Abstract

Media summary

Keywords

Introduction

Streamflow Management Plans (SFMPs) have been developed in several Victorian unregulated catchments to specify an environmental flow. This flow is designed to maintain and improve environmental values within that particular stream. An unregulated catchment is one that does not have a large structure to provide or control water flows. The objective of a SFMP is to establish, through consultation with water users, a water-sharing plan for stream management that provides an agreed environmental flow regime to maintain an ecologically healthy river, whilst supplying water users with agreed levels of security.

The environmental flow regime is usually introduced through the development of interim flow targets, incrementally increasing over a set time period until the agreed optimum flow is reached. A major component of a SFMP is the determination of operational rules for all users. SFMPs emphasise the belief that if all water users adhere to these rules, then the set flow regime will be achieved. In addition, preliminary interviews highlighted assumptions that poor stream flows, and hence inadequate environmental flows, were the result of irrigation.

Generally, the largest volumes of water entitlement in a catchment are allocated for irrigation purposes. Again, preliminary investigations revealed the perception that irrigators were fully using, and in some cases, overusing their entitlement. This perception arose because of limited metering in unregulated catchments, and also the assumption that irrigators are highly dependent on accessing stream flows for irrigation. It was also assumed that irrigators were probably using poor irrigation practices, partially due to an insufficient irrigation extension effort in unregulated catchments. Thus it was expected that increased water for the environment could come primarily from altering the practices of irrigators, rather than targeting other water users.

As a result, many irrigators may face periods of rostering, restrictions, and bans on water extraction during critical low flow periods as a result of SFMP implementation. Stakeholders envisaged that restrictions placed on irrigators through SFMP implementation could have an adverse impact on farm profitability and viability. This impact could also have a cascading effect on the viability of local industry and communities. Therefore, it would appear prudent for government to design and deliver an extension program that would help irrigators to make management decisions to enable them to deal with any restriction on water extraction during critical periods.

A project was funded through the Department of Primary Industries’ ”Ecologically Sustainable Agriculture Initiative” to provide support to irrigators and to assist the delivery of environmental flows in unregulated catchments.

Two of the four main elements of this ”Targeted Water Management Strategies for Ecologically Sustainable Agricultural Industries” Project (Targeted Water Project) apply directly to an extension program for irrigators. These are:

• Development of a ”toolbox” of water management strategies to assist irrigators
• Case studies to investigate the effectiveness of options and interactions between irrigation water management and aquatic biodiversity

Initially, the delivery of these elements appeared straightforward by those that developed, funded and managed the Targeted Water Project, based on the perceptions outlined above. However, the Targeted Water Project Team wanted a comprehensive understanding of what irrigators were doing in unregulated catchments to guide them in the detailed design of the toolbox. They decided to invest in a social research project to help them target their extension approach to deliver water savings for the environment whilst maintaining the viability of irrigators. The specific aims of this social research project were:

• To describe the catchment demographics for each of the three catchments
• To describe current catchment irrigation practices
• To understand the attitudes of irrigators to SFMPs
• To identify on-farm options that are accepted or opposed by the farmers
• To identify potential drivers and barriers to adoption of best management practices (BMPs) or options
• To recommend a broad program of approaches to increase adoption of BMPs or options

The social research project was conducted between January and June 2003 in three catchments with completed draft SFMPs. Each was identified as a “stressed river” because the environmental flow provisions in the SFMPs were less than the flow provisions recommended by the environmental flow studies undertaken in each catchment.

The aim of this paper is to highlight the jeopardy that extension practitioners can place themselves in by using popular perception as the basis for the development of extension programs, and the benefits of making decisions based on reliable data. The three unregulated catchments will be used as case studies to demonstrate that to achieve success, both the potential of the extension program to achieve its goals, and the relevance of the extension program to its target audience must be understood.

Case study catchment backgrounds

Research was undertaken in the King Parrot Creek, Hoddles Creek and Yea River catchments. Background information on each catchment is included below.

King Parrot Creek

The King Parrot Creek is an important tributary of the mid-Goulburn River. The upper catchment comprises a mixture of forested and cleared agricultural land used for grazing and intensive irrigated purposes. The lower catchment is open farmland, typically used for grazing. The King Parrot Creek also supports an increasing number of part-time farms and rural residential developments. Goulburn-Murray Water (G-MW) is responsible for managing water diversions in the catchment. Melbourne Water (MW) has a bulk entitlement to divert water to supply the northern suburbs of Melbourne, and is entitled to divert up to 41% of the total yield of the King Parrot Creek. Of the 366 diversion licences in the catchment, 276 are for stock and domestic use, with 48 irrigation diversion licences in the catchment (KPC SFMP Consultative Committee 2001). Irrigated agricultural industries present include potatoes, turf, viticulture and annual pasture production.

The King Parrot Creek catchment has a high conservation value, with a diverse array of floral and faunal species. A number of environmentally significant fish species are found in the catchment, including a relic population of the endangered Macquarie perch, and the most westerly population of Two-spined blackfish, Mountain galaxia and Australian smelt (KPC SFMP Consultative Committee 2001).

King Parrot Creek has a long history of problems with stream flow management, with the system deemed as overcommitted. A cap on direct pumping licences for irrigation has been in place since 1968. Subdivision commenced in the catchment in the 1960s. During the 1982/83 drought, water restrictions were placed on Stock and Domestic licences, but the number of these licences has increased over the last 20 years. The SFMP process commenced in 1999, with the draft plan released for comment in October 2001. An interim flow of 7 ML/d is recommended, stepping up to 12 ML/d in 6 years time. Modelling suggests that the environmental flow of 12 ML/d will result in irrigators facing 2-5 weeks of restrictions 1 year in every 10, with a 3 in 10 year chance of experiencing bans lasting 4–12 weeks (KPC SFMP Consultative Committee 2001).

Hoddles Creek

Hoddles Creek is a tributary of the Yarra River, with its catchment comprising remnant eucalypt forest, cleared grazing land and intensive horticulture (Zampatti & Raadik 1997). Melbourne Water is responsible for managing water diversions in the Hoddles Creek catchment. There are 26 diverters in the catchment (Hoddles Creek SFMP Working Group 2002). Seven diversion licences have been issued for irrigation purposes, 5 licences have been issued for domestic and stock and irrigation purposes and 5 licences are deemed inactive. Irrigated agricultural industries present include apples, viticulture and tree farming.

Hoddles Creek is considered ecologically important because populations of the threatened native fish species River blackfish and Mountain galaxia are found there, and it is potential habitat for other threatened species such as Australian grayling and Spotted galaxia (Hoddles Creek SFMP Working Group 2002).

Flows in Hoddles Creek have been as low as 1–2 ML/day in summer/autumn, with no history of restriction or bans. The Hoddles Creek SFMP process commenced in 1998, with the draft SFMP released for public comment in June 2002 Hoddles Creek is being managed to an interim environmental flow of 4 ML/d. The recommended environmental flow is 6.9 ML/d between November and May. Modelling work undertaken as part of the SFMP suggests that as a result of environmental flow targets, available irrigation water will be reduced in 30 out of 35 years, with the prospect of 20 weeks of restrictions or bans in a drought year (Hoddles Creek SFMP Working Group 2002).

Yea River

The Yea River is the third largest tributary of the Goulburn River. The upper region of the catchment comprises a mixture of forested and cleared land devoted to intensive agriculture and grazing (Yea River SFMP Working Group 2002). Irrigated agricultural enterprises in the upper catchment include potatoes, vegetables, and strawberry runner and bulb production. The mid to lower catchment is mainly cleared open farmland, typically grazing country, that supports some irrigated agricultural enterprises, namely viticulture and pasture/hay production. The Murrindindi River (a tributary of the Yea River) is predominantly forested, with most agricultural development occurring in its lowest reaches. There are approximately 94 irrigation licences held within the Yea catchment, with most irrigated agriculture occurring in the upper catchment in the Kinglake/Toolangi area (Yea River SFMP Working Group 2002).

The environmental significance of the Yea River system comes from its relatively diverse collection of aquatic flora and fauna, which includes the critically endangered Barred galaxia and the endangered Macquarie perch (Yea River SFMP Working Group 2002).

Historically, the river was managed to a minimum flow of 5 ML/d at Devlin’s Bridge to protect downstream stock and domestic licences during low flow periods. The Yea River SFMP process commenced in September 1999, with the draft SFMP released for comment in December 2001. This set an interim environmental flow target of 20 ML/d to be achieved within 6 years. With the interim target environmental flow in place, modelling suggests that irrigators can expect bans for periods up to 2 months for more than 1 in 10 years. If the full environmental flow recommendation (a flow target of 40 ML/d) was adopted, in 6 years time at the review of the SFMP, this would increase to bans for 2– 6 weeks in 6 out of 10 years (Yea River SFMP Working Group 2002).

Method

A desktop analysis was initially undertaken in each of the three catchments to gain an insight into and develop a basic understanding of the topography, industries, demographics and irrigation history of the three study areas. The numbers of diversion licence types were identified through this analysis (Table 1).

Table 1. Numbers of licences in the three study catchments

Catchment	Total no. diversion licences	Irrigation licences		Domestic & stock licences	Other licences**
		Total	Est. Active
King Parrot Creek	336	48	15	276	12
Hoddles Creek	31	7	3	14*	10
Yea River	263	94	20-25	156	13

* 5 of these D & S licences have a small irrigation component
** Includes winterfill, power generation, aquaculture and industrial licences

Data collection was undertaken in two stages. Stage 1 comprised of interviewing members of each of the SFMP development committees, to gain an insight into their views and perceptions of the stakeholders involved in the catchment, including how successfully they saw SFMP recommendations being adhered to by irrigators, and the effectiveness of the proposed SFMP implementation. The SFMP committee members included some irrigators in addition to agency staff. Contact details were obtained from the draft SFMPs and phone contact was made to arrange interviews. The interviews were carried out in a semi-structured manner, based on techniques described in Patton (1990) and Dick (1998). These stakeholders were also used to identify potential irrigators to interview in Stage 2.

Stage 2 of the study involved interviewing irrigators in each catchment. The first few interviewees were identified by those interviewed in Stage 1. Additional interviewees were identified as the study progressed. As in Stage 1, the interviews were carried out in a semi-structured manner, based on techniques described in Patton (1990) and Dick (1998). These interviews provided an understanding of each farm situation, gaining information regarding farm enterprises, irrigation practices, knowledge and regard for proposed SFMPs, the potential impact of the SFMPs on their farm and how they saw the SFMP would impact on other irrigators in their catchment.

The aim of the research was to determine the rationale, behaviour and attitudes of the irrigators, to obtain an understanding of their logic for historical, current and future irrigation practices. No quantitative data was collected. The method relies on the interviewees responding to questions based on the rationale they used to make decisions in the progression of their enterprise. It matches the perceived future management decisions they describe with past behaviour. If there were discrepancies, both between individual perceptions and perceptions of the sample population, additional questions were asked in order to determine the factual base of the answers. Discrepancies may have appeared at the interview, however permission was sought at the interview conclusion to make contact at a later stage if any clarification was needed. This follow up contact was made on several occasions, and in some cases multiple calls were made, to ensure the integrity of the data.

Interviews were conducted with respondents representing a broad range of farming enterprises. Only one person per farm enterprise was interviewed. Two trained interview staff conducted all interviews. Interview responses were recorded manually by both interviewers. Immediately following each interview, the two interviewers would debrief, raising points for clarification and summarising the important issues raised. One interviewer would then summarise the key points of each interview. These summaries were submitted to the other interviewer for comment. Any discrepancies or concerns were immediately discussed and acted upon. The data was analysed using cross cause analysis (Patton 1990), based on project objectives.

In all three catchments there is a difference between the documented number of irrigation licences and the estimated number of active licences (Table 1). The interview sample size was not predetermined, rather interviews were conducted until interviewees consistently provided similar responses, and no new data was obtained. At this point, the interviewers could usually predict interviewee responses. Table 2 shows the number of interviews and break down per licence type in each catchment

Table 2. Numbers interviews conducted and number of interviews per licence type in the three study catchments

Catchment	No. interviews conducted	Active irrigation licence interviewees	Sleeper (inactive) irrigation licence interviewees	Domestic & stock licence interviewees*	Winter-fill licence interviewees
King Parrot Creek	13	7	4	2**	2
Hoddles Creek	14	3	3	4*	7(3**)
Yea River	13	10	1	1(1**)	1

* Includes D & S & irrigation licence holders with inactive irrigation component
** Note: Some interviewees held more than one type of licence

Results

The research found that there had been an overall long-term decline in intensive irrigated agriculture in all the catchments studied. This situation was clearly verbalised by interviewees in the King Parrot Creek and Hoddles Creek catchments. The decline was attributed to one or a combination of:

• Market forces
• Water availability and seasonal security of supply
• An increase in subdivision and the number of small lot holders
• Reluctance to increase workload due to lifestyle (age and family)

Interviewees in the King Parrot and Hoddles Creek catchments described an influx of small lot holders or lifestyle landowners over the last 20 years and a reduction in areas of irrigated crops, such as potatoes and carrots. In the Yea catchment, there were also descriptions of a reduction in the number of irrigated agricultural enterprises. For example, one interviewee described the township of Yea once supporting its own butter factory and enough local dairy farms to supply this factory. There is now no such active factory and only one dairy farm remaining on the Yea River.

There is a large estimated proportion of sleeper irrigation licence holders in all three catchments (Table 1). The research found that given normal climatic conditions, there was no evidence to suggest that many sleeper licences would be activated in the near future. Although agriculture in the Yea catchment has declined in the last 20 years, it now appears to be relatively stable. Those interviewees considering irrigation expansion and who spoke of future irrigation developments all considered water a limiting factor.

Interviews on the King Parrot Creek indicated that the majority of active irrigators were not using their full entitlement and many were only using a small fraction of their entitlement. In contrast, most active irrigators interviewed in the Hoddles Creek and Yea River catchments were estimated to be using water volumes closer to their full entitlements. These results were consistent with water authority records and current crop plantation areas.

Some interviewees expressed concern that a few irrigators in the upper Yea catchment were overusing their entitlement. It is difficult to assess what the true water use situation is in the absence of metering. However, the research findings in all three catchments suggested that, on the whole, irrigators were not overusing their entitlement. Few irrigators interviewed felt that by being metered they would be individually identified as an over user of water. Many irrigators interviewed thought that metering might be a positive way of proving to the wider community that they were actually low consumers of stream water. The introduction of metering is recommended in all three SFMPs. The research highlighted that at this time few irrigators on the King Parrot Creek and Yea River are metered. Most irrigation licence holders on Hoddles Creek are metered.

Interviewees unanimously considered SFMPs to be valuable and supported the concept of the environment being a valid water user. There were however, suggestions by interviewees of inequality towards irrigators, with regard to perceived water usage. Many described other extractors such as urban water managers and domestic and stock users as greater water users.

In each catchment, interviewees described the required volume of irrigation water as highly variable from year to year, depending on seasonal climatic conditions. In terms of irrigation infrastructure, sprinklers were found to be the most common systems used in all three catchments. Most interviewees described irrigating on a rotational basis and highlighted an effort to minimise evaporation losses through the timing of irrigations. Some irrigators described using irrigation scheduling technology such as tensiometers or neutron probes and one irrigator explained how they had installed a weather station on their property to assist with irrigation timing. Most irrigator interviewees seemed familiar with basic irrigation theory, with a number having attended an irrigation management course at some time. The majority of irrigators in all catchments appeared to be using, or close to using, irrigation BMPs for their particular situation. Due to the size and nature of the irrigated industries in all three catchments in relation to other regions, detailed investigation into BMPs has not been undertaken. However, evidence from research in other regions suggests that if BMP guidelines were developed, the prescribed practices would be similar to those being employed.

Despite SFMP modelling predicting periods of restrictions and bans for irrigators, interviewees on the King Parrot and Hoddles Creeks considered SFMP conditions would have little or no impact on their enterprise. This is because irrigators regarded the streams as historically unreliable sources of water. Responding to reduced water security, active irrigators had either moved to alternative enterprises or they had invested, or were in the process of investing in alternative means of securing their irrigation water supply. For example, it was found that on the King Parrot Creek many irrigators now rely heavily on other sources of irrigation water, such as groundwater. Extraction from the King Parrot and Hoddles Creeks for irrigation was banned for much of the 2002/03 irrigation season, yet the research found that few irrigators complained to relevant water authorities, and those that did had misunderstood their licencing conditions.

Research results indicated that the situation was quite different on the Yea River. Many irrigator interviewees were affected, to varying degrees, by the restrictions placed on diversions from the Yea River during the 2002/03 season. Most interviewees believed they would be affected in some way, or in some years, by increased restrictions and potential bans when the Yea River SFMP is implemented. These irrigators had always considered the Yea River a constant and reliable source of irrigation water. Because of this reliability, there had been little need to invest in alternative means of securing a sufficient supply of water to deal with restrictions in critical periods

Interviewees in the King Parrot and Hoddles Creek catchments did not identify any on-farm options to enable them to meet SFMP requirements. This is because active irrigators have already made changes to secure their water supply. Those suggesting that government incentive assistance was needed could not readily identify for what such incentives might be used. One irrigator suggested that the introduction of incentives might actually lead to an increase in the extraction of water for irrigation purposes, encouraging investors to come into the area and set up new irrigation enterprises.

Interviewees in the Yea River catchment overwhelmingly agreed that the only way to ensure future water security and be able to adjust to the SFMP was to build off-creek storages to support winter fill licences. Those interviewed believed that there should be some sort of cost-sharing arrangement introduced by government to support them in building or repairing off-creek storages, with several suggestions that the SFMP would fail without such assistance. There was a general feeling amongst interviewees that the SFMP would benefit the whole community therefore the community needed to contribute to the cost of its implementation.

Discussion

It is important to remember that this social research provides a snapshot on irrigation water use, practices and attitudes that is only relevant in the current context of SFMP implementation. If this context changes in the future, these results become irrelevant and new information must be sought to use in decision-making.

This research illustrates the need to consider the real circumstances of the target audience when contemplating the introduction of an extension approach. In terms of the need for and successful implementation of an extension program, the results highlighted critical differences in the position of irrigators with respect to SFMP implementation in the three catchments. The first catchment studied was King Parrot Creek, where the remaining active irrigators interviewed had already adapted their water management to cope with a historically unreliable water supply, but were unfamiliar with the precise conditions on their water licences and the mechanics of water trading. An extension program to meet their requirements would focus on these aspects. If the same program was delivered in the Yea River catchment it would achieve little success because those irrigators interviewed are more concerned with adapting to what will now become an unreliable water supply following the implementation of the SFMP. In the Yea catchment, irrigators are seeking information on how they might secure their water supply, rather than the precise conditions on their water licences. Because of the nature of the Hoddles Creek catchment, there is very little information an extension program could deliver to remaining active irrigators that is not already available.

The research findings contradict the initial assumptions made by the Targeted Water Project, and the assumptions found through the research of stakeholders involved in the SFMP process. The research found that it was commonly assumed that irrigators are the main water users in the three catchments studied, and therefore they would have the greatest impact on any potential environmental flow. The Targeted Water Project assumed that if irrigators changed their irrigation practices or technologies to meet BMPs, then they would be able to adhere to SFMP requirements, and that meeting the requirements would lead to greater stream flows. This research indicates that targeting an extension approach to improve irrigation practices will not help irrigators in these catchments to meet SFMP requirements. The findings also suggest that irrigators are not necessarily the largest consumers of stream water, and that in many cases irrigators may be able to comply with a SFMP without increasing stream flows.

The results of this study highlight the risk of developing and implementing an extension program based on assumed knowledge of the needs of the audience. If the Targeted Water Project had developed and introduced an extension program in these SFMP catchments based on their assumptions, the extension program is likely to have had little impact. Most irrigators in all three catchments are already using the practices that would be the basis for the extension program. This would probably have led to a low level of irrigator response to extension efforts, regardless of the extension approach used. It is also likely to have led agency staff to label irrigators in such terms as “stubborn”, “resistant to change” or “too set in their ways”! An extension program in these catchments focusing purely on irrigation appears unlikely to result in any significant increases in environmental flows. However, as a result of this piece of research, the Targeted Water Project Team was able to rethink the design of the toolbox to better target individual catchment needs, saving time, money and grief.

Conclusion

Prior to this social research being undertaken, the Targeted Water Project was designing an extension program for irrigators based on popular perception. This approach was setting the project up for disappointing results, as before deciding on the extension approach to use, the need for the extension program and the content of that extension program must be determined.

The results of the social research project show that the original proposed extension program was inappropriate for the audience, although a relevant extension program is still valid. This research will enable the Targeted Water Project to design and deliver an extension program that will more effectively target irrigators in the King Parrot Creek, Hoddles Creek and Yea River catchments, and assist the delivery of environmental flows in those catchments. It will also provide government with sound results on which to make informed investment decisions.

A social research study conducted before investment in extension minimises the risk of the extension programs being off-track and can avoid disappointing results, frustration by all involved, the laying of blame, and wariness of investors to fund future extension programs.

The question now is “How many extension programs have been implemented with disappointing results, that should have either more accurately targeted community needs or not been conducted at all?” It is unlikely that the assumptions made in these case study catchments are isolated to this area or this topic. Assumptions made about farmers in all types of situations may be significantly misleading, causing a mismatch between the needs of the extension provider and the farmer. By determining the reality, needs and expectations can be more closely aligned.

Acknowledgments

We would sincerely like to thank all irrigator interviewees who readily gave up their time to assist us in understanding the situation in the King Parrot Creek, Hoddles Creek and the Yea River catchments. In addition, we would like to thank members of the King Parrot Creek SFMP Consultative Committee, Hoddles Creek Streamflow Management Plan Working Group and the Yea River Streamflow Management Plan Working Group for giving up their time, and for being available for subsequent contact. We also appreciate the contributions made by all the institutional representatives interviewed.

We extend our thanks to Andrew Strange (Goulburn-Murray Water) and Steve Nichol (Melbourne Water) for the provision of invaluable background information. We also thank Gary Howell (Department of Sustainability and Environment), Fiona Johnson and Sze Flett (Department of Primary Industries) for their input and for giving us the opportunity to undertake this research project.

References

Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002) Healthy Rivers, Healthy Communities and Regional Growth - Victorian River Health Strategy

Dick, B. (1998) Convergent interviewing: a technique for qualitative data collection [On line]. Available at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/arp/iview.html

Hoddles Creek Streamflow Management Plan Working Group (2002) Hoddles Creek Draft Streamflow Management Plan

King Parrot Creek SFMP Consultative Committee (2001) King Parrot Creek Streamflow Management Plan Report – Draft

Patton MQ (1990) Qualitative evaluation and research methods 2nd Ed (Sage Publications: USA)

Yea River Streamflow Management Plan Working Group (2002) Yea River Draft Streamflow Management Plan

Zampatti, B. and Raadik, T.A. (1997) An Assessment of Environmental Flow Requirements for Hoddles Creek, Marine and Freshwater Resources Institute Freshwater Ecology Division, prepared for Melbourne Water Corporation