Buying back the living Murray: at what price?

In June 2004, the Council of Australian Governments approved the Intergovernmental Agreement on Addressing Water Overallocation and Achieving Environmental Objectives in the Murray-Darling Basin (IGMDB). The IGMDB sets out arrangements for a 'Living Murray' that includes a budget of $500mi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Australasian journal of environmental management 2007, Vol.14 (2), p.74-81
Main Authors: Grafton, R. Q., Hussey, K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cost effectiveness
environmental flows
externalities
Government policy
Irrigation water
Living Murray
Management
market-based water recovery
Murray-Darling Basin Commission
Water conservation projects
water entitlements
Water rights
Water-supply
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In June 2004, the Council of Australian Governments approved the Intergovernmental Agreement on Addressing Water Overallocation and Achieving Environmental Objectives in the Murray-Darling Basin (IGMDB). The IGMDB sets out arrangements for a 'Living Murray' that includes a budget of $500million to return 500 billion litres of water per year to the Murray River by 2009. This article examines plans by the Australian Government to purchase permanent water entitlements via 'water through efficiency request for tenders' (WTERT) to support the Living Murray. The tender process will allow the Australian Government to purchase water entitlements from individuals who agree to undertake water-saving measures equal to the amount of water entitlements they wish to sell. A potential problem with market-based water recovery to increase environmental flows is that it is not cost effective given the current water pricing arrangements and the rules for the tenders. First, the market price for water entitlements does not include the costs of use in terms of deteriorating water quality; and, hence, is 'overpriced' where use imposes such costs. Second, the constraint in the tender process that requires water users to undertake infrastructure investments when selling their entitlements also unnecessarily raises the cost of water purchases, such that it is likely to at least double the cost to the Australian Government of purchasing water entitlements.
ISSN:1448-6563
2159-5356
DOI:10.1080/14486563.2007.10648704