Should environmental water be transferable?

Editor

As we transition to the new era of water policy and management, there are unintended consequences that need to be acknowledged and addressed.

One of these involves inter-valley trades, where environmental water holders and speculators are able to use management tools for financial benefit, at the expense of food and fibre producers.

Over the past 20 years, production of food has taken a very sad last place in the development of water policy and that is now being reflected with increased prices at the local supermarket.

Recently, a random  ballot saw 100,000 megalitres of water shifted from the Goulburn to the Lower Murray valley. For many, this may seem inconsequential.

However, in reality it raises the issue of environmental water holders effectively choking the inter-valley trades, as they have so much water at their disposal. It also poses an interesting question: If an environmental water holder purchases water to benefit the environment in a particular valley, why should it be allowed to move it to another valley?

Additionally, should government authorities like the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder be allowed to take up 20 per cent of trading space, to the detriment of food producers?

As changes to water policy and management take effect following the massive changes over the past two decades, Australians will have to think carefully about how much they are willing to pay for policy decisions that adversely impact the farmers who put food on our tables.

If we continue to ignore the imbalances that threaten the livelihoods of those who grow our food, the price we pay will continue to escalate.

Yours faithfully

John Lolicato, Wakool, NSW