Murray irrigators say too much politics in negotiations

With federal Water Minister Tanya Plibersek last week admitting it was not possible to achieve their goals by the mid-2024 deadline, and saying they would move the deadline, talk has been rife about what changes need to be made to the plan, with some worried it will mean more SA water sacrificed to meet the targets.

SA Murray Irrigators vice chair Richard Reedy said the decision to move the deadline was not surprising and had been on the cards since May last year.

"The eastern states needed to be held to account and the Coalition made the eastern states feel they would never be held to account," he said.

Each state was required to create water resource plans to work out how they would meet their goals by mid 2019, with just five of the 20 due from NSW accredited and operational and seven submitted and withdrawn.

Mr Reedy said the prospect of another few years before targets were reached was not the concern, but instead it was how those targets would be met.

"As (former SA Water Security Minister) Karlene Maywald said to me, it's taken us one hundred and something years to get where we are now, another three to four years doesn't matter as long as we get there," he said.

"But we've got to disband the politics."

Mr Reedy said SA had already met its obligations but with the plan still about 185 gigalitres short on its 605GL goal, the state's irrigators would likely have to share some of the responsibility for making up the deficit, potentially needing to find another 20gL.

He said this was the only logical outcome if the eastern states were to continue to "default badly".

"We do reckon, yes, there will be impacts to SA," he said.

He said the conversations needed to change on issues such as buybacks and on-farm efficiency projects.

"As one of the guys who spent years associated with farmers with on-farm efficiency programs - and a lot from SA and interstate were keen to set up on-farm efficiency projects - it has been sabotaged," he said.

"Then you have former Water Minister (Keith) Pitt say people aren't interested.

"There has been far too much politicking involved."

Mr Reedy says there also needed to be legislative changes to the Water Act, including to the clause that prevents any projects if they are deemed to have potential socio-economic harm to the local community.

"People have abused that clause to shut down any projects," he said.

Woods Point irrigator and dairyfarmer Steven Afford said there was a lot of negativity about buybacks but he did not see the problem.

"I've got a license and if people offered to buy my water they can have it - but they've got to pay," he said.

He said he knew of several former dairyfarmers in the area along the Murray swamps who had accepted buybacks and made changes to their operations.

"If it's not efficient, the water goes where it's more productive," he said.

Grain and livestock producer and irrigator Roger Thorley, Jervois, said it was not surprising the deadline had not been met.

He said South Australian farmers had paid a "heavy price" in the early days of the plan and "given up a fair bit".

"It's not about who's right or wrong, it's about what's best for the river system," he said. "If it's not doing the right thing by the river system, then you shouldn't be doing it."

He was concerned SA might again feel the extra pressure as there were "not enough votes" from SA farmers for them to have the influence of big irrigators upstream.