Water buybacks and water trading
This chapter discusses water buyback and water trading in the
Murray-Darling Basin. In particular it discusses the conduct of and problems with
the government’s program for purchasing water entitlements to return to the
Basin for environmental purposes. Following a short outline of the government’s
water buyback scheme, the chapter discusses several key problems with the
process that were raised by witnesses throughout the inquiry.
First, the chapter discusses the 'Swiss-cheese' effect that has occurred
through the buyback process whereby government purchases have created excessive
cost pressures on remaining water holders because of gaps in water delivery in
the surrounding regions.
Second, the chapter considers the issue of distressed sellers in
situations where water sales, while technically voluntary, are undertaken by
farmers (the sellers) who are facing significant financial pressures which have
unwillingly pushed them towards selling water entitlements.
Finally, the chapter considers the issue of sleeper and dozer licenses
and the potential problems that the initial over-allocation of water
entitlements of previous decades has for the government’s aim of purchasing
water for environmental purposes.
The related issue of the water buyback process and types of water
entitlements in terms the reliability of water, such as high security, general
security and supplementary water (including for the cases of Twynam, and
Nimmie-Caira) is discussed in chapter six.
Background of the water buyback
The Commonwealth government committed to water recovery for the
environment in 2008 as part of the $12 billion Water for the Future program. This
was followed in 2010 with the government’s commitment to 'bridge the remaining
gap between what [water] has been returned for the environment and what is
required to be returned by the Basin Plan.'
The two main ways that the government recovers water for the environment are
through its programs to improve water efficiency and infrastructure, and its $3.1
billion Restoring the Balance in the Murray-Darling Basin program (RTB) which
purchases water entitlements from water holders.
The total target for all programs (i.e. RTB and other programs) seeking to
return water to the environment is the 2750 GL/y reduction in take of surface
water (see chapter two). Water recovery undertaken since 2009 is attributed
towards the 2750 GL/y reduction in take. As at 30 September 2012, the
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
(SEWPaC) states that 1577 GL/y had been recovered through the following:
- 1094 GL of secured water purchases
- 316 GL received or scheduled for transfer under infrastructure works
- 154 GL recovered through state government actions
- 11 GL gifted by the Queensland Government and 2 GL of other recovery.
The RTB is also referred to as the government buyback scheme. The
buyback scheme is managed by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH)
as set out in the Water Act 2007. The water that is obtained through the
water entitlements purchased under the buyback scheme is used for environmental
As of 31 January 2013, the government had secured water purchases of about
1119 GL in terms of long-term average annual yield as part of the buyback
process (an increase from 1094 GL as at 30 September 2012).
The Government's water strategy notes that until 2016, trajectory of water
recovery will be:
...to set the pace of environmental water recovery so that
2100 GL of environmental water would be acquired by 2019 if that pace of
recovery were to continue to 2019. Water entitlement purchasing will be used
only as a residual where the water returns expected from SRWUIP [Sustainable
Rural Water Use and Infrastructure program] investments and other sources are
not sufficient to reach this target.
A result of this approach is that subject to the 2016 review of the sustainable
diversion limit (SDL) adjustments, the government aims to secure a further 239
GL (of the total 2750 GL/y figure) through water entitlement purchases.
The government has stated that its approach to water purchasing is to:
- purchase water entitlements only from those who wish to sell (no
- purchase a portfolio of water entitlements that can be efficiently and
effectively used to meet environmental needs identified in the Basin Plan
- ensure value for money from the use of public funds is consistent with government
- integrate water purchasing with opportunities to rationalise or
reconfigure irrigation infrastructure wherever possible
- operate in the water market with the same rights and obligations as other
- deliver a fair, equitable, transparent and accountable process for
- consult with states over the approach to purchasing in each Basin
Concerns about the buyback program
Over the course of the inquiry, the committee heard concerns from
numerous witnesses about the buyback process. The committee notes that the bulk
of water purchases under the buyback process have been completed. However, it is
worth highlighting the concerns identified as part of this inquiry to help
ensure that the remaining purchases are conducted in the most efficient and
effective manner possible.
Impact of buybacks on irrigators
'Swiss cheese' effect
The committee heard significant evidence about the 'Swiss cheese' effect
as part of the water buyback process. The House of Representatives Standing
Committee on Regional Australia's report Of drought and flooding rains:
Inquiry into the impact of the Guide to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan
refers to the 'Swiss cheese' effect as:
...what happens when some entitlement holders along an
irrigation channel sell their entitlements and stop irrigating. The effect of
this is to create ‘holes’ in irrigation areas, reducing the efficiency of
delivering water down that channel, stranding assets and increasing the
maintenance costs and delivery fees for the entitlement holders who remain.
The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (the Wentworth Group) stated
a preference for buybacks as a tool of water recovery in the Basin but also
noted that the buybacks needed to be strategic. In response to a question about
how this may help prevent the 'Swiss cheese' effect, Mr Tim Stubbs from the
Wentworth Group noted:
...First we need a plan that clearly articulates how much water
we need for a healthy Murray Darling Basin. This plan does not do that, so we
need a plan that sets that number down as the science is based. We need to
understand where that water needs to come from, which share comes out of each
catchment and what contributions to the downstream flows are needed. Then you
have a process that puts all that on the table and uses the money that is
available to get the best outcome with a mix of strategic buybacks and spending
The potential differences across the Basin states were also noted in the
inquiry given the different histories of State governments in managing water
resources. For example, the National Irrigators' Council (NIC) was asked to
comment on how it dealt with its role as a national body and the interests of
different states, especially in regard to the 'Swiss cheese' effect and the
government's buyback program. The NIC's CEO, Mr Tom Chesson, outlined his
approach to this issue:
All along we have been very mindful as representatives of
irrigation groups or irrigation supply schemes that we did not want to see that
Swiss cheese effect taking place. What was originally proposed with the basin
plan was spending money on infrastructure and efficiencies first and foremost,
before you ventured into water buybacks—non-strategic buybacks.
A number of representatives of rural communities and industries
expressed concerns about the 'Swiss cheese' effect, the pressure it was placing
on the costs for irrigators, and the even the failure of irrigation schemes
(such as the Romani scheme in Hay, New South Wales).
Indeed, Mr Terence Hogan AM, Chairman, Riverina and Murray Regional
Organisation of Councils (RAMROC) suggested that this issue was an early,
central and constant problem with the Basin Plan and its development:
...The draft Murray-Darling Basin plan [November 2011] still
proposes very substantial removal of irrigation water currently used for food
and fibre production. When the pre-2009 acquisitions are taken into account,
well over 3,500 gigalitres will have been diverted to meet the demands being
made for regular watering of environmental assets. The whole process to date
has been not good, as you have already alluded to, starting with ad hoc water
purchases that never even had a strategic plan, foundation or basis. This
caused the often referred to 'swiss cheese' effect, leaving stranded assets and
disruptions, loss of agricultural production and adverse impacts on families, business
and communities. The subsequent processes have been nearly as bad.
The practical implications of the 'Swiss cheese' effect were vividly
described by one witness in particular. A local farmer, Mr Duncan Fraser, told
...I have a property about 50 kilometres south-west of Hay. I
am secretary of the Romani joint water supply, which is a private joint water
authority, which was set up in approximately 1964 to pump out of the
Murrumbidgee southwards. All the members of the scheme are off the river. There
were 17 base licences held in the scheme until recently; I had three
licences myself. Obviously, because of the changes that were forecast a few
years ago regarding the Water Act and whatever, there were concerns about the
viability of our scheme with the reduction of water, given that we have
transmission losses from the river to the delivery points for members of the
scheme. We were faced with a situation where we considered that we were
probably at the end of the line and that we could not continue as we were. In
the end, in 2008, we decided to allow members to permanently sell water off the
scheme. Everyone, except me, basically bailed out. I still retain two licences,
but I am the only person left holding water on the scheme. I decided to hold
onto two licences because I was concerned about the effect the exodus of water
would have on the local community. I wanted to see that we could retain some
water. Given that everyone else sold out, I am in a situation where I am a
stranded irrigator and not a willing seller. I am in a situation where the
water is of no use to the local community, because I cannot do anything with
it—I cannot irrigate because I cannot justify turning the pumps on with the
water loss that would occur between the river and the delivery points. That is
the situation that I am personally facing. This is magnified right along the
Murrumbidgee for a lot of private irrigators on the river.
A number of representatives of rural communities also noted that the government
buyback process did not take into account the financial difficulties faced by
many farmers selling water entitlements.
Indeed, one witness, Mr Terence Hogan, AM, Chairman of RAMROC, told the
committee that the problem was widespread:
...In most cases, it is believed that irrigators who have sold
their water were not willing sellers...but more likely sold out because of
financial pressure or family necessity, with the sale income often used to
retire debt or exit the agricultural industry altogether.
The committee also heard how this situation may have come about for
certain farmers. As a rural financial counsellor, Mr Darren Macartney told the
After so many years of drought there has been a lot of talk
about the water sellers being willing sellers. Yes, they might have put their
hands up to sell the water, but it was because they were under so much
financial pressure after 10 years of drought that that was the only way to get
any of their debt down. Livestock numbers are really low. The only way of
getting some quick dollars to get some equity in the farms—because their
equities were really squeezed and the banks were putting pressure on them—was
to sell that licence, get some money and pay off some debt to try to continue.
Otherwise where do they go? They are at a stage where their equity is very
minimal and they are getting forced out. No-one wants to buy the farm anyway,
so where do they go? The only avenue was to sell some of that water.
Witnesses from Hay, NSW, argued that the sale of water entitlements
(either by distressed sellers or willing sellers) had flow-on effects for the
community as it was difficult to transfer properties from irrigation to
dry-land farming. As the following exchange shows:
Mr Hill: ...Once a water licence leaves a property,
unless it is a temporary transfer and there is still a licence and they can
purchase water back in...that property, because of the soil type, has been
converted to an irrigation farm. Once that water is taken away, that soil does
not suit dryland pasture. It is too heavy a soil and it just becomes no longer
a usable asset.
Senator RHIANNON: Nothing can be done about that?
Mr Hill: Over the long term, I am sure. It would be
very expensive. You could put native species back into that system. But it
would be very expensive to do it.
Mr Schipp: With the investment that has gone into
some of that irrigation infrastructure, a lot of money and capital expense, a
lot of land forms and a lot of ground have gone to waste. People have sold off
their water. We have an abundance of land suitable for irrigation and not for
water, now. It has been a big cost to the community in general, in that
development that has gone on in land that will be underutilised.
In June 2012, SEWPaC released a report it commissioned into the
experience of water holders participating in the buyback process, which
presented a more positive view of buybacks from water holders. The report
detailed the results of a survey of over 500 irrigators who had sold (or
applied to sell) water entitlements between 2008/09 and late 2011. The key
findings of the report included:
- Almost 80 per cent of those interviewed said that selling water to the
Commonwealth was a positive decision for them.
- The principal reason for selling water was to generate cashflow with the
intention of either retiring debt (30 per cent), supplementing farm income (22
per cent), or funding on-farm improvements (8 per cent).
- The majority of proceeds from water sales are spent within the local
- Almost all of those who sold their entitlement to the government and
exited farming found alternative local employment, or retired in their local
- Around 60 per cent of those interviewed sold part of their entitlement
to the government. Around half of these sellers said the water sale had not
affected farm production in a significant way.
- The survey results suggest that many irrigators who sell some of their
water to the government have found ways to change their farming operations to
maintain production levels.
- Overall, there was strong support among surveyed sellers for the
resumption of general tenders in 2013. Those who supported the resumption outweighed
those opposed to it by two-to-one.
The future of buybacks
The committee is aware that a large proportion of the water entitlement
buyback process has been completed. The recently published Environmental
Water Recovery Strategy for the Murray-Darling Basin: Draft for Consultation
states that the remaining target for buyback purchases is 239 GL.
However, as discussed in chapter four on environmental works and measures,
there is also scope for further water entitlement buybacks if there is a
shortfall from environmental works and measure not meeting a target of 650 GL/y
(as part of the 2750 GL/y reduction in take).
Some concerns were raised about the uncertainty of this approach
regarding the volume of remaining buybacks. As the NIC CEO, Mr Tom Chesson,
Within the water recovery strategy documents...we have all
heard the three tranches of water: the 2,100, the 650, the 450—to get to the
2,100, there is roughly 239 gigalitres of buybacks left and about 600
gigalitres will be recovered through infrastructure work. What we are saying is
that the 239 gigalitres of buybacks will take you up to 1,500 gigalitres
of buybacks all up and then another 600 take you to the 2,100. Let's just cap
it at that 1,500. That allows buybacks to continue, but it gives certainty to
communities that there are not going to be large-scale buybacks if the 650
gigalitres of environmental works and measures do not materialise. We believe
they are there—I want to put that up-front—but there ways and means that
governments can make it so complicated that it simply will not occur. If that happens,
as Minister Burke said yesterday, there will be buybacks to bridge that gap.
The New South Wales Irrigators’ Council expressed a strong preference
for infrastructure investment over buybacks:
...There are three means of acquiring water in the plan as it
sits at the moment. One is environmental works and measures, one is buyback,
and the other is infrastructure investment. So obviously it would be our
conclusion that those volumes not found through environmental works and
measures should be found through infrastructure rather than the economic
vandalism of straight buyback.
The committee is concerned that in a number of areas, the non-strategic
purchase of water entitlements by the government has led to the 'Swiss cheese'
effect that adversely affects the remaining irrigators in the area. The
committee notes that the government has recently sought to address this issue through
the Strategic Sub-System Reconfiguration Program
that provides 'financial support for projects which integrate water access
entitlement purchases with the decommissioning and reconfiguration of shared
water delivery infrastructure'.
The committee is of the view that avoiding the creation of the 'Swiss cheese'
effect in irrigation communities should be a high priority when the government conducts
the remaining water purchases under the Basin Plan.
The committee is also concerned that there may have been some farmers
who sold water entitlements in the past due to financial pressures. Whilst the
committee notes that the sale of water entitlements was positive for many
sellers, more than 20 per cent of farmers surveyed reported an experience
which was other than positive. The committee considers that some future
entitlements may be purchased by water holders facing financial distress.
The committee notes the concerns raised regarding the uncertainty about
the volume of future buybacks is caused by the possibility of buybacks being
used to meet a shortfall from environmental works and measures (should such a
The committee urges the government to take steps, when making any future
water buybacks, to inform potential water entitlement sellers of the full
implications of the sale of their entitlements, particularly if they are facing
financial stress related to their water holdings.
The committee recommends that the government develop a water trading
information and support program aimed at helping possible "distressed
sellers" understand their financial options and risks relating to water
Sleeper and dozer licences
As part of this inquiry the committee examined the issue of sleeper and
dozer licences in the Murray-Darling Basin. New South Wales State Water defines
a sleeper licence as 'one which uses none of its Allocation over the course of
the Water Year' and a dozer licence as 'one that uses very little of its
Allocation over the course of the Water Year'.
The problems arising from sleeper and dozer licences were associated
with the significant increases in water allocation and extraction in the 1970s
and 1980s. As noted by researchers Hugh Turral, Daniel Connell and Jennifer
McKay regarding the NSW experience in particular:
Water use had been growing in the basin throughout the 1970s
and 1980s, with continued development, mostly in NSW... Fearing that this would
lead to overabstraction, no new licences were issued after 1986, but existing
unused licences were not rescinded. In NSW, it is common for licence-holders,
particularly stock farms, to keep water rights in reserve for drought periods
(known as ‘dozers’) or not use them at all (‘sleepers’). As time went on, more
of the sleeper and dozer volume was activated, through property transfers and
enterprise diversification, and, more recently, through water trading.
The National Water Commission (NWC) also considered sleeper and dozer
licences as part of a review of water trading in the Murray-Darling Basin. In a
survey of existing literature about the extent of these licences the report
The activation of so-called ‘sleeper’ and ‘dozer’ licences
may have been a result of the development of the water market and the value
water markets place on such entitlements.
Previous studies have provided some evidence of activation
and trade in sleeper and dozer licences. In the interstate trade pilot project,
99% of the 9.5 GL of water traded was previously not being used by sellers
(Young et al. 2000). In an assessment from 2004, sleeper and dozer licences
represented 50% of sales in northern Victoria (Alankarage 2004). Similar
results were reported by Bjornlund and McKay (2000).
The NWC report also noted that activating sleeper and dozer licences
could have the following impacts:
- In a system in which overall diversions are capped,
increased use of water allocations to these rights can lead to a reduction in
the reliability of future allocations to other entitlements, thus affecting
individual water entitlement holders.
- In a system in which overall diversions are not capped (or
not capped in a completely effective manner), increased use water allocations
to these rights are likely to lead to a reduction in water available to meet
environmental water requirements.
Sleeper licences and the Basin Plan
The committee heard a mix of evidence about sleeper and dozer licences
and the relationship of these licences to the Basin Plan. The evidence before
the committee did not add much to detail about the extent of sleeper and dozer
licences in the water market beyond the reports above. However, there were views
expressed that sleeper and dozer licences were undesirable. For example, the
Wentworth Group lamented the transfer of sleeper and dozer licences to private
The water was held by the public through licence. That was
transferred to the private sector. That is a lot of dollars. The fact that the
sleeper and dozer licences were also transferred in that process is something
too. I know that John Anderson said to me it was his greatest mistake...
The fact is...we have traded water from the public sector to
the private sector on the basis of a social contract that the water would be
brought back into the river system sufficient for sustainable river health—and
that is what the Basin Plan is about.
Some witnesses also expressed the view that over-allocation of water
entitlements associated with sleeper licences was a main cause of current
problems facing water resources in the Basin system.
Indeed, Ms Debbie Buller, President of the Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre
Association, argued it was a central problem facing the Basin system:
...If you look at what the stated problem is [for the
Murray-Darling Basin], they are talking about things like the system being
overallocated and there having been too much extraction for irrigation. They
are the sorts of things that we hear all the time—they are the assumptions—and
therefore the government needs to step in and right this wrong.
There is some rationale behind that overallocation argument
and I am not arguing against that—water has been overallocated. But it was not
purpose-built irrigation areas that caused the overallocation problem. That is
not where it came from, was it? Yet somehow or other, those areas are being
very heavily targeted and the storage systems that were clearly built as human
resources to build those areas are the areas that are being targeted at the
moment. They were not the areas that caused this problem.
The overallocation problem came, in particular, from when
water got separated from the land—and we all know how that process occurred...
We have all the states knowing that that was coming and
legislating and doing that and not paying attention to all the sleeper licences
that were sitting there that could not be used because they were attached to
land. That is where our overallocation problem came from. So why are we not
actually focusing on the real problem? It is your unregulated river flow, the
creek streets—actually, some of our streets did look like creeks recently, I
have to say. That is where the problem has come from. If we are not prepared to
attack the problem and notice what the real problem is, then we cannot fix it,
and if you are using the wrong resources to try to fix it, what is going to
happen down the track?
However, the committee also heard evidence that the development of diversion
limits in the Basin Plan, reduced the likely impact of sleeper and dozer
licences on the management of water resources in the Basin. For example, the Murray-Darling
Basin Authority (MDBA) noted that even if sleeper licences came to be used, the
overall cap on allocations should not be affected. As the following exchange
CHAIR: One of the mistakes we have made is to allow
the trading of supplementary licences. Victoria started that. We also allowed
sleeper licences to be tradeable. A lot of river systems worked well until they
woke up the sleepers. The day they woke up the sleepers and made them a
financial instrument, they over allocated the river system straightaway.
Ms Swirepik: In relation to the states and states'
allocation of water, what is important for us is that the diversion stays the
same and there is a cap on diversion. So, even if sleeper licences are woken
up, in theory there are no further diversions.
The NIC made a similar statement regarding the reduced effect of sleeper
and licences in response to a question about the extent of such licences in the
water market. Their CEO, Mr Tom Chesson, explained:
...One of the things the drought did is that people now are
trading a lot more water. If people can make money out of trading, they will,
instead of putting in a crop. That has happened as well. But, as you know, a
lot of those sleeper licences got hammered during the National Water Initiative
and the state water-sharing plans, particularly in New South Wales. I remember
the Mungundi to Menindee water-sharing plan area. A sleeper licence with no
history of use lost 89 per cent of their water; with a full history of use it
was around 60 per cent. I would also say that the sleeper licences are taken
into account in the baseline diversions, so, whether they are being used or
not, they have apparently been taken into consideration.
The committee acknowledges that original decision to allow sleeper and
dozer licences to be tradeable financial instruments was problematic and
contributed significantly to the current over-allocation of the resource. The
committee is concerned that more information about the extent of sleeper and
dozer licences in the Murray-Darling Basin system is not available. Furthermore,
based on the evidence received, the committee was not fully convinced that
sleeper and dozer licences no longer impact on the management of water
resources in the Basin system. The committee considers that the extent of the
problem arising from the activation of sleeper licences is not fully known.
The committee does not consider that rescinding such licences is an
appropriate and desirable solution. In this respect the committee concurs with
the view of the Senate Environment and Communications References committee that
'the important National Water Initiative principle of secure property rights in
water should be respected.'
The committee considers that further consideration of the extent of and
potential impact of sleeper and dozer licences on the Murray-Darling Basin
system needs to be developed. The committee urges the government to monitor
this issue more closely as part of the implementation of the Basin Plan.
The committee recommends that the government undertakes explicit auditing
and reporting of the extent and impact of sleeper and dozer licences on the
The committee recommends this audit be publicly released and that
updated audit information is incorporated into the MDBA's reporting on the Basin
Plan at regular intervals.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page