Do ‘God-given’ Water Rights Include ‘God-given’ Responsibilities?
Lynn A. Brake
South Australia Community Representative, GABCC
For most of the past century, landholders and governments have invested many millions of dollars
drilling water bores in the GAB. As technology and knowledge of the Basin improved in recent
decades much more money has been invested rehabilitating uncontrolled bores and improving
water access and distribution assets. Existing GAB water bores and water delivery infrastructure
across the Basin are now worth billions of dollars. The investment in these water assets has changed
the pastoral industry for ever.
The Strategic Management Plan for the Great Artesian Basin (SMP) is currently being revised and rewritten. The purpose of the new Plan is to facilitate the management of these valuable water assets
and help to ensure the judicious extraction of water and other resources that sustain and support
economic and social benefits in the community. Of course this must be done while preserving the
integrity of the resource and protecting its natural and cultural assets.
The current SMP
The current SMP was signed-off by Ministers in 2000 and proposed to run for fifteen years. A major
focus of the 2000 SMP was the renewal of uncontrolled flowing bores and the replacement of bore
drains with closed water delivery systems. The major push for the formation and support of a Basinwide combined forum to address the long standing problem of the waste of water and loss of
artesian pressure from uncontrolled flowing bores was generated by the community and supported
by governments in 1998. It was recognised that stopping unproductive water extraction from
flowing bores would require major changes in attitudes and practices of landholders who had built
pastoral operations around flowing bores and the operation of bore drains and other open water
delivery systems.
A concentrated effort by GABCC, managing agencies and State advisory groups developed a strong
case and prepared a proposal for increased government investment based on two major factors.
The first was the fact that for over a century governments had drilled water bores and offered
landholders incentives to drill water bores to expand the pastoral industry even though there was
limited technology to control bores and little understanding and acknowledgement of the impact of
bore drains. The second factor was an acknowledgement that market failure would result over much
of the pastoral industry if landholders were required to pay the cost of rehabilitating uncontrolled
bores on their properties and replacing bore drains with pipes, tanks and troughs. The GABCC and
agencies worked cooperatively to inform and generate support amongst Ministers and other
decision makers and raise community awareness about the implications of proposed changes. As a
result State and Commonwealth Governments agreed to fund the GABSI initiative.
GABSI 1
During the first phase of GABSI efforts were focused on changing attitudes of landholders away from
the use of bore drains and helping them understand the advantages of bore rehabilitation and
conversion to pipes, tanks and troughs under GABSI. Local cultures supported practices established
over generations; this generated a great deal of resistance to change which led to some prolonged
1
negotiations around funding models. It was acknowledged early and subsequently born-out during
landholder consultations that the major changes in attitudes, practices and business planning would
be resisted by many landholders but was required if the water saving and pressure recovery goals
were to be achieved. During consultations landholders were informed that the change from flowing
bores and drains to closed delivery system was appropriate and logical and that soon everyone
would be required to eliminate wasteful practices. They were informed that the agreement by
governments to invest in GABSI was predicated on landholders agreeing to use water judiciously and
eliminating waste.
Consultation, education and advocacy during GABSI 1 resulted in a very positive change in culture in
the pastoral industry. CSIRO through the Desert Knowledge CRC completed several research
projects which generated substantial evidence concerning the economic, social and environmental
benefits that would accrue from changing from flowing bores and bore drains to closed delivery
systems. These projects worked cooperatively with industries to develop a range of telemetry and
water delivery products that landholders could use to increase benefits from well managed water
delivery systems. Field days sponsored by CSIRO, State Agencies, component suppliers, and
landholders were held around the Basin to increase landholders’ and decision makers’
understanding of the benefits of well-designed and maintained water delivery infrastructure and
encourage participation in GABSI. The GABCC developed the GAB Champions package and worked
very hard in cooperation with State GAB advisory groups and Agencies to build support amongst
landholders, other water users and governments. .
Work continued by governments and research groups to build better understanding of the GAB,
improve pressure models to monitor impacts of reduced water extraction and assess risks to GAB
Springs. Governments reviewed and revised water legislation to better regulate the continued use
of GAB water by all user groups to benefit the community. With the support of the GABCC and State
GAB groups and water users government agencies developed water plans to implement the revised
water legislation.
The GABCC, Jurisdictional agencies and State GAB Groups worked cooperatively to document
evidence and effectively communicate to Ministers, landholders and the wider community the
success of the first funding round of GABSI in reducing flows, restoring pressure, and changing
attitudes. This kept the GAB on government agendas and generated support which resulted in
governments agreeing to fund GABSI 2.
As an adjunct to increased investment and attitude change the need for an appropriate policy
response to clearly define rights and responsibilities relative to stock and domestic use and regulate
water extraction was widely discussed. Mainly because of difficulties in dealing with the ‘universal
right’ for landholders to access stock and domestic water the policy and planning response to
pastoral use was inadequate and left most issues unresolved.
GABSI 2
A major task of GABCC in cooperation with the agencies at the end of GABSI funding round 2 was
documenting and sustaining the good news surrounding GABSI and communicating the
improvements in pastoral practices and the reduction in waste. This again resulted in governments
funding a third round of GABSI even though funds were obviously becoming much tighter and the
costs of bore rehabilitation and the installation of water delivery infrastructure substantially
increased because of increased demand from the expanding mining and petroleum industries. The
2
GABCC made a concerted effort to enhance the community understanding of the GAB and establish
the GAB as a nationally important water resource for Australia.
The GABCC emphasised the beneficial use of the GAB and its potential to grow new industries and
sustain a range of communities and industries without compromising the Basin or the springs as long
as all users were made responsible to use water judiciously. State Jurisdictions developed new
regulations and plans to guide new and expanding industries that relied on the GAB as a water
source, but again failed to develop policy for clarifying rights and responsibilities of landholders or
regulating stock and domestic use.
Although progress was made in bore rehabilitation, in most jurisdictions little change occurred in the
regulation of water extraction or monitoring and reporting on the volume of water being extracted
by the pastoral industry. In South Australia as part of the statutory planning process the communitybased Arid Areas Catchment Water Management Board in consultation with the community of users
and the Department developed a Water Allocation Plan for the far North of SA which clearly defined
the rights and responsibilities for stock and domestic use. Pastoral bores were licensed and
regulations required the installation and maintenance of closed delivery systems. The problem was
that few resources were subsequently allocated to implement the new Plan. Release of the Plan
was not followed by education, consultation or compliance measures; sanctions for non-compliance
were not imposed; as a result little change in wasteful practices actually occurred as a result of the
new regulations.
GABSI 3
In the third funding period of GABSI evidence was gathered by agencies and communicated by the
GABCC about the outcomes from the investment in infrastructure renewal and the status of the bore
rehabilitation program. Several substantial research projects were undertaken concerning the
structure, function and health of the Basin and the GAB springs. Statutory water management plans
were negotiated and completed in all of the Jurisdictions that moved water management some way
towards the agreed national standards.
A major task for the GABCC toward the end of the GABSI funding period was to review the
outcomes of the SMP and revise the Plan to accommodate new knowledge, changes in use and
government policy. The futures workshop held by the GABCC as a precursor to the SMP revision
highlighted the fact that stock and domestic was still a major water use of water, but in most
jurisdictions no policy or plans existed to effectively manage it and even where statutory regulations
exist few resources are available for monitoring and regulation of stock and domestic extraction The
lack of relevant stock and domestic extraction policy and quantifiable information about current
practices and rates of extraction across the Basin were identified as major issues limiting effective
management.
Best Estimate of extraction practices from pastoral bores based on Current Evidence
In the absence of comprehensive evidence from across the Basin concerning water extraction and
management in the Pastoral industry, it seems from my knowledge and observations as well as
growing anecdotal evidence from pastoralists and others working the GAB that landholders are
watering stock using a range of asset and water management practices:
1. There are a substantial number of pastoralists who have installed and continue to maintain
effective closed delivery systems. Some of these water assets were installed with the
assistance of government investment and others privately. Many landholders have
3
2.
3.
4.
5.
enhanced the value of their water delivery assets and their productivity by using telemetry
and incorporating effective methods for controlling watering points to manage stock and
reduce total grazing pressure. Most good water managers are happy to advocate for good
asset management and share the productive advantages gained from adopting judicious
modern methods for delivering stock water. Unfortunately in the absence of clear rights and
responsibilities for extracting stock and domestic water good managers are given few
positive incentives or few opportunities to advocate the benefits of well managed assets and
closed delivery systems to others.
There still remains a group of landholders who have not had the opportunity to share in
government investments to rehabilitate bores and replace bore drains. Some of these do
not have sufficient resources to invest and undertake the work themselves while still
remaining viable. Rehabilitation costs have escalated markedly in the past few years. The
estimated replacement cost for a recently failed pastoral bore in SA is $1.2mil and that does
not include the infrastructure materials for replacing and/or maintaining the water delivery
system. This group who have not had the opportunity to undertake bore rehabilitation
continue to extract much more water than is required to water stock.
There is a growing group of landholders who have accessed government investment for
asset renewal and development prior to or as part of GABSI but have not continued to
maintain bores and water delivery infrastructure. These leaking and/or uncontrolled poorly
maintained water delivery systems extract much more water than is required for stock.
There is still an expectation among some landholders in this group that governments will
continue to invest to help them maintain and manage their assets. Others are just unwilling
or unable to continue to maintain and manage their water assets and have little incentive to
do so in the absence of clear water extraction rights and regulations for their use. This lack
of maintenance in these systems affects artesian pressures and increases the waste of water
as well as contributing to all of the land-use issues associated with bore drains.
Unfortunately there is a group of landholders who have made no or little effort to limit
water extraction from their bores even though their bores have head works that allow them
to be controlled. These properties continue to extract many times more water than is
required for stock. The only control being exercised by some of these pastoralists is the size
and pressure of their bores. A member of the Regional Bioregional assessment team in SA
recently estimated that the total water extraction from just three properties with
uncontrolled water delivery systems is almost equal to total daily extraction for Olympic
Dam operations. One of the properties is extracting more that 12mg/ day. Many of these
properties are not marginal family businesses, but owned by consortia with other business
interests or by landholders who own a number of properties.
Properties across the Basin have recently changed owners or are currently on the market.
The Kidman properties are a good example. Some of these properties will be owned and
managed by Australian and foreign companies with no experience, knowledge or affinity
with the GAB. It seems highly unlikely that new owners with boards and decision makers
living and meeting outside the Basin will be willing to spend large sums of money on
rehabilitating, installing and maintaining infrastructure or adopting judicious practices as
long as there are is no volumetric regulation on stock water, no monitoring and no sanctions
for irresponsible practices.
4
Conclusion
The extent of such wasteful practices amongst landholders is not well documented, but there is
enough evidence to be assured that it definitely exists and is growing. As long as water use is
labelled ‘stock and domestic’ all asset management and water delivery practices are treated the
same by regulators. This creates the impression amongst pastoralists that poorly managed assets
and wasteful delivery systems are equally acceptable to well managed assets and closed water
delivery systems. Good managers who responded to encouragement from agencies and advocates
to change their management and business practices are currently provided few incentives to
continue to invest in managing water assets and minimising waste. Those who manage their assets
poorly and engage in wasteful practices have few incentives to desist. This same approach seems to
apply to a number of the towns that rely on the GAB for water; no water saving practices are
required or encouraged by regulators. There seems to be very limited understanding amongst many
landholders, and I suspect regulators, of the costs and benefits of good water asset management.
The time has arrived for all landholders take responsibility for managing their bores and water
delivery assets to eliminate wasteful practices. The value of the GAB to sustain communities and
industries; generate wealth and provide water for future development cannot be over stated. The
Management of water delivery infrastructure to eliminate waste and ensure that the best return
accrues to the community from the water extracted from the Basin is the responsibility of all water
users.
Poor asset management and maintenance should not be allowed to erode the gains that have been
made through decades of investment in bores and infrastructure renewal by landholders and
governments. Water users and governments need to work cooperatively to find ways to complete
the rehabilitation of uncontrolled bores and eliminate wasteful practices. Agreed policies that clarify
the rights and responsibilities of landholder who extract water from the GAB need to be developed,
communicated and acted upon. The pastoral industry needs to help all landholders understand the
benefits that accrue from well managed water assets and closed stock water delivery systems.
Limiting the ‘God given rights’ of landholders to access sufficient water for stock as an essential input
to a viable business has never been on the agenda, but continuing to perpetuate the myth that
Stock and Domestic has ‘God given’ rights to extract water without limits or requirement for
responsible asset management cannot continue to exist.
Yes, I believe that in the GAB ‘God Given Rights’ do include ‘God Given Responsibilities’.
5