Parts of the Goulburn Murray Irrigation District are up to a century old and much of the irrigation water is delivered across old and out-dated infrastructure.
The system delivers 1750 gigalitres (GL) of "high security" water entitlement to irrigators and urban water authorities, but it is estimated there are "losses" from the system of another 750 GL because of the outdated infrastructure, as well as from evaporation and other factors. That is, GMW diverts around 2630 GL from the Goulburn and Murray Rivers to achieve the entitlement, so the system is regarded as being 70% efficient, but capable - given modern infrastructure - of delivering up to 90% efficiency. Such an improvement would yield more than 450 GL of "new" water.
The volumes of urban water being sought for Ballarat and Bendigo are relatively modest - around 38 GL in total. It is estimated that Melbourne will require a further 80 GL to ensure security of supply until 2055 - although some studies suggest as much as 205 GL.
In other words, if the existing "losses" from the GMID can be harvested, the system should be quite capable of meeting the additional needs of urban users in Ballarat, Bendigo and possibly Melbourne for the foreseeable future, as well as providing additional water for both the environment and production.
The proposal is to invest in a total refurbishment and re-configuration across the GMID to generate savings that would be divided up between urban, environmental and production components. The irrigation component could be owned by GMW on behalf of license holders and traded to offset some of the upgrading and maintenance costs. Likewise, the urban component could be purchased by urban water authorities to achieve further offsets.
Why this project is critical now:
A combination of influences has sharply accelerated demand for Goulburn water in recent years. Water trading has seen net trading of water from the Goulburn to the Murray system of 54 GL.
Managed Investment Schemes
This trade has been the driver for agricultural development along the Murray River from Swan Hill to the border on "greenfield" sites via Managed Investment Schemes. Such schemes are likely to continue, driven by the desire of superannuation funds to achieve agricultural exposure.
Typically, these ventures seek land parcels that are easy to assemble and develop. Project economics can justify the cost of creating water delivery infrastructure once the entitlement is purchased. However, they impose many hidden costs on local and state governments, such as the provision of transport infrastructure, education, health and community services along a narrow corridor.
"One-way" water trading
The Barmah Choke is a natural constraint which impedes water trading from the Murray Valley system (in both Victoria and New South Wales) to areas downstream of the choke for all purposes - environmental, urban use and production. It also prevents Victoria from using accumulated entitlements from the Murray system.
The current investigation of the feasibility of an inter-connector (the so-called "Bunna Walsh canal") between Yarrawonga and the Broken River is timely and important; such an inter-connector will mitigate the impact of the Barmah choke and consequent accelerating demands on the Goulburn system - presently the only real option for downstream developers as well as environmental needs such as those of the Hattah wetlands and, as we are seeing, other urban water authorities out of the catchment. An inter-connector would also alleviate the need to flood the Barmah wetlands unseasonally because of summer irrigation demand.
The need for re-configuration
The outdated configuration of the GMID provides a severe constraint on modern farming development in the region. Large-scale farming ventures confront a maze of criss-crossing channels and drains designed for very small holdings; water delivery is slow and inefficient. While all relevant supporting services are mostly adequate - and in most cases excellent - the obstacles provided by the system configuration are almost insurmountable.
It is important that any significant investment in refurbishment of the GMID is carried out in conjunction with the Yarrawonga inter-connector. It should also be planned in conjunction with proposals for piping water out of the system to other urban conurbations, so that the capacity of the system to enable flexible, two-way trading arrangements is designed in from the beginning.
The benefits such a project will provide are many:
Economic benefits include:
" its attraction to current and future irrigators, including large-scale ventures supported by investors from outside the region;
" further productivity gains flowing from the fast and efficient delivery of water;
" assisting the region to become highly competitive with NSW and SA as a destination for traded water, reversing the current trend;
" keeping the water in the GMID where processing facilities and community/service infrastructure is already very well developed.
In social terms, the project:
" allows urban communities to confidently meet the challenges of climate change and growth without diminishing regional communities in the process;
" whereas uncertainty currently undermines social values in regional communities, this project will build great confidence in the future;
" it provides Northern Victoria with long-term growth potential and employment opportunities, both in agriculture and in service industries.
The environmental benefits are not insignificant either:
" The project will provide additional water to meet Victoria's commitments to the Snowy and the Living Murray; and
" a reconfiguration of the channel and drainage system will further ameliorate negative impacts of irrigation, such as salinity and nutrient pollution, rising water tables and weed proliferation.
Future of the GMID
Although the logic of making more water available through more judicious use of it is unassailable, any significant investment must necessarily be weighed against other options for achieving similar results. This begs the question: what is the future of the GMID?
While its ageing water delivery infrastructure is presently impeding development, it should be remembered that, in terms of its regional GDP, its processing capacity, transport, communications, proximity to Melbourne and services support, the GMID dwarfs any other irrigation area in the state.
However, it would be highly desirable to accompany any significant investment project with a strategic review of the GMID, both from a top-down and bottom-up perspective. Having identified the GMID as one of three regions in Australia with huge development potential, the Global Foundation has been auspicing such a process (with substantial local involvement), which would gain considerable impetus as this project became a reality.
Consultation and community involvement
The project will require a committed and willing community to embrace it. Issues surrounding water are never more emotional than in times of scarcity and, for effective community ownership, it will be important to engage regional influencers and stakeholder groups.
A key stakeholder, of course, is Goulburn Murray Water, which has already investigated similar scenarios and embarked on various water-saving investments, including Total Channel Control (TCC.) From an irrigator perspective, the roll-out of TCC has not been widely welcomed and care will need to be taken in neutralizing negative perceptions, lest they flow on to any other water saving initiatives.
As part of developing TCC - and perhaps as a response to several years of low inflows - GMW has reduced service levels sharply, causing considerable frustration and anger among irrigators. The professed reason for this diminution of service has been to more effectively match service and supply, but the consequence has been to vastly exacerbate the shortcomings of ageing infrastructure. The attraction of the fast and efficient delivery of water enjoyed by downstream developers on greenfield sites has therefore become even more compelling.
A project of this magnitude and complexity requires sophisticated project management, augmented by strong community involvement. Obviously the expertise within existing water authorities is considerable, and we envisage a model whereby a project management body would necessarily have ready access to that expertise.
