Irrigation subsidies are under scrutiny following a call from 12 water scientists and economists to scrap the publicly-funded schemes used in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
It was among three key steps outlined by the 12 scientists, including representatives from nine national universities, in a “declaration” released earlier this week.
One of the 12, University of Adelaide’s Centre for Global Food and Resources’ Sarah Wheeler said there needed to be a shift in the way the MDBP is approached.
“We’re five years into the plan and we need to ask: where are we, what are we achieving, what’s happening with the money we’ve spent and the water we’ve recovered?” she said.
Professor Wheeler said water recovery for the environment had been typically bought back or “clawed back” with up to 20 basin-wide upgraded infrastructure schemes. She said the latter was 2.5 times more expensive with some unseen environmental impacts such as reduced reflows back into groundwater.
“We’ve reached 77 per cent of water recovery targets but we’re not seeing the environmental and social outcomes we should be at this stage,” she said.
Instead Prof Wheeler said there were opportunities to spend the money more actively to achieve better social outcomes, such as education or mental health programs, bus services or even supporting local sport.
The declaration also called for an audit of all basin water recovery, costs and actual environmental outcomes.
“We need an audit to understand what is monitored and what needs to be changed,” she said.
Prof Wheeler said there was evidence in a MDB Authority report released last year that up to 75 per cent of all surface water diversions were unmetered in the northern basin.
The third call is for the establishment of an independent board, similar in function to the National Water Commission, which was disbanded in 2014.
“We need something with the power across states to monitor and judge the outcomes,” Prof Wheeler said.
Prof Wheeler said the group was not rejecting the MDBP or making a political statement.
“This is not walking away from the plan,” Prof Wheeler said. “I am a big promoter of the MDBP, but let’s look at the consequences and re-evaluate if this is the best pathway. This is a long-term plan but we should be seeing results – there hasn’t been an arrest to the long-term decline.”
National Farmers’ Federation chief executive officer Tony Maher was concerned about talk of removing on-farm activity funding
“This is where the evidence says there can be gains for the environment and farming communities so calling for a halt to those programs doesn’t fully appreciate the commitment from the farmers and communities,” he said.
“By all means, make sure that they’re working properly, but let’s not call for bans on programs for farmers and communities to recover water that will have an economic and environmental benefit.”
He also questioned the need for “another inquiry” on top of existing ones into areas such as compliance and alleged water theft and a “full inquiry” by the Productivity Commission this year.
MDBA CEO Phillip Glyde said the MDBP was working but a century of damage could not be repaired overnight.
“Claims that the plan’s investment in more modern and efficient water infrastructure is not delivering benefits for the environment are simply not true,” he said.
“It is simply not possible to repair 100 years of damage to such a vast river system overnight or even within five years.
“But we are seeing what we hoped for at this stage of the plan – good early signs that if we continue with the plan we will see significant, lasting and system-wide benefits.”