Sam Burton
Groundwater
Consulting Services hydrogeologist
& water consultant

THE groundwater in the Carabooda growing area is supported by rainfall: less rainfall means falling water levels, an increase means rising water levels. So variations in water levels, and hence wetland conditions, have been going on for centuries. The Water Corporation developed bore fields in this area in the 1980s to support Perth drinking water requirements. Pine plantations and horticulture also draw on this water resource. DWER reduced allocations for Water Corporation in 2012 in response to falling groundwater levels, but offset that reduction with an increased allocation of water resources for Water Corporation elsewhere. Since 2012, the water levels have effectively stabilised and in some areas have risen. DWER had set a path to reduced allocations and continued the path despite stabilisation of the water resource condition.

Plant nursery growers have been given an exemption from that reduction. They are effectively getting a free ride at the expense of vegetable growers. I see a huge value in locally produced fresh vegetables. My question is: rather than putting water restrictions on the vegetable growers and forcing them to move further north, is it better to support them with what they need where they are? There are huge benefits for the industry in being so close to Perth, so why move the industry further out to impact currently pristine wetlands? The 10 per cent reduction in allocation will probably not result in a 10 per cent reduction in water useage, and even if fully implemented, is not sufficient to recover wetland conditions – it effectively damages the industry and regulator without protecting the wetlands. Unlike the Water Corporation, the growers will not receive a commensurate increase in allocation on some other property.

DWER’s ultimate role is to manage water resources on behalf of a wider community. They consider the values between the natural environment, wetlands, public water supply, vegetable irrigation, nurseries, etc. To reduce the allocation available to growers is basically saying there’s a higher value placed on the wetlands than there is on locally grown fresh produce. If the community, on whose behalf DWER acts, values the wetlands more highly than the local produce, then compensation would be supported. The fact it is not offered confirms DWER does not think the wetlands are worth the costs that it is asking the industry to bear.

Water trading is promoted by DWER to drive water use efficiency. Lack of resources in DWER means that trading applications cannot be processed in a timely manner and the market is constrained. During the last few months of a water year trading opportunities are clarified – either excess allocation or a requirement for more. DWER cannot process applications within about three months (even six months can be risky) and this precludes the market from driving water-use efficiency, leaving it to the less effective tools, such as the 10 per cent reduction.

If I were making decisions on water usage, I would give more water to Carabooda growers. The location is close to the markets, power supplies and a labour pool. There is more value to society in increasing water use here. It would prevent growers moving further north where there’s an additional 50 to100 kilometre freight run each way for labour and produce, and consequentially inducing additional impacts on otherwise pristine areas. Much like we have an industrial area to focus and manage the potential impacts on others.

I’ve been in the industry for more than 30 years now. DWER used to be a very technically focused group. It was very strongly focused on water resource management, but today the regulatory and compliance sides of the department have become dominant. We’re in a system where we are really only looking at the licence allocations and water use, rather than looking at resource conditions. That extends to the development of water resource plans themselves. Some of them are 25-30 years old. We need to redraw those plans with the additional knowledge we have now to provide more water with a smaller impact. It’s a big technical job, but would allow us to better match areas for potential water use with areas of lower environmental risk.

“ To reduce the allocation available to growers is basically saying there’s a higher value placed on the wetlands than there is on locally grown fresh produce. If the community ... values the wetlands more highly ... then compensation would be supported ”

Lastly, there have been some water-use efficiency grants made available that sound great on paper [Gnangara water grants]. Vegetable producers are cash-flow driven businesses. If they trial water-use efficiency measures that aren’t successful, they are taking on a substantial business risk. Put simply, the guy on the ground is scared to implement an efficiency measure when they are gambling a $100,000 crop. I think DWER should underwrite the crop risks otherwise borne by a grower in order to support meaningful trials.

For example, the grower comes up with a water-use efficiency measure or a modification to their irrigation method or equipment, then the government underwrites that trial by guaranteeing the value of the crop to the grower. I think that would mean we’d see more practical examples of water-use efficiency and let the industry drive that efficiency. The growers can then take advantage of that water-use efficiency by trading (if the department can support that last-minute trading process, as mentioned previously). This would be better than a government-driven initiative. I’d like to see water-use efficiency as an industry-driven initiative.

Beavan Eatts
Former WA Water Users
Coalition chair and
Manjimup farmer

WHAT’S the issue with water? There’s not enough available under the current water allocation plan modelling. Down here in the surface water area (the Warren-Donnelly), it’s always been first in first served. What’s happened now is all the water allocations for the sub catchments, and the region, are fully allocated. There are no more licences available unless you can buy an existing one.

We’re dealing with water legislation that was enacted in 1914. Since then a lot has changed. One of the main issues I can see for Western Australia is we’ve got the Ord River system up north; we’ve got groundwater from Carnarvon and through to Myalup; and we’ve got surface water (dams built by the farmers at their own expense) in my area in the South West. We can’t have a blanket approach to water management for the whole state. To do it properly, we need to look at our individual regions and deal with them on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with stakeholders in those regions.

The government needs to be careful when determining allocations that they’re taking into consideration that agriculture equates to food security for the State. Put simply: no water , no farms; no farms, no food. The Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) needs to recognise the economic value that water brings to the State and local community through the creation of jobs. If farmers’ incomes are suddenly reduced through water licence reductions, then at some point those farmers’ businesses no longer become viable and they decide to shut up shop.

Water licences are issued for 10 years. Some farmers have been getting caught out with renewals. In some cases, their renewals haven’t showed up before the expiry date or they’ve been forgotten due to management changes. DWER is using that lapse of licence to impose new conditions and reductions. This has been causing angst for farmers, who are agreeing to new licence conditions just so they can get a licence to irrigate their crops, rather than be left with no water.

“ … we can’t have a blanket approach to water management for the whole state ”

For some, a reduction in a water devalues property. Land without water might be worth $6000 an acre; land with water may be $8-10,000 an acre. That can mean the difference between operating as a horticulture or broadacre property. It can also affect someone who has developed a business plan and secured a loan. DWER is playing with people’s livelihood and lives.

In the Southern Forests region where I live, 83 per cent of land remains forested, 17 per cent is farmland and, of that, about 10-15 per cent is bushland. The environmental flows into river systems that come off that cleared land for agriculture are close to 60 per cent for the environment and the rest is allocated to farmers on modelling of the precautionary principles of the driest year of 1987. Government hasn’t been keeping up with prescribed burns over the past few years in forested areas. This has resulted in a build-up of natural trash on the ground, so the forest isn’t allowing the water after heavy rains to flow into rivers as it usually would. This is impacting water flows from forest catchments. I think DWERS is looking to claim more water off cleared land because run-off is three to nine times more than that off bushland. It is easier to take water away from farmers than managing the forested catchments and ensuring water flows from the forested areas.

We’re also now looking at reduced rainfalls and a drying climate. We’ve been faced with probably four millimetres of rain since October 2023. Farmers are trying to drought-proof properties by building surface water dams that qualify under the spring exemption guidelines. Any dams built are an advantage for the environment. Farmers are keeping fauna and river systems vibrant through storing water on their properties in these dams. What we’d like to see from DWERS is more stream monitoring to individual tributary/stream levels. We need to look at a micro level where we can maximise water allocations for farmers without damaging water for the environment. We need to enable and encourage farmers to continue to drought proof their properties, because the whole state benefits.

Vange Panagiotidis
Panafresh,
Carabooda grower

WHY do plant nurseries in the Carabooda area have an exemption to water allocation reductions, but not vegetable growers? How is it acceptable that vegetable growers will get a reduction in water for growing food (a necessity), but nurseries of plants, shrubs and flowers will not get the reduction? Also the hobby farms have water allocations – why would they not be the first to receive water reductions? Why would they need water licences when they are on fewer acres and not growing food? They are not feeding the State.

When our licence comes up for renewal next year, we have been told we will receive a considerable reduction of water on our licence. We have been involved in water efficiency programs in the past with the Ag Department and now we do testing weekly for watering and fertiliser programs and have become more efficient in how we use our water. We are monitoring water and fertiliser, and have done for at least five years. How much more efficient can we be? We had one-on-one discussions with Sabine Winton and Alannah MacTiernan on water efficiencies and what we were growing, and expressed our concerns on the reduction of our water licence. We are growing baby leaf lettuce using overhead sprinklers. Do they allow for crop types when making their decisions? Things have changed from 30 years ago, when water allocations were implemented. How did we know what we actually needed? We were just told what we were allocated per hectare, but times have changed.

“ Less water means less food produced in the State. If we cut back, the cost of fresh food goes up ”

Through the Building Horticulture Business Capacity Program (a vegetablesWA and Planfarm collaboration), we analysed how to create more profitability and during that process a decision was made to reduce the number of lines that we have been growing for two generations to save water. Financially, it was a difficult decision, as we didn’t know if it would work. We now have the figures over the past five years. We have documented my water usage over that period and have reduced our water usage and become as efficient as possible.

For our small family business to continue growing and evolving, we need our water allocation to remain the same to ensure we can supply our customers into the future. With growing costs and labour costs increasing, reductions in water licences mean growers will have to grow less fresh produce for consumption, which would only mean higher prices at retail or not enough produce for the growing population. Where is it coming from?

We are growing in Nowergup and Carabooda where a road separates the two districts. However, each property falls into a different area, so we are not permitted to take water from one property to another. It would also not be viable to move our family business north or south for more water. We’d be forced to stop growing.

Our groundwater consultant has been with us for many years and helps us with trading, leasing and managing water, which has become complicated and expensive. At certain times of the year, we have made decisions when it is too windy, or too hot, to hoe our produce in to save water, which is a big cost to our business. It is a bit more complicated than just ‘try to save water’.

We also question the Department of Water’s motives for reducing our water in the Carabooda area. Less water means less food produced in the State. If we cut back on water, the cost of fresh food goes up, so the cost of living goes up even further. Will food be brought in from over East? That’s not going to be cheap. Will frozen food become cheaper, but which country is it coming from? The Department of Water needs to work with us as the Carabooda area is 50km from the city and is a significant area for growing within the metro area. They need to work further on this issue to look at where the water is allocated and how to balance that with how to keep the vegetables industry viable and producing fresh food in the Carabooda area. Does the small/medium farm become extinct? How do plant growers become exempt from this water reduction, hobby farmers are exempt, water parks are exempt, but growers of fresh food are not? Why is DWER not listening?