeting the minimum LWMP storage requirements. 4 Includes lucerne and saltbush.

In 2003/04 a total of $6.5 million of government funding and $3.9 million from landholders was spent on LWMP initiatives. Landholders spent another $57 million on LWMP items, as indicated by the annual landholder survey. Details of this expenditure is outlined in tables 5.2-5.5.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 47 Table 5.2: Implementation of the Berriquin LWMP

Berriquin

Government 2 Contribution Landholder Contribution

($) Levy 3 LWMP Incentives 4 Additional 5 Funding Item ($) ($) ($) LWMP Programs Research & Development 40,220.86 40,220.86 Monitoring 63,247.83 63,247.83 Administration 35,004.94 35,004.94 Education 80,317.46 80,317.46 Sub total 218,791.09 218,791.09 LWMP Incentive Program Whole Farm Plans 505,215.34 134,319.35 1,381,469.40 1 Includes items such as conservation tillage, Drainage Reuse Construction 797,438.52 1,067,072.06 3,742,375.00 improving paddock layouts (Berriquin only), education activities, operation and Sub Surface Drainage - New 136,848.33 98,413.70 1,527,377.52 maintenance and improved management. Sub Surface Drainage - 2 The actual Government financial contribution Upgrade to implementation of each component of the Biodiversity 2,287.00 LWMP. Revegetation 23,047.35 7,701.62 872,686.00 3 The direct levy charged to all lendholders via Regeneration 8,360.90 703.56 82,004.00 their water accounts. Sub total 1,473,197.44 1,308,210.29 7,605,911.92 4 The actual landholder financial contribution Capital Works Program to implementation of each component of the Drainage program 2,837,920.27 1,159,150.55 LWMP. Drainage program O & M 95,807.60 5 The additional landholder financial Sub total 2,837,920.27 1,254,958.15 contribution to implementation of each Landholder works Program component of the LWMP as recorded via the Landforming 6,699,018.04

LWMP Annual Survey (2003/04). Improved Pasture Management 702,658.00 Additional landholder works1 21,424,555.61 Sub total 28,826,231.65

TOTAL 4,529,908.80 1,473,749.24 1,308,210.29 36,432,143.57 Contribution to program 10.36% 3.37% 2.99% 83.28%

Table 5.3: Implementation of the Cadell LWMP 2003/04 Cadell Government 2 Contribution Landholder Contribution LWMP ($) Levy 3 Incentives 4 Additional 5 Funding Item ($) ($) ($) LWMP Programs Research & Development 37,781.03 37,781.03 Monitoring 29,605.15 29,605.15 Administration 18,289.31 18,289.31 Education 37,471.23 37,471.23 Sub total 123,146.72 123,146.72 LWMP Incentive Program Whole Farm Plans 177,092.64 52,911.45 662,057.00

Drainage Reuse Construction 416,086.37 224,088.09 771,669.00 Perennial pastures 76,351.04 81,395.48 702,658.00 Testwells 522.5 522.5 Trees/saltbush 6,837.00 7,106.45 Revegetation 4,783.56 2,234.43 Regeneration 15,678.94 Sub total 697,352.05 368,258.40 2,136,384.00 Capital Works Program Drainage Program 52,793.01 9,316.41 Drainage Program 10,182.00 Sub Total 52,793.01 19,498.41 Landholder Works Program Landforming 1,085,287.62 Improved irrigation layouts 1,402,544.96

Additional landholder works1 7,651,181.00 Sub total 10,139,013.58 TOTAL 873,291.78 142,645.13 368,258.40 12,275,397.58

Contribution to program 6.39% 1.04% 2.70% 89.87% 4 8 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Table 5.4: Implementation of the Denimein LWMP 2003/04 Denimein Government 2 Contribution Landholder Contribution LWMP Incentives ($) Levy 3 4 Additional 5 Funding Item ($) ($) ($) LWMP Programs

Research & Development 37,460.06 37,460.06 Monitoring 12,563.82 12,563.82 Administration 13,639.46 13,639.46 Education 20,289.79 20,289.79 Sub total 83,953.13 83,953.13 LWMP Incentive Program Whole Farm Plans 62,564.49 23,053.84 24,412.00 Drainage Reuse Construction 447,643.98 204,572.25 175,438.00 Sub Surface Drainage - Upgrade 8,251.77 Perennial pastures 1,773.81 1,773.80 Revegetation 2,632.79 170,393.00 Regeneration 6,906.31 2,076.17 20,865.00 Sub total 521,521.38 8,251.77 231,476.06 391,108.00 Capital Works Program Drainage program 15,867.78 3,966.95 Sub total 15,867.78 3,966.95 Landholder works Program Landforming 569,607.05

Improved irrigation layouts 492,639.39 Additional landholder works1 737,958.20 Sub total 3,006,211.00 TOTAL 621,342.29 96,171.85 231,476.06 4,573,820.00

Contribution to program 11.25% 1.74% 4.19% 82.82%

Table 5.5: Implementation of the Wakool LWMP 2003/04

Wakool Government 2 Contribution Landholder Contribution ($) Levy 3 Incentives 4 Additional 5 Funding Item ($) ($) ($) LWMP Programs Research & Development 34,941.42 34,941.42 Monitoring 32,773.28 32,773.28 Administration 24,316.99 24,316.99 Education 31,648.93 31,648.93 Sub total 123,680.62 123,680.62 LWMP Incentive Program Whole Farm Plans 135,397.55 40,623.25 39,075.95

Drainage Reuse Construction 218,160.29 78,989.11 2,984,121.00

Sub Surface Drainage - New 12,000.11 3,000.03 WTSSDS O & M 74,815.65 Revegetation 4,943.42 4,534.56 7,509.00 Regeneration 55,406.22 3,159.72 384,972.00 Sub total 425,907.59 77,815.68 127,306.64 3,415,677.95 Capital Works Program Drainage program 5,341.72 2,077.34 Drainage program O & M 48,161.84 Sub total 5,341.72 50,239.18 Landholder works Program Landforming 1,094,509.28 Improved irrigation layouts 963,659.84

1 Additional landholder works 2,434,652.00 Sub total 4,492,821.12 TOTAL 554,929.93 251,735.48 127,306.64 7,908,499.07 Contribution to program 6.28% 2.85% 1.44% 89.44% Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 49 Berriquin LWMP The Berriquin LWMP area encompasses the East and West Berriquin Irrigation Districts, which covers an area of 341,546ha of farm land consisting of 1,481 landholdings. Of these landholdings 1,207 are considered to be commercial being larger than 50ha with more than 50 Murray Irrigation share and water entitlements. A community working group develops implementation policies and sets priority actions. The Berriquin Working Group comprises 20 landholders, 3 agency representatives and Murray Irrigation as the implementation authority.

Summary of progress Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has steadily increased since commencement of implementation in 1995. During the 2003/04 financial year over $1.46 million dollars was allocated to farm planning, irrigation recycle systems, installing shallow ground water pumps and enhancing native vegetation. This was matched with $1.314 million of landholder spending across 202 landholdings.

Berriquin landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the plan targets over the past nine years of implementation. A total of 599 Berriqun landholdings (50%) have accessed LWMP incentives. Of commercial landholdings 40% have approved farm plans and 30% have constructed irrigation recycle systems. Beyond this, the annual survey indicates that 83% of landholdings have completed farm plans and 73% have drainage and reuse facilities. Farm plans carried out on holdings without LWMP incentives may or may not be of a standard that meets LWMP requirements.

Since the release of the regional vegetation strategy in January 2003, landholders have been actively encouraged and approached to protect and enhance existing native vegetation on their farms. A total of 86.5ha has already been fenced and enhanced throughout the Berriquin district. Although adoption has been slow a number of landholders have been preparing and planning for large areas of native vegetation to be fenced and managed in the coming year.

Education In 2003/04 the education program focused on one-on-one education. This approach proved to be very successful with record levels of incentives provided for farm planning and irrigation recycle systems.

The formal component of the program focuses on a four day Irrigation Training Program (ITP) that is offered 8 times a year (depending on participant numbers). Good levels of landholder participation continue to be seen with 52 landholders completing the program representing 97 holdings over the 2003/04 period. In the Berriquin district this brings the total participation to 63% of commercial landholdings being represented.

With the release of the new vegetation incentives a vegetation field day was held to promote the program. The day focused on the importance of protecting remnant vegetation and how these areas can be easily incorporated and managed into the design and layout of a farm. Discussion topics included how to manage and enhance remnant vegetation, direct seeding, methods to promote regeneration, the benefits of creating corridors for wildlife, and pest control techniques. The day was well attended with more than 70 landholders present.

To ensure the Berriquin plan maintains a strong community focus 12 woolshed meetings were held across the district, for the second consecutive year. The aim of the meetings was to seek feedback from landholders on the Berriquin LWMP, to help determine the plans future direction and ensure its success. Landholders were asked what was successful about the plan, why landholders weren’t being involved and ways in which the program could be improved. Approximately 20% of landholdings were represented.

The education program continues to be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals and local groups. The ongoing co-operation and participation of landholders and other organisations in the education program is essential. NSW DPI, Murray Indigenous Seed Services, DIPNR, private industry, landholders and others continue to make significant contributions.

5 0 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Implementation Progress

Farm plan

Target By 2010, 90% of commercial landholdings will have completed a Whole Farm Plan or a Farm Assessment (followed by a Farm Plan). 2003/04 Progress: There were 94 farm plans completed and approved in 2003/04. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 479 landholdings had completed an approved farm plan. This is 44% of the farm plan target, 16% behind on the 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 83% of landholdings had completed a farm plan, 23% of which had undertaken farm planning in 2003/04.

Irrigation Recycle and Storage

Target By 2010, 90% of commercial landholdings to have recycling and drainage systems including a minimum storage of 4ML per 100ha of irrigated land where soil types permit. 2003/04 Progress There were 87 landholdings that received an incentive to construct a farm drainage reuse system in 2003/04. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 357 landholdings had constructed (in part or all) an approved drainage reuse system. This is 33% of the irrigation recycle target, 27% behind the 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 73% of landholdings had an irrigation recycle facility which serviced 71% of the irrigated area. The landholder survey also indicated that $3.74 million was invested in irrigation recycle and storage in 2003/04 and $1.32 million was spent on irrigation recycle operation and maintenance.

Groundwater pumping

Target By 2010, 26 pumps to be installed and 26 pumps to be upgraded. 2003/04 Progress There were 13 private pumps installed in 2003/04. Total Implementation The total number of new groundwater pumps now installed is 91 and 22 pumps upgraded. This has exceeded the target on new pumps by 350% ahead of the 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 10% of landholdings have shallow groundwater pumps in 2003/04.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 51 Irrigation Training Program (ITP)

Target A representative of all commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Training Program by March 2006. 2003/04 Progress A total of 52 Berriquin landholders attended the ITP in 2003/04 representing 97 landholdings. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, landholders representing 829 landholdings (of these 73 lanholdings are non commercial) have attended ITP in the Berriquin District. This is equivalent to 63% of the target, 19% behind the 2004 milestone.

Landforming and Topsoiling

Target All landholdings will have achieved optimal levels of landforming with top-soiling by 2010. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that landholders invested $6.7 million in landforming during 2003/04. The total area landformed has increased by 9,439ha to 185,409ha landformed since 1995.

Alternative Irrigation & Water Saving Technologies

Target Alternative irrigation and water saving technologies will be encouraged where environmentally and economically desirable. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 8% of landholdings utilised automatic irrigation methods and 3% undertook irrigation scheduling, with 2.4% of the irrigated area with overhead irrigation.

Biodiversity

Target Vegetation incentives or targets were not originally part of the Berriquin LWMP as Greening Australia (GA) provided funding for vegetation projects. With the ceasing of GA funding and the release of the Murray Catchment Blueprint, CMA targets have been adopted. Incentives for vegetation projects under the Berriquin LWMP were introduced in January 2003. 2003/04 Progress Eight incentives totalling $14,624.25 were paid for enhancing and revegetation of 19.38ha of Grassy Box woodland, 8.1ha of Sandhill woodland and 15ha of Floodplain woodland. Survey Results Landholders invested $73,000 in tree and saltbush plantings, $287,575 in maintenance associated with revegetation and $77,194 in fencing native vegetation areas in 2003/04.

Irrigation of Summer Pastures

Target Best management practices for summer pasture are to be promoted.

5 2 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results Of landholdings surveyed, 7.1% irrigated their summer pasture after the 15th of April. Of these landholdings, 14.2% irrigated after 1st May 2004. Approximately $460,000 was invested in upgrading summer pastures in 2003/ 04.

Perennial Species in Annual Pastures

Target Farmers are to introduce perennial pasture species into existing pastures within 15 years. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results Of landholdings surveyed, 11% incorporated perennial species into their pastures during 2003/04, over an area of 3,531ha. Approximately $702,658 was invested in incorporating perennial species into irrigated annual pastures during 2003/04.

Sealing the Channel System

Target By 2005, sealing the top 27 seepage sites will occur subject to detailed investigations on a site by site basis. 2003/04 Progress Murray Irrigation is continuing to undertake investigations at key sites to determine what sealing works are appropriate. During the 2003/04 year Murray Irrigation completed a major seepage investigation project. The project commenced in 2000 and involving the MDBC, ANCID and several other irrigation authorities. Evaluations will be conducted in the future to determine the success of the channel lining at the various sites (refer to Seepage and Erosion Control, page 3).

Tree Planting at Identified Seepage Sites

Target By 2010, tree plantings and establishing lucerne will take place adjacent to 54 minor identified seepage sites. 2003/04 Progress All 54 identified seepage sites have been planted, with a total of $113,920 being spent on fencing and trees. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 1% of landholders established a lucerne plantation along a district supply channel during 2003/04. This involved an investment of $13,189.

Conservation Farming

Target Encourage the adoption of conservation farming techniques. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholdings surveyed indicated that approximately 79.5% of respondents practiced conservation farming techniques.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 53 Cadell LWMP Cadell LWMP implementation commenced in November 1995. The LWMP area covers the Deniboota Irrigation District (operated by Murray Irrigation), a number of smaller private irrigation districts and the neighbouring dryland area, known as East Cadell as shown in Figure 5.1 (as Cadell). The Cadell LWMP area comprises 301,848ha with 1,015 landholdings, 77% (794) of these holdings are commercial (greater than 50ha in size).

The Cadell LWMP has joint implementation authorities, Murray Shire Council and Murray Irrigation. In 1996/97, Murray Shire Council formally contracted Murray Irrigation as its agent to implement the East Cadell component of the LWMP. In this role Murray Irrigation reports to a formal committee of the council.

The Cadell Working Group comprises four community representatives, each from Cadell LWMP showing Deniboota and East Cadell, representatives from Murray Irrigation as well as various Deniboota Irrigation area other agencies. This committee has assisted Murray Irrigation Limited A.C.N. 067 197 933 the two implementation authorities in determining specific priority actions and ongoing community consultation.

Summary of Progress Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has

Wakool# increased steadily since commencement of Deniliquin implementation in 1996. During the 2003/04 # financial year, more than $0.726 million was provided to Cadell landholders for farm planning, drainage reuse construction, # DENIBOOTA Barham perennial pasture and saltbush establishment, and native vegetation protection and enhancement. This was matched with $1.11 Bunnaloo million of landholder spending over 180 # Mathoura # landholdings. Since 1996, 425 Cadell landholdings (42%) have accessed an LWMP incentive. CADELL Cadell landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the implementation

N targets established in 1995. A total of 81% of W E Moama the area is owned by landholders who have S # been accredited with a Cadell Card and 34% 10 0 10 Kilometres of commercial holdings (landholdings larger than 50ha) have completed a farm plan. More Figure 4.2: Map of East Cadell and Deniboota than 26% of commercial holdings have installed an irrigation recycling system.

The Cadell LWMP has also made significant progress towards meeting the vegetation targets. Landholders have established or protected 23,571ha of perennial vegetation (including perennial pasture) in Cadell since 1996.

5 4 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Education The Cadell LWMP education program has three components; the Cadell Card, community education and training activities, and one-on-one landholder education.

Accreditation for the Cadell Card requires a landholder to complete an awareness test and submit a farm map identifying soil types, remnant vegetation areas, waterlogged and saline areas as well as current and proposed irrigation layouts. This is a prerequisite for receiving financial incentives from the LWMP.

As of June 30, 2004, 636 (80%) of commercial holdings had received their Cadell Card accreditation. These landholdings cover 243,834ha or 81% of the LWMP area. The landholder accreditation process has provided an opportunity to improve individual landholder awareness and understanding through direct contact with the LWMP Officer.

The second component of the education program is less formal and has been carried out by Murray Irrigation with support from private and industry consultants and NSW DPI.

Activities conducted in 2003/04 included: • Three field days covering alternative irrigation practices, farm drainage and recycling and native vegetation establishment methods; • Four community newsletters; • Numerous media releases in local and regional newspapers; • Landholder participation in the Murray Irrigated Training Program.

As in previous years, LWMP staff have continued to increase the focus of the education program towards one-on- one landholder education. This approach has been successful in increasing landholder awareness of the LWMP and encouraging implementation of plan recommendations.

Implementation Progress

Farm Plans

Target 1 By 2001, 95% of landholdings (commercial & non-commercial) will have completed a Farm Development Plan (Cadell Card). 2003/04 Progress The Cadell Card target was not met by 2001, therefore implementation is continuing. In 2003/04, there were 32 Farm Development Plans (Cadell Card) completed. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 636 landholdings had received their Cadell Card accreditation. The number accredited is equivalent to 80% of the 2001 target.

Target 2 By 2010, 90% of landholdings (commercial) will have produced a farm plan to ensure a high degree of control over water flow within the farm boundary. 2003/04 Progress There were 23 farm plans completed in 2003/04. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 242 landholdings have completed a farm plan. 300 holdings have accessed a farm plan incentive of which 58 landholdings are at the grid survey stage. The number of completed farm plans is equivalent to 34% of the farm plan target, 43% behind the required 2004 milestone.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 55 Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 72% of landholdings had completed a farm plan, with 15% of landholders undertaking farm planning in 2003/04.

Drainage Reuse Construction

Target By 2010, 90% of landholdings (commercial) will have implemented recycling and drainage works including a minimum storage of 11ML per 100ha of irrigated land where soil types permit. 2003/04 Progress There were 9 drainage reuse and storage systems completed in 2003/04. Incentives were provided for the construction of a farm drainage reuse system on 43 landholdings during 2003/04. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 111 landholdings have a fully completed drainage reuse and storage system (including a storage dam). Incentives to construct a drainage reuse system have been provided for 187 landholdings with construction started but not completed on 76 of those landholdings. The number of completed drainage, reuse and storage systems is equivalent to 15.5% of the target, 74% behind the required 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 37% of landholdings had a drainage reuse facility. The landholder survey also indicated that $727,000 was invested in drainage reuse and storage in 2003/04 and $428,000 was spent on drainage reuse operation and maintenance.

Establishing Perennial Vegetation The Cadell LWMP area has a significant component of low intensity irrigation and dryland areas. Therefore the protection and establishment of perennial vegetation (native trees, shrubs, lucerne and saltbush) is an important part of recharge control in the area.

The following are original targets set by the Cadell LWMP, which will be modified to suit the recently developed vegetation targets as part of the Murray Catchment Management Plan.

Target 1 By 2010, 8,445ha of irrigated annual pasture will be converted to annual/perennial pasture. By 2010, 50,420ha of land dedicated to growing sub-clover will incorporate lucerne. 2003/04 Progress The total area of perennial pasture established in 2003/04 was 5,025ha on 68 landholdings. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 22,906ha of perennial pasture has been established on 240 holdings. This is equivalent to 39% of the combined perennial pasture target, 35% behind on the required 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 8,109ha of perennial pasture was established on 15% of landholdings across the Cadell area in 2003/04, at a cost of $970,788.

Saltbush

Target 1 Plant 4,000ha of saltbush or salt tolerant native trees by 2025, as green pumps. 2003/04 Progress In 2003/04, 6 landholdings received incentives to establish saltbush on 33ha.

5 6 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 665ha of native vegetation (including saltbush) had been established on 134 landholdings. Implementation of saltbush and native trees has previously been recorded as one target, therefore the calculation of progress against this target is not possible. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that: • 2.6ha of saltbush were planted in 2003/04 at a cost of $610 • The total area of saltbush planted since 1996/97 is 26,206ha at a cost to landholders of $1,063,810.

Target 2 Identify where saltbush or salt tolerant native trees will be beneficial or of maximum advantage. 2003/04 Progress Murray Irrigation is undertaking an area at risk of salinity investigation as part of a CSIRO R&D project.

Native Vegetation With the introduction of the Murray Catchment Blueprint in 2003, some of the initial vegetation targets established by the Cadell LWMP were no longer appropriate. These targets have been replaced with those described in the Murray Catchment Blueprint as outlined below.

Target 1 By 2010, 10,451ha of existing native vegetation (covering the six broad vegetation types outlined in the Murray Catchment Blueprint) will be actively managed for conservation. 2003/04 Progress The total area of native vegetation fenced in 2003/04 was 45ha, with 7 landholdings receiving incentives for these works. Implementation of this target commenced in mid 2003/04, therefore accurate records (outlining broad vegetation types) are not available. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, more than 1,003ha of native vegetation has been fenced on 118 landholdings. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 379ha of remnant vegetation was fenced to encourage active management for conservation at a cost of $17,773. The total area of remnant vegetation protected since 1996/97 is 7,044ha at a cost of $615,373.

Target 2 By 2010, restore and regenerate 4,040ha of under represented broad vegetation types (covering the six broad vegetation types outlined in the Murray Catchment Blueprint). 2003/04 Progress In 2003/04, 6 landholdings received incentives to establish native vegetation on 60ha. Implementation of this target commenced in mid 2003/04, therefore accurate records (outlining broad vegetation types) are not available. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 665ha of native vegetation (including saltbush) had been established on 134 landholdings. Implementation of saltbush and native trees has previously been recorded as one target, therefore the calculation of progress against this target is not possible. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 543ha of trees/shrubs were planted in 2003/04 at a cost of $835,737.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 57 Soil Management

Target 1 By 2010, 50% of landholdings will implement conservation farming techniques such as minimum tillage or direct drilling. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 62% of landholders used conservation tillage techniques during 2003/04.

Target 2 By 2010, 90% of landholdings will place rice fallow into crop to decrease accessions to the watertable subject to appropriate management techniques being developed via industry research. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. CSIRO is currently undertaking research into appropriate cropping systems immediately following rice. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 1% of rice growers direct drilled a winter crop into rice stubble from the 2002/ 03 rice season totaling 1,125ha. A further 536ha of winter cereals was direct drilled into the 2003/04 seasons rice stubble by 2% of rice growers.

Irrigation Management

Target 1 By 2005, 95% of landholdings will be aware of crop and pasture water usage and the importance of paddock selection for irrigation. 2003/04 Progress A series of education activities were conducted in 2003/04 to improve landholder awareness.

Target 2 By 2004, a target for water use will be developed for crops and pastures other than rice. 2003/04 Progress CSIRO is currently undertaking research involving crop water use and the level of groundwater accessions for each major crop type.

Target 3 Farm water use monitored annually. 2003/04 Progress Farm water use is currently monitored annually via metered inlets and the Murray Irrigation Water Ordering service, recording six different crop/pasture types. Information is also collected on the water usage of licensed deep aquifer bores.

Irrigation of Annual Pastures

Target Irrigation of annual pastures after the 1st May to be discouraged. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available.

5 8 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that less than 6.7% of landholders irrigated winter pastures after 1st May.

Irrigation of Cereal Crops

Target By 2005, 90% of landholdings on which pre-irrigation for winter crops is carried out, complete pre-irrigating by mid March on contour layouts and the 1st May on lasered country. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated 19% of landholders pre-irrigated winter crops. There were approximately 13,157ha pre-irrigated in 2003/04, compared to 6,996ha in 2002/03.

Irrigation of Summer Pastures

Target 1 By 2005, 10% (320ha) of existing summer pastures will be incorporated with perennial species of lucerne or phalaris. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that approximately 484ha of summer pasture with a perennial plant component were established in 2003/04.

Target 2 Irrigation of summer pastures after 1st May be discouraged. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated no respondents irrigated summer pasture after 15th April, 2004.

Irrigation Scheduling

Target By 2010, 31,500ha of irrigated land will have irrigation scheduling practices (e.g. daily evaporation figures or moisture probes, in particular annual pastures, lucerne and summer crops.) 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 5% of farmers were adopting irrigation scheduling techniques across the district. This compares with 2% in 1997/98, 5% in 1998/99, 3% in 1999/00, 9% in 2000/01, 7% in 2001/02 and 6% in 2002/03.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 59 Infrastructure

Target 1 By 2005, culverts/syphons will be installed in 95% of obstructions to watercourses, (e.g. channels, roads, banks). 2003/04 Progress Steady progress was made on the Cadell surface drainage program during 2003/04. Murphy’s Timber Stage 2, Yaloke Stage 2 and Yaloke Laterals have all been surveyed and designed, with construction approval for all three drainage lines granted by Murray Shire Council. Construction of both Murphy’s Timber and Yaloke are expected to begin mid 2004. For further information see page 33.

Target 2 By 2005, 90% of landholdings will use the correct maintenance procedures for farm channels to ensure flow rates are not restricted by the build up of weeds or sediments. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 30% of landholders undertook channel maintenance during 2003/04 at a cost of $374,966.

Landforming

Target By 2010, an additional 30,000ha will be landformed to minimise waterlogging and reduce accessions. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that landholders invested $1.09 million on landforming in 2003/04. This equated to approximately 1,809ha. The total landformed area since 1995 is 47,259ha.

Contour and Bordercheck Irrigation Layouts

Target 1 By 2010, 90% of landholdings will use contour layouts only on impermeable soil types for rice production. 2003/04 Progress In 2003/04 Murray Irrigation upgraded its rice soil suitability criteria to be based on soil sodicity rather than percentage clay. Research shows that this move will double the accuracy of detection of unsuitable rice soils. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 1% of landholders had undertaken an EM31 survey during 2003/04 for rice ground approval. Approximately 946ha were surveyed, at a cost of $24,608.

Target 2 By 2010, 90% of contour layouts on soil not suitable for rice production will be converted to border check. 2003/04 Progress Murray Irrigation requires landholders to retest soils where the rice crop has exceeded the target water use limit. In 2003/04, six rice growers exceeded the rice water use target in Deniboota.

Rice Water Use

Target 1 100% of landholdings will meet the annual total rice water usage figure.

6 0 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 2003/04 Progress Six landholders exceeded the crop water use target in 2003/04 (page 32).

Target 2 All unsuitable rice ground will be removed from production as it is identified. 2003/04 Progress Murray Irrigation’s Rice Soil Policy requires the identification via EM31 survey and soil sodicity analyses of all previously untested rice ground, rice ground where water is supplied from sources other than Murray Irrigation and land where the annual rice water use target has been exceeded.

Alternative Farming Practices

Target 1 By 2005, 50% of landholdings will be well informed with information on marketing skills and alternative farming operations.

2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that no landholders established an alternative farming enterprise during 2003/04. However 7 indicated they had alternative enterprises ranging from vineyards to nurseries and feedlots.

Target 2 By 2005, 500ha of dryland alternative crops (canola, field peas, lupins and vetch) will be established. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 7,474ha of oilseeds and 1,609ha of winter grain legumes were grown in 2003/ 04.

Groundwater Pumping

Target 1 By 2001, develop a strategy for groundwater pumping and commence the implementation of the strategy for research and development purposes.

Target 2 By 2004, complete the research and development for groundwater pumping. Total Implementation A groundwater pumping investigation program was undertaken in 1999/00 to identify the cause of groundwater recharge in areas with significant watertable rise. This study was finalised in 2000/01 however there were no significant conclusions drawn as to the cause of this watertable rise.

Further investigations by CSIRO into watertable dynamics in the Cadell area was undertaken during 2003/04. The influence of various LWMP recommendations (including groundwater pumping) will be studied during this research project. This research is to be completed by 2006.

Identification and Management of Areas Most at Risk of Salinisation

Target 1 By 2001, identify areas at risk of salinisation and provide information to landholders regarding water discharge in Cadell. Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 61 2003/04 Progress Murray Irrigation is undertaking an area at risk of salinity investigation as part of the benchmarking requirements.

Target 2 By 2002, develop and distribute a management plan to those landholders whose land is at greatest risk of becoming saline. 2003/04 Progress As part of the Cadell LWMP education program, those landholders at risk of salinity are being identified and encouraged to adopt the best management practices recommended to overcome salinity.

Sealing the Channel System

Target By 2003, Murray Irrigation will seal the economically viable sites. 2003/04 Progress The company is continuing to undertake investigations at key sites to determine appropriate sealing works. In 2003/04, no major seepage sites were sealed in Cadell.

Tree Plantings at Identified Seepage Sites

Target By 2005, plant trees alongside other identified seepage sites. 2003/04 Progress • No trees were planted by Murray Irrigation along supply channels during 2003/04. • No trees were established along farm channel seepage areas during 2003/04 Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that no landholders established a tree plantation along a district supply channel for seepage control during 2003/04.

6 2 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Denimein LWMP Denimein LWMP implementation commenced in October 1996. It covers an area of 53,379ha, and comprises 189 holdings. In total there are 138 commercial holdings (holdings greater than 50ha) on which the targets are based.

The Denimein Working Group comprises 15 landholders from throughout the district and two agency representatives. They make decisions on behalf of the community regarding the operation and implementation of the LWMPs.

Summary of Progress There has been a steady increase in landholder adoption of incentives since plan commencement in 1996, with approximately 83% of commercial landholdings being actively involved in the Denimein LWMP.

The enthusiasm to undertake on-farm drainage works in 2003/04 was pleasing. During the year 26 landholders completed some form of drainage works while construction of storage dams was completed on three landholdings. Since 1996, drainage works have been completed on 68 landholdings in Denimein.

Uptake of farm planning by the Denimein community is progressing extremely well. Throughout the year several grid surveys were finalised, with the majority of these landholders going on to implement major drainage works.

Education The education program for 2003/04 involved a range of coordinated activities, accompanied by a significant component of one-on-one discussions with individual landholders.

After eight years of implementation, the Denimein Working Group has recognised that landholders require more guidance in the uptake of LWMP works. The one-on-one approach has allowed the implementation officer to encourage best management practices to match individual farm needs.

Every three months the Denimein newsletter is published. This newsletter covers all aspects of the LWMP. Numerous media articles are also published in regards to LWMP activities.

A number of ITP courses ran throughout the year with five landholders from the Denimein district attending.

Vegetation management education has occurred with the wetland watering on private property trial Murray Irrigation operate in conjunction with the Murray Wetlands Working Group. Landholders who applied to be involved in this project were targeted to carry out further vegetation enhancement of the site. One-on-one discussions with landholders have resulted in the fencing of some sites and direct seeding activities.

A high level of co-ordination and co-operation is maintained with NSW DPI, Murray Indigenous Seed Services (MISS), DIPNR, the Murray Wetland Working Group and private organisations in the delivery of the education program.

Implementation Progress

Farm Plans

Target 80% of commercial holdings to have completed an appropriate level of farm plan by 2006, 95% by 2011. 2003/04 Progress Eight landholdings accessed a farm planning incentive in 2003/04. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 76 landholdings have a completed farm plan. 110 landholdings have accessed a farm plan incentive, of which 34 landholdings are at the grid survey stage. The number of completed farm plans is equivalent to 69% of the 2006 farm plan target, 16% behind the required 2004 milestone. The 2011 farm plan target is 58% achieved, 3% behind the required 2004 milestone.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 63 Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 56% of landholdings had completed a farm plan, however none had undertaken farm planning in 2003/04.

Drainage and Recycling

Target 70% of commercial holdings to have implemented drainage reuse and storage systems by 2006, 95% by 2011. 2003/04 Progress There were 26 landholdings that undertook drainage and reuse work in 2003/04. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 34 landholdings have completed drainage reuse and storage works. An additional 38 are partly completed taking the total landholdings that have accessed funds for drainage, reuse and storage works to 72. The number of completed drainage, reuse and storage systems is equivalent to 35% of the 2006 target, 57% behind the required 2004 milestone. The 2011 drainage, reuse and storage target is 26% achieved, 57% behind the required 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 56% of farms have reuse facilities and that these systems service 29% of the irrigated area. Landholders invested $175,438 on drainage reuse construction and $55,060 on operation and maintenance of these systems in 2003/04.

Native Vegetation The introduction of the Murray Catchment Blueprint vegetation targets in 2003 has resulted in the redundancy of many of the initial vegetation targets developed by the Denimein LWMP. The new Murray Catchment Management targets are outlined below. Target 1 By 2010, 3,216.9ha of native vegetation (covering the six broad vegetation types outlined by the Murray Catchment Blueprint) will be actively managed for conservation. 2003/04 Progress Remnant vegetation was fenced on three landholdings in 2003/04, totaling 27.7ha. Implementation of this target commenced mid 2003/04, therefore accurate records (outlining broad vegetation types) are not available. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 94.7ha across 15 landholdings had been actively managed in the Denimein LWMP area. The number of hectares managed is equivalent to 3% of the target, 92.5% behind the required 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that $20,865 was spent on fencing 145ha of remnant vegetation to encourage active management for conservation in 2003/04.

Target 2 By 2010, restore and regenerate 731.8ha of under-represented broad vegetation types (as outlined in the Murray Catchment Blueprint). 2003/04 Progress Three landholdings received an incentive to establish native vegetation over 8.16ha in 2003/04. Implementation of this target commenced mid 2003/04, therefore accurate records (outlining broad vegetation types) are not available. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 50.16ha had been revegetated across the Denimein LWMP area on 18 landholdings. The number of hectares revegetated is equivalent to 6.8% of the target, 88.7% behind on the required 2004 milestone.

6 4 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 146ha of native vegetation was established during 2003/04, at a cost of $170,393.

Dryland Pasture

Target 5,900ha (or 18%) of unimproved dryland pasture to incorporate perennials or be managed to maintain a perennial mix by 2011. 2003/04 Progress Four holdings incorporated perennials in 2003/04, totaling 151ha. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 1,888ha of perennials had been planted in the Denimein LWMP area. The number of hectares to incorporate perennials is equivalent to 32% of the target, 46.6% behind the required 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that approximately 21ha of annual pasture had a perennial component established during 2003/04, of which none was dryland. Total investment was $2,216.

Farm Forestry

Target Establish 300ha of commercial farm forestry by 2011. 2003/04 Progress No holdings received an incentive to complete farm forestry works in 2003/04. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 13.5ha of farm forestry had been established in the Denimein LWMP area. The number of hectares of established farm forestry is equivalent to 4.5% of the target, 92.5% behind on the required 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that no commercial farm forestry was established during 2003/04.

Ground Water Pumps

Target 1 Upgrade 10 existing shallow bores by 2001. Maintain pumping of these bores annually. 2003/04 Progress There were no existing shallow bores upgraded under the incentive scheme in 2003/04. In 2003/04 DIPNR introduced a moratorium on the installation of new shallow groundwater pumps. As a result, this target is redundant. Total Implementation Eight shallow bores have been installed/upgraded in the Denimein district.

Target 2 Aim to pump 1,200ML/year. 2003/04 Progress Seven Denimein holdings pumped groundwater during 2003/04, with a total of 816ML pumped. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 6,037ML of water had been pumped in the Denimein LWMP area. The number of megalitres pumped is equivalent to 50.3% of the target, 16.7% behind the required 2004 milestone.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 65 Target Water Use

Target 1 90% of landholders to be aware of best irrigation management practices for all irrigated production by 2006. 2003/04 Progress No incentive available. Survey Results No landholders exceeded the TFWB in 2003/04.

Target 2 95% of rice crops to be within maximum water use targets by 2006. 2003/04 Progress No incentive available. Survey Results One landholder exceeded the rice water use target in 2003/04.

Management of Contour Layouts

Target 70% of landholders to adopt correct strategies by 2011, 95% by 2025. 2003/04 Progress No incentive available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 9% of the irrigated area had implemented a side ditch into the contour layout system.

Irrigated Winter Crops

Target 90% of pre-irrigated crops to adopt the appropriate seasonal strategy by 2001. 2003/04 Progress No incentive available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 56% of irrigated area is landformed.

Summer Pasture/Forage Crops

Target 95% of non-rice summer irrigation enterprises to adopt the correct autumn watering strategy by 2001. 2003/04 Progress No incentive available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 100% of respondents did not irrigate their summer pastures after the 15th April, 2004.

6 6 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Landforming

Target 8,000ha to be landformed by 2015. 2003/04 Progress No incentive available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that $569,607 was invested in landforming over an area of 949ha. Total area landformed since 1995 is 17,736ha.

Farm Channel Sealing

Target Identify areas of significant farm channel seepage and seal as appropriate. 2003/04 Progress No incentive available. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 50% of Denimein landholdings undertook some form of channel maintenance during 2003/04 and spent $190,565 on these works. No landholdings planted trees or lucerne at seepage sites along farm channels.

Channel Seepage Control

Target 1 Seal economically viable sites by 2001. Quantify seepage more accurately and seal additional sites as appropriate. 2003/04 Progress A channel seepage investigation coordinated by ANCID will provide information on identification of channel seepage sites, remediation of these sites and a decision support system for channel seepage. This project has recently been completed with results circulated around the working group. Target 2 Plant trees alongside marginal seepage sites over 30 years. 2003/04 Progress A total of four sites, identified by the Murray Irrigation Infrastructure Committee, have been planted with appropriate mixes of trees and shrubs to utilise any seepage. No trees were planted in 2003/04.

Deep Groundwater Pumping

Target 1 Install 8 deep bores by 2001 2003/04 Progress The installation of new deep bores is subject to a moratorium imposed by DIPNR. Accordingly, no work on the installation of deep bores is being carried out.

Target 2 Once achieved, aim to pump 8,000ML per annum from the deep aquifers (subject to refinement by DIPNR). 2003/04 Progress Approximately 4,220ML of water was pumped from existing deep bores in 2003/04. This information is based water usage data monitored and recorded by Murray Irrigation.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 67 Channel Escapes and Box Creek Upgrade

Target 1 Identify the requirements for upgrading the escape system by 2001. 2003/04 Progress Six escapes have been identified and incorporated into the surface drainage program for completion by 2005. Progress on escape upgrade is reported below (target 2).

The Box Creek concept design project was completed in 2002, with hydraulic modeling of the creek using a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) completed this year. The hydraulic modeling indicated that the MDBC design flow was generally contained within the depression of the creek although it over toped the constructed channel. There were however four locations that will require some minor bank works to prevent the design flow flooding irrigation infrastructure. Murray Irrigation aims to commence desilting, fencing, earthworks, and revegetation works on Box Creek in 2004/05.

Target 2 Construction based on these outcomes to be completed by 2006. 2003/04 Progress All six escapes requiring upgrade have been surveyed. All of these escapes have been incorporated into the drainage program and are expected to be completed by June 2005.

Management Packages

Target 90% of all landholders to be aware of the basic best management practice principles for crop/pasture production by 2006. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 22% of respondents undertake regular soil testing, and 17% actively participate in and use crop management programs.

6 8 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Wakool LWMP Wakool LWMP implementation commenced in January 1996. It covers an area of 210,694ha and comprises 381 holdings with 354 commercial holdings (holdings greater than 50ha). The Wakool LWMP Working Group provides much of the ongoing direction and initiative for the Wakool LWMP. The group is comprised of 18 landholders, as well as representation from Murray Irrigation Ltd, Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) and NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI).

Summary of Progress Despite continuing difficult farm economic conditions, implementation has continued to occur during 2003/04. Compared to 2002/03 there has been a decrease in the number of holdings uptaking the LWMP incentives.

Education Education has been an active component in the Wakool LWMP area during 2003/04. The major component of landholder education remains one-on-one informal meetings. Approximately 125 landholder meetings were held during 2003/04. More formal aspects of the education program were held through field days, presentations and through the Irrigation Training Program.

Tours & Presentations on Salinity Management Tours and presentations were conducted to groups including; Barham Primary School, Deniliquin High School, Barham High School, NSW DPI and DIPNR staff, Charles Sturt Univeristy Students, Probus at Holbrook, Murray Catchment Natural Resource Officers and Western Murray Irrigation Landholders.

Field Days Two biodiversity field days have been held. They include: 1 Rabbit Control and Native Vegetation Field Day 2 Carnivorous Native Mice Field Day

Implementation Progress

Farm Plans

Target 1 Currently, the Wakool LWMP has no specific target for farm planning. Informally, the working group aims to have at least 90% of commercial landholdings with a completed farm plan by 2010. 2003/04 Progress A total of 34 landholdings have accessed farm planning incentives during 2003/04 Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 148 landholdings have completed a farm plan. 227 landholdings have accessed a farm plan incentive of which 79 landholdings are still at the grid survey stage. The number of completed farm plans is equivalent to 46.5% of the farm plan target, 22.5% behind the required 2004 milestone. Survey Results The landholder survey indicated that 97% of landholdings had completed a whole farm plan, 7.7% of which had been undertaken in 2003/04. It should be noted that the annual survey is of only 10% of landholdings and this information is then extrapolated to a regional scale, some error may occur in this extrapolation.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 69 Irrigation Recycling

Target 1 90% of farms (commercial) will have drainage for most of their irrigated land by the year 2010. Education will continue to highlight the benefits of drainage and, combined with the farm assessment, move towards this overall goal. 2003/04 Progress A total of 95 landholdings have completed drainage reuse and storage works. An additional 44 are partly completed taking the total landholdings that have accessed funds for drainage, reuse and storage works to 139. The number of completed drainage, reuse and storage systems is equivalent to 30% of the 2010 target, 50% behind the required 2004 milestone.

Target 2 90% of farm channels will be designed and maintained correctly by 2010. 80% of leaking on farm channel sites will be sealed by 2005. Landholders have the responsibility of upgrading and maintaining their on-farm supply system. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Survey Results The results from the annual survey indicate that 78% of landholdings have a drainage reuse system and these systems are able to command approximately 32% of the irrigated area.

Establishing Vegetation Vegetation management and establishment is an integral component of the Wakool LWMP and a range of incentives are available. The Wakool LWMP follows the recently developed vegetation targets under the Murray Catchment Blueprint. Target 1 To actively manage 13,504ha of existing broad vegetation types, including boree woodland, sandhill woodland, mallee woodland, grassy box woodland, floodplain forest/woodland, riverine forest/woodland by the year 2012. 2003/04 Progress There has been 15.1ha of sandhill woodland, 1,335.3ha of floodplain forest/woodland, 87.55ha of riverine forest/ woodland actively managed during 2003/04. This is a total of 1,437.95ha of native vegetation actively managed. This is overall 106% of target achieved against the milestone of 1,350.4ha to be managed annually. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 1,437.95ha of native vegetation has been actively managed as part of the adopted catchment vegetation program.

Target 2 To restore and regenerate 2,650ha of under represented broad vegetation types including boree woodland, sandhill woodland, grassy box woodland and floodplain forest/woodland. 2003/04 Progress A total of 54.8ha of under represented broad vegetation types have been restored and regenerated during 2003/04. This is overall 20.7% of the target achieved against the milestone of 265ha to be restored and regenerated annually. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, 54.8ha of native vegetation has been restored and regenerated as part of the adopted catchment vegetation program.

Target 3 The Wakool LWMP is proposed to establish one irrigated woodlot per year with an area of 2ha or greater. 7 0 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 2003/04 Progress No incentives were used to establish irrigated woodlots in the 2003/04 season. Total Implementation A total of one irrigated woodlot (4.5ha) has been established using the Wakool LWMP incentives as of June 30, 2004. In terms of area, this is equivalent to 6.6% of the irrigated woodlot target, 89% behind the required 2004 milestone.

Target 4 It is proposed that 100ha of saline land be revegetated by 2005 and a further 100ha by 2010. 2003/04 Progress No incentives were used to revegetate saline land in 2003/04 Total Implementation A total of 141.3ha of saline land has been revegetated in the Wakool LWMP area as of June 30, 2004. This is overall 118% of target achieved against the 2004 milestone of 120ha. Of this, 99.3ha is on private land and the remaining 42ha is on land surrounding the WTSSDS evaporation basins. Survey Results The annual landholder survey indicates that no landholders with suspected saline land re-established vegetation on these areas during 2003/04.

Target 5 100ha of deep rooted perennials to be established per year. This will mainly cover dryland areas with rising watertables and increased salinity. Areas along and bordering creeks and depressions will be targeted to help reduce the impact of run-off and the export of salt to downstream users. 2003/04 Progress A total area of 219.4ha of perennial vegetation was established in 2003/04 using Wakool LWMP incentives. Total Implementation As of June 30, 2004, a total area of 411.1ha of deep rooted perennials has been established. This is overall 45.7% of target achieved against the 2004 milestone of 900ha. Survey Results The annual survey indicated that landholders established 6,716ha of perennials in their dryland and irrigated pastures during 2003/04 at a cost of $679,908.

Other on-farm practices

Target 1 All landholders are to remove summer pasture systems from contour layouts by 2010 2003/04 Progress No incentives available Survey Results Results from the landholder survey indicate that $963,660 was invested by landholders to improve their irrigation layouts during 2003/04. A further $1.09 million was invested in landforming.

Target 2 All landholders are encouraged to improve internal drainage lines of rice layouts so that uninterrupted drainage is provided.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 71 2003/04 Progress No incentives available

Target 3 Murray Irrigation continue to further develop and implement the Total Farm Water Balance (TFWB) policy as improved information is found out. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. Murray Irrigation has continued to implement the TFWB policy and annually reviews water use data. One landholding in Wakool exceeded their TFWB limit during 2003/04.

Target 4 Murray Irrigation will establish a series of Australian Height Datum (AHD) benchmarks across the district by the year 2005. 2003/04 Progress No incentives available. The company has established AHD benchmarks across the Wakool LWMP area.

Structural Adjustment The Wakool LWMP recognised the need to facilitate adjustment where necessary to achieve the objectives of the LWMPs. A structural adjustment program was developed by the Wakool community to facilitate adjustment where a significant area of land has salinised on individual landholdings and to assist the removal of rice from non- suitable areas. It is recognised that the removal of rice from areas previously approved for rice growing will adversely affect the viability of these farms, particularly where the area to be removed is a significant proportion of the available land.

This policy, developed by the Wakool Community Implementation Advisory Committee and involving extensive community consultation, was endorsed by the NSW Government in 1997/1998. The policy was applied to specific cases on a confidential basis in 1997/1998, with negotiations completed in 1998/1999. Target 1 Murray Irrigation is responsible for highlighting the availability of incentives for rural adjustment schemes through annual newsletters. Cases are dealt with as an as-needs basis and in confidentiality. 2003/04 Progress No cases were made to receive structural adjustment packages in 2003/04. Where appropriate, the LWMP officer informs landholders of possible assistance packages.

Subsurface Drainage

Target 1 • Conduct a detailed investigation of the high watertable area (0-2m) culminating in identification of priority pumping zones. • Investigate, design and construct groundwater pumping and disposal schemes within the priority areas. Total Implementation The Wakool community and Murray Irrigation have identified an area of 6,000ha west of the existing stage II evaporation basin that has been subject to a significant watertable rise in recent years. Watertables are within 2m of the surface and groundwater salinity typically exceeds 50,000EC.

Australian Water Environments (AWE) was contracted to further evaluate the potential for expansion of groundwater pumping around the stage II evaporation basin. When this report was completed a cost benefit analysis of the scheme was undertaken. The results of this report showed that the current benefit cost ratio was generally around

7 2 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 0.7 to 1. To be considered economic, it is preferred to have a benefit cost ratio of at least 1 to 1. Other options are being explored by CSIRO which may reduce the overall cost of the proposed scheme, but still deliver similar watertable control.

Target 2 Landholders with shallow groundwater of less than 3,000EC be encouraged to fully utilise this water resource. 2003/04 Progress No incentives were accessed for this program.

Floodplain Management

Target 1 The floodplain Management Strategy for Stage 4 to be completed by DIPNR by 2001. 2003/04 Progress The fieldwork for the Stage 4 strategy has been completed and signed off and gazetted. Field investigations are still underway for Stage 1, 2, and 3 of the floodplain plans, which have an influence in some of the Wakool LWMP area.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 73 Murray LWMP R&D Program The Murray LWMP R&D program is a dynamic and innovative program addressing a wide range of issues with the objective of improving the environmental knowledge and actions of landholders. Strong linkages have been maintained between research organisations to enhance specific, locally-based research outcomes.

A formal, elected committee presides over the implementation of the R&D program. Coupled with this formal committee structure, a strategic plan has been developed to focus R&D efforts into disciplines which will directly impact on the sustainability of the Murray LWMP area.

Since implementation of the LWMPs first commenced in 1995, thirteen projects have been funded. More information on these past projects is available on our website www.murrayirrigation.com.au. During 2003/04 five projects were conducted with the support of the R&D program, with one project finalised. Two of the five projects in 2003/04 were new projects that were approved and commenced in the last 12 months.

Completed Projects ‘Policy Options for Environmentally Sustainable and Economically Viable Cropping Patters in the Murray Valley’ conducted by CSIRO Land & Water was completed in 2003/04. This project integrated an understanding of water and salt movement with economic considerations at both the farm and regional scales to assess strategic planning and policy development for the sustainability of the region.

A final report is not yet available for this project however a number of components have been completed and others carried over into the new CSIRO project ‘Economic and Hydrologic Appraisal of Regional Groundwater and Salinity Management Actions in the Murray Valley’.

Verification of the SWAGMAN Farm model, in conjunction with the CSIRO/MIL/LWRRDC research project ‘Rigorously Determined Water Balance Benchmarks for Irrigated Crops and Pastures’ is complete and results have been presented to the steering committee, landholders and the R&D committee.

The regional groundwater modelling component of the project is complete and maps of leakage as well as discharge/ recharge maps for the Murray Irrigation region have been developed. Reports have also been completed for the Wakool region quantifying the impact of rainfall and flooding on shallow groundwater dynamics.

Programming is complete to enable SWAGMAN Farm to be linked to a Geographic Information System (GIS). The steering committee intend to initiate a focus group of landholders from the region to test and provide feedback on the program.

Current Projects

Economic and Hydrologic Appraisal of Regional Groundwater and Salinity Management Actions in the Murray Valley – CSIRO Land & Water Building on past work this project will evaluate the hydrologic and economic merit of LWMP groundwater management options The objectives are: • Hydrologic and economic evaluation of existing LWMP regional groundwater and salinity management options • Hydrologic and economic analysis of alternative management options to achieve regional vertical and lateral recharge rates by incorporating surface water-aquifer interactions • Provide support for ongoing implementation of SWAGMAN Farm, on the basis of policy options determined from the existing project.

Maintaining the Productivity of Soils under Continuous Intensive Cropping – Vic DPI This project aims to determine more robust and profitable systems of continuous cropping using conservation tillage practices through increased knowledge of how to maintain effective soil aggregation under repeated wetting and drying cycles. It will ascertain the benefits of organic matter management, improve farming systems through

7 4 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 increased knowledge of organic matter and provide growers with an understanding of different organic matter management options for soil health.

Determining the Quality and Quantity of Runoff from Irrigation Farms in the Murray Valley – MIL Determining the quantity (both from irrigation and rainfall) and quality of runoff from irrigation farms in the Murray valley is an important factor in determining the efficiency of resource use. At the farm level, these results will be used to assist irrigators to make better management decisions about water storage and recycle pump requirements, fertiliser application rates, methods and types.

Inland Saline Aquaculture – NSW Fisheries This project is investigating the viability of commercial opportunities for farming a variety of fish species using saline groundwater, including examining optimum stocking strategies and market acceptance. Water quality preferences have been determined for a number of species however the main challenge continues to be the extremes of climate the researchers face at Wakool.

Groundwater Management and Optimisation of the Wakool Tullakool Sub-surface Drainage Scheme (WTSSDS) – CSIRO Land & Water This study aims to optimise the operation of the sub-surface drainage scheme in the Wakool Irrigation District so as to balance aquifer levels and pump operation and maintenance costs. This study involves the development of simulation and optimisation models.

New Projects In 2004 the R&D committee undertook an extensive advertising campaign to identify projects to add value to our program. This process included a prioritisation of topic areas of specific interest to the program, aligning with the strategic plan. A number of topic areas including quantification of the benefits of on-farm LWMP actions, biodiversity, centre pivots and productive use of saline water were included with the advertisement. We advertised across Australia in a variety of email listings and newspapers, and as a result we had more interest in the program than any other time in its history. Fifty preliminary project proposals were received and twenty then asked for more detail.

The following new projects have been approved by the LWMP R&D committee in 2003/04: ƒ Managing sodic soils and groundwater irrigation in the Murray Irrigation region – University of Adelaide ƒ Stubble/soil organic matter management – processes, practices and improvements – CSIRO Land & Water ƒ Investigation of Combined Solar Thermal Power Generation and Desalination System – ANU ƒ Perennial native groundcovers for biodiversity enhancement – development of cost-effective establishment mechanisms – University of Adelaide ƒ Direct seeding of native tree and shrubs in the LWMP areas – Western Murray Land Improvement Group ƒ Factors Affecting the Rate of Adoption of Best Management Practice – RM Consulting Group ƒ Reducing waterlogging and improving the WUE of rice farming systems – NSW DPI ƒ Water use and yields under centre pivot irrigation in the Southern Riverina – NSW DPI ƒ Remote sensing of land condition for soil monitoring in the Murray LWMP area – NSW DPI ƒ Factors affecting landholder adoption of native vegetation best management practices – Charles Sturt University (CSU) ƒ Risk Based Irrigation Management Using Ocean Based Short to Medium Term Forecasts – CSIRO Land & Water/CSU ƒ Feasibility of Box Creek Salinity Management to Achieve Salinity Benefits for the Murray River – CSIRO Land & Water/CSU

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 75 Stormwater Escape Construction

Construction of SECs is a significant salinity control component of the Murray LWMPs for the Berriquin and Wakool districts.

Since the commencement of the LWMPs implementation in 1995, a large proportion of the stormwater escape program has been completed. This, combined with relatively dry seasons and improved practices, has assisted in reducing watertable levels. As a result the region is in a much stronger position to cope with future large stormwater events.

Berriquin Construction of stormwater escape channels during 2003/04 progressed well. • The Logie Brae extensions (9, 14, 14a & 14b) covering 11 holdings and a distance of 7.68km have been completed. • The Booroobanilly stormwater escape channel which covers 80 landholdings and is more than 80km in length is almost complete. The contract was split into three, North, Middle and South due to the size of the project. Booroobanilly North has been completed, draining 19 holdings and covering a distance of 25km. Booroobanilly Middle is 100% constructed with fencing 85% completed. Draining 33 holdings and a distance of 22km, this project is due to be completed by the end of August 2004. Booroobanilly South is 50% constructed with fencing to follow. This section of the SEC makes up the remaining landholdings and totals 30kms. • Construction has also started on the Mundiwa SEC which drains 7.37km and 9 landholdings. This project is due to be finished by October 2004. • Wollamai North SEC is awaiting environmental approval. It is currently before NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service threatened species unit, due to a concern with disturbance of Plains Wanderer habitat. All designs and negotiation are complete, awaiting outcome. • A concept design of the Box Creek Escape including flood modelling and hydraulic efficiency was completed in February 2003. The company currently has an application with DIPNR to desilt the entire length of the escape. Work is due to commence once approval is given. • Negotiation of West Warragoon drainage lines is currently underway. It has been drilled and surveyed. It is proposed to discharge to Tuppal Creek via a storage. • Warragoon Stage II is being negoatiated to drain via a storage on the levee of the Tuppal Creek. Extreme flows will escape over the levee into the Tuppal Creek.

Detail on Berriquin stormwater escape implementation see Table 5.6.

Figures 5.2 and 5.3 show holdings with access to formal district drainage in 2003/04 and pre 1995 respectively.

7 6 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Table 5.6: Summary of the Berriquin District Drainage Programs as at the 30th of June 2004.

Drain Landholder D rillin g DesignE n viro n m e n ta l Construction Operating Negotiations Surveying Approval Nth Deniliquin Drain 999999 Stage 4 999999

W arragoon 9999 99 North W arragoon 9940% Stage II West Warragoon 99 Back Barooga 9999 99 Stage 1 Back Barooga 999999 Stage 2 Oddy’s 999999 Pinelea 999999 Dc Lalalty 18 999999 Wollamai East 999999 Wollamai North 999 Wollamai West 999999 W ille ro o 999999 Logie Brae 999999 Logie Brae 9999 99 Extensions Booroobanilly 999999 North Booroobanilly 9999 99 Middle Booroobanilly 9999 50% South Mundiwa 9999 15%

Green Swam p 50% W unnum urra 85% Berrigan Creek 45% 15% 5% Escape J e rild e rie 5% South Coree Box Creek 35% 50% 25% Escape

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Blighty

Finley Berrigan

Legend Proposed Drains Tocumwal Existings Drains Proposed Catchments

Existing Catchments Barooga Farm Boundaries µ 052.5 LWMP towns Kilometres

Figure 5.2: Berriquin holdings with access to formal district drainage in 2003/04

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 77 Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Blighty

Finley

Berrigan

Tocumwal

Legend Drains Pre 1995 Barooga Farms Drained Pre 1995 µ Farms Boundaries 052.5 Kilometres

Figure 5.3: Berriquin holdings with acces to formal District Drainage pre 1995

Cadell The Cadell stormwater escape program focusses on enhancing the capacities of natural depressions to ensure that they drain effectively following storm events.

Approval by the Murray shire has been given for the construction of the Murphy’s Timber stormwater escape. The contract has been awarded, with works underway. Approval has also been granted in 2004 for the commencement of the Yaloke stormwater escape and lateral depressions. Construction is due to commence in September 2004.

Table 5.7: Summary of the Cadell District Drainage Program 1995/96 – 2003/04 DrainLandholder Survey Design Environmental Construction Operational Negotiations Approval Yaloke Stage 2 9999 Sth Deniliquin 999999 Murphy’s Timber 99999

7 8 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004 Denimein The focus of the Denimein LWMP drainage strategy is on farm drainage and reuse, with the ability to store all irrigation runoff and the 12mm/100ha of rainfall runoff from the irrigated area on farm. Excess stormwater would then be disposed of via existing gravity drainage or by pumping into the Murray Irrigation supply system.

There were 6 Escape anomalies presented to the working group for upgrade and construction, with progress to date outlined in Table 5.8.

Table 5.8: Escapes to be upgraded in the Denimein area EscapeLandholder Survey Design Environmental Construction Operational Negotiations Approval

Moulamein 1 9 999 Moulamein 2 9 999 9 Moulamein 4a 99 9 Dahwilly Channel 9 999 9 9 Dahwilly 3 9 999 Moulamein 8 9 999

Wakool The stormwater escape program in Wakool is now winding down, with construction of the Burraboi escape channel completed in 2002/03. This is the last of the formal drainage systems to be completed. Some areas within the Wakool district however still require stormwater relief. These areas are not suitable for a formal stormwater escape system due to terrain, soil type, and floodway considerations. Some of these areas have substandard private drainage systems or are in a floodway. It is proposed that these properties and private drainage systems in the Wakool district be upgraded to ensure they meet Murray Irrigations Environment Protection and Water Management Works licence requirements. The first of these to be considered by the Wakool working group is the Bunna private drainage system. Landholders on this system have met with the working group to consider options and develop guidelines for the implementation and operations of these private systems.

For details on progress in Wakool surface drainage see Table 5.9.

Table 5.9: Summary of the Wakool District Drainage Program.

EscapeLandholder Survey Design Environmental Construction Operational Negotiations Approval DC 2005Ext 9 999 9 9 Yallakool No 3 9 999 9 9 Burragorima 9 999 9 9 Neimur Upgrade 9 999 9 9 Burraboi 9 999 9 9 DC2500 West 9 999 9 9 Bunna #

# Denotes private drainage system.

Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 79 APPENDICES

8 0 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 Appendix One: Benchmark and Compliance Index

Appendix 1.1: Table of Benchmarks

The location of Benchmark items throughout the Compliance report is outlined in Table 1.1 below.

Benchmark Location Page Number Delivery Efficiency Chapter 1: Supply Management 2 Supply Water Quality Chapter 1: Supply Management 3 Farm Water Use Efficieny Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 37-39 Rootzone Salinty Chapter 3: Groundwater Management 30 Risk of Salinity Chapter 3: Groundwater Management 30 Soil Acidity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 42 Waterlogging Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 37 Discharge Water Quality Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 8-20 Adoption of Best Management Practices Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 41 Status of Native Vegetation Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 42 Socioeconomic Status Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 43 Community Understanding of Best Management Practices Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 44

Appendix 1.2: Table of Compliance Items

Condition Issue Format Chapter Page Number A.1.1 Annual Environment All reporting requirements of LWMP & Submitted Management Report licences A.1.2 LWMP Documentation Current reference list of reports Appendix 3 84 A.2.2 Diversions, volume ML/month, trend Chapter 1: Supply Management 4 A.2.2 Diversion, salt load Ton/year Chapter 1: Supply Management 5 A.2.2 Supply Efficiency Loss % of diversion, ML/month lost & Chapter 1: Supply Management delivered, trend 4 A.2.2 Water balance loss & gain ML/year Chapter 1: Supply Management 4 A.2.2 Channel Seepage ML/year, trend, measures, prevented Chapter 1: Supply Management 6 A.2.2 Escape Flow/Loss ML/month, trend, measures, prevented Chapter 1: Supply Management 4 A.2.2 Crop Statistics Ha & ML/year delivery to crops, trend Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 36-37 A.2.2 On-farm WUE ML/year excess, trend, research, Chapter 4: On-Farm Management measures 39-42 A.2.2 Blue Green Algae Counts, changes Chapter 1: Supply Management 5 Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 17 A.2.3 Chemical Contingency Type, location, time, quantity, Chapter 2: Stormwater Management measures, risk 16-17 A.3.3 Groundwater Levels Chapter 3: Groundwater Management 26-31 A.3.3 Groundwater Salinity Chapter 3: Groundwater Management 32-33 A.3.3/.2.2 Groundwater Pumping ML/year pumped, reused, exported, Chapter 3: Groundwater Management trend, salt load 43 A.3.3 Groundwater Accession Type, ML/year, measures, trend Chapter 4: On-Farm Management Control 22-34; 38-37 A.3.3 Groundwater Pollution Type, location, concentration, risk, Chapter 3: Groundwater Management Events measures N/A A.3.3 Groundwater Pollution Type, location, concentration, risk, Chapter 3: Groundwater Management Status trend, measures N/A A.4.2 Flood levels Exception report Chapter 1: Supply Management 6 A.4.2 Floodplain structures Asset dimension change and impact Chapter 1: Supply Management 6 A.5.2 Aquatic environment assets Any significant change, trend and Chapter 2: Stormwater Management condition & management register of activities change 18-19 A.5.2 Potential management EIS, REF, SIS Appendix 3 impacts 84 A.5.2 Noxious Aquatic Weeds Type, extent, control measures Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 20 A.6.4 General Environmental Any significant change, trend and Appendix 3 assets condition and register of activities management change 84 A.6.4 Potential management EIS REF SIS Appendix 3 impacts 84 A.6.4 Noxious weeds Type, location, risk, measures, trend Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 20 A.6.4 Soil salinity dS/m, class, location, trend, ha Chapter 3: Groundwater Management 32 A.6.4 Remnant Vegetation Type, location, ha, trend, condition Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 44-45 A.7.1 Saline discharges Notify/apply, EC level & load, duration, Chapter 2: Stormwater Management dilution 12 A.7.1 High salinity event Notify, EC level & load, location, Chapter 2: Stormwater Management dilution, duration, measures 12 A.7.3/.2.2 Salt export Ton/month Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 12

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 81 Appendix Two: Pesticide Summary

Appendix 2.1: Pesticide Summary October-December 2003

Atrazine Thiobencarb Molinate Site Date (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 23-Sep-03 < 0.1 BIBE 02-Oct-03 <0.1 < 0.1 BIBE 07-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIBE 09-Oct-03 < 0.1 BIBE 29-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIBE 30-Oct-03 < 0.1 BIBE 11-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIBE 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIBE 09-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 Finley Escape BIFE 23-Sep-03 <0.1 BIFE 30-Sep-03 < 0.1 BIFE 07-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIFE 09-Oct-03 < 0.1 BIFE 30-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIFE 04-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIFE 06-Nov-03 < 0.1 BIFE 11-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIFE 13-Nov-03 0.8 BIFE 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIFE 09-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 BIFE 16-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 Box Creek MOXM 23-Sep-03 <0.1 MOXM 02-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 07-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 09-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 12-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 14-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 16-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 19-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 21-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 23-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 26-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 28-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 30-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 02-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 04-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 06-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 09-Nov-03 < 0.1 0.1 MOXM 11-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 13-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 02-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 09-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 MOXM 16-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 Burragorrimma Drain NMBR 02-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 NMBR 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 0.1 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 Neimur Drain TCND 02-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 TCND 05-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 TCND 12-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 TCND 14-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 TCND 26-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 TCND 02-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Total number of tests: 33 29 53 8 2 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 Appendix 2.2: Exceedence Levels of Molinate and Thiobencarb

ELIZA Molinate (ug/L) Thiobencarb (ug/L) No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of No. of exceedence exceedence exceedence of exceedence exceedence of exceedence Year of of environmental of action environmental of action notification notification levels levels levels levels levels levels 1995 -1996 21219* ** 1996 - 1997 5174* ** 1997 - 1998 370* ** 1998 - 1999 61210 00 1999 - 2000 070000 2000 - 2001 32968 11 2001 - 2002 331010 2002 - 2003 000000 2003 - 2004 ***000 *: tests not required

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 83 Appendix Three: Environment Report Compliance Issues 2002/03.

The issues documented by DLWC and the then EPA and NSW DPI in their formal response to the 2002/2003 Environment and Compliance Report have been responded to below.

Appendix 3.1: DIPNR

Results of the Audit

Discrepancy between the measurements provided by MIL’s piezometer monitoring and figures obtained by DIPNR has been addressed through stressing to Channel Attendants who collect the data that this information is extremely important and that accuracy is necessary and auditing will be carried out with mistakes highlighted.

A reference List of all Guidelines, reports etc was not published in the LWMP Report. Response: A reference list was published in the report appendices, specifically Appendix 6 on page 17 of the appendix document.

Future reports must include a summary of the register of activities as required by the Irrigation Corporation license. Response: This information was included as Appendix 6 in the appendices document on page 17.

Future reports must include hydrographs showing the average median July depth and average median seasonal behaviour of each of the four sub districts as required by the Irrigation Corporation license. Response: This data was included in the Environment Report; Appendix 4, page 9.

Future reports must include a contour map showing regional water table contours reduced to datum to show flow directions. Response: Included for 2003/04

Summary of Responses The number of targets are behind the milestones set to measure progress towards the required targets. Where this is the case it would be useful for reasons to be discussed as well as the proposed strategy to improve perform- ance. Response: This has been done as part of the Mid Term Review carried out over the last twelve months and is contained in the Mid Term Review document submitted to DIPNR.

A number of target areas are unclear on progress. Response: As part of the Mid Term Review process effort has been made to ensure targets are clear, achievable and able to be quantified.

Develop a clear system for reporting potentially significant changes in the status of native vegetation in the area of operation and report on the status of native vegetation in next years’ Annual Report against the benchmark measured in the mapping program in 2001/2002. Response: MIL believes that there has not yet been a reasonable and effective method developed for monitoring significant changes in the status of native vegetation. This is an issue that DIPNR, CMA and MIL, has an interest in resolving over the next twelve months.

It is requested that the reporting of compliance against licence conditions is separated from the overall environ- mental reporting. Response: Murray Irrigation has, in 2003/2004, separated our public Environment Report and our Compliance Report, both of which have been submitted.

8 4 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 Appendix 3.2: NSW Department of Primary Industry

The greatest concern is Cadell where only a few farms in the Eastern part of the Plan area, where low irrigation intensity or non-irrigated farms predominate, have completed or are likely to complete farm plans. Response: Murray Irrigation has recently employed a second Cadell Land and Water Management Plan Officer to cover the East Cadell area with the aim of increasing incentive uptake in this region.

There is evidence that many landholders are content to complete drains and re-usage only and are not planning to build the storage to the minimum level recommended under the Plans. Response: As part of the Mid Tem Review process, some drainage incentive has been tied to the storage compo- nent in order to encourage landholders to complete drainage and reuse works. In addition the drainage re-use target has been separated into re-use and storage targets.

With regard to NSW Agriculture’s comment on the underutilisation of farm assessments. Response: Implementation staff have found that in very few cases landholders who claim to have an operational drainage and re-use system can meet the criteria that has been set. A revision of that criteria has just recently taken place with the redrafting of the guidelines.

Appendix 3.3: Department of Environment and Conservation

The EPA chose not to formally submit comment to the MIL 2002/2003 Annual Compliance and Environment Report. Members of the EPA and Murray Irrigation discussed comments and questions about the Annual Report and it was decided that as the result of the Mid Term Review many of the issues would become redundant or resolved.

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 85 Appendix Four: Published Documents

Appendix 4.1: Murray LWMP Documentation Produced Edraki, M., Humphreys, E., O’Connell, N. (2003) Soil Water Dynamics and Components of the Water Balance for Irrigated Lucerne in Southern NSW (CSIRO Technical Report No. 41/03). CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Edraki, M., Smith, D., Humphreys, E., Khan, S., O’Connell, N., Xevi, E. (2003) Validation of SWAGMAN Farm and SWAGMAN Destiny Models (CSIRO Technical Report No. 44/03). CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Humphreys, E. & Edraki, M. (2003) Rigorously Determined Water Balance Benchmarks for Irrigated Crops and Pastures - Final Report. CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Humphreys, E., Edraki, M. & Bethune, M. (2003) Deep Drainage and Crop Water Use for Irrigated Annual Crops and Pastures in Australia - A Review of Determinations in Fields and Lysimeters (CSIRO Technical Report 14/03). CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Marshall, A. (2004) Murray Land & Water Management Plan Mid-term Review - Report to LWMPAT. MIL, Deniliquin.

Marshall, A. & Norwood, C. (2003) Murray Land & Water Management Plans (as appeared in Natural Resource Management - Australian Association of Natural Resource Management). MIL, Deniliquin.

Wang, B., Khan, K., O’Connell, N. (2004) Quantifying Impact of Rainfall on Shallow Groundwater Levels in the Wakool Irrigation District (CSIRO Technical Report No. 21/04). CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Wang, B., Khan, K., O’Connell, N. (2004) A GIS Approach to Quantify Impact of Flooding on Shallow Groundwater Levels in the Wakool Irrigation District (CSIRO Technical Report No. 22/04). CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

White, M. (2004) Torrumbarry Cutting - Hydraulic Modelling, Draft Report. URS Australia, Melbourne.

Appendix 4.2: Environmental Documentation Produced Barden, M. (2004) Review EF - DC Mundiwa, Stormwater Escape. MIL, Deniliquin.

Barden, M. (2004) REF - DC Wollomai North SEC. MIL, Deniliquin.

Barden, M. (2004) REF - DC Murphy’s Timber SEC Stage 1. MIL, Deniliquin.

Barden, M. (2004) REF - DC Murphy’s Timber SEC Stage 2. MIL, Deniliquin.

Barden, M. (2004) 3A Permit Application, Murphy’s Timber SEC Stage 2. MIL, Deniliquin.

8 6 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 Appendix Five: Landholder Chemical Usage Report The Murray Land and Water Management Plans - Landholder Chemical Usage Report for 2003/04 will be submitted in December 2004.

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 87 Appendix Six: Stormwater Escape Additional Information

Appendix 6.1: Summary of Total Flow Discharges from MIL Area of Operations

Flow (ML/day) Total Flow (ML) Total Max. Min. June '03 - Sept.'03- Jan. '04 - Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean Median June '03 Daily Daily Aug. '03 Dec.'03 May '04 –May '04 Back Barooga SEC BBR1 1.4 0.1 38 0.0 388 66 42 495 Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 5.4 2.7 76 0 1031 666 294 1,991 Box Creek MOXM 7.1 4.4 67 0.0 1104 839 646 2,589 Burraboi SEC JIBU (1) 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 18.5 1.1 0 20 Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 1.2 0.1 15.3 0.0 64 243 83 390 DC 2500 East JIJS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 3.7 2.9 15 0.0 196 604 452 1,252 Finley Escape BIFE 78 22 291 0.5 288 5953 19489 25,731 Lalalty SEC TUPJ 2.9 0.0 92 0.0 676 372 26 1,074 Neimur SEC TCND 1.4 0.2 14.6 0.0 223 162 103 488 North Deniliquin SEC DENI 0.3 0.0 3.9 0.0 14 45 59 118 Pinelea SEC TCPL 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 25 7 0 32 Wakool SEC DRWK 0.6 0.2 11 0 62 143 31 237 Wollamai East Escape BIWE 0.8 0.0 35.1 0.0 217 86 5 307 Wollamai Escape BIOW 2.9 0.4 61.2 0.0 572 252 110 934 Sub total 35,659 Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 25,731 Net Discharges 9,928 (1): monitoring commenced 18 July 2003

Appendix 6.2: Salinity Levels Discharged from MIL Area of Operations

EC (uS/cm) Total Tonnes Salt Total Max. Min. June '03 - Sept.'03- Jan. '04 - Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean Median June '03 daily daily Aug. '03 Dec.'03 May '04 –May '04 Back Barooga SEC BBR1 327 259 1011 38 39 13 5 57 Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 109 109 197 47 72 42 16 130 Box Creek MOXM 1702 1459 5107 316 1160 522 659 2,342 Burraboi SEC JIBU (1) 762 812 1384 92 6.2 0.4 0.0 7 Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 250 155 1796 42 15 24 8 47 DC 2500 East JIJS 1551 957 6776 316 0 0 0 0 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 1288 757 7225 76 242 432 144 818 Finley Escape BIFE 89 70 215 38 22 186 717 924 Lalalty SEC TUPJ 933 701 4635 219 334 192 23 548 Neimur SEC TCND 320 275 2107 105 75 23 9 107 North Deniliquin SEC DENI 183 171 419 101 2 4 5 12 Pinelea SEC TCPL 279 284 423 135 3.2 1.4 0.0 5 Wakool SEC DRWK 412 290 2249 77 11 17 10 39 Wollamai East Escape BIWE 297 249 786 49 23 14.1 0.6 38 Wollamai Escape BIOW 208 188 638 68 84.6 37 6.7 128 Sub total 5,201 Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 924 Net Discharges 4,276 (1): monitoring commenced 18 July 2003 8 8 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 Appendix 6.3: Monthly Turbidity and Nutrient Data for MIL Discharge Sites

Total Turbidity Total Nitrogen Site Date Phosphorus (NTU) (mg/L) (mg/L) Back Barooga SEC BBR1 15-Aug-03 777 0.33 2 BBR1 26-Aug-03 572 0.54 2.4 Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 03-Jun-03 170 0.17 1 BIBE 01-Jul-03 576 0.22 2 BIBE 29-Jul-03 366 0.34 1.7 BIBE 15-Aug-03 412 0.34 1.5 BIBE 19-Aug-03 256 0.2 3 BIBE 26-Aug-03 373 0.07 2.3 BIBE 02-Sep-03 310 0.23 0.8 BIBE 16-Sep-03 48 0.08 0.0 (<0.5) BIBE 23-Sep-03 246 0.282 0.7 BIBE 07-Oct-03 122 0.093 0.1 (<0.5) BIBE 29-Oct-03 126 0.115 0.1 (<0.5) BIBE 06-Nov-03 217 0.317 1.3 BIBE 11-Nov-03 83 0.052 0.2 (<0.5) BIBE 25-Nov-03 91 0.01 0 (< 0.5) BIBE 09-Dec-03 200 0.247 0.3 (<0.5) BIBE 21-Dec-03 77 0.102 0.1 (<0.5) BIBE 20-Jan-04 166 0.099 0.1 (<0.5) BIBE 03-Feb-04 189 0.108 Finley Escape BIFE 29-Jul-03 283 0.22 2 BIFE 15-Aug-03 323 0.84 2.3 BIFE 19-Aug-03 197 0.01 1.6 BIFE 26-Aug-03 238 0.39 2.5 BIFE 02-Sep-03 159 0.09 0.8 BIFE 16-Sep-03 104 0.04 0.1 (>0.5) BIFE 23-Sep-03 102 0.064 0.0 (<0.5) BIFE 07-Oct-03 72 0.051 0.0 (<0.5) BIFE 04-Nov-03 43 0.014 0 (<0.5) BIFE 11-Nov-03 46 0.015 0.6 BIFE 18-Nov-03 55 0.012 0 (<0.5) BIFE 25-Nov-03 38 0.023 0 (< 0.5) BIFE 09-Dec-03 150 0.052 0 (<0.5) BIFE 16-Dec-03 155 0.058 0.3 (<0.5) BIFE 21-Dec-03 40 0.002 0.6 BIFE 30-Dec-03 48 0.029 0 (<0.5) BIFE 06-Jan-04 60 0.033 0 (<0.5) BIFE 13-Jan-04 61 0.048 0 (<0.5) BIFE 27-Jan-04 62 0.01 0 (<0.5) BIFE 03-Feb-04 39 0.022 BIFE 10-Feb-04 37 0.039 0 (<0.5) BIFE 17-Feb-04 32 0.033 0.2 (<0.5) BIFE 24-Feb-04 35 0.027 0.2 (<0.5) BIFE 02-Mar-04 37 0.036 0.1 (<0.5) BIFE 09-Mar-04 55 0.031 0.2 (<0.5) BIFE 16-Mar-04 37 0.024 0.3 (<0.5) BIFE 23-Mar-04 36 0.023 0.1 (<0.5) BIFE 30-Mar-04 41 0.02 0.2 (<0.5) BIFE 06-Apr-04 14 0.029 0.2 (<0.5) BIFE 13-Apr-04 59 0.017 0.2 (<0.5) BIFE 20-Apr-04 62 0.095 0.2 (<0.5) BIFE 27-Apr-04 37 0.012 0.2 (<0.5) BIFE 04-May-04 93 0.034 0.2 (<0.5) Wollamai Escape BIOW 03-Jun-03 306 0.09 0.8 BIOW 10-Jun-03 399 0.1 0.6 BIOW 01-Jul-03 430 0.07 1.3 BIOW 29-Jul-03 271 0.23 1.21 BIOW 19-Aug-03 497 0.4 2.5 BIOW 26-Aug-03 277 0.21 1.8 BIOW 02-Sep-03 236 0.37 1.4 BIOW 09-Sep-03 207 0.26 0.6 Wollamai East Escape BIWE 15-Aug-03 793 0.01 1.5 BIWE 26-Aug-03 369 0.13 1 BIWE 02-Sep-03 215 0.32 1.2

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 89 Appendix 6.4: Turbidity Levels of Surface Water

Turbidity (NTU) Stormwater Escape Max. Min. Number of Site Mean Median Channel daily daily samples Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * * 777 572 2 Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 224 195 576 48 18 Box Creek MOXM 54 26 477 8 41 Burraboi SEC JIBU * * * * * Burragorrimma SEC NMBR * * 528 338 2 DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * * Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE * * 56 * 1 Finley Escape BIFE 173 97 572 14 33 Lalalty SEC TUPJ 133 87 251 58 6 Neimur SEC TCND 528 471 1072 97 4 North Deniliquin SEC DENI * * * * * Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * * Wakool SEC DRWK * * 185 * 1 Wollamai East Escape BIWE 459 369 793 215 3 Wollamai Escape BIOW 328 292 497 207 8

*: insufficient data

Appendix 6.5: Total Phosphorus Levels within MILs Stormwater Escape System

Total Phosphorus (mg/L) Total Phosphorus (tonnes) Number of samples Total Total Stormwater Escape Max. Min. June '03 - Sept.'03- Jan. '04 - June '03 - Sept.'03- Jan. '04 - Site Mean Median June '03 June '03 Channel daily daily Aug. '03 Dec.'03 May '04 Aug. '03 Dec.'03 May '04 –May '04 –May '04 Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * * 0.54 0.33 0.12 * * 0.12 2 0 0 2 Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.171 0.143 0.34 0.01 0.22 0.10 0.01 0.33 6 10 2 18 Box Creek MOXM 0.086 0.053 0.54 0.008 0.17 0.10 0.03 0.30 8 13 20 41 Burraboi SEC JIBU (1) * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0 Burragorrimma SEC NMBR * * 0.15 0.07 * 0.01 * 0.01 0 2 0 2 DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE * * 0.026 * * 0.01 * 0.01 0 1 0 1 Finley Escape BIFE 0.074 0.031 0.84 0.002 0.07 0.20 0.53 0.80 4 12 17 33 Lalalty SEC TUPJ 0.31 0.16 0.80 0.06 0.12 0.04 * 0.16 3 3 0 6 Neimur SEC TCND 0.21 0.20 0.36 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 1 2 1 4 North Deniliquin SEC DENI * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0 Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0 Wakool SEC DRWK 1.19 * * * 0.1 * * 0.1 1 0 0 1 Wollamai East Escape BIWE 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.02 * 0.03 2 1 0 3 Wollamai Escape BIOW 0.22 0.22 0.40 0.07 0.16 0.06 * 0.22 6 2 0 8 Sub total 2.12 Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 0.80 Net Discharges 1.32 *: insufficient data (1): monitoring commenced 18 July 2003

9 0 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 Appendix 6.6: Total Nitrogen Levels within MILs Stormwater Escape System

Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (tonnes) Number of samples Total Total Stormwater Escape Max. Min. June '03 - Sept.'03- Jan. '04 - June '03 - Sept.'03- Jan. '04 - Site Mean Median June '03 June '03 Channel daily daily Aug. '03 Dec.'03 May '04 Aug. '03 Dec.'03 May '04 –May '04 –May '04 Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * * 2.4 2.0 0.6 * * 0.6 2 0 0 2 Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.9 0.2 (<0.5) 3.0 0 (<0.5) 2.3 0.2 0.0 2.5 6 10 1 17 Box Creek MOXM 0.6 0.2 (<0.5) 2.0 0 (<0.5) 1.5 0.4 0.3 2.2 8 13 19 40

Burraboi SEC JIBU (1)***** *** 0000 Burragorrimma SEC NMBR * * 0.3 (<0.5) 0 (<0.5) * 0.0 * 0 0 2 0 2

DC 2500 East JIJS ***** *** 0000 Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE * * 0.3 (<0.5) * * 0.1 * 0.1 0 1 0 1 Finley Escape BIFE 0.4 (<0.5) 0 (<0.5) 2.5 0 (<0.5) 0.5 0.6 3.0 4.1 4 11 16 31 Lalalty SEC TUPJ 1.4 1.8 2.3 0 (<0.5) 1.1 0 * 1.1 3 3 0 6 Neimur SEC TCND 0.6 0.3 (<0.5) 1.0 0 (<0.5) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1 2 1 4 North Deniliquin SEC DENI ***** *** 0000 Pinelea SEC TCPL ***** *** 0000 Wakool SEC DRWK * * 2.1 * * * 0.1 0.1 1 0 0 1 Wollamai East Escape BIWE 1.2 0.7 1.5 1.0 0.1 0.1 * 0.2 2 1 0 3 Wollamai Escape BIOW 1.3 0.5 2.5 0.6 1.2 0.2 * 1.4 6 2 0 8 Sub total 12.4 Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 4.1 Net Discharges 8.3 *: insufficient data (1): monitoring commenced 18 July 2003

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 91 Appendix Seven: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey

Appendix 7.1: Annual LWMP Landholder Survey Form

MURRAY Land and Water Management Plans

Murray Irrigation Limited A.B.N. 23067 197 933 MURRAY LWMP ANNUAL SURVEY

Name: ______(Please Print)

Holding Reference No.: ______

LWMP District: ˆ Berriquin

ˆ Denimein

ˆ Cadell

ˆ Wakool

Main enterprise:

Date of interview: ____/____/ 2004

Interviewer’s Name: ______(Please Print)

June/July 2004

9 2 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 Land Use – as at June 30, 2004 To be filled out by the interviewer before handing the questionnaire in. 1. Rice a. Stubble from 2003/04 rice crop ha b. Winter crop sown into 2003/04 rice area ha 2. Summer fodder crops (eg. maize, millet, forage sorghum and their stubbles)ha 3. Other summer grain crops (eg. soybean, corn, sorghum and their stubbles)ha 4. Summer pasture (eg. Paspalum, perennial ryegrass, white clover)ha 5. Irrigated lucerne ha 6. Irrigated annual pasture (eg. sub clover and ryegrass)ha 7. Winter Oilseeds (eg. canola)ha 8. Winter Cereals (eg. wheat, barley, triticale, oats ha 9. Winter forage crops (eg. oats, vetch)ha 10. Winter grain legumes (eg. peas, lupins, faba beans)ha 11. Fallow (including stubbles greater than 6 months old) ha 12. Non irrigated, unimproved annual pasture ha 13. Improved dryland pasture (eg. with dryland lucerne)ha 14. Farm forestry plantations ha 15. Horticulture (eg: vegetables, vines) Please list ha 16. Saltbush (i.e. planted) ha 17. Native tree and shrub areas (greater than 5% trees)ha 18. Native grasslands (less than 5% trees)ha 19. Buildings/ Roads/ Airstrip/ Channels/ Drains/ Storage etc ha 20. Other...... (Please list)ha 21. TOTAL AREA (sum of all categories) ha 22. Area perennial vegetation (sum categories 5, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18) ha 23. Percentage of perennials (category 22 divided by 21 x 100) %

Stock Information 1. a. Maximum number of cows milked from this holding at peak production? ______b. Number of non milking/dry cows at the same time as (a) above? ______2. Number of beef cattle ______3. Number of sheep ______4. Other? Type Number ______Type Number ______Farm Labour 1. Number of employees: Full time Part time 2. Seasonal labour hired (total person days): Milkers No. of days Shearers/Shed hands No. of days Spraying No. of days Harvesting No. of days Other No. of days

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 93

1. 1. PADDOCK INFORMATION

T

PaddockImpr

outletsetc

Eg. side ditch, ditch, side Eg.

permanent bay bay permanent

$ $

$$

Irrigated area Irrigated

landformed 03/04 landformed

recycled water? (ha) recycled

Canpaddock be irrigated with

Can paddock drainage drainage paddock Can

water be recycled? (ha) waterrecycled? be

Landformed(ha)

Page2)

Landuse

(Use Key on on Key (Use

Layout

Current Current

onRHS)

(Use key key (Use

** + * * * *

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

MainLanduse (ha) Area Irrigated Area

C. Native VegetationC.

B.Dryland

A. Laid out for Irrigation for out A.Laid

C. Native VegetationC.

B.Dryland

A. Laid out for Irrigation for out A.Laid

C. Native VegetationC.

B.Dryland

A. Laid out for Irrigation for out A.Laid

C. Native VegetationC.

B.Dryland

A. Laid out for Irrigation for out A.Laid

C. Native VegetationC.

B.Dryland

A. Laid out for Irrigation for out A.Laid

C. Native VegetationC.

B.Dryland

A. Laid out for Irrigation for out A.Laid

C. Native VegetationC.

B.Dryland

A. Laid out for Irrigation for out A.Laid

C. Native VegetationC.

B.Dryland

A. Laid out for Irrigation for out A.Laid

C. Native VegetationC.

B.Dryland/undeveloped

A. Laid out for Irrigation for out A.Laid

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

No.

Paddock TOTAL 9 4 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 To be filled out by the interviewer before handing in.

Total Laid Out (irr) Area ha Total Dryland Area ha Total Native Veg Area ha Total Area of Farm ha

Area landformed ha Landformed 03/04 ha Paddock Improvement $ Area where drainage can be reused? _____ ha Area that can be drained to a reuse point? ha

Current Layout

1. Bordercheck (not landformed) ____ha 2. Bordercheck (landformed) ______ha 3. Contour (not landformed) a. Side/Centre ditch ______ha b. Traditional ______ha 4. Contour (landformed) a. Side/Centre ditch ______ha b. Traditional ______ha 5. Furrows/Beds ______ha

* Total these values in the appropriate section on the right of this page

+ Total these values in the appropriate section on the Landuse Section on Page 2

2. 2. FARM PLANNING a. Do you have a farm plan of this holding? (in map, aerial photo or written form) Yes No b. If YES, (If no, go to e)

Type Represents what % of Represents how many Ha Landholding Farm Map/Aerial photo Whole Farm Plan Environmental Management Plan Property Management Plan Other

Interviewer to explain the difference. c. Did you do any farm planning on this holding during 2003/04? Yes No d. If so, what was the total cost?(Including any LWMP incentive payment) Surveyor/Designer $ Soil drilling $ Own time (hrs @ $20/hr)$

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 95 Other (eg. aerial photo) $ TOTAL $ e. Did you complete any EM 31 surveying on this holding during 2003/04 for: i. rice ground approval or Yes No If yes, what area? ha ii. farm planning (eg. storage dam) Yes No If yes, what area? ha f. Have you ever undertaken any EM 31 surveying (not including 2003/04) on this holding for: i. rice ground approval or Yes No If yes, what area? ha ii. farm planning (eg. storage dam) Yes No If yes, what area? ha

3. SUPPLY CHANNEL MAINTENANCE a. Did you do any supply channel maintenance on this holding during 2003/04? Yes No b. How much did the channel maintenance cost? Contractors: $ Own time: (hours) x $20 = $ Fuel $ Desilting: $ Chemicals $ Other: $ TOTAL: $_____—————-______

4. DRAINAGE, REUSE AND STORAGE a. Does the holding have access to formal District drainage? Yes No b. If YES, what area of the holding can be drained to this District drain? ha c. Does this holding have a reuse system? Yes No(if no, go to Section 5) d. Can drainage water be stored on this holding? Yes No e. If YES, how much water can you store? (For example: 2m x 0.5m x 1000m = 1ML)

Drains ML Drilled? Yes No

Sumps ML Drilled? Yes No

Storage Dam ML Drilled? Yes No f. Do you meet your minimum storage requirement? Yes No To be filled out by the interviewer before handing the questionnaire in. g. Has the storage area been drilled or a seepage test completed? Yes No

9 6 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 h. How much did you spend on constructing your drainage reuse and storage system on this holding during 2003/04? (including any LWMP Incentive payments) Contractors: $ Own time: (hours) x $20 = $ Fencing: $ Other: $ TOTAL: $______i. How much did you spend on operating and maintaining the drainage and reuse system on this holding during 2003/04? Sprays/chemicals: $ Desilting $ Fuel/Electricity for pump $ Own time: (hours) x $20 = $ (eg mixing and spraying) Contractors: $ Other: $ TOTAL $______

5. 5. NEW TREE AND SHRUB PLANTINGS a. What area of this holding did you plant to trees or shrubs during 2003/04? ______ha (Note: not commer- cial plantings or trees along supply channels). (If none, go to d) b. How many trees/shrubs were planted? ______c. How many metres of fence were erected? ______metres d. What area of saltbush was planted on this holding in 2003/04? ha (If none, go to g) e. How many shrubs were planted? ______f. How many metres of fence were erected? ______metres g. How much did you spend on maintaining tree, shrub or saltbush plantations on this holding in 2003/04? Materials: $ (replacement trees/saltbush, repairs) Labour: ( hours x $20) =$ (time spent watering, spraying etc) Contractors: $ Sprays used $ Other: $ TOTAL $______

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 97 6. 6. REGENERATION OF NATIVE VEGETATION a. Do you have areas of native vegetation (not planted) on your holding? (Please exclude individual or very scattered paddock trees) Yes No (If no, go to Section 7) b. What area of this holding was fenced or managed to allow natural regeneration of native vegetation during 2003/04?(If none, go to Question e.) ______ha c. How many metres of fence were erected? ______metres d. How many hectares were direct seeded? ______ha e. How much did you spend on maintaining areas of native vegetation on this holding during 2003/04? Materials: $ (eg. Fence repairs) Labour: ( hours x $20) = $ (time spent watering, spraying etc) Contractors: $ Chemicals, fox bait: $ Other: $ TOTAL $______f. Of the total area of native vegetation on your holding, how much do you actively manage for environmental purposes? (Refer to Question 1 for total area of veg on property) ha. g. For areas of native vegetation being managed, what is the type of vegetation? Sandhill Native Grass Yellow box Grey/Black box Red Gum Other

7. 7. TREE PLANTING ALONG IRRIGATION CHANNELS a. Did you plant any trees/lucerne next to seepage areas from district supply channels in on this holding during 2003/04? Yes (please tick) trees lucerne No (If no, go to e) b. How many metres of district channel did you plant and where (note on photo)? metres c. What area was planted? ______ha d. How many metres of fence were erected? ______metres e. How much did you spend on maintaining any district seepage plantings on this holding during 03/04? Materials: $ (replacement trees/saltbush, repairs) Labour: ( hours x $20) = $ (time spent watering, spraying etc) Contractors: $ Sprays used $ Other: $ TOTAL $_____——-______f. Did you plant any trees/lucerne next to farm channel seepage areas on this holding during 2003/04? Yes (please tick) trees lucerne No (If no, go to j) g. How many metres of farm channel did you plant? metres h. What area was planted? ______ha i. How many metres of fence were erected? ______metres j. How much did you spend on maintaining farm seepage plantings on this holding during 2003/04? Materials: $ (replacement trees/saltbush, repairs) Labour: ( hours x $20 = $ (time spent watering, spraying etc) Contractors: $ Sprays used $ Other: $ TOTAL $______

9 8 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 8. 8. FARM DIVERSIFICATION a. Did you establish any commercial diversified enterprise on this holding during 2003/04? (this may include farm forestry, horticulture such as grapes or olives, aquaculture etc) Yes No (If No, go to c) b. If YES, what was the enterprise? i. What were the species? (eg. redgums, grapes, silver perch) ii. What size is the enterprise? (eg. hectares, number of vines or fish) iii. What did it cost to establish?

Trees, Fingerlings, Vines: $ Materials: $ (Fencing, tree guards, ponds etc) Labour: (Hours ___ x $20) = $ Contractors: $ TOTAL $______c. Do you have any other commercial alternate enterprises on this holding? Yes No d. If YES, (If no, go to Section 9) i. What is the enterprise? ii. In what year was this enterprise established? iii. What were the operation and maintenance costs you incurred for all your commercial alternate enterprises on this holding during 2003/04?

Materials: $ (trees, fencing, sprays etc) Labour: (___hours x $20)= $ (watering, spraying, ground preparation etc) Contractors: $ Other: $ TOTAL $______

9. 9. PASTURES a. Do you have lucerne, phalaris or other perennial pasture species on this holding? Yes No(If no, go to Section 10) b. If yes, what are the total areas of perennials you have of: i. Dryland pastures (eg. lucerne, native pasture) ha ii. Irrigated winter pastures (eg. lucerne, phalaris) ha iii. Irrigated summer pastures (eg. lucerne, perennial ryegrass) ha c. Did you establish/re-establish any lucerne/phalaris or other perennial pasture on this holding in 2003/04? Yes No (If no, go to Section 10) d. If yes, what were the total hectares established of: i. Dryland pastures (eg. lucerne, native pasture) ha ii. Irrigated winter pastures (eg. lucerne, phalaris) ha iii. Irrigated summer pastures (eg. lucerne, perennial ryegrass) ha

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 99 10. 10. IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT a. Did you pre-water for winter crops on this holding between February and May in 2004? Yes No (if No, go to d) b. If yes, how many hectares? ha c. What month(s) did you pre-water? e. Were any winter pastures watered only once during the autumn (March – June) of 2004? Yes No e. What month(s) did you sow your crop? f. Did you irrigate any winter pasture (eg. sub clover) after 1st May on this holding? Yes No

If yes, how many hectares? ______What date? ______g. Did you irrigate any summer pasture (eg. white clover, lucerne) after 15th April 2004? Yes No

If yes, how many hectares? ______What date? ______

11. WATERLOGGING/SALINITY a. What area of this holding had water lying on the soil surface for more than five days during 2003/04? (Not actual rice crops, but including rice stubbles after harvest) ______ha b. Do you have areas of saline land on this holding (eg. bare scalds, salt on surface) Yes No(If no, go to Section 12) c. If YES, i. Where do you drain any runoff from these areas?

Recycle system Salt tolerant species No drainage Other

ii. Have you revegetated the area? Yes No

12. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES a. Do you have any automated irrigation set-up on this holding? Yes No(If no, go to c) b. If YES, h. What type of system(s) do you use? eg. Alarm Systems/Water baby, Bay Cut off, Spray Irrigation ii. How many hectares does it cover? ______ha

iii. What area was installed in 2003/04 on this holding? ______ha c. Do you practice any irrigation scheduling techniques on this holding? Yes No (If no, go to e) (eg. Tensiometer, Neutron Probe, EnviroScan, Evaporimeter, published evaporation figures etc)

100 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 d. If YES, what techniques(s) do you use? ______e. Have you done any soil fertility testing (i.e. for fertiliser application) in 2003/04 on this holding? Yes No(If no, go to g) f. If YES, i. Over what area was the testing done ha

ii. Was lime recommended? Yes No

iii. Did you apply it? Yes No

iv. What rate did you apply tonnes/ha

v. Total tonnes applied tonnes g. Do you use NSW Agriculture Crop Management Programs? Yes No (If no, go to h) eg. Wheatcheck / Ricecheck / Subcheck / Canolacheck etc.

i. If YES, which one(s)? ______

ii. How many of the key recommendations do you think you achieved? (Please tick) MOST HALF SOME NONE h. Do you practice any conservation tillage (such as direct drilling) on this holding? Yes No (If no, go to j) i. If YES, i. Direct drilled winter crop into 2003/04 (this years’) rice stubble Yes Area (ha)

ii. Direct drilled other winter crops Yes Area (ha)

iii. Direct drilled last seasons (2002/03) rice crop stubble Yes Area (ha) iv. Other technique(s) Please list Eg. One cultivation only Area 20 (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) Area (ha) j. How do you manage your previous crop residues /stubbles (please tick whichever applies)

Stubble type Management method Winter cereals Canola Rice Summer crops Grazing Burning Baling Mulching Other (please describe)

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 101 13. GROUNDWATER PUMPING a. Do you have a groundwater pump for irrigating (not a stock and domestic bore) on this holding?

Yes No (If No, go to Section 14) b. Is your bore: deep shallow both c. Over the last two years, has the water been tested for: Sodium Yes No Salinity Yes No d. Do you regularly soil test paddocks where you are using groundwater? (At least once every two years) Yes No

Shallow (Less than 10m deep) Deep (Over 10m deep) i. What year was it installed? ______i. What year was it installed? ______ii. If your pump was installed in 2003/04, ii. If your pump was installed in 2003/04, a. What was the cost? ______a. What was the cost? ______iii. What is the salinity level? ______EC iii. What is the salinity level? ______EC iv. What volume did you pump in 2003/04? ML

14. 14. CHEMICAL USAGE

What chemicals have you used on a broad acre basis on your farm in 2003/04? (Please tick)

Winter Crops Tick Rice Tick Summer pasture/crops Tick

Roundup Londax 2,4 D Amine Glean Molinate Trifluralin Treflan MCPA Endosulfan Logran Chlorpyrifos Sprayseed Simazine Other Other Other Other Other Other

Annual pasture Tick Channels/Drains Tick Other Tick Tigrex Roundup Lemat Diuron MCPA Ester Other Other Other Other

102 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004 15. ADDITIONAL HOLDINGS INFORMATION

1. Is there more than one holding in the farm business (Within the Murray LWMP area)? Yes No(If no, go to Section 16) 2. If YES, how many? ______3. What are the holding numbers? ______4. What was the total cost of works undertaken on the other holdings in 2003/04? i. Farm planning $______ii. Drainage, reuse and storage systems $______iii. Saltbush and tree planting $______iv. Protection of Existing Native Vegetation $______v. Farm diversification enterprises $______vi. Lucerne/phalaris in winter or sub-pasture $______vii. Dryland lucerne $______

16. 16. LWMP INCENTIVES

1. Have you accessed any LWMP incentives? Yes No (Financial incentives are available for farm planning, constructing drainage reuse systems, tree planting, fencing native vegetation, planting lucerne etc).

2. If no, why? (Please tick) i. Too much hassle ii. Previously completed works iii. Do not know how to iv. Do not know about them v. Other

17. PROGRESS IN FARM BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

1. How far progressed are you in implementing the following on this landholding?

a. irrigation infrastructure (eg. channels, drains, structures, bay outlets etc) No plans Yes plans If yes, % implemented %

b. paddock landforming (eg. lasering farm paddocks) No plans Yes plans If yes, % implemented %

c. tree and shrub planting (eg. new plantings of trees for windbreaks, shelter, biodiversity etc) No plans Yes plans If yes, % implemented %

d. protecting existing native vegetation (eg. fencing to encourage regeneration) No vegetation on farm No plans Yes plansIf yes, % implemented %

e. business planning (eg. gross margins budgeting, succession planning, etc) No plans Yes plans If yes, % implemented %

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 103 Appendix Eight: Theiss Report

Appendix 8.1: Theiss Services Drainage Water Report

104 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004

Appendix Nine: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Audit Report

Murray Land & Water Management Plans

Audit of Landholder Survey 2003/2004

22nd October 2004

Murray Land & Water Management Plans

Audit of Landholder Survey 2003/2004

Review of MIL methodology for determining community (in kind) contributions to the LWMP’s and verify the authenticity of data collected during the 2003/2004 Landholder Survey

Prepared by: Dennis E Toohey & Associates 16/659 Young Street ALBURY NSW 2640 Telephone: (02) 6041 4955 Facsimile: (02) 6041 4350 E-mail: [email protected]

22nd October 2004

Disclaimer

Dennis E Toohey and Associates makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of the Report entitled Murray Land & Water Management Plans – Audit of Landholder Survey 2003/2004 and disclaims all liability for all claims, expenses, losses, damages and costs any third party may incur as a result of them relying on the accuracy or completeness of the Report.

. Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Audit of Landholder Survey 2003/2004

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements: The support provided by the staff of Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL) enabled the Audit process to be conducted efficiently. In particular, the assistance provided by Demelza Brand, Environmental Officer and the Implementation staff for each Plan in organising the farm level audits is gratefully acknowledged.

Abbreviations

H.O.A. Head of Agreement ha Hectare LWMP Land and Water Management Plan MIL Murray Irrigation Limited

.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Audit process A similar approach to that of previous years was followed for conducting the audit involving ‘desk-top’ assessments of Survey forms and ‘on-farm’ inspection of a number of randomly selected H.O.A. works. Auditing involved the undertaking of tests to establish the level of agreement between the H.O.A. work in the Survey form to that recorded in the MIL data base, ie Survey Report. Any discrepancies were recorded. Local knowledge and experience was applied to test the veracity of the recorded statements and figures in the Survey form to reach a conclusion as to the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the landholders claim. To assist in the continuous improvement process of the Survey a number of comments are made and where further investigations are warranted, these are expressed within recommendations to MIL.

Findings A summary of MIL’s 2003/2004 Landholder Survey shows that landholders’ invested a record amount of approximately $57.4 million in LWMP activities during 2003/2004. This level of investment is around $6.7 million more than the $50.7 million in 2002/2003 or $4 million above the previous highest in 1999/2000. This is a most commendable level of investment having regard for the area being in drought for two consecutive years and water allocations at levels not seen since the mid 1940’s. Considerable improvement is acknowledged in the level of accuracy in transposing survey data to the database that produces the Survey report which calculates the landholder contributions. A single transposing error was recorded compared to zero in 2002/2003 and five in 2001/2002. With transposing errors under control, a focus of this year’s audit was establishing the accuracy of summing paddock information to that of the farm. A number of discrepancies were noted in the Berriquin (2 out of 12 Survey forms) and Wakool (3 out of 12 Survey forms) Plans. There were no discrepancies in the Cadell and Denimein Plans, which were subjected to intense scrutiny by the Implementation Officers prior to the information being keyed into the database.

Recommendations MIL has addressed all of the recommendations of the 2002/2003 Audit Report that are within their capacity to implement. A number of recommendations relate to the H.O.A.’s that require MIL to achieve agreement from landholders and agencies. The decisions emanating from the Annual Review in March 2004 have provided a timely avenue for the addressing of structural auditing issues to complement the broader actions on the Plans underway within MIL.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc i

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

The recommendations are grouped within three themes as follows:

1.0 Landholder Survey Frame, Form and Report 1.1 Establish eligibility criteria for commercial alternate enterprises and the duration for inclusion of costs of operation and maintenance. See Survey question 8 (d). 1.2 Include in Deep Bores, Survey question 13, a question to capture the volume pumped so the operation and maintenance costs can be derived by applying Benchmark Values. 1.3 Undertake a review of the Benchmark Values established for the 2002/2003 Survey and incorporate changes in dollar values. 1.4 Include the changes in the 2004/2005 Survey agreed upon at the debriefing meeting of surveyors held on 1 September 2004.

2.0 Training of surveyors 2.1 Continue the training program of surveyors to return to the high level of accuracy achieved in the 2002/2003 survey. 2.2 To consider the drafting of a set of survey guidance notes to assist inexperienced surveyors in explaining difficult survey questions, eg what items of investment constitute ‘paddock improvements’.

3.0 Reviews of Head of Agreement and Audit frame 3.1 The rationale for the present auditing frame be reviewed to achieve a more proportional level of auditing across the four Plans. For example, in the Berriquin Plan for ‘Improved irrigation layouts’, two Surveys out of 155 Surveys are audited, compared to the same H.O.A in Denimein where two of 18 Surveys are audited. A second deficiency is the rationale for field audits, where presently in Wakool four H.O.A.’s require a field audit, whereas only two HOA’s in each of the other Plans require this level of auditing - see Annexure 7.6 Auditing framework, in-kind works. 3.2 A major review be commissioned of the annual Landholder Survey to achieve a higher level of harmonising of the H.O.A.’s and of MIL’s objectives. Such a review might report upon these matters 3.2.1 Is the survey structured to capture the information required to show landholders are meeting their targets; 3.2.2 A restructuring of the survey so as to provide trend data for selected H.O.A.’s and/or for meeting MIL requirements.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc ii

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

3.2.3 What are the core annual data requirements and how might the need for in-depth information be best addressed; 3.2.4 Is the survey providing the data as sought for MIL’s environment report; 3.2.5 Is there scope for reducing the costs of undertaking the survey; and 3.2.6 Is MIL receiving from the survey the information it seeks to gain in a statistically valid manner about landholders, eg capacity and state of preparedness to address institutional changes. 3.3 The recommendations from such a review be implemented in a timely manner so that they are in place for the 2004/2005 survey.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc iii

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMP’s) consist of the Berriquin, Cadell, Denimein and Wakool Plans. Each Plan is an integrated natural resource management strategy prepared by the community with technical and financial assistance from the NSW and Commonwealth Governments. The aim of these Plans is to improve economic and environmental stability throughout the Region. The focus is a combination of improved farm management, district drainage works, education, research and development and monitoring of both adoption levels and impacts. (MIL, 2003). A financial partnership agreement has operated since 1995 involving the landholders of Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL), the community of the Mid-Murray Region and the NSW and Commonwealth Governments. Financing of the LWMP’s is in accordance with Heads of Agreement (HOA) signed by the community representatives, MIL and Murray Shire, as implementation authorities and the NSW Government. Each LWMP contains a detailed implementation program and specific targets. The administration of the four LWMP’s reflects both the administrative area of MIL and adjoining lands and the requirement for each Plan to be separately accounted. MIL’s area covers the four former government Irrigation Districts of Berriquin, Denimein, Deniboota and Wakool, as well as the Tullakool Irrigation Area. MIL is the contracted implementer for the lands to the east of Deniboota I. D., referred to as East Cadell, which collectively are known and reported upon as the Cadell Land and Water Management Plan.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 1

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

SECTION 2: MIL METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING COMMUNITY (IN-KIND) CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LWMP’S

2.1. Approach MIL, as in previous years, has undertaken a random survey of landholdings to determine the inputs made to the respective Plans by the ‘community’. The survey has been made on a sub-sample of the entire landholder population. A copy of the Survey form is provided in Annexure 7.2. The sampling of landholdings was in accord with the statistically valid sampling frame developed by La Trobe University, Wodonga, (Crase and Jackson, 1998). The principal features of the sampling frame are: o A confidence interval of 95 per cent o Surveying 320 holdings 1 within the area of the four Plans. o Stratified on the basis of the four historical irrigation districts with Deniboota renamed Cadell to reflect inclusion of land outside former government administered scheme. o Additional stratification on holding size and major enterprise.

In Table 2.1 Landholder survey sampling frame the sampling frame for the four Plans is shown along with the percentage of the sample by holding area. A number of key assumptions underpin the sample frame as designed by Crase and Jackson which are repeated here and commented upon later in this report. These assumptions are: o “Categories of farms by enterprise and area are accurately described by MIL records o The MIL data set describing the distribution of rice enterprises is consistent with the MIL data set describing holdings by size”, (Crase and Jackson, 1998).

1 A holding is an area of land with its own water supply point and alphanumeric identifier. A farm business entity usually operates across several holdings. Within the four Plans there are 3 077 holdings (2 424 in MIL) – see Table 2.2.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 2

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Table 2.1 Landholder survey sampling frame (Crase and Jackson, 1998).

Plan/Enterprise Holding size category (hectares) Total (numbers) 0-100 100-200 200-400 400-600 >600 Berriquin Dairying 3 6 6 0 0 15 Horticulture/Viticulture 0 0 3 0 0 3 Mixed/Rice 16 20 34 5 2 77 Mixed/Non-rice 13 16 29 3 0 61 Sub total 32 42 72 8 2 156 Percent of sample 20.5 26.9 46.2 5.1 1.3 Cadell Dairying 1 0 0 0 1 2 Horticulture/Viticulture 0 1 0 0 0 1 Mixed/Rice 5 4 6 4 3 22 Mixed/Non-rice 15 13 21 12 12 73 Sub total 21 18 27 16 16 98 Percent of sample 21.4 18.4 27.6 16.3 16.3 Denimein Dairying 0 0 0 0 0 0 Horticulture/Viticulture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed/Rice 4 2 4 3 0 13 Mixed/Non-rice 2 1 2 2 0 7 Sub total 6 3 6 5 0 20 Percent of sample 30 15 30 25 0 Wakool Dairying 1 0 2 1 0 4 Horticulture/Viticulture 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mixed/Rice 2 2 10 10 10 34 Mixed/Non-rice 0 1 2 3 0 6 Sub total 3 3 14 14 10 44 Percent of sample 6.8 6.8 31.8 31.8 22.7 TOTAL 62 66 119 43 28 318 Percent of sample 19.5 20.8 37.4 13.5 8.8 100

Table 2.2 Summary of landholdings within Murray Irrigation Limited and LWMP’s presents data on the number of holdings by size category across the four Plans. There is an upward trend in the number of holdings within the four Plans with the largest changes occurring in the small blocks up to 50 ha. These findings emerge from a comparison of data in Table 2.2 with that of 2001/2002, (Toohey, 2002), where: • The number of holdings within MIL has risen by 10, from 2 414 in 2001/2002 to 2 424 2003/2004; in East Cadell by 10 from 643 to 653 in 2003/2004.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 3

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

• The largest shift in numbers of holdings has been in the 0 to 50 ha category with an increase of 24 in MIL (372 to 396); in East Cadell by 18 holdings (152 to 170). • The 100 to 250 ha category has seen the second most substantial shift in the number of holdings were within MIL there has been a decline of 15 (772 to 757); but there has been no change in East Cadell. The significance of these developments upon the integrity of the Sample Frame is an item for assessment in the major review proposed in Recommendation 5.1.

Table 2.2 Summary of landholdings within Murray Irrigation Limited and LWMP’s

Plan Area (ha) Total Ave. area Holding size (hectares) Note 2 (number) (ha) (Note 1) 0-50 50- 100- 250- 500- 1 000-

100 250 500 1 000 6 000 Berriquin 337 669 1 489 227 253 133 603 416 62 21 Deniboota 144 108 362 398 66 11 55 129 84 17 Denimein 53 347 189 282 53 12 37 55 27 5 Wakool 210 575 384 548 24 11 62 126 109 50 Total MIL 745 699 2 424 396 167 757 726 282 93 East Cadell 154 575 653 237 170 74 192 154 56 21 Total LWMP’s 900 274 3 077 566 241 949 880 338 114 Note. 1. Holding size, Pers. comm. Demelza Brand, Environment Officer, MIL 19 October 2004 Note. 2. Area of Plan’s and holding numbers, Annexure 7.3 - MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report.

2.2. Survey methodology The sample frame as described above and methodology for selecting holdings as reported by Stuart Brown (2000), was again applied in collecting the landholder information for the 2003/2004 reporting period. From Table 2.3 Survey sample - Holdings 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 there were a total of 317 holdings surveyed across the four Plans with Table 2.4 Survey sample - area 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 providing the details of area sampled within each Plan. The 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 data contained in Table 2.3 Survey sample - Holdings 2002/2003 and 2003/2004, Table 2.4 Survey sample - area 2002/2003 and 2003/2004, and Tables 2.5 - 2.8 Berriquin, Cadell, Denimein, and Wakool Survey stratification - 2003/2004, was compared to Table 2.1 Landholder survey sampling frame. The findings are as follows: o As expected given the focus on achieving the target number of respondents each year, the total number of holdings within the four Plans surveyed has remained stable and has matched or exceeded those set by Crase and Jackson for achieving a 95 per cent confidence for the major works.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 4

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

o The surveyed area has varied but this variance is within that anticipated from a random selection of holdings. o In 2003/2004, the stratification targets were generally met with notable departures being - o Berriquin. No horticultural holdings surveyed when target is 3. o Cadell. 6 additional holdings surveyed. o Wakool. 3 fewer holdings (rice) surveyed. An appreciation of the locations of the holdings surveyed in 2003/2004 may be gleaned from Figure 2.1. This figure enhances confidence that the survey data is spatially representative of the works being undertaken across the four Plans. Benchmark Values developed in 2002/2003 were again applied to a number of items of expenditure by landholders. The values were established by reference to merchandise suppliers price lists, eg fencing materials; NSW Agriculture Farm Budgets on advice from agencies, eg Greening Australia. The values are reported in Annexure 7.5 - MIL Landholder Survey Benchmark values.

Table 2.3. Survey sample - Holdings 2002/2003 1 and 2003/2004 2

Item Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool Total 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 Number 154 155 104 104 19 18 40 40 317 317 of surveys Total 1 490 1 489 996 1 015 190 189 381 384 3 057 3 077 holdings Per cent 10.34 10.41 10.44 10.25 10.00 9.52 10.50 10.42 10.37 10.30 of sample Notes: 1. Source. Toohey, 2003. 2. Source. Annexure 7.3 - MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report.

Table 2.4 Survey sample - area 2002/2003 1 and 2003/2004 2

Item Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool Total 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 Area of 41 520 33 701 32 773 28 403 4 714 4 602 21 787 22 013 100 794 88 719 sample (ha) District 341 546 337 669 299 090 298 683 53 809 53 347 210 694 210 575 905 139 900 274 area (ha) Per 12.1 9.98 10.9 9.51 8.7 8.63 10.3 10.42 11.1 9.85 cent of sample Notes: 1. Source. Toohey, 2003. 2. Source. Annexure 7.3 - MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 5

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Table 2.5 Berriquin Survey stratification - 2003/2004

Enterprise Number holdings surveyed within each area category 5-10 ha 11-50 51-100 101-250 251-350 351-500 > 501 TOTAL ha ha ha ha ha ha Rice 0 1 5 37 21 10 7 81 Dairy 0 0 2 10 1 1 0 14 Horticulture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 3 14 8 23 8 2 2 60 TOTAL 3 15 15 70 30 13 9 155

Table 2.6 Cadell Survey stratification - 2003/2004 Enterprise Number holdings surveyed within each area category 5-10 ha 11-50 51-100 101-250 251-350 351-500 > 501 ha ha ha ha ha ha TOTAL Rice 0 0 0 3 5 6 9 23 Dairy 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Horticulture 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Other 2 14 10 26 9 8 9 78 TOTAL 3 15 10 30 14 14 18 104

Table 2.7 Denimein Survey stratification - 2003/2004 Enterprise Number holdings surveyed within each area category 5-10 ha 11-50 51-100 101-250 251-350 351-500 > 501 ha ha ha ha ha ha TOTAL Rice 0 0 1 2 3 3 3 12 Dairy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Horticulture 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 6 TOTAL 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 18

Table 2.8 Wakool Survey stratification - 2003/2004 Enterprise Number holdings surveyed within each area category 5-10 ha 11-50 51-100 101-250 251-350 351-500 > 501 ha ha ha ha ha ha TOTAL Rice 0 0 0 3 7 6 15 31 Dairy 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Horticulture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other 0 2 0 3 1 1 1 8 TOTAL 0 2 0 7 9 7 16 41

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 6

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Figure 2.1. 2003/2004 Holdings Survey

Annual Farm Survey 2004 Moulamein

Conargo Jerilderie

Burraboi Pretty Pine

Wakool

Deniliquin

Blighty Finley Barham Berrigan

Bunnaloo Mathoura To cu mw al

Barooga

Mulwala

Moama ® Legend 010205 Farms Surveyed 2004 Kilometers

Note: Dark areas indicate Holdings included in Survey.

There has been anecdotal information that the process of selecting the 317 holding sample out of the total holding population of some 3 100 holdings has resulted in a number of holdings being surveyed in consecutive years. A recommendation – number 1.6 - in the 2002/2003 Audit Report was made to record the level of occurrence of holdings being selected in consecutive year. The number of holdings surveyed in both 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 has been collated by MIL with results presented in Table 2.9 Holdings surveyed 2002/2003 and 2003/2004. A somewhat expected finding was the high percentage in the Denimein Plan with the lowest number of holdings – 190 – from which to achieve the common stratifications on holding size and major enterprise. Table 2.9 Holdings surveyed 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 Plan Holdings surveyed 2002/2003 Holdings surveyed and 2003/2004 (numbers) 2003/2004 (number) Berriquin 19 155 Cadell 14 104 Denimein 5 18 Wakool 2 40 Total 40 317

The sampling methodology recognises that the randomly selected holding may not be surveyed for a variety of reasons. MIL in response to recommendation number 1.5 in the 2002/2003 Audit Report recorded the number of second round selections of holdings

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 7

Dennis E Toohey & Associates by Plan with results presented in Table 2.10 Holdings second round selection 2003/2004. The number of landholdings required to be selected in a second round was 40. However by eliminating those where the reason was self evident, eg property sold, an amalgamation, landholder ill and a sampling error, the true second round number was 29. There may have been 22 fewer second round selections if a more convenient time was available, thus if this eventuated, the 7 landholders who declined represent less than 20% of the re-sampling. Put another way the number of declining landholders was 7 or 2% of the 317 holdings surveyed. Table 2.10 Holdings second round selection 2003/2004 Reasons for re-sample of holdings Number of re-sampled holdings Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool Recently sold property/no longer in 5 1 1 1 region Away from property during survey period 5 2 1 Unable to be contacted 4 10 Declined to be involved 3 3 1 Landholder ill 1 Amalgamated with another holding 1 Accidentally sampled twice 1 Total Number Re-sampled 19 16 2 3

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 8

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

SECTION 3: AUDIT METHODOLOGY and FINDINGS

3.1. Audit methodology Auditing of the Landholder Survey commenced with a meeting involving MIL staff and survey interviewers on 1 September 2004. A report on the meeting is provided in Annexure 7.4. 2004 Annual Survey Interviewer Debrief. The contracted auditors were provided with all of the Landholder Surveys and the Survey Report. The latter presents information at two levels, namely the aggregated survey data for each H.O.A. item and their extrapolation to either the area of the Plan or the number of holdings. The contract specifies six levels of auditing with level one and two, as set out below, undertaken on works as reported upon in the Landholder Survey. Level 1. Confirm that Implementer’s records of financial expenditure were for the works as specified in the Heads of Agreement and works were completed to specified standard. Level 2. Physical inspection required of “ground works” and structures, justification of expenses, sign by Auditor. For each Level there are a minimum number of holdings to be audited over the life of the contract. For Level one, this is six and for Level two the common number is six. In 2003/2004, two holdings were audited (when there were two or more reporting activity). Auditing of Level one or ‘desk’ H.O.A.’s were undertaken over two days, commencing on 1 September and ending on 2 September. The procedure was as follows: 1. Review the Microsoft Access reports. MIL after keying in all the survey data produced a series of reports - see Annexure 7.3 MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report. These reports inform firstly on the level of activity as established from the physical survey and secondly, when this data is extrapolated across the entire area or holdings encompassed by each Plan, the estimated activity across the whole area. 2. Select at random the two holdings per Plan from a Microsoft Access query list of all those that reported activity on the H.O.A. 3. Test the level of agreement between the work in the Survey form to that recorded in the MIL database. Record discrepancies. 4. Apply local knowledge and experience to test the veracity of the landholders claim. 5. Reach a conclusion as to the appropriateness and cost- effectiveness of the landholders claim. 6. Record comments to assist in the framing of general audit findings and recommendations.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 9

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Auditing of Level two ‘on-farm’ H.O.A.’s were undertaken over three days from 6 September to 8 September in the company of the respective LWMP Implementation Officer. Steps one to three as per Level One were completed in the office with steps four to six from information obtained from ‘on-site’ visits. Landholders generally accompanied the auditor which expedited clarification of any issues. In the absence of the landholder, the Implementation Officer was always able to provide quite detailed information on the property and of the work. One of the properties was not visited due to rain making it impractical. Information collaborating the activities as recorded in the Landholder Survey for this property was sourced via a telephone conversation with the landholder. Rain also cut short a visit to another property with additional information again sourced via a telephone conversation.

3.2. Findings A summary of MIL’s 2003/2004 Landholder Survey is shown in Table 3.1, 2003/2004 Summary - Land and Water Management Plan, On- Farm (in kind) Contributions. The table shows that the landholders invested approximately $57.4 million in LWMP activities during 2003/2004. Over the last three years, ie 2001 to 2004, the following trends have emerged: o Landholder investment. Risen from $52.96 million (m) in 2001/2002 to $57.4 m in 2003/2004. o Farm planning. Declined from $4.09 m in 2001/2002 or 7.7% of the $52.96 m total landholder investment to $2.0 m in 2003/2004 of the $57.4 m total investment. o Landforming. Declined from $14.9 m in 2001/2002 or 28.2% of total investment to $9.5 m in 2003/2004. o Improved irrigation layout. Risen from $9.9 m in 2001/2002 or 9.8% to $11.7 m in 2003/2004. Errors detected A component of the audit process is establishing confidence in the results from the Survey, thus attention is given to uncovering evidence of over and under recording of items. It does this in three areas: 1. At the desk level, the detection of inconsistencies between the Survey forms and the Survey Report, ie errors of transposition; 2. Inconsistencies at the field level between Survey form and observations/comment; and 3. Inconsistencies at the desk level in calculations. A summary of the detected errors appears below with full details provided in Annexure 7.1 Audit of H.O.A. works 2003/2004 Landholder survey.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 10

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

1. Transposing errors. The level of accuracy achieved in transposing data from the Survey form to the Survey Report has improved over the last three years. In 2001/2002, errors were detected in 5 surveys, no errors in 2002/2003 and in 2003/2004, one error was detected. The error relates to Holding W222 where paddock improvements were under-recorded by $26 650 ($28 500 when $2 850 recorded).

2. Field audit findings. Holding E-254, over recording of landforming in 2003/2004 with the claimed 200 ha occurring in previous years. This holding’s shallow subsurface bore was not recorded giving rise to an under-recording of O & M for 30 ML pumped. Holding W-051A, over recording of conservation tillage by 18 ha.

3. Calculation errors. In the 2003/2004 audit, responses at the paddock level to areas of irrigation, landforming, dryland and native vegetation were checked against the summary table for Question 1 – Paddock Information. Information in this summary table is keyed into the Microsoft Access database. This was the first time when all Surveys were checked in this manner and revealed the following discrepancies: o Berriquin. Of 12 Surveys audited, three discrepancies recorded in two Survey forms. Holding E183A had two discrepancies, namely over statement of area laid out to irrigation and understatement of dryland by approximately the same area. These are non-auditable items. Holding E851A under recorded the area of landforming in 2003/2004 by 26 ha. o Cadell. No discrepancies within five Surveys audited. o Denimein. No discrepancies within nine Surveys audited. o Wakool. Of 12 Surveys audited four discrepancies in four Survey forms of which three involve an auditable item – landforming. Holding W222 the area of previous landforming was understated by 20 ha (522 ha Survey form – 542 ha Survey Report) with the area of native vegetation over stated by 90 ha (702 ha Survey Report – 612 ha Survey form). Holding W081 did not account for 292 ha of previous landforming in Survey form. Holding W 278 over recorded 359 ha of previous landforming. Diversified enterprises There is considerable scope for broadening the economic base within each of the four Plans through alternate enterprises with the decision as to the appropriateness being one made by the individual landholders. The last two years of surveying have recorded wide interpretations of commercial alternate enterprises with these recorded in 2003/2004 –

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 11

Dennis E Toohey & Associates farm forestry, olive trees, rabbit farming and contract hay baling. In the previous year the enterprises were goats, pigs, potatoes, citrus and feedlotting of lambs. Farmers are reviewing their mainstream enterprises more intensely in response to the Water Reform Agenda. There is an expectation of an even greater spread than presently exists which intensifies the necessity for early clarification and defining of alternate enterprises, the recording of capital investment and for how long may a landholder claim as a contribution the costs of operation and maintenance.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 12

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Table 3.1. 2003/2004 Summary – Land and Water Management Plan, On-Farm (in-kind) contributions Landholder Survey Regional estimate Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool extrapolation Item Survey Extrapolated Survey Extrapolated Survey Extrapolate Survey Extrapolated Total d ($) Unit ($) ($) Unit ($) ($) Unit ($) ($) Unit ($) ($) Farm plan etc 129,860 51,345 1,301,202 62,955 33,124 662,057 0 7,944 0 4,085 35,733 39,076 2,002,335 Trees Tree planting (Cap) 80,297 804,582 79,470 835,737 11,269 130,623 785 7,509 1,778,451 Saltbush (Cap) 6,797 68,104 58 610 3,431 39,770 0 0 108,484 Tree/saltbush(O&M) 28,700 287,575 18,320 192,660 3,020 35,006 4,600 44,002 559,243 Rem. Veg (O & M) 7,740 77,555 1,690 17,773 5,480 63,522 6,100 58,351 217,201 Channel,Dist&Farm 1,316 13,189 101 1,065 0 0 0 0 14,254 Channel (O & M) 3,100 31,062 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,062 Diversification Diversify. (O&M) 336,000 3,227,666 349,500 3,409,756 0 0 0 0 6,637,422 Irrigation Landforming etc. 668,562 1,114 6,699,018 103,200 172 1,085,288 49,140 82 569,607 114,420 191 1,094,509 9,448,422 layout Improved layout 879,760 8,815,230 133,368 1,402,545 42,500 492,639 100,741 963,660 11,674,075 Channel 195,269 1,956,603 38,434 404,186 16,440 190,565 36,803 352,047 2,903,401 maintenance Drainage Drain Construction 373,489 3,742,375 73,378 771,669 15,135 175,438 311,960 2,984,121 7,673,603 reuse Drainage O & M 132,050 1,323,146 40,695 427,963 4,750 55,060 15,100 144,442 1,950,611 Shallow Capital 39,000 2 374,640 0 0 0 374,640 g'water O & M 14,250 136,888 0 0 1,000 10,504 0 147,392 Deep g'water Capital 120,000 1 1,152,738 0 0 0 1,152,738 O & M 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 Pasture 70,125 351 702,658 92,312 771 970,788 4,181 26 48,467 71,078 702 679,908 2,401,821 Rice soil survey 3,294 127 33,008 2,340 90 24,608 6,864 264 79,564 1,593 61 15,233 152,413 Con.tillage 407,067 13,569 4,078,830 300,786 10,026 3,163,170 22,050 734 255,270 69,828 2,328 667,980 8,165,250 TOTAL 34,826,069 13,369,875 2,146,036 7,050,838 57,392,817 Source: Annexure 7.3. Regional multipliers are on a percentage of area of Plan except channel works, diversification and groundwater, which are on a percentage of holdings.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 13

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

3.3. Recommendations Arising from the 2001/2002 Audit Report, MIL has implemented changes to procedures in the wording of the survey and in the application of benchmark values which have produced a substantial improvement, most notably in the accuracy of transposition of data from the Survey form to the Survey Report. A number of recommendations are provided to build upon the many improvements implemented by MIL for the 2003/2004 survey. The recommendations are grouped within three themes as follows: Landholder Survey Framework, Form and Report 3.1 Establish eligibility criteria for commercial alternate enterprises and the duration for inclusion of costs of operation and maintenance. See Survey question 8 (d). 3.2 Include in Deep Bores, Survey question 13, a question to capture the volume pumped from which is derived the operation and maintenance costs by applying Benchmark Values. 3.3 Undertake a review of the Benchmark Values established for the 2002/2003 Survey and incorporate changes in dollar values. 3.4 Include the changes in the 2004/2005 Survey agreed upon at the debriefing meeting of surveyors held on 1 September 2004.

Training of surveyors 3.5 Continue the training program of surveyors so as to return to the high levels of accuracy achieved in the 2002/2003 survey. 3.6 To consider the drafting of a set of survey guidance notes to assist inexperienced surveyors in explaining difficult survey questions, eg what items of investment constitute ‘paddock improvements’.

Review of Head of Agreement and Audit frame 3.7 The rationale for the present auditing frame be reviewed to achieve a more proportional level of auditing across the four Plans. For example, in the Berriquin Plan for ‘Improved irrigation layouts’, two Surveys out of 155 Surveys are audited, compared to the same H.O.A in Denimein where two of 18 Surveys are audited. A second deficiency is the rationale for field audits, where presently in Wakool, four H.O.A.’s require a field audit, whereas only two HOA’s in each of the other Plans require this level of auditing - see Annexure 7.6 Auditing framework, in-kind works.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 14

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

SECTION 4: MIL REPORTING OF LANDHOLDER ACTIVITIES

As in previous years, MIL has extrapolated the survey findings on the basis of holding or area surveyed. The results of actual survey and extrapolations for each Plan are presented in summary form in Table 3.1 2003/2004 Summary – Land and Water Management Plan, On-Farm (in-kind) contributions and in detail, in Annexure 7.3 MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report. The survey instrument due to its structure has limited capacity to generate some general trend information on the performance of the Plans. Four items, namely drainage reuse, landforming, regeneration and revegetation, have been selected as indicators to test the capacity of the Survey for providing generalised trends with results for the years 2001 through to 2004 presented in Tables 4.1 to 4.4. All data in these tables has been sourced from the extrapolated Survey Reports presented in annexures to the Audit Reports for 2001/2002, 2002/2003 and 2003/2004. Findings from these test indicators are: o Survey confirms Environment Reports that construction of drainage reuse systems is progressing towards the 2010 target. The picture presented in Table 4.1 is an optimistic one as the respective Plans have standards as well as targets, whereas the Survey records all reuse systems. o Area of landforming across the four Plans over the past three years is not showing the expected upward trend. The Berriquin Plan figures for 2001/2002 are not accurate – the area of landforming exceeds the total area of the Plan. Increased attention towards addressing errors of calculation in Question 1, as revealed in this years audit, may prove helpful in producing trend data that matches expectations. o The increased attention being given by landholders to active management of native vegetation is showing up in the two years of data. o The two years of drought with landholders holding off on revegetation works, are reflected in a decline in the annual areas of trees planted between 2001 and 2004.

Table 4.1. Drainage reuse – holding per cent Plan (target) 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Berriquin 78.5 73.4 72.9 (90% by 2010) Cadell 43.9 47.1 36.6 (90% by 2010) Denimein 66.5 68.4 55.6 (95% by 2011) Wakool 74.3 87.4 77.6 (90% by 2010) Total 66.0 66.2 60.4

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 15

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Table 4.2. Landforming – holding total ha Plan 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Berriquin 347 830 140 943 185 409 Cadell 56 524 56 145 47 259 Denimein 20 474 18 865 17 736 Wakool 46 331 65 132 51 277 Total 471 158 281 085 301 680

Table 4.3. Regeneration – total holding ha Plan 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Berriquin n.a 846 1 383 Cadell n.a 128 379 Denimein n.a 582 145 Wakool n.a 648 3 444 Total 2 204 5 351

Table 4.4. Trees planted – total holding ha Plan 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Berriquin 307 228 449 Cadell 1 198 245 543 Denimein 93 97 53 Wakool 96 97 10 Total 1 694 667 1 055

4.1. Recommendation It is recommended that:

4.1 As part of the major review (Recommendation 5.1), there be consideration of a restructuring of the survey so as to provide trend data for selected H.O.A.’s and/or for meeting MIL requirements. The usage of the Survey instrument for providing trend data be assessed as part of the major review.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 16

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

SECTION 5: FUTURE DIRECTIONS

5.1. Landholder Survey sample frame The survey frame was based, in part, upon an assessment in or around 1995/96 of the major enterprise of each holding, eg rice or dairying. Since then periodic changes have been made, however an on-going mechanism of review is sought to maintain the integrity of the sample frame.

5.2. Survey alignment with H.O.A.’s and MIL’s compliance and reporting The format of the survey has remained relatively the same over the past seven years. There were some major changes as to the phrasing of questions in the 2000/2001 surveys to reflect the first five-year review of the Plans. During this seven-year period the survey has been successful in meeting the auditing requirements of the H.O.A.’s and compliance and reporting by MIL. Emerging from discussions with personnel within the environmental management section of MIL has a been a strong feeling that the Survey is in need of a major review. The company is committed to achieving an even better alignment of targets and objectives with the H.O.A.’s in the months ahead. For the last three years the Surveyors meetings have recorded some direct and some indirect rumblings of disquiet from MIL Implementation Officers about the purpose and scope of the annual survey. Those most frequently aired relate to the survey collecting increasing amounts of data, the uses of the collected information and the superficiality, in some areas of data, most notably on revegetation and regeneration. On a positive note, these meetings have assisted greatly in improving the phraseology of the questions and the structure of the tables. For these reasons it is considered timely to review the survey instrument by examining its rationale, objectives and processes.

5.3. Recommendations With the afflux of time and changes in personnel within MIL there has been a diminishment of clarity as to the objectives of the Survey and the strength of its linkage with the objectives of MIL and the H.O.A.’s, as presently worded and understood. A major review is proposed. It is recommended that: 5.1 A major review be commissioned of the annual Landholder Survey to achieve a higher level of harmonising of the H.O.A.’s and of MIL’s objectives. Such a review might report upon these matters 5.1.1 Is the survey structured to capture the information required to show landholders are meeting their targets; 5.1.2 What are the core annual data requirements and how might the need for in-depth information be best addressed; 5.1.3 Is the survey providing the data as sought for MIL’s environment report;

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 17

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

5.1.4 Is there scope for reducing the costs of undertaking the survey; and 5.1.5 Is MIL receiving from the survey the information it seeks to gain in a statistically valid manner about landholders, eg capacity and state of preparedness to address institutional changes. 5.2 The recommendations from such a review be implemented in a timely manner so that they are in place for the 2004/2005 survey.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 18

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

SECTION 6: REFERENCES

Brown, S. (2000). Audit of landholder survey - Murray Land and Water Management Plans. Report prepared by Farmanco Pty Ltd. Tatura. February. Crase, L. and Julie Jackson. (1998). Sampling frame for the administration of LWMP survey and the collection of financial data for Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL). Unpublished report prepared for Murray Irrigation Limited, La Trobe University. Wodonga. September. Murray Irrigation Limited. (2003). Compliance and Environment Report, 2002/2003. Annual Environment Report. MIL. Deniliquin. Toohey, D. E. (2002). Murray Land and Water Management Plans, Audit of Landholder Survey 2001/2002. Albury. December. Toohey, D. E. (2003). Murray Land and Water Management Plans, Audit of Landholder Survey 2002/2003. Albury. October.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 19

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

SECTION 7: ANNEXURES

7.1. Audit of H.O.A. works 2003/2004 Landholder survey. 7.2. Landholder Survey form. 7.3. MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report. 7.4. 2004 Annual Survey Interviewer Debrief. 7.5. MIL Landholder Survey Benchmark values 7.6. Auditing framework, in-kind works 7.7. MIL Response to 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Audit Recommendations

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 20

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Annexure 7.1. Audit of H.O.A. works 2003/2004 Landholder survey

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments Item Berriquin A 1 Improved irrigation 2 a) Property E 367. (194 ha holding with principal land use of annual pastures lucerne layout (on-farm) and summer pasture, supporting a sheep enterprise). 189 ha landformed. 20 ha landformed in 2003/04 involving 3 paddocks which were also the subject of paddock 27 entries - improvements. lasering; Audit findings. 21 entries - Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 20 ha of improved irrigation layout. paddock Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $11 100 on paddock improvements. improvement b) Property E851A. (1 277 ha holding with principal land use of winter cereals, winter oilseeds, dryland pastures, supporting sheep and cattle enterprises). 195 ha landformed. 46 ha landformed in 2003/04. 13 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Area of landforming was 72 ha, whereas Survey Report has recording of 46 ha resulting in an under recording of 26 ha giving a revised property-level area landformed of 221 ha. Field audit revealed that landforming in 2003/04 was of three areas with two in border check sown to wheat with undersown lucerne and the other a direct drilled barley crop into a soybean stubble on raised beds.

c) Property E254. (218 ha holding with principal land use of winter cereals). 200 ha landforming – all in 2003/04 - preparatory to the installation of centre pivots and associated paddock improvements of $90 000.

Audit findings. Incorrect recording established from field audit of 200 ha of improved irrigation layout in 2003/04. The claimed area of landforming was undertaken in the years leading up to 2003/04 with none occurring in the year of the survey.

Verified correctness of recording of $90 000 on paddock improvements – as pipes and associated infrastructure ($50 000) and own labour, ($40 000), for conveying water from a 30 ML storage dam to the pivots.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 21

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments Item d) ) Property Q568. (256 ha holding with principal land use of winter cereals and winter oilseeds). 90 ha landforming with 37 ha in 2003/04. Paddock improvements within one paddock of $12 000.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, of recording of $20 000 on constructing a storage.

Comments All four holdings reflect the strong commitment to improving irrigation layouts. Two holdings have completed landforming with subsequent work one of maintaining the established grades. The Water Reform Agenda coupled with the availability of water have been strongly implicated as the major drivers for growing winter crops in lieu of the traditional rice. Integrated return drainage with on-farm storages were features evident on the two holdings subjected to a field visit. Berriquin A 3 Improved pasture 1 a) Property E434C. (231 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures and winter crops management (desk) supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 1 ha native vegetation.

16 entries Audit findings. Survey form records 8 ha dryland pasture established. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording of $820.13 in Survey Report.

b) Property E539. (201 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures for dairy cattle enterprise).

Audit findings. Survey form records 9.45 ha irrigated summer pasture established. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording of $3 883.95 in Survey Report.

Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 22

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Berriquin A 7 Supply and Drainage 1 a) Property E177. (110 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures for a dairy cattle and reuse - Operation (desk audit) enterprise). 90 ha landformed. Drainage from whole property may be drained into and maintenance district drain; 166 ha may be recycled on the farm involving a 10 ML storage. 85 entries - supply Audit findings. channel; Survey form records expenditure of $680 ($160 own; $20 fuel; $500 chemicals) on Supply O & M of drainage and $460 ($300 fuel; $160 own) on Drainage O & M. 62 entries - Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report. drainage system b) Property E402 A (10 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated summer fodder crops). 9 ha laid out to irrigation of border check.

Audit findings. Survey form records expenditure of $300 ($200 own; $100 chemicals) on Supply O & M and $2 000 ($600 own; $100 fuel; $100 chemicals; $1 200 enlarging) on Drainage O & M. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.

Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 23

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Berriquin C 4 Subsurface shallow 1 a) Property E309N. (273 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops, annual pumps - Operation and (desk audit) pastures and rice). 43 ha native vegetation. Shallow bore installed in 1968. 142 ha maintenance laid out to irrigation. 12 entries Audit findings. Survey form records pumping of 63 ML that translates to an O & M of $630. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.

b) Property E183A. (276 ha holding with principal land uses of winter cropping and annual irrigated pastures, supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 178 ha laid out to irrigation. 1 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings Survey form records pumping of 30 ML, which translates to an O & M of $300. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report. Identified a discrepancy between the paddock-level recording of area of landforming and the summary table in Question 1 which results in an overstatement by 7.5 ha or land laid out to irrigation and understatement of 6 ha of dryland country. Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

The field audit revealed an under recording of O & M on holding E254 arising from the non-recording of a shallow bore and it pumping 30 ML in the year of survey.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 24

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Cadell A 8 Improved irrigation 2 a) Property C528. (235 ha holding with principal land uses of winter cereals and winter layout (on-farm) crops supporting a beef enterprise). 160 ha landformed border check.

5 entries - Audit findings. lasering; Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 13 ha of improved irrigation layout in one paddock 4 entries - Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $4 510 on paddock improvements paddock ($2 000 contractors; $650 own; $1 860 fencing) over 3 paddocks. improvement; b) Property D129 (695 ha holding with principal land use of winter cereals and a sheep 8 entries – enterprise). 92 ha landformed of which 36 ha in 2003/04 as border check/rectangular storages contour. capital Audit findings. Verified correctness, at field audit, of recording of expenditure of 36 ha of landforming in 2003/04. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $2 120 on at 100 ML storage. This amount was for minor works by contractors. Landformed paddock was previously a mixture of irregular slopes and bay sizes with hollows holding water. Drainage is now collected and diverted into a 100 ML storage. The shallowness of the surface soils has been a major restraining factor on the farmer in landforming. Post landforming, 1.5 tonnes per ha of natural gypsum applied.

c) Property C056 (329 ha holding with principal land use of annual pastures, winter grain crops supporting a beef enterprise). 300 ha landformed as border check.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at field audit, of recording of expenditure of $19 000 on paddock improvements to 3 paddocks ($5 000 contractors; $5 000 own time; $9 000 fences) in 2003/04. Verified correctness, at field audit, of recording of $2 000 on improvements to 10 ML storage that related to the feeder drain. The redevelopment of the property’s irrigation layout is now nearly completed with some remaining drains requiring upgrading so as to avoid drainage through the border check bays.

Comments The three properties information correctly recorded in the Survey Report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 25

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Cadell D 3 Trees channels - 1 Operation and (desk) Comments maintenance No entries for O & M of trees, at desk audit level, either along District or farm channels in 0 entries Survey Report. Cadell I 2 Subsurface shallow 1 pumps - operation and (desk) Comments maintenance No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of shallow subsurface pumps in Survey Report. 0 entries Cadell J 2 Supply and Drainage 1 a) Property C818. (317 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops supporting and reuse - Operation (desk) beef and sheep enterprises). 7 ha native vegetation. 174 ha landformed to border and maintenance check. Drains water to adjoining holding. 20 entries - Audit findings. drainage Survey form records expenditure of $170 ($120 own; $50 chemicals) on Drainage O & system M. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.

b) Property D149 (634 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 10 ha native vegetation. 262 ha landformed to border check and side ditch. Audit findings. Survey form records expenditure of $630 ($480 own; $150 own) on Drainage O & M. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.

Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 26

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Denimein A 16 Perennial pasture 1 a) Property M028 B. (160 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops, irrigated program (desk) lucerne supporting sheep enterprise). 140 ha landformed border check and contour.

2 entries Audit findings. Survey form records 21 ha irrigated winter pasture established. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording of $2 126.25 in Survey Report.

Comments This property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report. Denimein A 18 Revegetation - 1 a) Property M001 B. (33 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated annual pastures Operation and (desk) supporting sheep and pig enterprises, plus 10 ha farm forestry). 17 ha landformed in maintenance total – all in 2003/04. 3 entries - revegetation; Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, recording of expenditure $2 000 (water) on 3 entries - maintaining 10 ha farm forestry plantation. regeneration b) Property M027 (399 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated pastures, winter cropping supporting a beef enterprise). 278 ha landformed to border check and contour. 10 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, recording of expenditure $20 ($20 chemicals) on revegetation area.

c) Property M053 A. (549 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated pastures – dryland and winter cropping). No landforming. 30 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, recording of expenditure $380 ($380 own) on actively managing grey box regeneration area.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 27

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item d) Property M069. (543 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops supporting a cattle enterprise). 192 ha landformed to border check and side ditch contour. 282 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, recording of expenditure $5 000 ($5 000 materials) on actively managing 282 ha of yellow box, grey box and Red Gum regeneration area.

Comments All four property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 28

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Denimein A 20, A 21, Improved irrigation 2 a) Property M001B. (33 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated annual pastures A 22, A 25 layout (on-farm) supporting sheep and pig enterprises, plus 10 ha farm forestry). 17 ha landformed in and A 26 total – all in 2003/04. 6 entries - lasering; Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field level, of recording of 17 ha of improved 5 entries - irrigation layout. Drainage water from farm is captured and recycled into the main paddock supply channel via a portable pump. improvement Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $5 100 on paddock improvements.

b) Property M018. (102 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops and forages supporting a cattle enterprise). 64 ha landformed border check and contour of which 8 ha landformed in 2003/04. 10 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 8 ha of improved irrigation layout. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $15 000 on paddock improvements.

c) Property M032V. (10 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures supporting a cattle enterprise).

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $150 on drainage storage.

d) Property M069. (543 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops supporting a cattle enterprise). 192 ha landformed to border check and side ditch contour. 282 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field level, of recording of $4 000 on erecting a shed for the pump/motor at the storage site and associated fencing.

Comments Property’s subjected to field audit reflect a high standard of irrigation layout and commitment to recycling of drainage water. All four property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 29

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Denimein A 23 Improved management 1 a) Property M028 B. (160 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops, irrigated (desk) lucerne, supporting sheep enterprise). 140 ha landformed border check and contour.

6 entries Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 22 ha direct drilling of other winter crop stubble, which translates to an expenditure of $660.

b) Property M059A. (672 ha holding with principal land uses of winter cereals). 261 ha landformed.

Audit findings. Verified correctness of recording of 377 ha direct drilling of other winter crop stubble, which translates to an expenditure of $11 310.

Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report. Denimein A 31 Agroforestry 1 (desk) Comment Three holdings recorded agroforestry in Question 1, but there were no operation and 0 entries maintenance expenditure in Survey Report. Denimein B 17 Supply and Drainage 1 a) Property M027. (399 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures and rice and reuse - Operation (desk) supporting a cattle enterprise). 333 ha landformed with 15 ha in 2003/04 contour and and maintenance border check. 10 ha native vegetation. 6 entries - drainage Audit findings. system Verified correctness of recording of expenditure of $600 on maintaining drainage system.

b) Property M069A. (481 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 265 ha landformed of which 22 ha in 2003/04 to contour and border check layouts. 10 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness of recording, at desk level, of expenditure of $1 300 ($1 000 fuel; $300 chemicals) on O & M of the drainage system.

Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report. Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 30

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Denimein C 6 Subsurface deep bores 1 - Capital (desk) Comments No entries for capital expenditure, at desk audit level, of deep subsurface bores in Survey 0 entries Report.

Denimein C 7 Subsurface deep bores 1 - Operation and (desk) Comments maintenance No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of deep subsurface bores in Survey Report. 0 entries Denimein C 8 Subsurface shallow 2 bores - capital (on-farm) Comments No entries for capital expenditure, at desk audit level, on shallow subsurface bores in 0 entries Survey Report.

Denimein C 9 Subsurface shallow 1 a) Property M028B. (160 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops, irrigated bores - Operation and (desk) lucerne supporting sheep enterprise). 140 ha landformed border check and contour. maintenance 1 entry Audit findings. Survey form records pumping of 100 ML which translates to an O & M of $1 000. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.

Comments Property information correctly recorded in Survey report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 31

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Wakool A 32 Improved pasture 2 a) Property W051A. (384 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures and winter management (on-farm) crops supporting a cattle enterprise). 42 ha landformed land to border check and contour. 186 ha native vegetation. 5 entries Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field audit level, of recording of 96 ha sown to dryland lucerne which translates to an expenditure of $9 720. Property inspection revealed a very satisfactory establishment of lucerne and a seed mixture of ‘Winter graze”, at a seeding rate of between 11 to 13 kg per ha in 2003. This was the first large-scale sowing by the landholder on land that had been previously cropped under dryland conditions. The pasture improvement program of this landholder illustrates that with careful planning, most notably attention to management of weeds, successful establishment of lucerne is attainable on land which in decades past was a mixture of perennial and annual plants but now has its watertable of less than 4 metres.

b) Property W278. (1 051 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures with winter cereals supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 280 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 32 ha sown to dryland pastures which translates to an expenditure of $3 240. Identified a discrepancy between the paddock-level recording of area of landforming and the summary table in Question 1 which results in an overstatement by 359 ha or previous landforming.

Comments Property W051 A represents one of the best sites so far audited for illustrating the introduction of perennial forage plants as a means for managing the rising watertable. Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 32

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Wakool A 33, A 35 Improved irrigation 2 a) Property W100. (463 ha holding with principal land uses of winter cereals supporting and A 46 layout (on-farm) a beef enterprise). 261 ha landformed of which 44 ha in 2003/04. 50 ha native vegetation. 5 entries - lasering; Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field audit levels, of recording of expenditure on 44 2 entries - ha lasering one paddock with rectangular contour bays. A well-established wheat paddock crop that was direct drilled into a lightly burned rice stubble. Gypsum, naturally- improvements; sourced, applied post landforming.

5 entries – b) Property W222. (2 497 ha holding with principal land uses of improved dryland drainage pastures, winter cereals, irrigated pastures, supporting a sheep enterprise). storage Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of expenditure of 40 ha on landforming. Audit identified these three errors: o Paddock improvements were under recorded with $28 500 in Survey form but $2 850 in Survey Report. o Area of native vegetation over stated in Survey Report by 90 ha with Survey form recording 612 ha, whereas 702 ha in Survey Report. o Total area landformed under recorded by 20 ha with 522 ha in Survey form, whereas 542 ha recorded in Survey Report.

c) Property T015. (124 ha holding with principal land uses of cropping). 70 ha landformed with none in 2003/04. 3 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field audit levels, of recording of expenditure of $20 000 on storage works ($12 000 contractor; $1 500 own; $6 500 pump). The site of the proposed storage was visited where drainage water from over 90 per cent of farm will be captured. Presently, a sump acts as the storage.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 33

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item d) Property W120 A. (716 ha holding with principal land uses of cropping supporting a sheep enterprise). 249 ha landformed. 413 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit levels, of recording of expenditure of $3 000 on storage works ($600 own; $2 400 fencing).

Comments Whilst the H.O.A. item selected for audit was verified as correct for all four property’s the process identified three discrepancies in one survey in transferring data from the paddock-level to the summary table in Question 1. Wakool A 36 Retest rice soils 1 a) Property W257. (774 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated annual pasture (desk) winter crops and rice supporting a sheep enterprise). 243 ha native vegetation.

3 entries Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of use of EM 31 across 10.25 ha for testing suitability of soils for rice which translates to an expenditure of $266.50.

b) Property W220 B. (735 ha holding with principal land uses of cropping – winter, irrigated pastures). 439 ha landformed border check and side ditch contour. 141 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of use of EM 31 across 37 ha for testing suitability of soils for rice which translates to an expenditure of $962.00.

Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 34

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Wakool A 44 Conservation tillage 2 a) Property W051 A. (384 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated pastures, winter (on-farm) cropping supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 42 ha landformed. 186 ha native vegetation. 27 entries Audit findings. Verified at field audit recording of 18 ha, not 32 ha of direct drilling of one cultivation which translates to an expenditure of $540.00. Survey Report has over represented the value of conservation tillage by $420.

b) Property W170 A. (433 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated annual pastures, winter crops supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 91 ha landformed. 147 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified at field audit recording of 18 ha of direct drilling of other winter crop which translates to an expenditure of $540.00. Field inspection of one paddock of wheat direct drilled into sandy mallee soil around perimeter of centre pivot irrigated lucerne. Uncertain as to location of second paddock subject to conservation farming practices.

Comments It has proven difficult to verify whether there have been any special conservation farming practices beyond the norm on sandy soils as there has been a tradition of retaining stubbles on the surface to reduce the impact of eroding winds.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 35

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Plan H.O.A. Works Audit level Comments item Wakool A 45 Drainage and reuse - 1 a) Property W081. (520 ha holding with principal land uses of winter forage). 192 ha Operation and (desk) landformed. 177 ha native vegetation. maintenance 14 entries Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit level, of recording of expenditure of $240 ($160 own; $80 chemicals) on maintaining drainage system. Noted under recording of 292 ha of previous landforming arising from not transferring data from the paddock-level to the summary table in Question 1.

b) Property W270 (153 ha holding with principal land uses of cropping supporting cattle and sheep enterprises). No lasered irrigation land. 16 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit level, of recording of expenditure of $400 ($100 chemicals; $200 fuel; $100 own) on maintaining drainage system.

Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report. Wakool C 10 Subsurface deep bores 1 - Capital (desk) Comments No entries of a capital nature, at desk audit level, of deep subsurface bores in Survey 0 entries Report. Wakool C 11 Subsurface deep bores 1 - Operation and (desk) Comments maintenance No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of deep subsurface bores in Survey Report. 0 entries Wakool C 12 Subsurface shallow 2 bores - capital (on-farm) Comments No entries for capital expenditure on shallow subsurface bores in Survey Report. 0 entries Wakool C 13 Subsurface shallow 1 No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of shallow subsurface bores in Survey Report. bores - Operation and (desk) maintenance 0 entries Wakool D 7 Trees channels - 2 No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of O & M for trees along channels in Survey Operation and (on-farm) Report. maintenance 0 entries

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 36

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Annexure 7.2. Landholder Survey form

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 37

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Annexure 7.3. MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 38

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Annexure 7.4. 2004 Annual Survey Interviewer debrief

Survey Debrief Meeting

MIL Board Room, Deniliquin

1st September 2004

10am – 1pm

Present: Vivianne Polkinghorne, Demelza Brand, Jill Anthony, Peter Anthony, Sue Fenaughty, Sophie Ingram, Wendy Goudie, Clare Fitzpatrick, Ross Templeton, Kristin Goudie, Christine Richardson, Karen Axton, Fiona Porter, Bernadette Agosta.

Apologies: Robyn Walker, Jenny Adamson, Suzanne Robinson, Karen Donkin, Sarah Rae.

Meeting discussion

1. Survey administration

LWMP officers to be advised of this year’s common locations where there were errors and omissions as experienced when keying the survey data into the database. The advising will include matters such as: • Return surveys progressively so as to smooth out the work load at keying in level which if implemented will contribute greatly to the present high level of accuracy. • If supplied holding map isn’t for survey farm, provide a hand drawn one • If a replacement holding is required then provide early notice to your LWMP Officer • Record your comments on the farmer to assist both the LWMP Officer for that Plan and future surveys • Use the supplied photograph as a prompt should the farmer not account for land occupied by native vegetation, roads and buildings.

2. Surveyors’ support

Environment Officer to develop a running sheet of what is expected of surveyors during the interviews, eg explain what the survey is about, confirm that the responses to the survey are confidential to MIL and before leaving the property go through the survey checking that everything is filled in.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 39

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

To address reluctance by some farmers to fully account for the area of native vegetation as they hold concerns should the information be made available to agencies, a particular advising be provided on this matter to surveyors.

Surveyors to consult the LWMP officers if they have any questions, eg eligibility of a work for an incentive payment.

Surveyors to receive the business cards of their LWMP officer for providing to landholders who want to know more about the LWMP.

Surveyors to be provided with supplementary information: • For difficult questions as occurs with the Tax Pack. • Descriptions of environmental management and property management plans. • On the business planning question, a short description of what is a business plan and the purpose in seeking information on the stage of implementation.

3. Survey questions and layout

Land use. Consider moving the stock information to the end of the survey (if it is required to be left on at all).

Q 1. The grouping of ‘paddocks’ is permissible with the test being – is the land use, layout the same as the one it adjoins, and are the recycling properties the same.

Q 1. Improve the wording of question ‘Can paddock be irrigated with recycled water? (ha)’ to remove ambiguity – is it possible to recycle water from the paddock or reuse recycled water on that paddock.

Q 1. Landuse. • Double cropping of paddocks, eg a cereal following a tomato crop presents problem – which crop is recorded? Meeting considered the correct response was to record what was in the paddock as at 30 June and make a note of its other use during the year. • Summer pastures with perennial species, eg paspalum are not accounted for in the percentage of perennials on the holding

Q 1. The succession of well-below water allocations and the longer term prospects for water is and will accelerate the amount of land which is dryland. Meeting offered this advice - if knocked down banks or knocked out channels then can include as dryland however if these structures still exist, leave as irrigation layout

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 40

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

- where farmer is uncertain as to the description of a paddock as being irrigation or dryland, record as notes his/her comments and seek guidance from LWMP Officer.

Q 1. Paddock improvements are not to include the cost of lasering.

Q 4 (a). Agreed the whole area of the farm, including buildings and roads, can be included as draining to a district drain.

Q 8. Need for further discussion on the Farm Diversification question, eg what is diversification, for how many years are operation and maintenance costs allowed.

Q 12. In the section on conservation tillage include direct drilling of pasture paddocks to enhance relevance for pasture-based holdings, ie dairy and sheep. Clarify whether the conservation tillage is only during the last 12 months or if it can include any paddocks you have EVER used conservation tillage techniques on.

Q 13. Why is it necessary to know about the installation year of groundwater pumps? Proposed that in lieu of year a series of time bands be provided, ie early 1980s.

Q 15. Record as a note to not include the surveyed holding.

4. Items for review and / or consideration

Respond to surveyor’s comment of excluding holdings that have been surveyed in the last two years.

Review entire survey to remove redundant questions that are not directly related to HOA’s or used by MIL in other reports.

Revise sample frame - raise minimum holding size - account for lands that were formerly used for agriculture but are now urban or rural residential especially in the Moama area.

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 41

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Annexure 7.5. MIL Landholder Survey Benchmark values

MIL Landholder Survey 2002/2003 - Benchmark values

Section Benchmark specifications Benchmark unit and value Reference Unit Value ($) 1. Paddock Information Landforming Hectare 600.00 Local contractor rates and farm Based on typical field earthworks of 570 m3 planning earthworks @ $1.05/m3 2. Farm Planning EM 31 for rice Hectare 26.00 MIL Senior Rice Officer 4. Drainage, reuse and storage Storage approval item 1 300.00 LWMP Implementation Officers

5. New tree and shrub plantings Q 5 (c Fencing - materials and f) Steel posts ($3.80/post @ 7 m spacing) Kilometre 550.00 Merchandise suppliers

Ringlock ($190/200 m roll) Kilometre 950.00 Merchandise suppliers Barb wire ($62/500 m roll) Kilometre 120.00 Merchandise suppliers Plain wire ($127/1 500 m role  2) Kilometre 170.00 Merchandise suppliers End assemblies ($50/assembly 4) Kilometre 200.00 Merchandise suppliers Ring fasteners Kilometre 20.00 Merchandise suppliers Gates (14’ gate @ $86/gate  2) Kilometre 170.00 Merchandise suppliers Sub Total Kilometre 2 180.00 Labour Kilometre 2 320.00 Contract rates TOTAL Kilometre 4 500.00

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 42

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Section Benchmark specifications Benchmark unit and value Reference Unit Value ($) Tree planting Local suppliers, contractors and LWMP Implementation Transplant method staff Weed control Hectare 150.00 Ripping and mounding Hectare 150.00 Seedlings ($0.40/seedling @ 650 Hectare 260.00 seedlings/ha

Planting Hectare 150.00 Watering Hectare 75.00 TOTAL 785.00

6. Direct seeding Direct seeding method Direct seeding Hectare 120.00 Greening Australia TOTAL 120.00 7. Saltbush planting Fencing Assume costs used above Kilometre (assumes planting saltbush in 2 rows, Deep ripping Hectare 50.00 Contract rates 2 m apart and then a space of 20 m per 2 planted rows) Cultivation Hectare 42.00 NSW Agriculture Budget Seedlings ($0.18/plant @ 500/ha) Hectare 90.00 Supplier Planting Hectare 35.00 Contract rates Watering Hectare 15.00 Contract rates TOTAL 232.00

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 43

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Section Benchmark specifications Benchmark unit and value Reference Unit Value ($) 8. Pastures - Irrigated lucerne Cultivation Hectare 42.00 NSW Agriculture Farm Budget 2003 (Adapted) Sowing Hectare 110.00

Fertiliser Hectare 67.50

Herbicide Hectare 70.00

Insecticide Hectare 70.00

Irrigation (3 Ml/ha @ $17.20/Ml) Hectare 51.50

TOTAL Hectare 411.00

9. Pastures – dryland lucerne, lucerne Direct drilled establishment NSW Agriculture Farm Budget incorporated into annual pastures and 2003 (Adapted) lucerne along irrigation channels Seed +Inoculant. 3 kg/ha Hectare 26.25

Insecticides 0.5l/ha @ $120/l Hectare 60.00 Insecticide application, contract Hectare 10.00 Sowing Hectare 5.00 TOTAL 101.25 10. Management practices Direct drilling Hectare 30.00 Contract rate 11. Groundwater pumping Shallow - operation and maintenance Megalitre 10.00 LWMP Implementation staff, landholders Deep - operation and maintenance LWMP Implementation staff, Megalitre 20.00 landholders, NSW Agriculture Farm Budget (2003)

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 44

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Annexure 7.6. Auditing framework, in-kind works

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 45

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

TABLE 4 - Murray LWMP Items - In-kind Works (0% govt contribution) COMBINED PROGRAM SHOWING ALL WORKS FOR ALL MURRAY LWMPs USING THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT FORMAT OF WORKS LWMP No. of Sites to be audited Sites ITEM OPTION District Audit Sites audited remaining Class over 3 years over 1 year 1999/2000

A ON-FARM WORKS A1 Landforming Ber 2 6 2 2 4 Not on new Plan A2 Large On-farm storages Ber 2 6 2 0 6 Not on new Plan Improved irrigation layouts Ber 2 6 2 2 4 Amalgamation of A1 and A2 A3 Improved pasture management Ber 1 6 2 2 4 A7 Operation and maintenance Ber 1 6 2 2 4 A8 Improved irrigation layouts Cad 2 6 2 2 4 A16 Perennial Pasture Program Den 1 6 2 1 5 A18 O&M of revegetation Den 1 6 2 1 5 A20 Improved layouts Den 2 6 2 2 4 Amalg of A21, A22, A25, A26 A21 Landforming (Cap) Den 2 6 2 1 5 Not on new Plan A22 Landforming (O&M) Den 1 6 2 2 4 Not on new Plan A23 Improved management Den 1 6 2 2 4

A25 Additional landforming (Cap) Den 2 6 2 2 4 Not on new Plan

A26 Additional landforming (O&M) Den 1 6 2 0 6 Not on new Plan

A31 Agroforestry (O&M) Den 1 6 2 0 6

A32 Improved summer pasture layouts Wak 2 6 2 2 4 A33 Install / upgrade drainage Wak 6 6 2 0 6 Not on new Plan A35 Upgrade & seal channels Wak 2 6 2 0 6 Not on new Plan A36 Retest rice soils Wak 1 6 2 0 6 A44 Conservation tilage Wak 2 6 2 2 4 A45 O&M - Reuse & Recycling Wak 1 6 2 2 4 A46 Landforming Wak 2 6 2 2 4 Not on new Plan

Improved irrigation layouts Wak 26 2 0 6 Amalg of A33, A35, A46 & oth

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 46

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

No. of sites to be audited Item Option LWMP Sites audited Sites remaining District Audit Class Over 3 years Over 1 year 1999/2000 B Surface drainage B 17 Reuse pumps O & M Den 1 6 2 2 4 C Sub surface drainage Ber C4 O & M/Refurbish private pumps 1 6 2 2 4 Not on new plan C7 Deep bores (O & M) Den 1 6 2 1 5 C 8 Shallow bores (Capital) Den 2 3 1 0 3 C 9 Shallow bores (O & M) Den 1 6 2 1 5 D Channel sealing 1 6 2 6 Not on survey D3 O & M: Trees Cad D 4 Physical sealing Den 5 6 2 6 Not on survey D 7 Trees – maintenance Wak 2 6 2 0 6 Not on survey I High watertable management Cad 1 3 1 3 I 2 O & M depreciation: Pumping sites J Recycling systems Cad 1 6 2 2 4 J 2 O & M costs

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 47

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

Annexure 7.7. MIL Response to 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Audit Recommendations

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc 48