ANY future water reductions should be shared equally, writes DANNY O'BRIEN

How would you feel in the following situation?

You built a house many years ago with the encouragement of the government and set up your family there.

Over time, neighbours moved in, some of them built houses and others put up apartment blocks.

Then one day the government comes along and says: "All this housing is damaging the local environment. We have to remove 30 per cent of the houses, but it's too hard to knock down apartments so they can stay".

Sound ridiculous?

Well a similar scenario is about to play out with water use in the Murray Darling Basin.

In the guide to the proposed plan released last year, the Murray Darling Basin Authority proposed cuts to water availability of between 22 and 29 per cent, but noted that the cuts would be 27 to 37 per cent if applied only to "water course diversions".

It was apparent that tackling water interception activities - such as farm dams and plantation forestry - was just too hard, so the MDBA has heaped an even bigger cut on irrigators.

In some areas the likely cuts will be more than 50 per cent.

The National Irrigators Council believes this is unacceptable.

We think all significant water use - including stock and domestic supplies - should be fully accounted for in water planning and any reductions shared equally.

We have adopted a policy principle that all these uses of water should be measured, licensed and require a water-access entitlement.

We appreciate this position throws up challenges for governments - such as how to estimate the impact of interception activities and the cost of metering stock and domestic supplies.

We also acknowledge this position has been fraught over the years and has caused division within and between many industry groups.

But a first step is getting the principle agreed.

We believe if you don't measure it you can't manage it.

The Basin Plan shows the impact of interception is significant.

The Murray Darling Basin Authority says it accounts for 20 per cent of water used in the basin.

So while it might be argued that small volumes of stock and domestic water or a couple of megalitres in a dam on a 2ha block out of town isn't worth counting, it all adds up.

We're already seeing hundreds of small dams being constructed as lifestyle blocks spring up around regional centres.

While some states have made progress on licensing these dams, there's not much point simply counting them if their number - and their impact - continues to grow.

The same goes for forestry plantations - their growth can't be allowed to continue uncapped.

Irrigators' water extractions are capped, so why shouldn't restrictions be placed on other uses of water?

The federal and state governments promised to tackle the interceptions issue in the National Water Initiative back in 2004.

But like so much of the NWI, there's been little progress with implementation.

The situation is unfair and illogical.

Would consumers accept a scenario in which some customers' use of gas or electricity was unmetered?

Of course not.

So why should water be any different?

  • Danny O'Brien is the chief executive of the National Irrigators Council.