Water Resources Management - Case Study Example

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Name Institution Course Date WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Murray-Darling water basin cover a region of 1,042,730 kilometers square which is about 14% of the Australian mainland and receive an average annual rainfall of about 469mm and serve 10% of the Australian population. The basin agricultural production constitutes 39% of the national value hence important in contributing to the Australian economic income (Gregson 2012, pg15) Environment is a sensitive concern in the society, and its management is vital in determining the benefits we get from the natural resources around us. Fortunately, provisions in the federal government water act outline the importance of securing water (underground and surface water).Therefore the Murray-Darling Basin Authority was initially formed within the Water act 2007 to prepare a plan called the “THE BASIN PLAN” which was the foundation for managing all the water resources within the Murray-Darling Basin in a way they become long lasting and sustainable. However, the process involved is the consultation with the stakeholders before the findings is hands to the commonwealth Water Minister for implementation as a legislative mechanism (Gregson 2012, pg39).Therefore, the role of MDBA was to assist all the stakeholders in understanding the Basin plan before formal legislative consultation plan was initiated so that interested stakeholders can give feedback before the release of the final basin plan. A consultation period of 16- weeks is stated in the water act 2007.The act provided that the commonwealth water minister has the responsibility of adopting the Basin Water Plan. The basin plan was therefore required to: Describe all the water resources in the region, give clear identification of the area covered by the resource area. Outline the risks due to availability of water basin and strategies that can be used to manage those risks. Specify the goals and results to be realized by the Basin plan and outline the temporary diversion provisions. Give long-term sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) that reflect on the environmental sustainability. Give clear method used in determining the compliance with SDLs, Environmental water plan and water trading rules. Accreditation requirement for water resource plan, water salinity and quality management plan and an elaborate program directed at monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the Basin plan (MDBA 2010, pg67). The measures covered in the basin plan raises public concern on the economic benefits consideration. This is because most people believe that the environmental implication might have been given more weight. Unfortunately, the health and the future ecological potential of the basin depend on the provisions made in the soon to be legislated basin plans. The revised plan give consideration to the underground unseen water to remove the human attitude of, “out of sight, out of mind.” in making the groundwater sustainable. Therefore, the best way to go is to view the Murray-Darling Basin as a stakeholder using an ethical course of action which is maximizes the economic benefits at the same time give secure the long-term human well-being from competently managed healthy environment (Connell 2007, pg13). Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) in reaction to the earlier negative environmental impact developed various ways to improve the situation in the region. For example, the committee recommended that economic health of the basin be maintained and improved to increase social, cultural and economic well-being of the people within the Murray basin. This is achievable through finding ways to: acting within the various international standards, increase in the social, economic and environmental benefits, focusing on environmental sustainability, watering our failing environment, checking water quality and salinity and finally respecting all the principles of ecological sustainable development. Groundwater is the water that normally saturates through the tiny spaces between the alluvial materials such as sand, gravel, silt and clay or the crevices features in the rock. Surface water is the visible water that occurs as rivers, streams, ponds, lakes and wetlands. The amount of groundwater and surface water that can be taken from the basin resources for consumptive use should be determined. The determination criteria should be based on the environmental sustainability of the supply (catchment) area of the basin. Through the water act provision, the process should be carried out in line with the international agreements, mission to increase the economic, social and environmental income and the environmental sustainability (Evance 2007, pg61). The provision that came up in the basin plan harboured future risk that had to be analyzed before mitigation process begins. The project faced risks such as insufficient water for the environment, variation in the quality of water which render it unsuitable to use, the ecosystem on which the project depend on having poor health and policy with unintended adverse impact. The process is, therefore, aimed at improving the resilience of key environmental assets and creation of water depending on the environment /ecosystems and biodiversity especially during environmental risks changing. However, other risks that the basin may have been exposed through are: a) Lack of knowledge of the environmental assets and ecosystem functions. b) Lack of compliance with the Basin plan that include watering plan. c) Lack of knowledge of water availability which include knowledge of inflow and quality of groundwater modeling. d) Water quality which unsuitable for the aquatic system, irrigation agriculture, drinking water and recreational use. e) Poor current condition of environmental assets and the ecosystem. f) Policies with unintended adverse impacts. g) Suspension of all or part of the resource plan. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) also focuses on the water quality that originates from the basin region. Inorganic compounds, organic compounds and pathogens are known to contaminate and hence affect the quality of water. Salinity is the saltiness or the amount of dissolved salt in the water content. The provision recommends maintaining given salinity level to accommodate the environmental, social and economics of the Basin. However, the water market too needs improvement to ensure efficient and cost-effective water management system; so that water can reach its most productive unit and increases its trading potential. It is, therefore, necessary that the system provide a clear and elaborate entitlement path implemented and adopted as the local plan. This is in line with the risk allocation provisions, temporary diversion provision and maximization of economic, social and environmental functions. However, salinity is controlled by a scheme called, “salt interception schemes” which divert saline underground water before it enters the river or stream with the main objective of improving the extracted water quality (Watson, Nielsen & Gawne 2008, pg71). Ecosystem is a group or community of plants, animals and microbes that fully interact with the non-living components like water, mineral salt and air to form a system. Therefore, the entire basin is regarded as an ecosystem and its recommended that it should have be able to undergo both the long-term and short-term that is caused by the varying and ever-changing weather system (Connell 2007, pg81). The key ecosystem functions are crucial and can be subdivided into chemical, physical and biological processes that are vital in supporting the Murray Basin environmental assets. Such activities that contribute to transport of nutrients, organic matter and sediments might have caused uproar. Therefore, the basic function of the ecosystem is to shape and support the basin water network. However, the functions depend on the flows regime which is mostly altered to levels that affect the functions. The basin 78 groundwater SDL areas need restriction laws to control the risk posed by groundwater extraction to its sustainability. There is need for the connection between the groundwater and the surface water to create base flow that support ecosystem functions aimed at improving the ecological health of the basin river and the wetlands. This groundwater needs protection due to their importance in the supply of fresh water and is normally assessed in terms of their contribution in the key environmental asset maintenance and support of key ecosystem functions in the Basin. Control, therefore, is necessary due to groundwater getting threatened by continued drop in the water levels. This has led to the addition of water from other sources to arrest the decline. Fortunately, how productive the water system is will depend on the functions and maintained levels which determine the quality. However, it is important to determine the volume of environmental water to meet the production base without affecting productivity and the environmental outcome. This volume can be determined using three steps namely: i. Determine water resource plan of the area involved in respect to the management of the groundwater system area, ii. Undertaking updated recharge modeling for the entire Murray-Darling basin by applying the risk faced and their mitigation procedures iii. Through numerical modeling of the 11 alluvial groundwater system (Guide and Lesson plans 1968, pg35). It is a well-known fact that the amount of environmental water requirement depends on the amount of hydrogeological characteristics. In addition, the nature of the ecosystem that is influenced by the groundwater and varies from one region to the other across the basin. Therefore, the restraint on the consumption of the groundwater is vital and should be supported to ensure the groundwater has: Well maintained base flow .This is experienced and important in the flow of rivers and streams especially during the low water level hence a contributing factor in necessitating ecosystem. Groundwater induced charge: This is for systems where the surface and the groundwater are connected and reduce the chances of double counting hence the ecosystem get the necessary protection. Protecting the basin from continued drawdown of ground levels to stabilize the groundwater within a 50-year time frame hence protect and to stabilize the groundwater resources and productive base. Create protection for key environmental assets that depend heavily on the underground water such as Lower Goulburn River Floodplain and the Great Cumbung Swamp. Protection against salination-This is because most of the groundwater resources in the Murray-Darling Basin are saline. Substantial threat is posed in areas that have both the saline and fresh water. Therefore, extraction in such areas can pose a threat to the environment through the contamination that threatens fresh water via vertical and lateral inflow of saline groundwater. The pull out by the Wentworth group of scientists who accused the system as flawed called for not less than 4,000 gigalitres to be returned to the Murray-Darling basin. This will be vital in fixing the system which is contrary to the 3000 giga liters proposed by the MDBA. The group called for an independent body to handle the matter pointing out that the failure of the process will result to billions of tax payer’s money going to waste (Haney1997, pg66). Wentworth group of scientists argue that the amount of information on the initial draft doesn’t give the public clear picture to help them make an informed decision on the future of management of water resources of the basin. Therefore, Wentworth group of scientists differ with the MDBA pointing out that: The draft species the amount of water to be added without identifying the volume as required by the commonwealth Water Act. This, therefore, makes it challenging to point out the amount of water essential to supply a healthy working river. The draft point out that management infrastructure of the Murray Basin without clear assessment of the necessary cost was the limiting factor. The cost is part of the expenditure that would be required to redesign control systems such as the flooding paddocks and raising height bridges. The drafted plan failed to outline the effect of extracting over 2,600GL on the surface water low which in most cases is also linked to the groundwater basin and the river system. The plan assumes that are no health risks associated with climate change. The plan lack information on the possible response of the system to cope with long dry periods; as experienced in the previous decade or deliver the volume of water required to keep the Murray mouth open- as a functioning estuary and if the 2million tones of accumulated salt is disposed. The draft is viewed as manipulated science meant for political outcome. In addition, the draft aimed at highlighting the good work executed during a four-year period. However, the draft failed to understand the cost of change on water use on the social and economic impact within the Murray-Darling Basin (Clerke 1982, 43). Wentworth group of scientists, therefore, gave the following recommendations: The commonwealth government to stop the process, authority is instructed to withdraw the draft plan and to make a review for science and social science. The government should suspend the infrastructure grants and the water buyback program and focus on creating water reforms. The Basin plan was enacted or put in place to help find ways of in which water resources can be used. That is, the plan gives clear way to the community members on how to optimize economic, social and environmental outcome as stated in the Water Act 2007.Therefore, MDBA had the obligation to give regards to social, cultural, aborigal and other public benefits issues when preparing the expansive Basin plan. Therefore, the target of the Basin plan is to rip socio-economic benefits from the project without interfering with the environmental sustainability and at the same time restoring and protecting both the ecosystem and ecological services. Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) is facing a challenge in estimating the probable effect of the diversion limit on Basin community and the nation as a whole (ABARE-BRS 2010, pg73). The fact that the distribution of diversion limit will not be equal further complicates the matter. However, water has many uses in the regions such as mining, manufacturing, construction and household activities but the largest benefit come from agriculture which enjoy 80% of the dependence of the overall water use (Byron et al. 2014, pg58). Therefore, the communities relying on irrigation agriculture will be highly affected, and the reduction in the diversion limits might affect other industries and water use. Therefore, the change due to the implementation of the Basin plan coupled with the natural climatic change interferes with the availability and quality of the water resources. This, therefore, will have a long-term effect on the environment on calling for change in the way people manage the agricultural businesses and other stakeholder industries (Nous 2010, pg66). Therefore, the Murray-Darling Basin project will have an impact on supplies of inputs, the processors and the distributors of such supplies and at the same time influence indirectly the local business activities. The revival has effect on community services such as sporting clubs, schools and medical services and at the same time interfere with the community attitude and the human capital. The pressure, therefore, calls for change in the: Market social activities Technology adopted Government policy Environmental challenges Considering the case of the irrigators, the changes they will adopt depend significantly on: The outlook of the farmer in regard to future possible profitability, change in commodity price and climatic conditions. The climatic conditions influence the financial position of the farmer. This is due to the probable variation of the capital cost of investment which may lead to pullout of irrigating farmers as debt rise and cash flow drop (Hughes, Mackinnon & Ashton 2009, 45). Farmer’s reaction will depend on their objective and understanding of the project. For example, while other farmers plan to develop, others might want to remain the same or have a long-term ambition that focuses on the long-term benefits (Evance 2007, 51). However, older farmers will obviously be reluctant to adopt the changes due to low skills and low education. However, the risk involved is enormous hence farmers have to consider if the adopt the change or resist it. Normally all this will depend on the personal view and the norms in the society that give the picture of their expectation of the future outlook of the project. However, some sense of uncertainty about the expected cost and benefits will affect the rate of response. However, some farmers are strategists and have the course of action that they believe in. The idea of reduction of diversion water in the range of 3000-4000 GL/y is likely to cause economic fall of between $0.8-1.1 billions/y of the value of irrigated agriculture. The problem experienced in the region called for a change in the management of groundwater and surface water. The Murray –darling basin changed its management to bring in a set of institutional and governance arrangement to improve the social, economic and environmental benefits. The collaborative management system has over a year’s neglected infrastructure, over allocation and diversion caps (Alley, Harvey, Franke & winter 1998, pg27). In water bill 2007, read by the minister in charge at that time, confirmed that legislative reforms targeting water management were being enacted. The management legislation gave MDBA enforcement power recommended for management in an integrated and sustainable way. At the same time, it gave Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) mandate to safeguard and reinstate the environmental assets associated to the Murray-Darling Basin and other regions where commonwealth hold water. The emergency called for changes to be adopted by the MDBA which are not in the which are not in the water act 2007 for example: Water management power and functions be exercised in a manner consistent and supporting the basin plan with the state giving overarching role in ensuring compliance with the Basin plan. The set management objectives are integrated with all planning, operation and decision-making levels. This is different from the initial jurisdiction scale management. The SDL established for both the ground and surface water were to take effect from 1st July 2009 to replace the basin-wide cap on the surface water diversions Environmental water recovery to target of the set volume of 2750 GL which is just an addition to the water initially recovered through the Murray initiative Creation of a whole framework to monitor and evaluate the impact of Basin Plan contrary to initially discrete ran monitoring program which had varied public reporting obligation. Introduction of a complex planning framework enhances the development and water resource planning through interception, extreme events, ground and surface water connectivity, environmental water management, water quality and cultural values. Consistent basin right system established for the trading and transfer of surface water and groundwater access right, irrigation right and restricted to a certain type of water delivery. Salt elimination through determine salt target to acquire specific water quality for purposes such as consumption, irrigation, recreation and protection of ecosystem that depends heavily on water. This is different from the water quality old school MDBA management that concentrated on salinity and control of algae to control blue-green algae. Therefore, the Murray –Darling basin need further consultations to ensure the future is successful. The project needs consultation with all the stakeholders and scholars who believe the MDBA is underestimating the amount of refilling water hence limiting the success of the project. However, the communities that are directly involved in the Basin region should be given honest analysis so that they can make a clear decision regarding the project. The project’s main objective should be to improve the economy, and environmental contribution is enormous hence it should never be politicized. However, any method adopted call for change hence the community needs to be flexible and adopt strategies that couple nicely with the system to enable success. REFERENCES ABARE-BRS (Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics-Bureau of Rural Agriculture and the environment.ISBN:978-74200-129-6 Alley,Harvey, Franke & winter,(1998).Groundwater and surface water a single source. Australia,Canberra. Basin: Socio-Economic Analysis, Report for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, Byron N,et al,(2014). Submission on the Emissions Reduction Fund-Green paper. Wentworth Canberra Clerke,S (1982). The River Murray Water Agreement: down the drain or up the creek. Civil Connell,D ( 2007), Water politics in the Murray-Darling Basin, Federation Press, Sydney. Darling Basin, Report by the Murray-Darling Fresh Water Research Centre for the engineering Transactions,vol.24,pp.201-208 Evance, (2007). The impact of Groundwater use on Australia’s rivers, Land & Water Gregson A, (2012) Guide to the draft of the proposed Murray-Darling Basin plan. New south Groundwater &Surface water: Understanding the interaction Group of Concerned Scientists. Wentworth group of concerned scientists. Guide and Lesson plans, (1968). The Murray-Darling Basin: Balancing the priorities of Haney, C, (1997). Water. Kentucky Geology survey. University of Kentucky, Lexington Hughes,Mackinnon & Ashton, (2009). Irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin: inputs cost: Know your Watershed Second Edition. MDBA, (2010). Guide to the proposed basin plan. Australian Government Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra. Nous (2010), Integration of socioeconomic assessment of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, The Nous Group,Report for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority,Canberra. Schueler, Thomas, (1994). Watershed protection Techniques Volume1: The importance of Sciences), (2010), Environmentally sustainable diversion limits in the Murray-Darling. Teacher imperviousness U.S.Geological survey circular (Denver,colorado) Wales irrigators’councils(NSWIC) Watson,Nielsen & Gawne, (2008). The effect of salinity on aquatic ecosystem of the Murray- Read More