Custom Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Appendix-A--Transcripts-Of-Key-Informan 👈

1. CRAFTING COOPERATION
IN THE COMMONS
An Economic Analysis of Prospects for
Collaborative Environmental Governance
APPENDIX A: Transcripts of in-depth interviews
Graham Roy Marshall
B.Sc.Agr., Hons. (Syd); M.Ec. (N.E.)
School of Economics
Appendix to a thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy,
University of New England,
Armidale, Australia
May 2001.

2. ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................1
II. GLOSSARY.......................................................................................................................................... 3
III. TRANSCRIPTS OF IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS............................................................................... 4
1. Mr. Bill Anderson.......................................................................................................................5
2. Mr. Kelvin Baxter.....................................................................................................................22
3. Ms. Ros Chivers........................................................................................................................36
4. Mr. Ron Cullen.........................................................................................................................55
5. Mr. Bill Currans........................................................................................................................70
6. Ms. Kaye Dalton ......................................................................................................................73
7. Mr. David Harriss ....................................................................................................................86
8. Mr. Peter Jacob.......................................................................................................................102
9. Mr. Scott Keyworth ...............................................................................................................116
10. Mr. John Lacy .........................................................................................................................133
11. Mr. Daniel Liphuyzen............................................................................................................143
12. Mr. Warren Martin.................................................................................................................160
13. Mr. Tony McGlynn................................................................................................................206
14. Mr. Geoff McLeod.................................................................................................................232
15. Prof. Warren Musgrave .........................................................................................................244
16. Ms. Sandy Robinson..............................................................................................................261
17. Mr. Hans Schroo....................................................................................................................281
18. Mr. Andrew Sleigh .................................................................................................................294
19. Mr. Peter Stewart....................................................................................................................308
20. Mr. Paul Trevethan ................................................................................................................353

3. I. INTRODUCTION
Transcripts of in-depth interviews involved in the case-study qualitative research undertaken
for the thesis are presented in this appendix. The method of this research was discussed in
section 7.6 of the thesis. As explained in section 7.6.2, only the transcripts associated with
the second phase of interviews are reproduced in this appendix, and only then when the
informants gave their permission for this to occur. The second-phase interviews were
undertaken from July to September 1999. The complete list of second-phase informants and
their affiliations is presented in table 7.3 in the thesis. Of this list, permission was obtained to
reproduce transcripts for all informants except Berriquin Farmers 1, 2 and 3, Dr. Mike Curll,
and Ms. Sue Taylor.
As was also explained in section 7.6.2, informants were informed in advance only of the
broad reasons for wanting to interview them. They were not given advance notice of the
questions that would be asked. Hence it is quite possible that their recall of events was
sometimes inaccurate and that their opinions as expressed in the transcripts have since
changed.
The transcripts of the second-phase in-depth interviews are sequenced according to the
alphabetical order of informants’ surnames. The names and affiliations of the informants for
which transcripts are included in this appendix are presented in table A1. All the interviews
were recorded on audio tape. All were conducted face to face, except for the interview with
Mr. Paul Trevethan which was conducted by telephone. In all cases the researcher (coded
GM in the transcripts) did the interviewing.
In order to avoid tedious repetition, acronyms were inserted into the transcripts in
accordance with the glossary of acronyms presented in part II of this appendix. The
transcripts are then presented in section III.

4. Table A1: Key informants for whom the transcripts of their in-depth interviews are included in Appendix A
Key informant Affiliation when interviewed Other information
Mr. Bill Anderson
Mr. Kelvin Baxter
Ms. Ros Chivers
Mr. Ron Cullen
Mr. Bill Currans
Ms. Kaye Dalton
Mr. David Harriss
Mr. Peter Jacob
Mr. Scott Keyworth
Mr. John Lacy
Mr. Daniel Liphuyzen
Mr. Warren Martin
Mr. Tony McGlynn
Mr. Geoff McLeod
Prof. Warren Musgrave
Ms. Sandy Robinson
Mr. Hans Schroo
Mr. Andrew Sleigh
Mr. Peter Stewart
Mr. Paul Trevethan
Vice-Chairperson, Cadell CIG.
Director, Murray Irrigation.
DLWC, Sydney.
Director, Integrated Catchment Planning, DLWC, Sydney.
Executive Officer, Murray CMC.
DLWC, Deniliquin.
Regional Director, Murray Region, DLWC, Albury.
Consultant, Marsden-Jacob Associates, Melbourne.
Director, Natural Resources Projects, MDBC, Canberra.
District Agronomist, NSW Agriculture, Finley.
Chairperson, Denimein CIG.
Consultant, Sydney.
Director, Special Projects, DLWC, Sydney
Environmental Manager, Murray Irrigation.
Chairperson, LWMPAT.
Manager, Irrigation Regions Program, MDBC, Canberra.
DLWC, Sydney
Chairperson, Murray CMC.
Consultant, Molino Stewart Pty Ltd, Sydney.
Chairperson, SCMCC.
Farmer, East Cadell portion of Cadell LWMP District.
First Chairperson, Murray Irrigation. Farmer, Berriquin LWMP District.
Involved in LWMP implementation issues, especially funding.
Involved in LWMP implementation issues, especially funding.
Previously involved in the region’s LWMP program while employed with NSW Agriculture.
Previously Co-ordinator of the Murray CMC. Co-author of Guidelines for LWMPs.
Responsible for regional DLWC involvement in LWMP implementation issues.
Analysis of Berriquin LWMP economics and of institutional arrangements for LWMP implementation.
Previously a member of the Berriquin CWG.
Farmer, Denimein LWMP District.
Instrumental in establishing the CMR-LWMP program while Deputy Director of the DWR. Involved in
privatisation of the central-Murray region’s irrigation schemes and negotiation of the Heads of Agreement
while Director of Regions in the DLWC and a member of the Irrigation Reform Steering Committee.
Involved in privatisation of the central-Murray region’s irrigation schemes and community-government
negotiations over cost-sharing for the LWMPs. Previously a member of LWMPAT.
Previously co-ordinated NSW Agriculture’s technical input to the region’s LWMP program.
Previously involved in CMR-LWMP program funding while employed with Commonwealth Department
of Primary Industries and Energy.
Member of LWMPAT at time of interview. Involved in LWMP implementation issues.
Farmer, Berriquin LWMP District
Previously Project Co-ordinator for the CMR-LWMP program.
Previously Chairperson, Murray CMC. Farmer, central-Murray region (outside the LWMP Districts).

5. 3
II. GLOSSARY
CIG
CMC
CWG
DLWC
DWR
EIS
EPA
IRSC
LEP
LWMP
LWMPAT
MDBC
NHT
NSW
RAP
REP
SAP
SCMCC
SMEC
SRIDC
TCM
Community Implementation Group
Catchment Management Committee
Community Working Group
Department of Land and Water Conservation
Department of Water Resources
Environmental Impact Statement
Environment Protection Authority
Irrigation Reform Steering Committee
Local Environmental Plan
Land and Water Management Plan/Planning
Land and Water Management Planning Assessment Team
Murray-Darling Basin Commission
Natural Heritage Trust
New South Wales
Regional Advisory Panel
Regional Environmental Plan
State Assessment Panel
State Catchment Management Co-ordinating Committee
Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation
Southern Riverina Irrigation District Council
Total Catchment Management

6. 4
III. TRANSCRIPTS OF IN-DEPTH INTERVIEWS

7. 5
1. Mr. Bill Anderson
Interview date: 10th
September 1999
GM: Can you give me a brief account of the history of yourself and your family in this area,
and of what you do on your farm?
BA: I’m the fourth generation on this property. We go back over 100 years. On this
property we run sheep, prime lambs, and we grow wheat, canola, barley and oats.
GM: How big is the farm?
BA: The property is about 2,500 acres, or a bit over 1,000 hectares. Of that 700 acres would
be irrigated. We are part of an irrigation scheme that pumps out of the Murray River.
There’s 15 farms involved in the scheme. We lift the water in two lifts. It’s lifted out of
the river by about eight metres. Then we do a second lift, of about three metres, at
around two kilometres from the river.
GM: What’s the name of the scheme?
BA: Cadell Construction Joint Water Supply Incorporated.
GM: And it gets a bulk allocation?
BA: Yes. It’s got a bulk allocation from the river of 8,600 megalitres of general security
entitlement plus approximately 250 megalitres of high security entitlement which is for
stock and domestic use.
GM: What has been your involvement in the Murray Land and Water Management Planning
(LWMP) process?
BA: I was involved in it pretty well right from the start of the Cadell planning process.
Initially, I guess the Green Gully Landcare Group was the group that started things off.
I wasn’t involved in that. When it became apparent that the idea was to move toward a
LWMP, I became involved at that point. That’s because I was concerned about the
salinity problems that were starting to emerge in the Lower Green Gully area down
towards Bunnaloo. We appreciated that, even though we were far to the east of that
problem, we were part of a general area bounded by the Murray and the Edwards
Rivers. We appreciated that infiltration into the groundwater system from rainfall, and
to a lesser extent irrigation, was within that land mass and not restricted specifically to

8. 6
the Deniboota Irrigation District.
This was not a view that was held by everyone, I might add. There are still some
people today who hold the view that the east is not a contributor in the short term, but I
think there is a realisation now that even though our rainfall is only something like 350
millimetres a year, when you work that out in terms of the amount of water falling on
the area in a year, it’s well in excess of what is applied as irrigation water.
GM: Do you remember who took the lead in getting the Cadell process going?
BA: I think one would have to attribute the major lead role to Jamie Hearn. He was the one
who had the enthusiasm and put a tremendous amount of time and effort into getting
the process rolling. He was assisted by a lot of others. Another name that comes to
mind is Tim Gardiner. And Noel Graham became very heavily involved when he took
over from Jamie after the plan development had almost been completed. Jamie then
took on a role with Murray Irrigation as an implementation officer for the Cadell
LWMP.
GM: Do you recall how you became involved? Did you put yourself forward?
BA: Initially I almost volunteered to become involved because I felt there needed to be
representation from the eastern portion of Cadell. After I virtually volunteered there
were others who then made their services available, people like Rhyse Glen. Rhyse
was a major contributor from this area and he put a lot of work into it as well, as did
Terry Murphy from Hill Plain. They were two major contributors who come to mind.
GM: Had you had previous experience in the local irrigator groups or any of the other
groups?
BA: Actually I’d been involved in irrigation since I was 19. I became secretary of our water
scheme here when I was 19. From there I later became chairman of that organisation
and its representative to the Murray Shire Water Users which represented all the
irrigators in the eastern portion of the Murray Shire that pumped out of the river. And
from there I became chairman of that organisation eventually. I became a
representative on Murray Valley Water Diverters which I attended for many years.
Currently I’m the Chairman of Murray Valley Water Diverters and a member of the
New South Wales (NSW) Irrigators’ Council, and I’ve held that position for seven
years.

9. 7
GM: What area does Murray Valley Water Diverters cover, and what’s is its purpose?
BA: The Murray Valley Water Diverters’ Advisory Association, as it is officially called,
represents licensed diverters from Corowa in the east right down the river to where the
water comes in from the Darling. There are other organisations that represent the
Darling and the Lower Murray irrigators.
GM: What is its major role?
BA: The major role is to represent the wider interests of those irrigators. They are fairly
diverse interests. In West Corurgan there is quite a bit of spray irrigation near the river
and a lot of rice is grown in the northern portion of that scheme. In the Moira Irrigation
Scheme you’ve got a fairly diverse amount of industry involved in that. So they are the
two major private irrigation districts that we represent. And then there’s the joint
authorities and trusts and then the individual riparian pumpers who have allocations
ranging from five megalitres to 400 or 500 megalitres a year.
The interests are very diverse but naturally the main interests relate to water and in
particular, at the present time, the water reform process in NSW and its impact on
long-term availability of supply. Our major concern at the moment is property rights.
We can see that without a guaranteed property right, there’s a potential for the right
that we currently hold to be eroded over time. That’s a major concern.
GM: What has been the historical relationship, and the quality of that relationship, between
the Deniboota and the non-Deniboota parts of what is now called Cadell?
BA: Animosity would be the wrong word, but there has been a fair amount of feeling
between the two areas. When the Deniboota scheme was put in, the irrigation water
was brought to the property, and the articulation and distribution losses were borne by
the system, not by the individual. By that I mean that their allocation is given to them
on the property. When the private irrigation industry started to really gain momentum
in this area after the early 1950s, of course they had to apply for licenses. And those
licenses were granted at the river. That meant that the private schemes bear their
distribution loses. That caused some conflict.
There was also the matter of the capital required to get the water to the property. It
wasn’t brought to the property for us. We had to bear the cost of that ourselves. In
some instances that actually slowed down the development of these schemes. The
farmers had to spend a fair amount of money getting water to their farms from the

10. 8
river. That was in addition to developing their own properties for irrigation. So that
took time.
I guess the major developments in that area were in the 1960s. I think three or four
schemes went in at that time. There was the West Cadell Irrigation Trust which started
in 1959, our scheme which started in 1961, and the Moira Irrigation Scheme that
started up in the mid 1960s. There was a lot of money involved. So it did create a bit of
an “us and them” situation between Deniboota and the rest of us. I’d be lying if I didn’t
say there was some feeling. To a lesser extent that feeling still exists today with some
people, but not with everybody.
GM: Was the feeling against the Deniboota irrigators themselves, or against the
Government that was favouring them with rights and privileges that they weren’t
giving to the private irrigators in the east?
BA: That’s been exacerbated too by the fact that when Murray Irrigation privatised, they
were granted a 17 per cent additional water allocation to account for the losses between
Yarrawonga and their properties. So every shareholder within Murray Irrigation’s area
was granted an additional 17 per cent of water to cover those losses. They are still in
the same position that they were in prior to privatisation. They probably had a pretty
reasonable case to argue that they shouldn’t suffer by privatising, but there is still that
ongoing thought in the east that someone has to bear those distribution losses.
Given that water is becoming a far more valuable resource, the discrepancy in how
distribution losses are handled is more than ever before at the back of people’s minds.
Before full development took place, it was felt that there was plenty of water there for
everyone. But now that we’re faced with the water cap and all those other issues, it has
perhaps become more of an issue than it was originally. So there is still a bit of feeling
there. But I think the LWMP process has been good. No doubt Jamie and Noel have
told you that it has been a good process of bringing the area into one unit. We’re
viewing the whole of Murray Shire as one entity rather than sort of an entity that is
split in half.
GM: Can you take me a little bit through how that process did mend that feeling? Did you
go in there a little warily of how the process would go?
BA: From my point of view, it was a good experience because there were a lot of people in
the western section of the area that I didn’t know very well. I knew them visually but

11. 9
I’d never really spoken to them much and we didn’t have a common interest. We
weren’t in the same tennis club or whatever. I made a lot of good friends over the four
years of the plan development process. We had our ups and downs and there was
always that sort of friendly banter between the east and the west. But it was never a
conflict as such. It was something that we laughed about.
I would consider we’re the best of friends now. It’s been good for the area. Particularly
for the dryland people in the east, though, there is still a bit of feeling because they
don’t share a common irrigation interest with people in the west. But even some of
those people, who were not in favour of the LWMP at all and felt that it wasn’t their
problem, are now becoming quite involved. Naturally there is not as much in it for the
people in the dryland areas, because they can’t built dams for drainage recycling, or
whatever. But they’ve seen the benefit of the LWMP in terms of the help it has
provided for tree planting, getting lucerne seed, and those type of things.
The contribution from the east is based on the rateable value of land, whereas in the
west, which is Murray Irrigation’s area, the contribution is based on megalitres of
water entitlement. Now in the east the rateable value of irrigated land is probably about
twice that of dryland, so the eastern people with irrigated land contribute more than
those with dryland. In my view that has helped to overcome some of the problems
which would have occurred if there had been a flat sort of rate imposed on everyone on
a per hectare basis.
It’s been a slow process with the LWMP, but it speaks for itself that last year Cadell
spent twice what we’d budgeted for grants for on-farm measures recommended by the
LWMP. The rate of uptake of those measures has been far in excess of what we
originally anticipated. When the original funding application was put in we felt that
$600,000 a year would be adequate, but we’ve been completely embarrassed by the
speed in which uptake has gone on. A lot of that relates to storage dams and recycling
set-ups and those type of things  the big ticket items. But the encouraging thing has
been there has been such a growth in tree planting and all those type of things that
aren’t big ticket items but are nevertheless very important to the process.
There are still a lot of people out there who say that lucerne is very hard to grow and
longevity is a problem. We are looking at trials and ways of making available more
information on how to sustain lucerne stands and get them growing. There is definitely
a link between pH and the ability to grow lucerne. So we are looking at things like

12. 10
lime-coating seed and all those sort of issues to try and make the process a lot easier. I
mean there’s no doubt about it, in summer rainfall situations, where you’ve got nothing
growing in this country, all you grow is a plant which you call heliotrope, or blue
weed. I don’t know whether you’ve ever come across that. It’s a plant which is
disastrous for sheep because it’s very high in copper content and causes massive liver
damage. If sheep are exposed to too much of heliotrope in a big way, then it’s fatal. It
decimates your flock. You can loose anything up to 25 per cent of your flock. That’s
been one of the reasons why a lot of people have given up first-cross sheep in this area,
because their consumption is so much higher. Merinos can tolerate it because they
don’t consume as much. So lucerne is better than heliotrope  that’s my point.
GM: So the successful uptake of the LWMP’s on-farm measures has been pretty even across
the eastern and western parts of Cadell?
BA: In the big ticket things, it’s probably been higher in the western part amongst rice
growers. I think that’s more of an economic thing though. If you look at the industries
people are involved with in East Cadell, you are looking at prime lamb production,
first-cross ewe breeding and wheat, canola. I don’t have to tell you that those
enterprises haven’t been big winners lately. We are looking at reduced returns per
tonne and increased costs. Costs have increased at an alarming rate over the last ten
years. Whereas, in the rice industry, you’ve got a stable industry and  providing the
water is there, which could be a problem this year  there’s a good return per
megalitre.
The economic study that was done across the LWMP area as part of the plan
development process proves without a doubt that the Deniboota area in terms of
economic returns, per hectare or per megalitre or whatever way you like to look at it, is
far better off in terms of disposable income than East Cadell. So that’s been a factor. I
think you can’t isolate the economics of the farming unit from the uptake rate. One is
dependent on the other. But there has been great interest in East Cadell as well. There
have been some fairly exciting things happen in the last 12 months in particular. It’s
been a little bit slower happening here.
The other factor has been the availability of suitable storage sites. Because the soil
types are different. If you can’t grow rice, it’s pretty obvious that there is not a lot of
deep clays here in the east. Consequently the possibility of finding a suitable site for a
dam is far more difficult in the east. It’s possible, but they’ve been finding that the

13. 11
dams have to go in up the slope away from natural water courses because they tend to
be underlain by seams of sand.
That’s another thing we appreciate. You were saying about the differences between the
east and the west. This area in the east, with the exception of the Green Gully region
where you’ve got alluvial-type soils, is a recharge area because of the soil types. There
are small pockets of harder soils  if you go further east from where I am here there’s
an area there of probably 30,000 acres which is very hard country, which runs water
off like a billiard table. But in this area here we’ve got sandhills right through to what
we call ‘plainy’ country, and everything in between. It tends to be very variable. But if
you go 20 kilometres north of here, there’s a stream of country through there which is
just beautiful loam country. There’s thousands of acres of it and it’s probably the pick
of the area in terms of its ability to produce anything. But it’s also a very difficult area
to find suitable sites for a dam because of that.
GM: So does East Cadell, with its lighter soils, tend to be threatened with rising
watertables?
BA: We need to bear in mind that watertables have been rising right across the area. The
depth of watertable at any place tends to relate more to the geographic position rather
than how much water is going in. Because it all rises at the same rate. If you go up to
Mathoura you’ve got watertables 15 or 16 metres deep. And if you go down to
Bunnaloo they’ve hit the top. And the country slopes downwards dramatically from
east to west. It slopes around here at the rate of something like one metre per
kilometre. So it’s a pretty fair slope, and that’s reflected in the watertable area. Up at
Mathoura it might be down anything from 17 to 20 metres. Here the watertable is
down about six metres. Then if you go west another 25 kilometres the watertable is at
the surface. So it’s more geographic than anything else, I believe.
GM: So East Cadell is in general less immediately threatened by rising watertables. Why
then did East Cadell people get as involved in the LWMP process as they did? Was it a
goodwill thing, or a good neighbours thing? What did bring East Cadell into it so
enthusiastically?
BA: I can illustrate it this way. There is one particular guy I’m thinking of who, when the
LWMP was instigated, said “This is lunacy. We’re not threatened”. This particular
guy’s watertable would have been 13 metres below the surface. He had a family of

14. 12
girls and he was going to sell out anyway. So he said “This is absolutely lunacy to talk
about a plan. We’re not contributing to the problem, so I can’t see why we should have
to pay into it”. That was sort of when the LWMP was instigated. After we had started
to carry out the plan, that particular guy  he had lasered some country, put in a
drainage system and had done quite a few things  said “I think this Cadell plan is a
great idea”.
Now there were success stories like that. There still are people out there who are
saying “It’s not our problem”. And you will always get a percentage like that. It’s been
exciting to me to see people saying “Well, we’re involved now”. They are starting to
see that the whole of Cadell is a unit and that you don’t just draw a line across a map
and say “Well, it’s their problem”. But it was hard at the start. I think a lot of people at
the outset felt betrayed that we got involved.
GM: Did that take courage from your point of view in knowing there might be that feeling?
BA: Well, I wasn’t alone in the sense that the likes of Terry Murphy was one of the firmest
supporters of the LWMP. He lives up on Hill Plain which is probably the highest point
of the area. His watertable might be nearly 20 metres down. Terry had a university
education in agriculture, so he had a perception of what salinity was all about. That
was a great help. I didn’t have that theoretical training. I had only seen what had
happened in other areas.
One of the things that really fired the committee up was a trip to the Tragowal Plains
that we made in the early stages. We took as many on that trip as we could, to give
them an idea of what potentially could happen. And I see a lot of similarities between
Tragowal Plains’ soil types and some of the soil types that you see here. It was
frightening to drive through and see what they call their C class soils. They classified
their soils in terms of degree of salinity as A, B and C class. They still farm the A class
soils. The B class soils are pretty ordinary, and the C class soils are just salted out.
And it really astounded us. A lot of these guys had lasered their country to reverse the
salinity, but it was just so far gone that there was really no hope of it ever coming
back. They had lived with the problem for so long that it was like an insidious cancer
that had crept up on them. They didn’t really realise the problem was there until all of
a sudden they were horrified to realise that half of their farm had gone out of
production. Their production is dropping every year. That also is being illustrated in

15. 13
Western Australia where farmers have been saying for years “Oh well, we got a bit of
a salted pan in that gully. It’s really not all that much”, but have been horrified when
they’ve seen aerial photos showing just what percentage of their farm has gone out of
production. Obviously they’ve been keeping their production up by inputs on the better
soils, but the salinisation occurs so slowly. It doesn’t happen overnight.
We were horrified to think that could happen here, about the impact on the Shire’s
ability to keep the infrastructure going, and all those sort of things. So, yeah, that was a
great way at the start to get people fired up to do something. I remember they asked me
to make a comment during the bus trip on what I felt. I said “When you see this sort of
thing, it certainly stirs you up to do something because the potential is enormous for
destroying an area”. And so I guess that was a major thing. We would have liked to
have taken more people to see what could potentially happen. Because it was not that
far away and Tragowal Plains is an area that has been irrigated for longer than our
area. But they are still farming there, and I dip my lid to them. But it’s not a very nice
environment to live in.
GM: You said that there was a feeling of betrayal when some of the leaders such as yourself
got involved with the West. How did it move on from there?
BA: I think because we had regular meetings in the area. Some of the earlier meetings were
fairly hostile. One of the most interesting things was that most of the people who came
to represent local government on the Community Working Group (CWG)  we tried to
involve local government right from the outset in the planning process so they’d
become part of it, and we tried to impress upon them the potential for the problems
which could be created for them if an area went out of production  were quite
enthusiastic. We had a few that were less enthusiastic, but I think we are winning them
around. The Murray Shire has been very supportive of the whole process because
we’ve had them involved. We had a real problem trying to work out how we were
going to organise a funding stream for East Cadell. Murray Irrigation obviously had
the set-up to do it for West Cadell, in other words for Deniboota. It had the ability to
levy irrigators and all those sort of things. In East Cadell we had the Murray Shire
Licensed Water Users’ Association to represent the irrigation portion, but we’ve had
no entity for the dryland portion.
You need to remember that the irrigated percentage per farm is, in general, not all that
great, even for irrigated farms in the east, in terms of the proportion of total farm area.

16. 14
As I said to you earlier, we’ve got 700 acres irrigated out of 2,500 acres. So that gives
you some idea. Averages are dangerous things, I know, but probably of those irrigated
farms within the private schemes, on average 20 per cent of their total areas would be
irrigated. So we basically have got a big dryland component on all our farms, but I’m
talking about the people that are right outside the private schemes.
GM: One person I’ve interviewed over in West Cadell thought that one of the reasons why
the feeling was mended between east and west was that there was kind of a
generational change of leadership over there, at least in terms of the people from there
who got directly involved in the Cadell LWMP process. It was like they had taken over
from their fathers who previously had been involved in the irrigation politics and stuff
like that. He thought that perhaps the younger generation of leaders in West Cadell
brought less of the baggage along with them that had previously been causing some of
the feeling between the areas now known as East Cadell and West Cadell. Is that how
it looked from your side?
BA: I think that’s a fairly valid point. I think the representation from Deniboota, or West
Cadell, tended to be the younger generation, the likes of Jamie Hearn, Noel Graham,
Andrew McConnel. Those sort of guys were younger than we were. And, yes, I think
that was a contributing factor. That’s because the people from West Cadell that were
involved in the LWMP process were those who could see the problem emerging and
were very concerned about doing something about it. The older generation perhaps
didn’t really think of the consequences of their actions in terms of allowing large
volumes of water to go into depressions and water courses where it would disappear. I
guess the most valid way of putting it is that “Anything that goes down will come up to
haunt you later”. It’s not a case of what goes up must come down. In terms of water,
anything that goes down will come back up. That’s because in the Murray-Darling
Basin the groundwater has got nowhere else to go.
That was a major thing, there is no doubt about that. They were a different group of
guys, and were involved in it. They were there because they wanted to be involved, not
because anyone pushed them into it. They were the people who saw the problem and
wanted to do something about it. And I think for the first time ever they saw the
possibility that those outside the area, who really weren’t involved in the area, were
keen to supply finance and expertise to do something about it. I mean we all felt fairly
powerless. It’s an enormous problem and we’re still learning. Probably with some of

17. 15
the things we’ve recommended and some of the things we’re doing, another generation
might say we could have done better.
The thing that annoys me a little about those who have a lot to say on the issue, and
who aren’t personally involved, is that they say “Farmers are totally to blame for the
problem”. It’s only because of the knowledge which we now have that we can say that.
And a lot of the things that we’ve done were done with the full blessing of those in
power. A lot of people say “You’ve cleared the landscape. It was ludicrous to do that”.
But part of the conditions of closer settlement were that people clear a minimum area
of their land in a given time, build a house and all the rest of it. So some of the
problems we currently have got are the result of Government imposts on us. And
possibly, too, some of the problems that we’ve got, if you look at the likes of
Coleambally, are a result of decisions that were made by Government itself.
Closer settlement took place in the Coleambally region, then within 20 years they had
an enormous watertable problem. A lot of that was brought about because the
Government allowed far too high a concentration of water on a given area. I was
horrified when I went up there back in the 1960s to visit a guy I knew who had drawn
a block up there and saw that he had contour banks in what appeared to be fairly sandy
country. I was horrified to see that happening. And here we are now 30 years or so
later and I see what I now see. So you can’t rewrite what has happened in the past.
You’ve got to go on from here. I guess that’s the point I’m trying to make. No doubt
we all make mistakes, but we use the best information available to us at the time.
GM: So did that kind of generational change of leadership in Deniboota make you and
others in East Cadell more optimistic that the LWMP process would work?
BA: One of the things that we realised was that a lot of these guys had problems emerging
on their farms. We were conscious of this, and we put ourselves in their position and
said “How would we like an area of our farm to be completely out of production?”. We
sort of felt for them. And we could see it was very difficult for them because they were
trying at all costs not to put their own personal problems ahead of the whole regional
problem. That’s something that’s really come through in the whole process. At no
stage did they say “We are involved in this because of our own problem”. They were
looking at the whole region and not their own farm. I think that was another factor.
Some of those guys had real problems, and still have ongoing problems. They were
trying to do all they could on their own place, but they realised that there were other

18. 16
pressures involved. I mean you can try and fix the watertable problem at a discharge
point, but if you can’t reduce the recharge then it becomes futile.
GM: To what extent through this LWMP process has there been a greater sense of
community created across the Deniboota and non-Deniboota parts of Cadell. Would
that greater sense of community be mainly between the people, like yourself, who got
directly involved in the committee work and all that, or has that community effect
spread out further than that?
BA: I think it’s gone beyond that point. I think it might have started off that way, but
there’s been little pockets of enthusiasm growing up all over the place. And that’s been
pushed by the younger generation.
GM: In East Cadell as well?
BA: Yes, I think so. I guess you could illustrate it this way. When I became involved in the
LWMP process, my own father said “Oh, you’re going green”. I think that epitomised
what happened. Like there was a great antagonism towards greens. And I guess there
still is. And on the CWG we are still concerned that there are those out there who are
extremists, who really don’t get their mind around the issues. They try to meddle in our
affairs without really being constructive in what they say. They tend to be very
negative. They don’t try to put forward positive suggestions that are economically
viable and realistic.
But, yeah, it’s a generational thing right across the area. I would say that the young
guys under 25 are the ones that are pushing the process. And we are very fortunate in
this area that we haven’t got quite the problem of some other areas where the farm
managers’ ages are increasing at an alarming rate. I can think of numerous farms in
this area where there are young guys ready to come home to get on with it. That’s
good. It’s great for the area because younger people are more conversant with the
issues that we are facing, both environmentally and agronomically.
GM: From what you are saying, not only does salinity creep up on you, so does becoming
green.
BA: I think it does, yes.
GM: Out of just practical learning and experiences?
BA: Yes. I guess I was fortunate in that I grew up in a family where my mother in particular

19. 17
was always keen on planting trees. This whole area was fairly devoid of trees. We’ve
got a long way to go in planting them back, and it’s a slow process. We’ve got a long
way to go. They came down slowly and they’ll go back slowly. I mean the returns on
trees are marginal, so you’ve got to be realistic as to where you put them. You put
them where the recharge is happening.
GM: I think that just about does it unless you’ve got any issues that I have not really
covered very well or at all?
BA: I think the main point is that we now view this whole area as a unit. And I guess that
can be illustrated by the fact that when we started out we had an East Cadell group that
used to meet separately. Whereas we now have a CWG that meets as a whole, with
representations from the Shire and from Murray Irrigation.
I guess you’ve had it explained to you the way the process works in terms of the
funding coming to Murray Irrigation. The administration costs that are raised in East
Cadell are handed on to Murray Irrigation who has the responsibility of managing the
ongoing process. Murray Irrigation is accountable to the Shire. And the Shire has been
very supportive of us in terms of going to the Minister and getting approval to levy
farms across the region using the local government rating process. And they’ve got an
umbrella consideration and concern right across the Shire, because West Cadell is still
part of the Shire.
When it comes to the local government approval processes for dams and that type of
thing, they’ve been very genuinely supportive  bearing in mind that they do have a
responsibility to make sure that the development that takes place is good for the Shire.
In other areas there have been problems with local governments that haven’t been
brought on-board to the same extent. So when it has come to getting approval from
those local governments, there have been problems. But we haven’t experienced those
problems as much here because they’ve been involved.
GM: They understand better why you’ve made a decision?
BA: I guess that the hardest thing for me as Chairman of the East Cadell portion of the
LWMP process  I’m Vice-Chairman of the whole thing at the moment  was getting
the Shire Manager on-board in order to get the Shire’s approval to put the Shire’s
funding stream in place. He was concerned about aspects of how it would work, how
much extra effort it would place on his staff, and those types of things. But I think

20. 18
they’ve come to the best arrangement possible, and they still maintain an
implementation role for East Cadell. I think they’re quite happy to do that.
GM: You said you formed an East Cadell land and water planning kind of group before you
became involved in the Cadell CWG?
BA: No. That was actually later. When it came to getting representation on the Cadell CIG,
we had to have representatives from the area. Previously we’d been sort of volunteers.
We didn’t as such have total community support because we hadn’t been voted there.
We had sort of volunteered to get involved in the process. We felt that for
implementation of the LWMP it was far more important that we had people that the
community had confidence in and were prepared to support. So we had an election
process. Nominations were put forward.
GM: That was for the East Cadell group?
BA: Yes. We had a public meeting where those of us that are currently on the committee 
Rhyse Glen, Reg Eddy and myself  were nominated to the committee. The Deniboota
landholders had their own meeting and nominated their representatives. Those of us
that are currently involved in the implementation process have the support of the
community because we were voted there. We can be voted off too if they are not happy
with what’s going on, and that’s fair enough.
That’s the way it should be. Rhyse Glen has intimated to us that he wishes to retire
from the committee, so there will be an election, and nominations will be sought to
replace Rhyse. He sort of felt that it has to be a slow progression. Eventually we would
have to drop off and let younger people take the job over, because they’ve shown such
support. And we want it to be an ongoing process. I mean it’s a 30 year plan with a 15
year implementation process. So we want it to go on. And the younger ones obviously
are the ones we want there. By the time they are our age, they would have put a lot of
years into it. And they tend to have the good ideas.
GM: Does the East Cadell group just function to organise votes for representatives, or does
it have an ongoing role within the Cadell CIG?
BA: The Shire took over the implementation for East Cadell, so we in a sense became a
subcommittee of the Shire, advising it regarding the implementation process. Now that
the Shire is represented on the CIG, we meet there as a group with the Deniboota

21. 19
representatives. I guess if there ever comes a need to have further discussions with the
Shire, as against sort of levy setting and what have you for East Cadell, then we might
meet on an ad hoc basis. But it was becoming counterproductive. We were having two
meetings where the same kind of information had to be disseminated. We’d have a
joint meeting and then we’d have an East Cadell meeting. It was just duplication. It’s
been a progression. I mean these things happen over time. They don’t just happen
overnight.
It’s exciting to look at what’s happening in the other LWMP areas as well, right across
the Murray region. They are all very different. At Berriquin you’ve got what I would
call basically a drainage plan with other things added to it. In Denimein you’ve got a
slightly different set-up where wholefarm plans, and those sorts of things, were the big
issue. In Wakool you’ve got another situation. So they’re all very different. But they’re
all complementary to one another. And I think that was the best part about it 
everyone went into the planning at the one time.
Something we haven’t touched on was the associations built through the planning
process with people involved in the other LWMPs. I’ve now got a lot of friends in
Berriquin and Wakool and all over the place as a result of that. It’s been great to form
those friendships with people right across the region, and not just in our own area.
GM: How did that contact with others actually come about?
BA: There were issues that were shared by all the LWMPs. We’d meet and thrash those
issues out. They were fairly regular meetings. It was an enormous commitment in
terms of man-hours and fuel. At that stage of the planning process, I was doing
something like 24,000 kilometres a year, which is probably about double what I’d
normally cover. It’s been a big commitment on behalf of everyone, particularly for the
likes of Jamie Hearn who went to more meetings than I did. They had a lot more
regional meetings of chairmen of the CWGs. I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to what it
cost Jamie. It would have been an enormous amount of money, personally, out of his
own pocket, to do that.
I’ve got the greatest respect for Jamie because he not only was involved in the
planning process but then he got involved in the implementation process as well. It was
largely as a result of Jamie’s enthusiasm and commitment that implementation of the
LWMP has gone as far as it has inside the first three years. Now he’s gone back to his
farm, and I wish him well. I think Jamie has always been a farmer at heart, so being

22. 20
involved in a bureaucratic process wasn’t exactly his scene. But with the practical
advice to farmers that he gave, and the enthusiasm that he presented to people, there’s
not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that he was instrumental in getting the LWMP up
and going. Probably he was one of the greatest things in building bridges between East
and West Cadell. Because he came from West Cadell, from Deniboota, but he showed
an equal concern for those who lived in East Cadell. So that is one single issue that’s
been very important.
GM: So you had to work pretty hard to get Murray Shire to come on-board to help you
implement the East Cadell part of the LWMP?
BA: We never really worked hard to get them involved. The Council was keen to get
involved. It was just the administrative side of it. We came up against a lot of brick
walls when it came to trying to find a vehicle for implementing the LWMP in East
Cadell. We looked at catchment management authorities, and all sorts of things, to try
and come up with a vehicle that was suitable. And I think now that we’ve got our own
local government council to agree on a rating base, it’s something that can be
duplicated in say the Upper Hume area where they are looking at a LWMP process for
their areas where they’ve got dryland salinity problems and what have you. They’ve
seen that local government area can have the power to do that. They can take our area
as an example, because a precedent has now been created. As you know, it takes a lot
to get these precedent-setting things when you’re dealing with bureaucratic processes.
Nobody is prepared to make a decision for fear of creating a precedent for the future.
GM: Did that precedent involve just a Murray Shire Council decision, or did it have to get
approval from the Department of Local Government?
BA: They had to go through the Department of Local Government. Eventually it had to
have the Minister for Local Government okay it. So they put a lot of work into it. And
full credit to Greg Murdoch who put a lot of work into making it happen.
GM: So having got that far, the next step was for Murray Shire to delegate its
implementation responsibilities to Murray Irrigation?
BA: Yes.
GM: That must have made a few East Cadell irrigators nervous I would have thought?
BA: It’s interesting, because I thought it would have. But the fact that people receive

23. 21
cheques for LWMP grants or whatever with Murray Irrigation’s name at the top of
them doesn’t seem to worry people. As long as they are getting paid, they don’t worry.
But I do understand what you are saying. I personally felt that it may have caused
problems. I guess the lack of such problems indicates how things have moved on in the
last five or six years. It’s happened without a lot of turmoil. Murray Irrigation now has
a legally binding agreement with Murray Shire that specifies what their respective
roles are. So it’s all clearly documented. It’s not something that’s ad hoc and just
happened. Obviously, if you are doing it, it’s got to be done right.
GM: Was the lack of East Cadell’s concern about the role of Murray Irrigation partly
because Jamie Hearn, who people in the east had come to know to some extent, had
become a person in Murray Irrigation with some influence over how Murray Irrigation
delivered on its agreement with Murray Shire?
BA: I think it did. But I guess Jamie was always part of Murray Irrigation because he was a
farmer within Murray Irrigation’s area. So that didn’t really sort of stand out. It was
just assumed that would happen, that he would work out of Murray Irrigation’s offices.
To be totally and absolutely honest, there still are people out there worried about
Murray Irrigation becoming involved in East Cadell’s affairs, and there will probably
always be a percentage like that.
End of interview.

24. 22
2. Mr. Kelvin Baxter
Interview date: 7th
September 1999
GM: What has been your involvement in the Murray LWMP process? When did your
involvement start and are you still involved?
KB: My involvement was a result of my membership of the Murray Irrigation Management
Board, which was an Advisory Board under Section 17 of the Water Act. That was the
group that negotiated the privatisation of the former Government-owned irrigation
systems into a private corporation owned by the irrigators and known as Murray
Irrigation. Through the privatisation process various arrangements were made with the
Government. Various conditions were imposed on the irrigators taking control of the
water supply license. The licenses issued were a supply license, an operating license
and a pollution license. The last of those was the first ever to be issued by the EPA.
And a due diligence study identified the need for us to have a LWMP in place to
ensure that we cope as best we can with the conditions of the Pollution Control License
and our Operating License.
One of the deals related to the separation from Government was that in 15 years time,
at the expiry of the first Pollution Control License, an EIS would be conducted for the
irrigation districts. Some of the environmental groups wanted to have that EIS before
we first started. But we were given 15 years out. That’s counting down now. It would
be ten or 11 years out from now. That EIS will determine whether the Pollution
Control License is allowed to roll over. From that point of view, it was very much in
the interests of the Directors of Murray Irrigation to see that good practices are being
carried out. And we were well aware of the problems of rising watertables and salinity.
I’ve got to say that the Government were one of the driving forces. They had LWMP
funding to provide incentive for a move to more efficient practices in order to achieve a
water balance.
So my involvement was on the one hand as a Director of Murray Irrigation. I was
actually Chairman of the Advisory Group and I went on to become the first Chairman
of Murray Irrigation. I was well aware of the responsibilities that we were taking on, so
I wanted to make sure we had the LWMPs up. I was involved in the final negotiation
with the LWMP Working Groups over what would be the best implementing authority.

25. 23
I had a very clear view that Murray Irrigation would have to be the implementing
authority given what I was just taking about. It would have been a fairly tenuous
situation just to have someone else implementing the LWMPs when Murray
Irrigation’s future depended on how well they did it.
At the other end of the scale, I was also involved by owning and operating several
irrigation holdings. In that capacity I was involved in our local CWG, trying to work
out what was best for the Berriquin plan. There were four LWMPs across the region. I
was involved on a personal basis in the Berriquin plan and attended a number of CWG
meetings. I wasn’t actually officially a member. I was sort of ex-officio on the CWG as
a result of being a Director representing Berriquin on the Board of Murray Irrigation.
GM: Did you manage to get to many of the local meetings that the Berriquin CWG put on?
KB: Certainly. Probably every one of them.
GM: What is your recollection of how the separation or privatisation process in the Murray
region proceeded?
KB: For both the LWMP process and the privatisation process I was both negotiating with
my fellow landholders and with the Government to pitch a deal that I thought suited
the shareholders of Murray Irrigation. I spent seven or eight years of my life, for two
or three days a week, away from this farm working on those processes. We went
through what sort of company it would be, whether it would be a company
cooperative, how the share structure would be handled, and what the funding
arrangements with Government would need to be for us to take it over, and so on.
We were looking at taking over a scheme that was still regulated with drop boards.
New technology just hadn’t been taken up at all. The Government was still running the
scheme as in 1938 when it was first built. We saw the need for change in the way the
scheme was operated. It was a very labour-intensive scheme. That suited Government
at the time. It was a shocking example of a government trading enterprise really.
I mean we run it all now with half the staff. There’s now no drop boards used at all in
the regulators along the Mulwala Canal. They all use gated structures that can be
controlled from the office in Deniliquin. It’s a canal that can run up to 10,000
megalitres a day, and there were 19 regulators between Yarrawonga and Deniliquin.
Each of those had checks up to 16 bays wide and each of those had boards. Each board
held about 25 megalitres of water. So for every regulator they wanted to alter the

26. 24
flow by 1,000 megalitres they would have to pull in or pull out 40 boards, and do that
at 19 locations. If we want to alter the flow in the canal by 2,000 megalitres from one
day to the next, you can see the enormity of the task.
You know, we’ve installed the new gated system for $3 million or $4 million. And the
Government was telling us that each regulator would cost $1 million to replace. Now
it’s all been done with the Government funding provided as part of the privatisation
agreement. Actually it’s mostly been necessary in order to comply with Occupational
Health and Safety regulations. It was a dangerous job pulling and pushing all those
boards every day, and some of them were running in fast-flowing water. Certainly the
Government provided the funding. But we weren’t going to move until we got that sort
of funding because the due diligence study told us that there was too many risks out
there in the field. I’ve been very satisfied with a lot of the parts of the privatisation.
GM: I gather there had been a fairly long history of poor relations between irrigators and the
various government agencies responsible for water resources over the years?
KB: Yes.
GM: You seem to be suggesting that part of the reason for that was that the irrigators had
ideas of how the system could be run more efficiently but they weren’t listened to.
KB: That’s right. I mean it was very much an employment agency. For instance, 100 men
started work every morning here in Finley, in the maintenance area alone. There
wouldn’t be 15 or 20 now. I mean that’s a loss for the town of Finley in some ways,
but it spells viability for irrigators. In any case the community won’t remain viable
unless the irrigators do. Irrigator viability is more important for the town than the
number of Government staff located there. I can order water on the phone now,
whereas in previous years there was a mail run. You would order water for the next
day by putting a note in a box up on the road for the water bailiff to pick up. Blind
Freddy could see that there was going to be a push towards greater water efficiency,
and that starts with the distribution network.
GM: Was there also a weakness in the way that the irrigation system had been policed? My
impression is that many bailiffs were reluctant to strictly enforce the rules. They still
had to be able to live in the town.
KB: Yes, that’s right. I think those days are generally gone. The new technology has great
advantages in it. In some ways it has weakened the personal relationship between

27. 25
the channel attendant and the farmer. I can now order my water from my office.
There’s no need to talk to the channel attendant. He just comes and does it. I don’t
even need to know who the channel attendant is any more. So those little cosy
relationships that developed are probably no longer there. That makes it better for
everybody. And I’ll tell you one thing that’s happened, of course. And it’s important.
Now that farmers own the system, they are more likely to take action against fellow
farmers than they were before. Previously it was seen as the Government’s water, and
it was a bit of a sport trying to rip the Government off. But when it’s your own system,
then they are ripping you off.
GM: Does that happen much?
KB: Oh, yes it does. Yes.
GM: What was the regional community’s position regarding privatisation? Was it
unanimous? Was there much local disagreement?
KB: Nothing’s ever unanimous. We had our objectives. A lot of the ones that were
objecting were spending too much time talking to the blokes in the Murrumbidgee
Irrigation Area (MIA) and getting the facts mixed up. We were a much easier
proposition to privatise than was the case in the MIA. Our assets were in much better
condition. There were a few people that had a fundamental opposition to privatisation.
It wouldn’t matter for them what was being privatised, they wouldn’t want it to be
done. We held many public meetings and we didn’t proceed until we had a very clear
majority of irrigators. We had a vote. The result was very nearly unanimous in favour
of privatising.
GM: I imagine there was a trade-off between independently running your own affairs and
getting those efficiencies, and the risk of being responsible for your own fate, not
knowing what the future will bring in terms of rice and other commodity prices,
government policies, and so on.
KB: Sure. I sensed a degree of inevitability about it though. Governments generally were
getting out of trading enterprises. And they had a real dilemma in the DLWC, or DWR
as it was known at that stage, because it was both the scheme operator and the
regulator. That was a hard act to play. They wanted to retreat to just being the
regulator. That might itself have been a bit of threat to us. As long as they stayed the
operator, I suppose they were easier to get compromises from. But all the way through

28. 26
it looked like privatisation would happen sooner or later. So I was just asking myself
“Is this the right time? Is the deal good enough?”.
The Murrumbidgee reckoned the deal wasn’t good enough at the time and they held
out for another few years. Now they’ve basically done a deal. Frankly, I’m glad we
moved when we did. With the Labor Government now in, we would not now have
flexibility that we had to move our workforce to a contract basis. That was clearly one
of my aims. There’s no doubt about that. The MIA have stayed with a day-labour
force. Many of our old day-labourers are now either still working for us on a contract
basis or for the contractor that is working for us, That’s added a real discipline to it.
GM: You had the choice of full privatisation versus the corporatisation option. What
influenced you to “go the whole hog” so to speak?
KB: I suppose we didn’t see many benefits in the half-way house. With the corporatisation
model, the Government would have been a shareholder. The Board of Directors would
not then be truly representative of the irrigators. We thought about it, but it wasn’t in
the culture of the irrigators down here. They’d had a fair record of blues with the
Government over water pricing, work practices and the rest of it.
Corporatisation would have only remodeled what we already had into something that
looked like a business entity with more commercial drive. If that was all we could have
achieved, I would have gone that path. But we had the opportunity of autonomy. I was
confident that autonomy would give the best result for the irrigation districts, by
allowing us to take responsibility for it and develop it towards a more efficient scheme.
Nothing has changed my mind since then. It’s been playing out for a few years now
and I am as confident as ever that we made the right decision. I suppose it’s just what
you believe. One concern regarding corporatisation related to how we could establish
financial reserves that would be safe from being taken back by Government. It’s hard
to value it, but there’s a very considerable infrastructure out there that will need
wholesale modification and replacement at a certain stage. We’ve moved to update
some of those infrastructure assets already.
But the Government didn’t have any reserves for asset replacement. There was no asset
refurbishment program really. One of the key points in our business plan was to create
a fund to set aside reserves, in order to build up an asset renewal fund. And I thought
that the only way we could quarantine that from Government was to become

29. 27
completely private. Now we are trying to quarantine it from the Tax Office. That’s
another challenge that we are working on pretty solidly at the moment.
GM: Has that antagonism between the Government and the irrigators been lessened as a
result of the LWMP partnership processes and the negotiations over privatisation?
Have better relationships been built, or is it just a case now that you don’t need to deal
with the Government so much?
KB: It’s a bit of both. It was a pretty trying time for both the irrigator and Government
representatives during that privatisation process. A lot of people felt threatened.
Whenever change is on, it’s not good for morale. People go retreating into their
corners. But there were certainly people within the DWR that understood very clearly
what the Minister wanted to do. They went out and worked with us to do it. I would
say that, whilst we have far fewer dealings with the DLWC, our relationships are now
very clear cut. Everyone knows their responsibilities.
I would say that, in the main, the antagonism is gone, and the frustration is gone.
Everyone knows that DLWC is the regulator. They set the policy. And they don’t have
responsibility for some of the things that they used to. I was talking to Peter Stewart
yesterday. He asked me how would we would change the LWMPs if we did it over. I
answered “I suppose we’d give more recognition to biodiversity and ESD”. His words
were “Those words weren’t around five years ago Kelvin, were they?”. Okay, so you
go with the flow a bit. I mean, I understand the principals of both of those, and we’ve
got to move to accommodate them where we can.
GM: When did you and the Irrigation Management Board become aware of the LWMPs
being connected to, or necessary for, the privatisation? How far had the privatisation
process gone?
KB: I have to test my memory now Graham. I certainly remember them both coming along
together and being very comfortable with that process. There is not a LWMP up yet in
the MIA, as I understand it, yet Murrumbidgee Irrigation is in existence. Well, the
Advisory Board for the Murray was first formed in 1987, and it was given more
powers in 1989. I’m sure it was 1995 when NSW moved to fixed four-year terms for
Parliament. We sort of knew we were heading for March 1995 in negotiating with the
then current government. We knew with some urgency that we should try and have
both the privatisation and the LWMPs negotiated before that election or it would

30. 28
probably take another four years. And that’s exactly what happened up there. I’m still
not sure to this day just how conditional one was on the other. I mean I think that we
certainly wanted the privatisation process to go ahead. As long as we working on the
LWMPs, I think it would have been fine.
GM: How did the Management Board resolve the decision about which body should
implement the LWMPs?
KB: It was finally decided in the Murray Irrigation Boardroom one day when we got a
facilitator in and shut the door and said “We’ve got to work this out”. There was no
doubt that the four individual CWGs developed a fair bit of ownership of what they
were doing and desired to be themselves responsible for implementing the LWMPs. It
was like “It’s our plan and we’ll implement it ourselves, thank you very much”.
But they would never have been incorporated bodies, and that would have presented
problems with managing the Government funds and so forth. And Murray Irrigation
was going to be the entity that held the Supply Licence, the Operating Licence and the
Pollution Control Licence. And a condition of those licences was successful
implementation of the LWMPs. It’s not that we didn’t trust those blokes, but we
reckoned we’d need to have our foot on it. So a reasonably tense situation developed
between the Advisory Board and the CWGs. But it was resolved in a commonsense
way. It was explained to some of them what the responsibilities would entail and that
they may as well become Directors of Murray Irrigation. It wasn’t as simple as that,
but ...
The hardest one of the lot was the Cadell LWMP which covered both a part of Murray
Irrigation’s area of operation as well as other areas including the Moira irrigation
scheme and a few private pumpers along there. The area outside Murray Irrigation’s
area of operations, known as East Cadell, we were also keen to implement that part of
the LWMP. But the East Cadell people wanted the Murray Shire to implement its
LWMP. Then a deal was struck under which we would act as the agent for the Murray
Shire in implementing the plan.
People took that all the wrong way too. And we nearly got run out of town there one
day by people reckoning that Murray Irrigation was trying to take over irrigation areas
outside its own area of operation. We were only trying to get a commonsense
arrangement going really. If you follow that process through, it was pretty logical that

31. 29
Murray Irrigation should have done that.
But that was resolved and we ended up with the LWMPs all under the control of
Murray Irrigation. And I say that only in an institutional sort of way. The framework
still gave the CIGs plenty of room for local autonomy regarding local decisions about
what was best for their area and their plans. Under the framework Murray Irrigation
were responsible for the CIGs’ actions. We had to ensure that what they did in their
plan areas was in the best interests of us complying with our licences. Provided our
aims were being satisfied there, they were, and still are, given a lot of latitude in how
they implement the broad objectives of the LWMPs. You know, achieving a water
balance and so forth.
GM: To what extent have the LWMP processes been beneficial in terms of bringing forward
a new generation of local farming leaders?
KB: Peter Stewart made that comment yesterday, that one of things that gave him a fair bit
of pleasure  I think he has a teaching background somewhere  was to see people
who’d developed skills in leadership. The acid was put right on them. There was
someone needed to lead each locality group, so the CWG members were asked “Which
one of you blokes is going to lead this show?”. And they’d all sort of look at the
ground and look the other way. It was good. Some of them have gone on to develop
those skills, others have retreated.
GM: How well are the implementation arrangements working? You just outlined how you
got Murray Irrigation responsible in an overall sense, but how did the relationships
between it and the four LWMP CIGs work?
KB: I think it went very well. The implementation arrangements, I think, are working well.
Geoff McLeod and his team at Murray Irrigation deserve praise for the way they are
coordinating the plans and keeping the CIGs going. Geoff McLeod is a great asset to
Murray Irrigation in my view, and we’ve also had some pretty good group
coordinators and staff. I wouldn’t have liked to see it go any other way at the time, and
I don’t think you could do it any better now. I think there is now an undisputed
acceptance of the process.
GM: To what extent has Murray Irrigation experienced a cultural change by taking on that
environment responsibility? Was it something that they originally imagined they
would have to get so deeply involved with?

32. 30
KB: Back in 1987 the Advisory Board was formed after a long-running dispute with
Government. At that stage privatisation was only about the delivery of water. But by
the time we actually got to the privatisation in March 1995, we were very aware of the
bigger picture, or the total responsibilities. You know, we sat down with EPA and
worked out the license arrangements, and we accepted that as the way. I don’t know
whether you’d want to call that a cultural change within Murray Irrigation or whether
we were just reacting to a change in the culture of the entire community.
You would have to say that in the last ten years, environmental awareness has risen
from very low levels to being the highest priority in a lot of people’s minds. I think
we’ve moved with that. I don’t think that we see it as it being imposed on us. I think
we can see it as part of our responsibility. We try and steer a middle path. There were
those with extreme environmentalist views that would like to see irrigation shut down,
make no mistake about it. Certainly the role of Bill Hetherington, the current
Chairman, is a lot different to the one that I had when I was Chairman. We were then
going through a phase of change, with negotiation of the privatisation and the LWMPs
going on. Since then, Bill has had the role of defending our achievements in that area,
against things like the water cap coming in and attempts to reduce our use of irrigation
water.
GM: Do you feel let down in some ways, that what you have achieved didn’t get as much
acknowledgment as it might?
KB: I’ve never thought of it in those terms. Things like the water cap, the water reforms,
environmental changes, and all the external forces that have come on us, were heading
our way anyway. So there is a degree of inevitability about a lot of the changes in
attitudes towards irrigation and the practice of irrigation. I would put to you that
having a privatised group of irrigators has enabled our communities to handle it better.
GM: For what reasons?
KB: Because we’ve come together and recognised our strengths and weaknesses. We had
that navel-gazing exercise through the privatisation. And I think that you find now that
not only myself but other irrigation leaders and representatives can speak with
confidence that they do represent shareholders of Murray Irrigation. We’ve got well-
developed policies. Whilst the SRIDC is quite a good lobby group and so forth, it was
only funded by an annual subscription. It wasn’t a well-heeled organisation. But with

33. 31
the resources now at Murray Irrigation, we are well able to employ consultants to
argue our case. If we want to throw some funds into a environmental challenge, or to
challenge an EIS, we can do it. We created a strong organisation that’s got a few funds
to fight something. We’ve got the resources.
GM: Murray Irrigation has taken on a lot of the regulatory functions and policy making
roles relating to environmental management that used to be the province of
Government. With that presumably comes some of the unpopularity that goes with
making hard decisions and having to enforce them. It’s challenging for local people to
regulate other local people, but at the same time local people often are more accepting
of other local people telling them what to do.
KB: I think that they are more accepting. I’m a great believer in self-regulation and then an
appropriate level of audit. Certainly everything that Murray Irrigation has got custody
over is subject to audit. Our implementation of the LWMPs, the implementation of our
rice growing policy, our use of Government funds in the deferred maintenance
program is all subject to audit. I think generally there has to be a proper audit.
And I do believe that peer pressure and things like that have a real impact. It’s
interesting. We were talking before about water stealing. I think that’s at an extremely
low level these days, because now you really are pinching it from your neighbour, not
from the Government. The shareholders have elected us as Board members to do a job.
If we don’t do the job they’ll vote us out. I believe, and I say this to irrigators, “We
should respect the responsibility we have been given as an organisation. Do we really
want the EPA going up all the back lanes looking for problems? Or do we want to be
responsible for finding out ourselves what’s going on up those back lanes ourselves
and nipping those in the bud? And for giving an environment report and seeing that
audited? If we don’t take our responsibilities seriously, we may well lose them. Then
all the irrigators would be worse off”. I think that’s a message that we should put
across.
I also think that a lot of that comes back to a lot of the auditing and monitoring that the
States still do. I’ve got blocks on the Yanco and Billabong and Colombo Creek system.
I’ve got blocks in the West Corurgan private irrigation scheme area. Those are all
outside Murray Irrigation’s area of operation. And I’ve got holdings inside Murray
Irrigation’s area. I’m probably biased, but I reckon things are better monitored in
Murray Irrigation’s area at a lower cost than they are in the other areas by the DLWC.

34. 32
Our irrigators have less chance of getting away with stealing water or draining
tailwater off into drains than irrigators up on the creek system have. I bet you the
spending is still the same. And on the ground I’ll bet it’s not as flexible too.
GM: Murray Irrigation is still in its early days. I guess a challenge for it in the longer term is
to remain viewed by its shareholders, its irrigators, as a company that they own rather
than just another bureaucracy.
KB: Yes. And there are those that would think that of Murray Irrigation.
GM: How will it remain community-oriented rather than become bureaucratised?
KB: I would hope that our structure will ensure that. I mean the SRIDC has survived. At
one stage it was certainly floundering for a role in life. It has moved on from being the
irrigators’ voice to Government. That’s a role it still plays to some extent, but in many
ways that role has been taken over by Murray Irrigation, but not completely. Now the
SRIDC certainly has a role of watchdog for the shareholders in respect to how Murray
Irrigation operates.
I see, or hope to see, the SRIDC as the training ground for future Directors of Murray
Irrigation. They get involved with SRIDC in water politics and the issues of
shareholders and then eventually come up and take a place on the Board. And I think
the fact that we are a fairly close community will see that Murray Irrigation is always
pretty responsive to its shareholders. I think you will find that the SRIDC structure,
together with the fact that water is so vital for farm viability, will ensure that Murray
Irrigation remains accountable and responsive to its shareholders.
GM: Is there much overlap between the memberships of Murray Irrigation’s Board and the
SRIDC?
KB: There was for a start. The Advisory Board were all SRIDC delegates. When Murray
Irrigation was formed, quite a few of us resigned from our positions with the SRIDC,
mainly for workload reasons. And there was a new opportunity for people to get
involved. There were now SRIDC delegates and there were Murray Irrigation
delegates. And it was good to spread the load around. I think probably Dan Liphuyzen
still is a delegate for the SRIDC, and maybe Max Goudie. I haven’t been on the
SRIDC for years. As a matter of fact, they asked me back there to have a chat recently.
I think they’ve now got a process where they ask a Board member along to their
meetings on a pretty regular basis. That’s a sign of SRIDC identifying a role for

35. 33
itself. Also they were prime movers in establishing the water exchange. That’s now run
by Murray Irrigation, but it’s still call the SRIDC Water Exchange.
GM: Does it occasionally get stuck into Murray Irrigation?
KB: Oh yes. They’ll have their monthly meetings and send off a couple of “please
explains” to the Board. I don’t think it hurts. I think that’s good. We’re just having a
round of elections for the Murray Irrigation Board. I’m up for re-election and nobody
has put their hand up to contest this area. I hope that’s not because there’s too much
apathy. I hope it’s because they think I’m doing a good job. I think Max is the only one
whose area is being contested. I hope that we can always get plenty of people
interested in standing for Directors of Murray Irrigation. The more you get involved,
the more you realise that it’s quite a responsibility. I see Murray Irrigation as having
far more autonomy than local government has. To be on council doesn’t interest me
much because they are bound up local government law. I’ve certainly been to plenty of
council meetings and I don’t think that councils, at the end of the day, have got
anywhere near the autonomy they think they have.
GM: I guess that is a concern when you look to the future around the country. Dryland
salinity is a big issue now and we’ve got to find ways of implementing plans to solve
that. In the irrigation areas, as you said, you’ve had existing organisations like Murray
Irrigation to hang all this regulation from. Whereas in the Liverpool Plains even, or
Kyeamba, what can you use there apart from local government?
KB: Certainly local government paid a lot of lip service to the LWMPs, but that’s about all.
Their commitment to help fund parts of it, or to commit resources for their
implementation, has been pretty limited. But maybe they could quite legitimately say
“We’ve got enough on our plate. That’s really in Murray Irrigation’s court. Let them
do it”. I would hope, if it does fall back to local government in areas like you just
mentioned, that they pick it up and run with it. Time will tell, I suppose. I was fairly
critical when talking with Peter yesterday. We were talking about the various agencies
involved in the LWMP process. When you look at them, NSW Agriculture were quite
good. They took on a role of running the farmer education process and got quite
involved in looking at the economics. I think they were good. They got behind it.
But at the other extreme, you’ve got the Department of Planning. There everything was
a problem. Like “Was this under REP 2 or not?” or “What’s this here?”. I was thinking

36. 34
“You blokes have got another agenda. You don’t want to see this thing happen, do
you?”. EPA were trying to get out State Environmental Plans to do various things. It
was a never-ending process.
EPA at a local level, and even at the Head Office level, were negotiating the very first
Pollution Control Licence that was for a diffuse source issue rather than a point source
issue. The process that we went through with them was good. They had a concept, and
we had an idea of what we thought we could live with. So it was a monitoring licence
basically that was developed, but with some realistic goals to achieve certain things
on-farm like tailwater recycling. And local government was delegated by the
Department of Planning as the consenting authority with respect to a lot of applications
for development works. So they have become involved, but in a regulatory way,
making sure the Department of Planning’s plans are complied with.
GM: I’ve finished with my questions. Is there something else you think we should cover?
KB: The LWMPs are up for a five year review now. What would we do if we were doing
the LWMPs again? How should they be modified? We are going through that process
now. I think that we’ll see the plans in the future pay more attention to biodiversity
issues and to issues of remnant vegetation. That’s particularly in the Berriquin plan
where the surface drainage part of it is not happening as quickly as planned as a result
of frustrations in the approvals process. We’ve been totally frustrated on that. Maybe
we are too ambitious to think we can get the surface drainage done. But I still think it’s
a very essential part of the Berriquin LWMP.
GM: What about the funding side? One big grievance, as I understand it, is that after all the
planning and the 15 year commitment from the NSW Government, you’ve still got to
go back and argue your case for funding every year.
KB: It’s an annual funding period. We’ve not got anything more than a letter
acknowledging the Heads of Agreement that keeps getting rolled over each year. As
much as anything it’s been a problem with the matching Commonwealth funds not
being signed away in a long-term deed. As a result the NSW Government could use
that excuse not to lock their side of the money away either. So we are fairly vulnerable
actually. I believe that we have done everything possible to get that final sign-off, but
we haven’t been successful. I haven’t been as intimately involved in the last year or
two.

37. 35
It’s been disappointing that it hasn’t been signed off , but I’m not suggesting that
someone’s to blame. I just don’t know what has to happen to achieve that. I think there
should be another solid push for that now we are going through this five year review
process. I think we can show that quite a lot of things have happened and go for a
longer commitment. We still apparently have the only LWMPs that are actually up and
running. Peter Stewart was saying yesterday that a lot of the other LWMPs have spent
that much on trying to get them up that it has chewed into the funds the Government
had earmarked to implement them.
End of interview

38. 36
3. Ms. Ros Chivers
Interview date: 30th
August 1999
GM: What has been your involvement in the Murray LWMP process? When did it start?
RC: I started working on the LWMPs just after Murray went into implementation,
whenever that was. I wasn’t particularly closely involved with Murray for about the
first eight or nine months. Then got progressively more involved in just peripheral
stuff in terms of checking through their environmental review and doing a lot of
control of their funding, making sure that the Commonwealth funding was coming
through at appropriate times. And Murray were required to apply through the Natural
Heritage Trust (NHT) process, so it was a case of making sure that their applications
were in on time, and that they were appropriate, and kind of easing them through the
process as much as possible. After our last restructuring, when the Department
downsized the LWMP team in head office, I’ve had a fair bit more involvement.
GM: When did that happen?
RC: In early 1998, or late 1997. Mainly we handed a lot of responsibility though to the
region then, but I still was involved in ensuring that the funding processes up here
were working alright. I also did a lot of liaising with the Commonwealth on certain
issues that there were problems with.
GM: So you are still involved in the LWMP process peripherally?
RC: Yes.
GM: Because of your experience or because you still have functional links to that area?
RC: We don’t have currently a Head Office position related to LWMPs, but we do have a
lot of corporate knowledge invested in a fair few people. So if an issue comes up and
you happen to be standing it the wrong place at the wrong time, you get dragged in to
help them with how to deal with it, let them know what the precedents have been, and
so on. You can’t escape it.
GM: Did the regions draw on the corporate knowledge in Head Office much, including from
yourself?
RC: It depends on the region.

39. 37
GM: Let’s say for the Murray plans.
RC: Early, yes, when we had a lot of dealings with the Murray staff. Less so now mainly
because they’ve looked after them for about 18 months now. We brought them up to
speed and spent a lot of time training them about what to expect, and what the issues
were likely to be in terms of funding, audit requirements, and various other bits and
pieces. Now it’s just a case of “We’re having problems pushing something through the
Commonwealth. Can Head Office help?”. We’re still dealing a lot with funding issues.
GM: What is the split, in principle and practice, between Head Office responsibilities and
regional responsibilities?
RC: These days it’s almost, say, 80 per cent regional responsibility. It’s still only Head
Office on the LWMP Assessment Team (LWMPAT) and the Negotiation Teams, but
the day-to-day running, and ensuring that MIL is complying with its licences and the
intent of the plans and contracts, is done through the regions.
GM: The region has to recommend to Head Office to sign the cheque each year?
RC: The Murray Regional Assessment Panel (RAP), that is the funding body that runs
alongside the Murray Catchment Management Committee (CMC), basically says
“Yeah, we agree that they are doing what they are supposed to be doing, so they are
eligible for Commonwealth funding”. Murray are then required to submit to the
funding branch here every three months a report saying “This is what we’ve spent and
this is what we spent it on” before we will send them the next cheque.
GM: What have been the strengths, from your perspective, of the Murray LWMP process?
RC: I think the fact that there are, for want of a better word, contractual arrangements in
place that require that landholders and Murray Irrigation actually do what they agreed
they would do, so that we do get on-ground change. Without those sorts of contractual
arrangements, we are finding that there is very little sustained on-ground change in
other areas of the State. In other areas maybe $100,000 is handed out for certain work
to be done, but it’s not necessarily the case that the work is carried out or maintained.
Because there is no monitoring and evaluation, nor any contractual arrangement to say
“If you don’t do it, then we will penalise you”.

40. 38
GM: Is this still happening in other programs around the State?
RC: The lack of monitoring evaluation?
GM: Yes, the lack of action for money.
RC: It’s historical certainly, but it’s still going on. Like we are seeing it with all of the NHT
money coming through now. A lot of the money is either being ill-used, or the work is
done then not maintained. Currently in Head Office here, we are working on ways to
stop that happening. And one of things we are looking at the LWMP model for is to
identify ways of using sticks as well as carrots.
GM: What legally is the situation, with NHT or similar past programs, if you hand over
$50,000 to plant trees or fence off some remnant vegetation and they don’t do it?
RC: If they don’t do it, they’re supposed to hand the money back obviously. But it’s very
hard for us to police whether or not it’s going on. They are supposed to provide us with
receipts. And there are random audits where your farm may be picked to check that the
work that you’ve said that you were doing was actually done. But it’s really hit and
miss. And there is a long time lag before the powers that be here say “They don’t seem
to have done their work. Check it out and get their money back” or “Close the project
down. Don’t send them any more money”.
GM: Have their been any actual instances of asking for the money back or closing the
projects down?
RC: Off the top of my head, because I’m not working closely in that section, I know that
we’ve had a lot of people send their cheques back saying they haven’t been able to do
the work because of drought or because of illness in the family. It’s very difficult to
close a project down, because of political implications. But there has certainly been
projects that haven’t been recommended for second and third year funding because the
local CMC has happened to know that the work is not being done.
GM: So the main strength is the contractual approach?
RC: Yes. Not only is it contractual. It means we can guarantee through our auditing process
that if the farmers and the Murray community have said “Well the Government will
give us $2 for our $4”. It allows us to check that the $4 is being spent, and it generally
is. If the reports we are getting through from the Murray region are correct, the land

41. 39
holders are generally out spending the amount that they have been supposed to spend.
GM: You’ve couched that in terms of the contracts having benefits in giving Government
greater confidence that landholders will keep their side of the bargain. Are there also
benefits in terms of providing greater assurance that individual government agencies
will deliver on their respective parts of the bargain?
RC: Yes. The contract that currently exists  which isn’t a formal contract as such but a
Heads of Agreement, because they haven’t signed a formal contract yet  details the
work that needs to be done by the agencies as part of their deal. NSW Agriculture has
put on staff specifically for the LWMPs, and DLWC also has staff specifically for the
LWMPs. One of the things that we discovered with Murray is that, because the staffing
wasn’t costed into the cost-sharing arrangements, it’s quite often been difficult to keep
the staff numbers up when the budgets to the Departments are being cut. That’s being
addressed in the later plans. There will be a dedicated amount of money for each
agency to spend specifically for implementing their activities as assigned under the
LWMPs.
GM: So the CEOs of the Government agencies signed off on the Heads of Agreement
without having real plans for how they would resource their commitments to
implementing the plans?
RC: Yes. The Murray plans were signed before the merger of agencies into DLWC. There
used to be separate agencies for Conservation and Land Management and for Water
Resources. When they merged, it got a bit messy about who was responsible for this
and who for that, and how many resources were to be thrown at the LWMPs. But when
I started, we had a team of three at Head Office, and there was quite a large team in the
region as well. In the region they’ve managed to keep up their staff numbers for
servicing the LWMPs. They’ve had a fair turnover, but their staff numbers have been
kept up, mainly because the irrigation areas are such priorities. But we’ve lost three
dedicated positions in Head Office. So that’s been a bit of a problem, but the work has
all been done. Perhaps not as effectively as when we had three staff permanently
looking after them.
GM: Was that loss of three positions in Head Office like a pro-rata thing across all sections
because of financial cutbacks, or did the staffing for the LWMPs get cut back more
than other sections?

42. 40
RC: No. It’s been across the Department. And part of the reason we cut back was because
we had a retirement and also someone leave. And then I swapped positions. The
minute any position becomes vacant these days, it’s almost like “We’re not going to
refill it”, particularly if there is someone that is still around that can pick up the past. I
just shifted positions. I didn’t actually leave, so it was like “Here, take your job with
you, would you? And could you take some of John’s and a bit of Jeff’s?”. The LWMP
area hasn’t been singled out for deliberate cutbacks. It’s just the way it’s happened.
And every couple of months we go “We need someone permanently in this position”
but the budget just keeps getting tighter and tighter, unfortunately. We may get a
dedicated position but for not just the Murray plans and the other big irrigation plans,
but also to cover some of the other like the dryland plans, with any luck.
GM: Any other strengths?
RC: In terms of the Murray plan, I think it was the first of the community-government
partnership models in planning and implementation that has actually worked, where
there has been an end product that’s been implemented. We’ve had the CMC’s. There
have been a lot of problems with that community-government partnership in terms of
agency people not turning up or not dedicating enough of their time. But the agencies
worked really, really hard with the community and the irrigation people to get the
Murray LWMPs done and to get them implemented. I think that has been a strength.
GM: What has been a difference there? I mean why were agency people not dedicating their
time to CMC activities whereas they were for LWMP activities?
RC: Partially it reflects the priorities that were set. CMC’s for most agencies are a quite low
priority. But the irrigation areas are a really high priority in terms of their production
and their environmental impacts, and they were perceived as high priority. DLWC
provides the water and then provides the advice, and a lot of our regions are very
focused towards irrigation areas. So they saw it as a major part of their core business to
make sure that the irrigation areas were being looked after properly, and that they were
being resourced appropriately in terms of specialised staff coming in. And it was
supported from high up as well. The Minister supported the irrigation LWMPs. They
passed through Cabinet. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) thought
they were great. So there was a lot of high-level support, as well as officer-level
support.

43. 41
GM: What have been the weaknesses of that Murray process?
RC: It depends on the stage. I think the problems with the Murray LWMPs were because
they were the first through. The plans only addressed a limited range of the
environmental issues. They addressed production-focused, irrigation-focused concerns.
The environment itself, in terms of biodiversity, cultural heritage management, and so
on, missed out to a large extent. A lot of people think that that lack of environment
focus is a real weakness. I think I’d agree with that. Vegetation was only there to suck
up water. It wasn’t there for a biodiversity purpose or anything else.
The contract arrangement itself is problematic. The funding arrangements are State and
Commonwealth dollars for 15 years, and community dollars for 30 years. Because it
was so new, there was a lot of guessing about how much it would cost. This was
particularly the case with structural adjustment. We thought that it would cost x dollars
for the structural adjustment program and that we would not need to do it for the first
ten years. Then it was realised that we would have to do it in the first two years, and it
would cost a hell of a lot. That was problematic.
The fact that we didn’t lock the Commonwealth dollars in, so that annually the Murray
has to go up competitively against every other group in the State for funds, is a real
weakness for a number of reasons. Firstly, it means that every year Murray Irrigation
needs to apply for dollars that are theoretically already locked in. Certainly the State
dollars exist. But they have to apply for the Commonwealth dollars. And it’s a case of
“If we don’t get them then the State could take their dollars away”. It really slows
down the implementation processes. It means that Murray Irrigation is competing
against smaller landcare-based projects, so there is a lot of resentment in the
community that Murray Irrigation is knocking off all this money that could be going to
dryland areas, other smaller irrigation areas, or to landcare groups within the irrigation
areas. So that’s a weakness.
And I think the contract is a problem. The way it’s been written, it’s locked the State
Government into funds. But NSW Government priorities have shifted since the Heads
of Agreement was signed. It’s very difficult for us now to turn around and say to
Murray “The money we said we’d give you to build x, y and z drains, that’s no longer
our priority. Our priority is now to control groundwater further upstream, so we are not
giving you that money anymore”. We can’t do that, and that’s a bit of a problem. So
we service the hell out of the irrigation areas, and then we’ve got no money left for the