murray irrigation limited

1 Compliance Report 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED

MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITEDCOMPLIANCE REPORT

2003/04

Murray Irrigation LimitedA.C.N. 067 197 933

MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 20042

Table of ContentsChapter 1: Supply Management ........................................................ 4Diversions Deliveries and Losses.......................................................................... 4Irrigation Water Quality ..................................................................................... 5Supply Refurbishment & Review .......................................................................... 5Telemetry ...................................................................................................... 7Water Trade ................................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: Stormwater Management ................................................. 9Water Quality Analysis ...................................................................................... 9Pesticide Monitoring ....................................................................................... 16Blue-Green Algae Monitoring ............................................................................ 17Impact on Receiving Waterways ......................................................................... 18Pumping Drainage Water into Supply Channels ...................................................... 20Noxious Aquatic Weeds ................................................................................... 20Agricultural Chemical Use ............................................................................... 21

Chapter 3: Groundwater Management .............................................. 22Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme .................................................... 22Other Tubewell Pumping ................................................................................. 25Trends in Regional Watertable Levels .................................................................. 26Risk of Salinity (Benchmark) ............................................................................. 32Rootzone Salinity (Benchmark) .......................................................................... 32

Chapter 4: On-Farm Management.................................................... 34Climatic Conditions ........................................................................................ 34Landuse ...................................................................................................... 35Irrigation Layout ........................................................................................... 36Water Use ................................................................................................... 36Total Farm Water Balance ................................................................................ 37Rice Water Use ............................................................................................. 38Waterlogging (Benchmark) ............................................................................... 39Farm Water Use Efficiency (Benchmark) .............................................................. 39Adoption of Best Management Practices (Benchmark) .............................................. 43Soil Acidity (Benchmark) ................................................................................. 44Status of Native Vegetation (Benchmark) .............................................................. 44Socio Economic Status (Benchmark) .................................................................... 46Community Understanding of Best Management Practices (Benchmark) ......................... 46

Chapter 5: Murray Land and Water Management Plans ....................... 47LWMP Implementation ................................................................................... 47Berriquin LWMP........................................................................................... 50Cadell LWMP .............................................................................................. 54Denimein LWMP .......................................................................................... 63Wakool LWMP ............................................................................................. 69Murray LWMP R&D Program .......................................................................... 74Stormwater Escape Construction ........................................................................ 76


Appendix One: Benchmark and Compliance Index............................... 81Appendix 1.1: Table of Benchmarks .................................................................... 81Appendix 1.2: Table of Compliance Items............................................................. 81

Appendix Two: Pesticide Summary .................................................. 82Appendix 2.1: Pesticide Summary October-December 2003 ....................................... 82Appendix 2.2: Exceedence Levels of Molinate and Thiobencarb .................................. 83

Appendix Three: Environment Report Compliance Issues 2002/03. .......... 84Appendix 3.1: DIPNR..................................................................................... 84Appendix 3.2: NSW Department of Primary Industry ............................................... 85Appendix 3.3: Department of Environment and Conservation ..................................... 85

Appendix Four: Published Documents ............................................... 86Appendix 4.1: Murray LWMP Documentation Produced ........................................... 86Appendix 4.2: Environmental Documentation Produced ............................................ 86

Appendix Five: Landholder Chemical Usage Report ............................. 87

Appendix Six: Stormwater Escape Additional Information ..................... 88Appendix 6.1: Summary of Total Flow Discharges from MIL Area of Operations ............ 88Appendix 6.3: Monthly Turbidity and Nutrient Data for MIL Discharge Sites ................. 88Appendix 6.2: Salinity Levels Discharged from MIL Area of Operations ....................... 89Appendix 6.6: Total Nitrogen Levels within MILs Stormwater Escape System................. 90Appendix 6.4: Turbidity Levels of Surface Water .................................................... 91Appendix 6.5: Total Phosphorus Levels within MILs Stormwater Escape System ............. 91

Appendix Seven: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey................. 92Appendix 7.1: Annual LWMP Landholder Survey Form ........................................... 92

Appendix Eight: Theiss Report ...................................................... 104Appendix 8.1: Theiss Services Drainage Water Report ............................................ 104

Appendix Nine: LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Audit Draft Report..177Appendix 9.1: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Audit Report - Draft..............177


Chapter 1: Supply Management

Diversions Deliveries and LossesThe bulk water allocation for Murray Irrigationin 2003/04 was 892,171ML (55% ofallocation). Figure 1.1 and Table 1.1 illustrate2003/04 diversion figures in detail.

Source Volume (ML) Escape Volume (ML) Total DeliveredCarried over 2003/04 85,196 Edward River 307,248 658,608MLAllocation 2003/04 892,171 Finley Escape 27,000Off Allocation 70,064 Wakool River 28,061Transfers in 114,726 Yallakool Creek 2,649Snowy Payback -124,000 Pericoota Escape 3,761

Tuppal Creek 1,122

Resource Available Gross Diversions Net Diversions1,038,157ML 1,225,616ML (Mulwala Canal, Wakool Canal)

Carryover 2004/05 Losses182,482ML 197,067ML

23.03% of Net Diversion

Escape Credits

Figure 1.1: Diversions and Deliveries Flow Chart 2003/04

Diverted Delivered Loss Loss %August 26,371 4,315 22,056 83.64September 53,579 37,740 15,839 29.56October 91,582 64,139 27,443 29.97November 89,661 67,858 21,803 24.32December 69,554 48,719 20,835 29.96January 143,284 116,564 26,720 18.65February 100,710 74,076 26,634 26.45March 162,226 118,723 43,503 26.82April 125,610 111,593 14,017 11.16May -6,902 14,881 -21,783Totals 855,675 658,608 197,067

Table 1.1: Summary of Diversions Deliveries and Losses (ML)by month

Determining supply efficiency(Benchmark)

Irrigation supply efficiency is measured in termsof the water delivered on farm expressed as apercentage of the water diverted. Table 1.2shows the annual allocation to the MurrayIrrigation area of operation and the deliveryefficiency for the period 1993/94 to 2003/04,defined by:

Supply = Water Delivered x 100Efficiency Water Diverted 1

The relationship between annualallocation and delivery efficiencyhighlights the relative consistency ofdelivery efficiency for the range ofannual allocations received.

Table 1.2: Delivery Efficiency of Murray Irrigation Operations 1993/94 –2003/04

Year Diversions (ML) Deliveries (ML) Loss (ML) Efficiency (%)

1993/94 1,269,336 1,015,469 253,867* 80

1994/95 1,565,891 1,298,515 267,367 82.9

1995/96 1,511,956 1,291,181 220,775 85.4

1996/97 1,761,812 1,471,910 289,902 83.5

1997/98 1,381,656 1,045,658 335,998 75.7

1998/99 1,468,662 1,167,755 300,887 79.5

1999/00 891,127 675,155 215,972 75.8

2000/01 1,557,785 1,295,437 262,348 83.2

2001/02 1,509,356 1,239,536 270,356 82.1

2002/03 529,329 399,740 129,589 75.5

2003/04 855,675 658,608 197,067 77

Average 1,300,235 1,050,815 226,387 80.1

Max 1,761,812 1,471,910 335,998 85.4

Min 529,329 399,740 129,589 75.5

NB: The 1993/94 deliveries and losses are estimates only.


Salinity (EC)Total

Phosphorus (mg/L)

Salinity (EC)Total

Phosphorus (mg/L)

Salinity (EC)Total

Phosphorus (mg/L)

Range 22 -44 0.023 - 0.048 53 -59 0.009 - 0.027 38 -83 0.027 - 0.037

Average 33 0.036 56 0.017 48 0.032

Median 35 0.036 56 0.016 42 0.033

Source: (1) Murray Irrigation (2) DIPNR

Mulwala Canal at Mulwala Offtake (409026) (2)

Mulwala Escape into Edward River (409029) (1)

Edward River at Steven's Weir (409023) (2)

Table 1.3: Quality of Irrigation Water 2003/2004

Irrigation Water QualityIn order to monitor the quality of irrigation water DIPNR and MIL measure the salinity and total phosphorusentering the irrigation supply system. DIPNR monitors water quality at the Mulwala Canal offtake and StevensWeir. Murray Irrigation monitors water diverted back into the Edward River from the Mulwala Canal at theEdward River Escape. In 2003/04, salinity and total phosphorus levels were maintained between the MulwalaCanal offtake and Edward River escape. Both the salinity and total phosphorus levels were slightly higher atStevens Weir than at the Edward River escape. The results for 2003/04 are shown in Table 1.3.

Blue-Green Algae in the Supply System

Historically, blue-green algae have not affected the Murray River between the Hume Dam and Lake Mulwala.However, in 2002/03 the record low levels of water in the Hume Dam resulted in blue-green algae blooms in theHume Dam being transported downstream into the Murray River and Lake Mulwala. The movement of blue-greenalgae caused high alert levels in Lake Mulwala. The entire Murray Irrigation supply system supplied by the MulwalaCanal was affected by the presence of blue-green algae.

In 2003/04 high alert levels of blue-green algae were once again present in the Hume Dam and transported downstream to Lake Mulwala. High alert levels were present in Lake Mulwala, but unlike the previous year the algaewas not transported into Murray Irrigation’s supply system. This year the species of algae dominating the bloomwere different to previous years and predominately affected the southern areas of Lake Mulwala.

Supply Refurbishment & ReviewIn 2003/04 MIL, as per the asset renewal program approval, carried out bank building, refurbishment of channels,replacement of stock stops, replacement of dethridge outlets, road culverts and access culverts. These works wereaudited by Sinclair Knight Mertz, the independent auditor appointed by the NSW Government, for review byDIPNR.

The following works were completed during 2003/04:replacement of 18 access culverts;6 road culverts;1 road bridge.

In 1995, Halliburton KBR (then Kinhill) began review of Murray Irrigation’s maintenance and asset managementpractices. A five-year cyclic program of inspection commenced in 1996. This external annual review program hasbeen revised, given the ongoing internal review of works. The program of external review of the maintenance andasset management program is expected to recommence in 2005.

The maintenance works on MIL structures were carried out as required on a provisional manner. The asset databasefor MIL structures is now being updated and being entered into the GIS database for auditing purposes.


Maintenance & Operation of Floodplain Structures

In 2003/04 MIL operated and maintained floodplain structures in accordance with the floodplain guidelines. Allmaintenance and operation of these structures was conducted as per the ‘Guidelines for floodplain development –Stage 1-4’.

Construction of the floodgates on the northern branch canal regulator was completed last year and is now inoperation. New floodgates at the recently constructed Frasers Rd bridge are being completed and will be in operationin the near future.

As this report is written, DIPNR is finalising the floodplain management plans and due to this the construction ofa siphon at Papanue Creek on the northern branch canal and the lowering of the northern branch canal is anticipatedto be completed in 2004/05. Pending this, lowering of Mallan Number 1 channel for Byjantic Creek will also takeplace. Following this, construction of all required works for floodplain management should be completed.

Seepage and Erosion Control

Major seepage remediation anderosion control works wereundertaken by the company atseveral sites across its area during2003/04 at a cost of approximately$1,700,000. These works areoutlined in Table 1.4 below andsites are indicated in figure 1.2.

Site Problem Rectified

Length of works (m)

Berrigan No. 6 Seepage 200m

Moulamein No. 3 Seepage 1,100m

Southern Branch Canal No. 6D Seepage 1,000m

Mundiwa No.1 Seepage 3,000m

Finley No. 3 Seepage 600m

Mulwala No. 13 Seepage 774m

Berrigan No. 5 Seepage 400m

Yallakool No. 3 Seepage 7700m

Mulwala Canal D/S of Offtake Erosion 100m

Mulwala Canal U/S of Railway Bridge Erosion 100m

Mulwala Canal D/S of Railway Bridge Erosion 800m

D/S of Dawes Regulator Erosion 200m

Table 1.4: Seepage and Erosion Control Works 2003/04

Mallan Branch Canal

Northern Branch Canal

Northern Branch Canal

Jimaringle No 1

Jimaringle

Southern Branch Canal

Thule Creek

Caldwell

Dahwilly Sandridge Finley Main

Retreat

Berrigan Main

Boomanoomna

Mulwala Canal (Drop)

Geraki

Blighty 2E

Wakool

Finley

Mulwala

Bunnaloo

Berrigan

Moulamein

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Legend

Seepage Investigation Sites

Supply Channels

MIL Boundary®

10 0 10 205Kilometres

Channel Seepage Investigations

Figure 1.2: Channel Seepage Investigation Sites


!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

! !

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!

!.!.

!.!.

!!

!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!!

!

[¡

[¡

[¡

[¡[¡ [¡

[¡

[¡

[¡

!!!!!!!

!

?

??

! !!

!!

!!

!!

[̀

[̀ [̀

!!

!!

!

!

!

!

[̀!

[̀

[¡ [̀

[¡

[¡

!

!!

[̀

[̀

!

!

!

X

!

!!

!

!

!!

!

!!

!!

!

!

!!!!

!

!

!

!

!!!!! !

!

!!!

[¡

!!

!!!!!!

!

X

!!!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!!

!

!

!

[¡

Legend

Regulators & Monitoring Structures

? Radio Communication Tower

[̀ Communication Node

[¡ Environmental monitoring

X Manual operation

! Mechanised on site operation

! Remote control

!. Remote level monitoring

! autoesc

Stormwater Escape Channels

Supply Channels

MIL Boundary10 0 10 205

Kilometres

®

Remote Monitoring & Regulator Control

Figure 1.3: Remotely monitored and controlled structures.

TelemetryMurray Irrigation now has 250 sites in its telemetry system that can be either remotely controlled or monitored(Figure 1.3). Of these 16 are now environmental monitoring sites while the remainder are located within the supplyor drainage systems. Upgrades to software have seen all remote information available to all environment staffthrough MIL’s intranet.

In the 2003/04 season the following works were undertaken:Remote monitoring of a further 2 environment sites;Trials of mechanised and manually operated regulators;Installation of portable monitoring sites on drains and in the supply system;Upgrades to SCADA software and database.

The 2004/05 program is projected to involve:Upgrade of communications system;Continuing upgrade of SCADA software functionality;Remote monitoring of an extra environment site plus upgrades to existing sites;Remote control and automation of selected key structures. MIL’s main focus is to now, as a first step,mechanise all regulating structures before possibly integrating them into the telemetry system in the future.

Low allocations will again see remotely monitored regulators, escape structures and drains used as one of theimportant tools for MIL’s continuing push to become a more efficient water user and to minimise losses in thesystem.


99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04

Berriquin 3 8 3 11 8 18 16 23 14 9

Deniboota - 2 2 4 1 2 2 - 1 -

Denimein - - - 3 1 - - - 2 -

Wakool 1 - 2 3 5 2 2 - - 2

TOTAL 4 10 7 21 15 22 20 23 17 11

No. of SubdivisionsNo. of Landholding

Amalgamations

Table 1.7: Summary of Subdivisions and Amalgamations

District 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04

Berriquin 76 100 89 87 92 5 6.6 6 5.8 6.2

Deniboota 17 40 28 28 25 5 11.7 8 8 5.2

Denimein 6 16 9 9 10 3.2 8.5 4.7 4.7 7.1

Wakool 20 12 19 19 19 5.3 3.2 5 5 5

TOTAL 119 168 145 143 146 4.9 6.9 6 5.9 6.04

No. of Transfers Proportion of landholdings (%)

Table 1.6: Summary of Landholding Transfers within Murray Irrigation 2003/04

District In (ML) Out (ML) 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04

Berriquin 2485 1455 838 822 2,200 -207 -100 -618 1030

Deniboota 580 805 -69 -133 -106 -43 -10 -5 -225

Denimein - - -613 152 -913 - - 837 -Wakool 456 1261 -156 -841 -1181 250 110 -214 -805

TOTAL 3521 3521 - - - - - - -

Net Transfer (ML)

Table 1.4: Summary of Internal Permanent Transfers 1997/2004

Table 1.5: Temporary Transfersinto Murray Irrigation

YearVolume

(ML)

1997/98 98,764

1998/99 89,533

1999/00 175,812

2000/01 84,550

2001/02 85,819

2002/03 238,797

2003/04 126,613

Water Trade

Transfers

There were three permanent external transfers into the Murray Irrigation area during 2003/04, which equated to377ML. There were no external transfers out of Murray Irrigation during 2003/04.

Within Murray Irrigation, permanent transfers totalling 3,406ML occurred in 2003/04. The majority of thesetransfers were to or within the Berriquin District. The net result of the transfers are summarised in Table 1.4 alongwith records back to 1997.

Temporary Transfers

A total of 126,613ML wastemporarily transferred intoMurray Irrigation during the2003/04 irrigation season.

The major sources of transferwater were the MurrumbidgeeValley, Western Murray andSouth Australia. An increasingnumber of transfers were madefrom Victoria.

Changes to Ownership

In 2003/04, 146 landholdings (or 6.04% of the total landholdings) changedownership. The majority of these transfers occurred within the BerriquinDistrict (Table 1.6), although the relative proportion was higher in theDenimein District.

There were 15 subdivisions and 11 amalgamations in 2003/04 (Table 1.7).Environmental assessments were made prior to approvals being granted.An environmental assessment considers water use intensity, farm drainageand farm management. Landholdings can only be amalgamated when theyhave common ownership, a common boundary and a supply and/or drainagesystem linkage betweenlandholdings.


Chapter 2: Stormwater Management

Water Quality AnalysisA summary of the water quality for each stormwater escape outfall has been shown in Figure 2.2. Water qualitydata has been summarised as good, fair and poor. Water quality meeting the 2000 ANZECC guidelines for aquaticsystems has been rated as good. Where the quality is between one and three times the ANZECC guideline it hasbeen rated as fair. Where the water quality has exceeded three times the ANZECC guidelines it has been ratedpoor.

Water quality data has been analysed for three data periods; June 2003 – August 2003, September 2003 – December2003 and January 2004 – May 2004. The data for the January to May time period includes irrigation supply escapeflows at the close of the irrigation season. This is consistent with the request made by DIPNR as part of the agencyreview in 1998, which enables a separate analysis of winter runoff, and runoff during the irrigation season. In2003/04 water samples were collected on a weekly basis where flow exceeded 5ML/day for salinity and turbidityanalysis. Nutrients (total phosphorus and total nitrogen) were analysed at least once a month. Water quality analysiswas conducted at the Murray Irrigation laboratory in Finley. The laboratory holds National Association of TestingAuthorities Australia (NATA) accreditation (no. 14844) for electrical conductivity, turbidity and total phosphorusanalysis.

Continuous monitoring equipment maintained by Thiess Environmental Services in line with AS3778/ISO772standards has been used to record flow and salinity data. All licensed sites are visited weekly to check gauge heightreadings and samples are taken if necessary.

Discharges

There was an increase in discharges from the stormwater escape channels during 2003/04 compared to the previousyear. This increase is directly related to the higher rainfall experienced during 2003/04; the majority of the rainfallwas in July and August.

Summaries of dischargesfrom the drainage systemare presented in Table 2.1for each monitoring site.Discounting Finley Escape(BIFE), which is used totransport flow to BillabongCreek, the majorcontributors of stormwaterdischarge from MurrayIrrigation’s area were BoxCreek contributing 25%and Berrigan Creek Escapecontributing 20%.Deniboota Canal Escapecontributed 13% andLalalty SEC contributed11%. The change in themajor contributors todischarges from SECs thisyear is a direct reflection ofthe areas that receivedhigher winter rainfall.A comparison of total flowsfrom the Murray Irrigationarea over the last six yearsshows a correlation

Stormwater Escape Channel SiteTotal

June ’03 - May '04% contribution

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 495 1.4

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 1,991 5.6

Box Creek MOXM 2,589 7.3

Burraboi SEC JIBU 20 0.1

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 390 1.1

DC 2500 East JIJS 0 0.0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 1,252 3.5

Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 25,731 72.2

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 1,074 3.0

Neimur SEC TCND 488 1.4

North Deniliquin SEC DENI 118 0.3

Pinelea SEC TCPL 32 0.1

Wakool SEC DRWK 237 0.7

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 307 0.9

Wollamai Escape BIOW 934 2.6

Total 35,659 100.0

Table 2.1: Summary of discharges from Murray Irrigation area for 2003/2004


Figure 2.1: Water Quality Monitoring sites

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

##

#

#

#0

4090

56

4100

17

4100

16

41

4092

07

4090

75

4090

47

4090

45

4090

35

40

4090

25

4090

23

4090

14

4090

08

4090

05

4090

03

4092

02

4090

15

4090

62

4090

61

4101

4101

099

7

4091

003

1

4091

002

8

Moa

ma

Wak

ool

Fin

ley

Blig

hty

Bar

oog

a

Bur

rabo

i

Bun

nal

oo

Mat

hour

a

Ber

riga

n

Pre

tty P

ine

JIB

U

TC

ND

JIJS

MO

XM

NM

BR

TC

PL

BIB

E

BIF

EB

IWE

BB

RI

LALI

TU

PJ

BIO

WB

OX

C

DE

NI

MLA

WD

BC

E

DR

WK

DR

NM

Leg

end

DIP

NR

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sit

es

#D

IPN

R M

onito

ring

Site

s

MIL

Mo

nit

ori

ng

Sit

es

EP

A

His

toric

Ed

war

d R

iver

Esc

ape

Sto

rm W

ater

Esc

ape

Ch

anne

ls

Riv

ers

Mai

n R

oads

MIL

Bo

unda

ry

100

1020

5K

ilom

etr

es

±


between rainfall and the total net discharge (see figure 2.3). The timing of the rainfall influences the volume ofdischarges from the stormwater escape channel system. For example, the flows in 2000/01 are associated withsignificant spring thunderstorm events. The exceptionally dry conditions experienced in 2002/03 resulted in thestormwater escape system essentially ceasing to flow. During 2003/04 the influence of rainfall in July and Augustcan be clearly seen with increased discharges from the stormwater escape channels during the winter period, Juneto August.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

Median Ec (uS/cm)Site Identification

Median Flow ML/DayJune '03 - Aug '03Sept '03 - Dec '03Jan '04 - May '04

Total PhosphorusGoodFairPoorInsufficient Data

Moama

Wakool

Barham Finley

Conargo

Blighty

Barooga

Mulwala

Burraboi

BunnalooMathoura Tocumwal

Berrigan

Moulamein

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Pretty Pine

*

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

***

*

*

*

*

*

P

0

0

0

5

0

0

6

2

4

1

0

0

1

2

4

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

1

9

0

0

0

4

P

P

P

P

P

P

P

P P

P

P

PPPP

Ec

90

90

62

6319

Ec

Ec

Ec

Ec

Ec

Ec

Ec

Ec

Ec Ec

Ec

EcEcEcEc

0.1 553

689

114

316

949

143

336

103

129

111

286

315

317

225

342

666

822

412

222

269

103

129

133

131

297

295

217

133

193

219

140

166

234

451

337

<800 >0.05

>0.15

0.21

0.11

0.12

0.19

1.19

0.44

0.310.32

0.07

0.32

0.160.08

0.22

0.07

JIJS

Flow

Flow

Flow

Flow

Flow Flow

Flow

Flow

FlowFlow

Flow

Flow

Flow

FlowFlow

Flow

>2000

1739

1033

1007

2113

2156

1558

JIBU

BIFE

BIBE

DENI

0.053

0.109

0.104

0.323

0.026

0.0530.029

0.035

TUPJ

BIWE

TCPL

BBR1

BIOW

TCND

DBCE

DBCE

0.05-0.15

NMBR

DRWK

800-2000

MOXM

JIBU

TCND

JIJSMOXM

NMBR

TCPL

BIBE

BIFEBIWE

BBRI

TUPJ

BIOW

DENI

DBCE

DRWK

Legend

!( Monitoring Sites

Storm Water Escape Channels

Rivers

Main Roads

MIL Boundary


®

Water Quality Monitoring

Figure 2.2: Water Quality Monitoring

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Total Flow (ML)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Rainfall Deniliquin (mm)

Jan - May

Sept - Dec

Jun - Aug

rainfall

Figure 2.3: Comparison of total volume discharged and rainfall fromMurray Irrigation’s area for the period 1998 to 2004.


Salinity

Salinity levels within the SECs varied from a low of 38EC to a high of 7,225EC, with median levels of 70-1,459EC. High salinity levels were associated with conditions of no or very low flows. Low salinity levels wererecorded in the SECs at times when irrigation supply escape water was being discharged. There were no dischargesfrom Dry Creek into Lalalty SEC in 2003/04.

Median salinity levels remained similaror decreased compared to previousyears at all SECs except Neimur Drainand DC2500 East. The median salinitylevels in Box Creek decreased from4,220EC in 2002/03 to 1,459EC in2003/04. This appears to be due to anincrease in discharges from Box Creek.

A summary of total salt load for eachmonitoring site is presented in Table2.2. Discounting Finley Escape(BIFE), which is used to transport flowto Billabong Creek, the majorcontributors to salt load dischargesfrom Murray Irrigation’s area were BoxCreek contributing 55% and DenibootaCanal Escape contributing 19%.Lalalty SEC contributed 13% of the saltload discharged. Based on daily flowand salinity recordings, the net saltdischarge load was approximately4,280 tonnes and the net salt import(water delivered on farm) wasapproximately 21,100 tonnes.

A comparison of the total tonnes of salt discharged from our area over the last six years and rainfall is presented infigure 2.4. Over the last two years there has been a dramatic reduction in salt load from the Murray Irrigation area,the increased rainfall and associated flows in the June to August winter period did not impact on the salt load. Overthe years salt load in the winter period remains relatively constant regardless of rainfall.

Table 2.2: Summary of salt discharged from Murray Irrigation area2003/2004 (tonnes)

Figure 2.4: Comparison of total salt discharged and rainfall from the MurrayIrrigation area for the period 1998 to 2004.

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1998/1999 1999/2000 2000/2001 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Years

Total salt (tonnes)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600


Jan - MaySept - DecJun - Augrainfall


Total Phosphorus

Total phosphorus levels in the SECs ranged from of 0.01mg/L to 0.84mg/L in 2003/04. The high levels of totalphosphorus were associated with the rainfall during July and August, especially in the Jerilderie area. The mediantotal phosphorus levels increased in all stormwater escape channels, except Box Creek which remained similar toprevious years.

Total phosphorus load for each SEC is calculated using the total monthly discharges from the continuous recordingequipment and the total phosphorus concentration from the monthly sample (the median value is used where thereis more than one sample for the month).

A summary of total phosphorusload for each monitoring site ispresented in Table 2.3.Discounting Finley Escape(BIFE), which is used to transportflow to Billabong Creek, themajor contributors to thephosphorus discharges fromMurray Irrigation’s area wereBerrigan Creek Escapecontributing 25% and Box Creekcontributing 23%. The minorcontributors to phosphorusdischarges were the WollamaiEscape contributing 17% andLalalty SEC contributing 12%.Based on daily flow and totalphosphorus recordings, anestimate of the total phosphorusloads can be calculated. The nettotal phosphorus discharge loadwas approximately 1.32 tonnesand the net total phosphorusimported through the supply waterwas approximately 13 tonnes.

A comparison of the total tonnesof phosphorus discharged fromMurray Irrigation’s area over thelast six years and rainfall ispresented in figure 2.5. Therelationship between totalphosphorus load and rainfall isdependent on the timing of therainfall. In 2000/01 the increasein total phosphorus load forSeptember to December is relatedto significant springthunderstorms. In 2003/04 therewas a significant increase in thetotal phosphorus discharges in thewinter period, June to August.This increase is associated withrainfall events in July and August,especially in the Jerilderie area.


June ’03 - May '04

% contribution

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 0.12 5.7

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.33 15.6

Box Creek MOXM 0.30 14.2

Burraboi SEC JIBU * 0

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 0.01 0.5

DC 2500 East JIJS * 0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 0.01 0.5

Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 0.80 37.7

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 0.16 7.5

Neimur SEC TCND 0.04 1.9

North Deniliquin SEC DENI * 0

Pinelea SEC TCPL * 0

Wakool SEC DRWK 0.1 4.7

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 0.03 1.4

Wollamai Escape BIOW 0.22 10.4

Total 2.12 100

Table 2.3: Summary of phosphorus discharged from Murray Irrigation area2003/2004 (tonnes)

Figure 2.5: Comparison of total phosphorus discharged and rainfall from the MurrayIrrigation area for the period 1998 to 2004.


Total Nitrogen

Total nitrogen levels in the SEC system ranged from of < 0.5mg/L to 3.0mg/L across the region in 2003/04. Thehigh levels of total nitrogen were associated with the rainfall during July and August, especially in the Jerilderiearea. The median total nitrogen levels remained largely unchanged compared to previous years in all SECs.

The total nitrogen load for each SECis calculated using total monthlydischarges from the continuousrecording equipment and totalnitrogen concentration from themonthly sample (the median valueis used where there is more thanone sample for the month).

A summary of total nitrogen loadfor each monitoring site is presentedin Table 2.4. Discounting FinleyEscape (BIFE), which is used totransport flow to Billabong Creek,the major contributors to thenitrogen discharges from MurrayIrrigation’s area were BerriganCreek Escape contributing 32% andBox Creek contributing 28%. Theminor contributors to nitrogendischarges were Wollamai Escapecontributing 18% and Lalalty SECcontributing 14%.

A comparison of the total tonnes ofnitrogen discharged from theMurray Irrigation area over the lastsix years and rainfall is presentedin figure 2.6. The relationshipbetween the total nitrogen loadand rainfall is dependent on thetiming of rainfall. In 2000/01 theincrease in total nitrogen load forSeptember to December isrelated to significant springthunderstorms. In 2003/04 therewas a significant increase in thetotal nitrogen discharges in thewinter period, June to August.This increase is associated withrainfall events in July andAugust, especially in theJerilderie area.


June ’03 - May '04

% contribution

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 0.6 4.8

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 2.5 20.2

Box Creek MOXM 2.2 17.7

Burraboi SEC JIBU * 0

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 0 0

DC 2500 East JIJS 0.1 0.8

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE * 0

Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 4.1 33.1

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 1.1 8.9

Neimur SEC TCND 0.1 0.8

North Deniliquin SEC DENI * 0

Pinelea SEC TCPL * 0

Wakool SEC DRWK 0.1 0.8

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 0.2 1.6

Wollamai Escape BIOW 1.4 11.3

Total 12.4 100

Table 2.4: Summary of nitrogen discharged from Murray Irrigationarea 2003/2004 (tonnes)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Total nitrogen (tonnes)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500


Jan - MaySept - DecJun - Augrainfall

Figure 2.6: Comparison of total nitrogen discharged andrainfall from the Murray Irrigation area for the period 1998to 2004.


Turbidity

MIL revised our weed control strategies for SECs during 1998/99 to reduce the sediment load discharging fromSECs particularly during periods of low flow. Future management will involve the retention of vegetation onbatters and banks, and active vegetation of new SECs. Individual weed species such as cumbungi and sagittaria willcontinue to be spot controlled to minimise the spread of weeds.

Turbidity levels were extremely variable in theSECs throughout 2003/04. Low turbidity levelswere recorded when salinity levels were high. Highturbidity levels (above 200NTU) were recordedwith high discharge rates following rain. Theturbidity levels in all stormwater escape channelsincreased in 2003/04. The increases are directlyrelated to rainfall events during winter.

A summary of turbidity results for each monitoringsite is presented in Table 2.5.

Other Monitoring

Council development consent conditions on someSECs require installation of flow and salinitymonitoring equipment. These are:

DC18 Lalalty SEC (LAL18);Warragoon North (BCMS);Pinelea SEC (TUP1 and TUPL).

The data for Pinelea SEC (TUPL) is presented onpage 6 relating to summary of discharges fromthe Murray Irrigation region.

Some of the more recently constructed SECs havea consent condition regarding the analysis of waterquality following a rainfall event of over 25mmin 24 hours. No water samples were collected fromthe SECs with this consent condition attachedduring 2003/04 as no rainfall events reached25mm in 24 hours.

Three monitoring sites established prior to 1995to record flow and salinity levels have beenremoved from the Environment ProtectionLicence. Murray Irrigation has chosen tocontinue to operate these sites for our owninformation. These sites are:

Box Creek at Conargo Rd (BOXC);Lalalty Drain at railway bridge (LAL1);Neimur Drain at Moulamein Road(DRNM).

Stormwater Escape Channel SiteMedian

Turbidity (NTU)

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 *

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 195

Box Creek MOXM 26

Burraboi SEC JIBU *

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR *

DC 2500 East JIJS *

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE *

Finley Escape BIFE (credited) 55

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 87

Neimur SEC TCND 471

North Deniliquin SEC DENI *

Pinelea SEC TCPL *

Wakool SEC DRWK *

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 369

Wollamai Escape BIOW 292

Table 2.5: Summary of turbidity levels discharged fromMurray Irrigation area 2003/2004.

Stormwater Escape Channel

SiteTotal Flow

(ML)Total tonnes

saltDC18 Lalalty SEC LAL18 98 15

Warragoon North SEC BCMS 232 93

Tuppal Creek TUP1 2374 676

Table 2.6: Summary of discharges and salt load at thecouncil consent conditions sites for 2003/2004.

Table 2.7: Summary of discharges and salt load at the historicsites for 2003/2004.


Flow (ML)

Total tonnes

saltNeimur Drain (Barham/Moulamain Rd) DRNM 714 118

Box Creek (Conargo Rd) BOXC 2194 2793

Lalalty Drain (Railway bridge) LAL1 1350 1010


Pesticide MonitoringThe ELIZA molinate tests were not undertaken in 2003/04 after discussions in late winter 2003 between theEnvironment Protection Authority and the three irrigation companies (Murrumbidgee, Coleambally and Murray)regarding the anticipated low allocations, reduced rice plantings and costs of the kits. A variation of the EnvironmentProtection Licence removing the requirement for the use of the ELIZA molinate kits for one year was issued.

In 2003/04 the pesticide monitoring program was undertaken in accordance with Section M2 of the EnvironmentProtection Licence from October to December 2003, excluding the use of ELIZA molinate kits. Pesticides monitoredduring this period were molinate, thiobencarb and atrazine. Intensive monitoring commenced in the first week ofOctober and continued for six weeks, less intensive monitoring continues until the end of December. Samples areonly collected when flow exceeds 5ML/day.

The water quality limits for pesticides monitored are listed in Schedule 1 of the Environment Protection Licence.The schedule was changed significantly with the issuing of the revised licence in July 2003 (table 2.8). All datapresented has been revised to reflect the changes. The pesticide monitoring program results are dominated by thelack of drainage flows and reduced rice plantings associated with low water allocations. There were no significantspring rainfall events during 2003.

Pesticide Analysis using ELIZA kits

Data for the ELIZA molinate tests from previousyears has been reviewed in line with changes in thenotification and action levels on Schedule 1 of theEnvironment Protection Licence. Only licensed sitesat the time of testing have been included in theanalysis. The influence of significant springthunderstorm events in 2000 in the western area ofMurray Irrigation can be clearly observed. Asummary of the results is presented in Figure 2.7.

External Analysis

Murray Irrigation submitssamples to an external NATAaccredited laboratory forthiobencarb and atrazineanalysis. Molinate was alsotested externally this year asELIZA kits were not used.

In 2003/04 a total of 29 testswere undertaken forthiobencarb, 33 tests for atrazineand 53 tests for molinate. Allsamples were below the level ofdetection for all chemicals.

The data for the thiobencarb testsfrom previous years has beenreviewed in line with changes in the notification and action levels on Schedule 1 of the Environment ProtectionLicence. Only external sites at the time of testing have been included in the analysis. A summary of the results ispresented in Figure 2.8.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1995/96 1997/98 1999/00 2001/02 2003/04

Number

Exceedence ofEnvironmental Levels

Exceedence of NotificationLevels

Exceedence of ActionLevels

N/A

Figure 2.7: Summary of the Eliza Molinate levels at Murray Irrigation’slicenced discharge sites

PesticideEnvironmental

Guidelines (µg/L)

Notification Level (µg/L)

Action Level (µg/L)

Molinate 2.5 3.4 14

Thiobencarb 1 2.8 4.6

Atrazine 2 13 45

Table 2.8: Water quality limits for pesticides,Environment Protection Licence (Schedule 1)

The ELIZA molinate tests were not used in 2003/04 asdiscussed above.


Blue-Green Algae MonitoringBlue-Green Algae samples were taken from the EPA monitoring sites as required by the DIPNR EnvironmentManagement conditions A.2.1. The results are presented in table 2.9.

The presence of blue-green algae at Finley Escape is a direct result of contaminated water in the supply systembeing transferred through the escape to Billabong Creek, to supplement river flows.

DateBlue- Green Algae

(cells/ml)

Site: BIBE Berrigan Creek Escape

11-Nov-03 < 1000

09-Dec-03 < 200

20-Jan-04 < 200

03-Feb-04 < 200

Site: BIFE Finley Escape

11-Nov-03 < 1000

09-Dec-03 2291

06-Jan-04 2014

03-Feb-04 1363

02-Mar-04 1936

06-Apr-04 7703

Site : DBCE Deniboota Canal Escape

25-Nov-03 < 200

Site: MOXM Box Creek

11-Nov-03 < 200

02-Dec-03 < 200

06-Jan-04 2983

03-Feb-04 < 200

02-Mar-04 435

Site: NMBR Burragorrimma SEC

25-Nov-03 3278

Table 2.9: Summary of Blue-Green Algae for theMurray Irrigation area 2003/2004

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04Year

NumberExceedence ofEnvironmental Levels

Exceedence of NotificationLevels

Exceedence of ActionLevels

Figure 2.8: Summary of Thiobencarb levels at Murray Irrigation’s licenceddischarge sites


Impact on Receiving WaterwaysMurray Irrigation nutrient data was collected at different times to the DIPNR data and does not take into accounttravel times. As such the information presented should only be considered indicative of the changes in streamdischarges and quality. The information does however provide general trends in changes to water quality.

Murray Irrigation met with EPA, DIPNR and the Murray Catchment Management Committee Water Qualityworking group in 1998/99 to determine what changes needed to be made to the Murray Irrigation and DIPNRmonitoring programs to enable integration of data. This meeting recommended DIPNR undertake additionalmonitoring or relocate the water quality monitoring stations and review the timing of sampling. There was howeverno changes made to the monitoring schedules since that meeting, making it difficult for Murray Irrigation to drawdefinite conclusions regarding the impacts of its discharges on receiving waters.

Billabong Creek

Water quality of Billabong Creek has been summarised in Table 2.10. The data does not include discharge or waterquality from Yanco Creek. Yanco Creek flows include discharges from the Coleambally Irrigation District. Assuch any conclusions drawn regarding the impact of Murray Irrigation need to be done in recognition of theselimitations.

Salinity levels of water entering Billabong Creek from Murray Irrigation infrastructure was of better quality thanBillabong Creek at Jerilderie. Total phosphorus concentration increased in Billabong Creek between Jerilderie andConargo. It is not possible to determine the impact of the discharges during July and August from Berrigan CreekEscape on Billabong Creek as the water quality of the discharges from Yanco Creek is unknown.

MonthEC

(uS/cm)

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

MedianEC

(uS/cm) *

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

MedianEC

(uS/cm) *

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

MedianEC

(uS/cm) *

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

EC (uS/cm)

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

Jun 95 0.032 133 (0.1) 120 (0.9) 392 (0) 122 0.038

Jul 126 0.046 129 (4.0) 0.28 134 (3.2) 0.22 179 (0) 103 0.069

Aug 1143 0.059 129 (18.6) 0.20 141 (1.5) 0.39 224 (1.1) 0.07 157 0.064

Sep 206 138 (4.7) 0.23 122 (5.0) 0.064 239 (1.4) 0.32

Oct 247 111 (3.9) 0.104 69.1 (18.4) 0.051 264 (0.1)

Nov 214 91.7 (3.6) 0.052 58.4 (60.4) 0.015 550 (0)

Dec 150 85.6 (4.7) 0.175 55.2 (15.3) 0.041 611 (0)

Jan 114 91.2 (2.2) 0.099 57.6 (131) 0.033

Feb 73 85.1 (1.1) 0.108 66.7 (152) 0.030

Mar 71 69 (1.7) 61 (242) 0.024

Apr 40 111 (1.3) 57.9 (65.1) 0.023 297 (0)

May 49 96.1 (0.9) 101 (1.3) 0.034

*: Median EC values from continuous monitoring with median daily flow in brackets

(1): Billabong Creek at Jerilderie, DIPNR

(2): Berrigan Creek Outfall (BIBE), M.I.L

(3): Finley Escape Outfall (BIFE), M.I.L

(4): Wollamai East Outfall (BIWE), M.I.L.

(5): Billabong Creek at Conargo, DIPNR

410016 41010997BIBE BIFE BIWE

Billabong Creek at Conargo (5)

Billabong Creek at Jerilderie (1)

Berrigan Creek Escape (2)

Finley Escape (3) Wollamai East Escape (4)

Table 2.10: Water Quality recorded within Billabong Creek and within the outfalls into Billabong Creek2003/2004


Edward River

Water quality is measured within Edward River downstream of the outfall, at Deniliquin, Stevens Weir anddownstream of Baratta Creek Outfall. The water quality is measured within the main outfall systems into EdwardRiver, Mulwala Escape and Box Creek upstream of Baratta Weir. Water quality levels for Edward River sites arepresented in Table 2.11.

Given the limited data available, Edward River water quality between Edward River escape and downstream ofBaratta Creek outfall remained constant during 2003/04.

Tuppal Creek

Water quality is measured at the headwaters of the creek upstream of Pinelea Drain outfall, and at Aratula Road.Both Lalalty SEC (TUPJ) and the Pinelea SEC (TCPL) outfall into Tuppal Creek.

When the salinity in Lalalty SEC is above 800EC the discharge is diluted with supply channel water in order tomeet the salinity concentration condition of Murray Irrigation’s Water Management Works Licence. The dilutionwater is sourced from a Murray Irrigation supply channel that enters the creek between Lalalty SEC outfall and themonitoring station in Tuppal Creek upstream of Pinelea escape.

The Lalalty SEC reached capacity in late July as result of winter rainfall. Supply channel water was unavailable fordilution and minimal discharges of above 800EC were released, these were reported to DIPNR. Dilution of thedischarges from Lalalty SEC commenced in August using off allocation water approved by DIPNR and continuedinto September. The discharges into the headwaters of Tuppal Creek took approximately 2 weeks to reach AratulaRoad with approximately 50% losses.

Total Phosphorus and salinity levels for Tuppal Creek sites are presented in Table 2.12.

Table 2.11: Water Quality recorded within Edward River and within the outfalls into Edward River 2003/2004.

MonthEC

(uS/cm)

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

EC (uS/cm)

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

EC (uS/cm)

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

MedianEC (uS/cm)

*

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

EC (uS/cm)

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

Jun 53 0.008 83 2160 (0.0) 0.03

Jul 60 < 0.005 57 0.033 3690 (6.3) 0.04 67 0.029

Aug 53 0.073 57 0.027 1460 (23.6) 0.21 77 0.043

Sep - 0.037 1170 (14.0) 0.170 60 0.03

Oct - 55 0.01 40 1340 (4.9) 0.037

Nov - 53 0.015 42 981 (0.8) 0.056

Dec - 55 0.027 42 909 (2.8) 0.050

Jan - 58 0.025 40 1270 (4.4) 0.053

Feb - 59 0.016 41 1980 (4.2) 0.062

Mar - 56 0.009 58 2020 (3.0) 0.054

Apr - 43 1470 (3.8) 0.047

May - 45 1430 (4.3) 0.022


(1): Edward River Offtake D/S, DIPNR

(2): Mulwala Canal Escape, Deniliquin (MLAW), M.I.L

(3): Edwards River Stevens Weir, DIPNR

(4): Box Creek, upstream Barratta Weir pool (MOXM), M.I.L. Flow median values from daily automatic monitoring

(5): Edwards River D/S "Barratta", DIPNR

Edward River D/S Baratta Creek Junction

(5)

Edward River D/S Offtake (1)

Mulwala Escape (2)Edward River Stevens

Weir (3)Box Creek Outfall (4)

409008 4910028W 409023 MOXM


Noxious Aquatic Weed Reported sitings

Alligator Weed Nil

Water Hyacinth Nil

Golden Dodder Nil

Water Lettuce Nil

Salvinia Nil

Table 2.13: Reported sitings of noxiousweeds – 2003/04

Table 2.12: Water Quality recorded within Tuppal Creek and Lalalty SEC 2003/2004

MonthMedian

EC (uS/cm) *

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

MedianEC

(uS/cm) *

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

MedianEC (uS/cm)

*

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

EC (uS/cm)

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

Jun 2700 (0) 196 (0)

Jul 611 (0) 530 (0) 169 (0)

Aug 1080 (9.8) 0.19 1200 (3.6) 236 (0.5)

Sep 919 (9.9) 0.12 318 (47.4) 327 (0.1) 431 (29) 0.155

Oct 416 (0.3) 332 (1.8) 286 (0) 279 (0.4)

Nov 656 (0) 213 (0) 380 (0)

Dec 718 (0) 426 (0.1) 184 (0)

Jan 157 (0.2) 315 (0)

Feb 1231 (0.7)

Mar 109 (0.2)

Apr 683 (0.2)

May 342 (0.4) 345 (2.4)


(1): Lalalty Drain (TUPJ), M.I.L. Median Total Phosphorus levels

(2): Tuppal Creek U/S Pinelea Drain outfall (TUP1), M.I.L

(3): Pinelea Drain (TCPL), M.I.L.

(4): Tuppal Creek at Aratula Rd., DIPNR

409056TUPJ TCPL

Tuppal Creek U/S Pinelea Drain (2)

Tuppal Creek at Aratula Rd. (4)

Pinelea Drain (3)Lalalty Drain (1)

Pumping Drainage Water into Supply ChannelsIn 2003/04, during July and August there were 35 requests for pumping into supply channels, mainly from the areasouth of Jerilderie. Water quality was generally below 200EC, with high turbidity (over 200NTU) and variabletotal phosphorus concentrations (0.76mg/L – 0.02mg/L). The majority of requests were approved.

Noxious Aquatic WeedsThe noxious aquatic weeds in the region are listed below (Table 2.13). There were no reported sightings of any ofthese aquatic weeds within either the drainage or supply network of Murray Irrigation during 2003/04.

A survey of chemical usage is undertaken annually as a component of the LWMP Landholder Survey (Appendix 7).Landholders are requested to provide details concerning the types of chemicals used throughout the year.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2,4-

D

Bensu

lfuro

n

Bifent

hrin

Chlorp

yrifo

s

Chlors

ulfur

on

Clopyr

alid

Diclof

op-m

ethy

l

Diquat

+ P

araq

uat

Diuron

Glypho

sate

Haloxy

fop-

R met

hyl e

ster

Imaz

apyr

MCPA

Moli

nate

Omet

hoat

e

Thiobe

ncar

b

Tralko

xydim

Triasu

lfuro

n

Triflur

alin

Active Chemical

Nu

mb

er

of

Ho

ldin

gs

1996/97

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

Figure 2.7: Trends in chemical usage for the period 1996/97-2003/04

Situation Chemical usedLandholder usage (no. of

positive responses to use of the chemical)

bensulfuron 55

benzofenap 3

chloropyrifos 53

MCPA 42

molinate 53

thiobencarb 5

chlorsulfuron 52

diclofop-methyl 14

dimethoate 8

glyphosphate 183

omethoate 25

simazine 41

triasulfuron 81

trifluralin 66

diflulenican 16

MCPA 57

omethoate 91

2,4 D ester 4

diquat + paraquat 5

trifluralin 5

2,4 D ester 51

diuron 17

glyphosphate 151

imazapyr 10

Channels/ Drains

Rice

Winter crops

Winter Pasture

Summer Cropping / pasture

Table 2.13: Summary of major chemical usage by landholders– 2003/04

Agricultural Chemical UseTable 2.13 provides a summary of the commonly used herbicides and pesticides by landholders during 2003/04.These results are considered indicative of the range and type of each chemical commonly used. No assessment asto the quantity of chemical has been undertaken. However, the number of responses provided as to the use of aparticular chemical is indicative of howwidespread the use of the product is.


Chapter 3: Groundwater Management

Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme

Overview

The Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme (WTSSDS) is a salt interception scheme that pumps highlysaline groundwater into two evaporation basins (Figure 3.1). The scheme protects approximately 50,000ha offarmland in the Wakool area from high watertables and salinity.

The scheme is owned and operated by Murray Irrigation. It was handed over to the company in 1995 as part of theprivatisation process. State Government continues to fund approximately 30% of the operation and maintenance ofthe scheme with the remainder paid by landholders through a system of levies based on the level of influence andbenefit they receive from the scheme.

In 1981 there were 19,200ha in the Wakool area with a watertable within 1.5m of the surface. The high watertablebrought salt to the plant root zone with dramatic effects on agricultural productivity and biodiversity. To combatthese problems, the interception scheme was built between 1978 and 1988 by the NSW Department of WaterResources and Public Works. Stage I commenced operation in 1984, and stage II in 1988. Additional pumps wereadded in 1992.

The scheme has successfully controlled shallow groundwater, with the watertable now stabilised below 2m over anarea of around 25,000ha. Significant watertable control is detectable over a further 25,000ha. Groundwater controlhas resulted in significant environmental, social and community benefits for the area.

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

Legend

! Pumps

Channels

Drains

Rivers

Pipelines

Stage1

2

Evaporation Ponds

Farm Boundaries

¯0 21 Kilometers

Wakool

Burraboi

Figure 3.1: Wakool Tullakool Sub-Surface Drainage Scheme


48.88

9

44.50

3

66

.98

53

.25

5

69

.09

4

435

.448

163

.883

16

8.38

65.5

3

81.58

7

48

.8

222

.064

60.34

5

49.83

1

3.67

4

368.5

43

91.31

9

36.60

1

52.35

2

13

.90

2

14

.71

3

47.7

4

48.2

86 21.7

26

37

.37

2

46.9

03

51.63

5

238

.57

57.31

3

138.0

64

69.7

47

91

.65

202.8

93

25.98

7

43.7

82 24.67

6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

PS

1

PS

3

PS

5

PS

7

PS

9

PS

11

PS

13

PS

15

PS

17

PS

19

PS

21

PS

23

PS

26

PS

28

PS

30

PS

34

PS

36

PS

38

PS

40

PS

42

PS

45

PS

47

PS

51

PS

54

PS

59

PS

61

PS

63

Pumping sites

To

tal

amo

un

t p

um

ped

(M

L)

Figure 3.3: Volume of Water Discharged from each Pump Site into the WTSSDS Basins 2003/04

2003/04 Operation

The WTSSDS continues to have a positive effect on watertables with only 2,350ha of the 75,500ha area monitoredwith a watertable within 2m of the surface in March 2004 (Figure 3.2). Of the 54 pumping wells, only one had awatertable within two meters of the surface and 35 registered watertable levels of 3m or greater.

In 2003/04, continued short-term optimisation of pump rates in response to continued dry conditions meant pumpoperation remained below average (figure 3.3). Operating hours were reduced for all pumps; up to 18 pump siteswere switched off. The remaining 36 sites operated throughout the year, although most worked at a reducedcapacity. As a result, in the past 12 months, the scheme extracted a total of 3,306ML of saline groundwaterresulting in 3,264ML or nearly 50% less water extracted in 2003/04 than in 2002/03. Figure 3.4 compares the totalvolume of groundwater discharged into the basins between 1995 and 2004 and shows the amount of saline groundwaterextracted in the previous two years to be significantly less than average.

#

# #

#

##

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

## #

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

60

5251

5458

02

03

01

61

63

64

05

0406

08

09

10

11

13

15

12

18

16

17

20

19

21

22

24

23

45

62

46

59

49

43

42

41

40

39

47

29

27 26

34

37

36

35

33

28

30

14

07

38

T'FER

B'BOI

Sump A

Sump C

Sump D

Sump B

W.T.S.S.D.SWater Table Levels

March 2004


N

1 2 3 4 Kilometres

Scale

EvaporationPonds

EvaporationPonds

Farm Boundaries >3m 47421 ha2.5-3m 17578 ha2-2.5m 5983 ha1.5-2m 1883 ha1-1.5m 396 ha0.5-1m 71 ha0-0.5m 0 ha

Water Table Depth 3/04

Pumpsites#

LEGEND

Figure 3.2: WTSSDS Watertable levels, March 2004


In 2003/04 groundwater salinity levels at the pump sites of stage 2 were measured and are shown in Figure 3.5.Groundwater salinity ranges from 1,587EC to >206,310EC with an average of 26,419EC.

Figure 3.4: Volume of Groundwater Discharged into the WTSSDS Basins 1995-2004

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Gro

un

dw

ater

Dis

char

ged

(M

L)

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!! !

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!!

! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

30000

2000

0

4000

0

5000

0

60000

70000

80000

10000

9000

0

100000

1100

00 120000

1300

00

4000

0

1100

00

7000

0

4000

0

10000

10000

20000

9000

0

20000 1000

0

70000

4000

0

8000

0

60000

2000

0

40000

50000

40000

10000

2000

0

1000010000

80000

60000

20000

50000

50000

70000

60000

30000

20000

1000

00

Legend

! PumpsPipelines

Evaporation Ponds

EC at Pump

ValueHigh :150000 Ec

Low :2100 Ec ¯ 0 21Kilometers

Wakool

Burraboi

W.T.S.S.D.S.Ground Water Salinity at Pump Sites

Figure 3.5: Groundwater Salinity levels at WTSSDS pump sites, 2004


Other Tubewell PumpingSince privatisation in 1995, Murray Irrigation in conjunction with landholders have operated 17 tubewells in theBerriquin district to control watertable levels. These tubewells were designed to discharge into the district supplysystem, or be used as an irrigation source on the neighbouring farms. In 2003/04 these tubewells were handed overto landholders. The rationale for handover included reduced risk of shallow watertables causing salinity problems,difficulty in controlling pump operation and cost to the company given the benefits were generally local. Table 3.2shows the total volume pumped between 1996/97 and 2002/03, as well as average groundwater salinity from 1996 to1999.

96/97 97/98 98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 June 96 June 97 June 98 June 99

East Berriquin

Geraki 1 533 804 260 273 178 - 160 1,000 1,082 - -

Geraki 2 402 593 297 167 120 255.9 444 950 1,077 992 -

Retreat 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -

Retreat 2 94 550 194 63 65 0 0 - - 2,000 -

Retreat 3 224 752 386 302 0 24.54 560 1,500 1,493 1,611 1,868

Lochiels Road 98 136 0 30 0 0 0 3,830 - - -

Campbells Road 21 279 64 0 0 0 0 3,800 - 3,780 -

Piney Lane 203 723 424 564 569 - 389 1,050 1,029 1,071 -

Caseys Lane - - - - 0 - 247 - - - -

Dalgeish Road - - - 150 111 - 270 - - - -

Logie Brae 322 211 190 137 156 14.74 87 500 1,304 1,437 -

West Berriquin

Hub - 30 4 27 0 1.969 18.61 - - - -

Mokanger - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -

Wandook 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 1,270 - -

Wandook 2 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - -

Wandook 3 - 2 3 1 2 2.455 2 - 1,540 - -

Wandook 4 - 641 340 398 443 688.2 328.8 - 1,270 860 1,024

TOTAL 1,897 4,721 2,162 2,112 1,644 987.8 2,506.40

Pump

Total Volume Pumped Average salinity EC

Table 3.2: Groundwater Extraction in Murray Irrigation Tubewells in the BerriquinDistrict, 1995-2004


Trends in Regional Watertable LevelsMurray Irrigation undertakes biannual monitoring of a network of 1,500 shallow piezometers. This is undertakenin March (during the irrigation season) and in August (during the normal off-season, prior to refilling of the supplysystem). Figure 3.6 - 3.13 show spatially the areas with a shallow watertable in August 2003 and March 2004.Tables 3.3 and 3.4 as well as figures 3.14 and 3.15 outline the trends in watertable change since groundwatermonitoring began in 1995.

Finley

Conargo

Mulwala

Mathoura Tocumwal

Berrigan

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

0 10 205Kilometres

±

Legend

Water Table Depth0-1m

1-2m

2-3m

>4m

Main Roads

Figure 3.6: Depth to Watertable in Berriquin LWMP Area, August 2003.

Finley

Conargo

Mulwala

Mathoura Tocumwal

Berrigan

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

0 10 205Kilometres

±

Legend


1-2m

2-3m

>4m

Main Roads

Figure 3.7: Depth to Watertable in Berriquin LWMP Area, March 2004


Conargo

Deniliquin

0 10 205Kilometres

±

Legend


1-2m

2-3m

>4m

Main Roads

Figure 3.9: Depth to Watertable in Denimein LWMP, March 2004

Conargo

Deniliquin

0 10 205Kilometres

±

Legend


1-2m

2-3m

>4m

Main Roads

Figure 3.8: Depth to Watertable in Denimein LWMP area, August 2003


Wakool

Barham

Mathoura

Deniliquin

0 10 205Kilometres

±

Legend


1-2m

2-3m

>4m

Main Roads

Figure 3.10: Depth to watertable in Cadell LWMP area, August 2003

Wakool

Barham

Mathoura

Deniliquin

0 10 205Kilometres

±

Legend


1-2m

2-3m

>4m

Main Roads

Figure 3.11: Depth to watertable in Cadell LWMP area, March 2004


Wakool

Moulamein

0 10 205Kilometres

±

Legend


1-2m

2-3m

>4m

Main Roads

Figure 3.12: Depth to watertable in Wakool LWMP area, August 2003

Wakool

Moulamein

0 10 205Kilometres

±

Legend


1-2m

2-3m

>4m

Main Roads

Figure 3.13: Depth to watertable in Wakool LWMP area, March 2004


0-2 2-3 3-4 > 4

1997 84,252 193,488 154,912 316,550 749,202

1998 55,728 194,736 160,032 338,706 749,202

1999 53,604 193,244 144,436 357,918 749,202

2000 21,788 182,920 164,400 378,995 748,103

2001 47,676 189,376 160,024 399,612 796,688

2002 35,988 190,819 151,424 418,457 796,688

2003 14,060 138,456 177,748 470,743 801,007

2004 7,704 111,308 192,468 485,208 796,688

Year Depth to watertable (m) Total area (ha)

Table 3.4: Depth to Watertable in Murray LWMP area, August 1997-2004

Moama

Wakool

Barham Finley

Conargo

Mulwala

Mathoura Tocumwal

Berrigan

Moulamein

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Change in Water able Levels July 1995 - August 2004

0 10 205Kilometres

µ

Legend

>2m Rise

1-2m Rise

0-1m Rise

0-1m Fall

1-2m Fall

>2m Fall

Main Roads

Figure 3.14: Change in regional watertable levels July 1995-August 2004

0-2 2-3 3-4 > 4

1997 110,636 189,728 147,267 301,571 749,202

1998 32,576 202,748 165,492 348,386 749,202

1999 69,988 197,324 141,400 340,490 749,202

2000 38,684 204,824 147,640 356,955 748,103

2001 75,016 182,668 151,108 387,896 796,688

2002 64,576 183,300 146,472 402,340 796,688

2003 5,132 152,496 183,324 460,055 801,007

2004 10,056 133,392 186,612 470,108 800,168

Year Depth to watertable (m) Total area (ha)

Table 3.3: Depth to Watertable in Murray LWMP area, March 1997-2004


Moama

Wakool

Barham Finley

Conargo

Mulwala

Mathoura Tocumwal

Berrigan

Moulamein

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Change in Water able Levels August 2003 - August 2004

0 10 205Kilometres

µ

Legend

aug03_aug04

> 1m Rise

0.5 - 1m Rise

0 - 0.5m Rise

0 - 0.5m Fall

0.5 - 1m Fall

> 1m Fall

Main Roads

Figure 3.15: Change in regional watertable levels August 2003-2004

200000 220000 240000 260000 280000 300000 320000 340000 360000 380000 400000

6000000

6020000

6040000

6060000

6080000

6100000

6120000

Deniliquin

FinleyBerrigan

Jerilderie

Moama

Moulamein

Barham

Mulwala

Wakool

TocumwalMathouraBunnaloo

Barooga

Figure 3.16: Directional flow of groundwater in the MIL region.


Risk of Salinity (Benchmark)

Area of Land with a Watertable within 0 - 4m

The area of land with a watertable within 0 – 4m is to be seasonally adjusted to take account of the influences ofrainfall. The watertable level monitoring results have been presented in tables 3.6-3.13 of this report.

Groundwater Salinity

The benchmark for groundwater salinity was determined to be the area of land with shallow groundwater salinity ofless than 5,000EC. Groundwater salinity was measured in 1997, 2000 and 2003. Table 3.5 is a summary of theresults.

The area of land with groundwater salinityless than 5,000EC was 41,300ha in 2003,65,470ha in 2000 and 46,726ha in 1997.These results are not directly comparabledue to the lower number of piezometerssampled in 1997. A map showing thegroundwater salinity levels for 2003 ispresented in Figure 3.16.

Area of Land with High Salinity Risk

The benchmark committee determined the need to quantify the area at risk of salinity. A collaborative researchproject is being undertaken by CSIRO and Murray Irrigation to develop a method to assess the salinity risk of thelandscape.

The salinity risk assessment will involve a weighted ratio of:groundwater salinity;

watertable depth;

soil type;

landuse.

Rootzone Salinity (Benchmark)The Murray LWMPs and Murray Irrigation’s Works Licence requires a detailed soil salinity assessment to beundertaken every three years in high watertable areas and every six years in deep watertable areas. Understandingthe changes in soil salinity provides a greater ability to target strategies to avoid groundwater accessions or modifymanagement practices.

Murray Irrigation uses watertable levels and groundwater salinity as an indicator of rootzone salinity given the costand level of accuracy likely to be obtained from soil sampling.

1997 2000 2003

<3,000 23 19 18

3,000-10,000 23 19 20

10,000-30,000 25 30 31

30,000-50,000 18 21 22

>50,000 11 11 9

Total Piezometers 1,088 1,437 1,412

Proportion of Piezometers Samples (%)

Salinity Level (EC)

Table 3.5: Groundwater salinity for the Murray Irrigation Area ofOperations


Moama

Wakool

Barham Finley

Conargo

Blighty

Barooga

Mulwala

Burraboi


Berrigan

Moulamein

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Pretty Pine


µ

Legend

Main Roads

Salinity Levels Ec

100-3000

3000-5000

5000-10000

10000-20000

20000-40000

40000-90000

Figure 3.16: Groundwater salinity in Murray Irrigation piezometers, 2003.


Chapter 4: On-Farm Management

Climatic ConditionsClimatic conditions are a critical aspect of irrigated agriculture, therefore it is important to set the scene for theirrigation season by reporting the climatic conditions for the year.

The autumn of 2003 started off dry but hadsome good widespread rains which allowedfor significant winter crop plantings.Reasonable rains throughout winter assistedthe winter cropping program for manyfarmers. The 2003/04 irrigation season wasmet with some wet conditions and a delayto the opening of the irrigation season untilthe 12th August 2003. Supplementary waterwas made available from 26th August untilthe 26th September. Spring 2004 hadmoderate rainfall with conditions favourablefor non irrigated crops and pastures. The2003/04 rice growing season experiencedcooler conditions than normal in Octoberand early November. Conditions were warmand favourable in November and December,a cool January created concern for growers with the results of the cooler conditions having some effect on the yieldof some varieties. February saw the return of dry conditions with rainfall from February to April nearing a recorddry spell. Compared to long-term averages, rainfall and evaporation during the 2003/04 season was just aboveaverage at Finley and Tullakool as shown in table 4.1 and figures 4.1 and 4.2.

Finley Tullakool*

Total Rainfall (mm) 416.3 382.4

Long-& Short term Average Rainfall (mm) 387.1 362.5

Long-term Rainfall Comparison 108% 106%

Total Evaporation (mm) 2010.2 2093.2

Long-& Short term Average Evaporation (mm) 1848.1 2038.6

Long-term Evaporation Comparison 109% 103%

Table 4.1: Weather data - 1st July 2003 to 30th June 2004

*Note Long Term average for Finley calculated from 1986-2004 andTullakool short term average calculated from 1996-2004.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

July August September October November December January February March April May June

(mm

)

Rainfall ETo Average Rainfall Average ETo

Figure 4.1: CSIRO Finley Rainfall and Evapotranspiration data 2003/04


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

July August September October November December January February March April May June

(mm

)

Rainfall ETo Average Rainfall Average ETo

Figure 4.2: CSIRO Tullakool Rainfall and Evapotranspiration 2003/04

LanduseMurray Irrigation’s area of operations covers 748,000ha of farmland. In addition to this, 156,753ha outside of thisarea is included within the Cadell Land and Water Management Plan area. Landuse of the total area as summarisedin Table 4.2, demonstrates the diverse nature of agriculture within the region. Winter crops, including cereal andoilseeds, annual pastures, used for extensive sheep and cattle enterprises, and rice are the major commodities.There is also a major dairy industry presence in the region that produces around 17% of the NSW milk supply.

*Includes winter cereal fallow and winter crops sown into rice stubble**Includes rice and rice stubbleSource: LWMP Annual SurveysNOTE: Comparisons of recordings between years for the minor landuses should be made with caution as the sample of landholders were not

the same. The total may not equal 100% due to rounding of data.

Table 4.2: Landuse in the Murray LWMP Region

1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Dryland Pasture 31 34 34 24 10 7 5 10

Winter Irrigated Pasture 20 20 18 19 16 15 14

16

Winter Crops 18 21 26 25 32* 36* 43 41

Rice 10 6 6 5 - - -

Rice Stubble / Fallow 6 4 2 2 8** 5** 0.3**2

Lucerne / Summer Pasture 4 2 7 6 4 3 3

3

Other Crops/Fallow 2 2 1 9 1 1 1 8

Native vegetation 5 3 4 4 22 17 23 14

Infrastructure / Other 4 7 5 5 11 16 116

Landuse Proportion of Total Area (%)


The area grown to rice rose significantly in 2003/04 compared with the 2002/03 season due to an increase inMurray valley water allocations.

Irrigation LayoutAcross the Land and Water Management Plan area approximately 51% of the land area has been developed forirrigation and the remaining 49% is dryland farming. Variation in irrigation development exists between areas. Inthe Cadell LWMP area, 60-70% of the area is dryland farming. In contrast, the Berriquin area has approximately70% of land developed for irrigation.

The area developed for irrigation has stabilised in recent years. The area irrigated in any single year depends onannual water availability and spring/autumn rainfall, and is commonly between 30% and 50% of the area developed.Smaller proportions (20%-30%) are irrigated on mixed cropping and rice farms and larger proportions (60%-80%)are irrigated on dairy farms.

The focus of farm development is the improvement of existing irrigation layouts to enable improved irrigationefficiency and increased productivity. In 2003/04, $9.4 million was invested by landholders in landforming, $11.7million in associated improvements to irrigation layouts and $7.7 million for irrigation recycling on-farm. Thisinvestment was somewhat lower than that recorded in 2001/02 ($34.6 million), but significantly greater than in2002/03 ($27.4 million), 2000/01 ($21.1 million) and 1999/00 ($18.8 million). The result is somewhat surprisinggiven the climatic circumstances, but demonstrates a commitment and willingness to re-invest in on-farm workswhich will improve landholders’ productivity and environmental sustainability.

Water UseMurray Irrigation delivered 658,608ML of irrigation water on-farm in 2003/04 (Figure 4.3). This compares witha 14 year average of 1,200,000ML, and represents 58% of the average.Use of irrigation water has been classed into six major categories over the past ten years. These include rice, annualpasture, perennial pasture, winter crops, other (including summer crops) and stock and domestic. The crop wateruse records are based on water orders placed by landholders. Figure 4.4 shows the main four categories over time.

An analysis of the relative water use compared with previous years shows a recovery of the use of water on ricesince the previous drought year. A major trend in crop water use between 1992/93 – 2003/04 (Figure 4.4) has beenan increase in water applied to cereals from 2% to 37%, this increase can be attributed to good commodity prices

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

1990

/91

1991

/92

1992

/93

1993

/94

1994

/95

1995

/96

1996

/97

1997

/98

1998

/99

1999

/00

2000

/01

2001

/02

2002

/03

2003

/04

Del

iver

ies

(M

Ls

)

Figure 4.3: Water deliveries to landholdings 1990/91 - 2003/04


Total Farm Water BalanceIn 1997 Murray Irrigation introduced a Total Farm Water Balance (TFWB) policy as a result of concern aboutwatertable rise and the associated threats of salinity. The TFWB policy aims to reduce accessions to the watertable,increase water use efficiency and encourage adoption of best management practices across our area of operations.The policy is based on research by CSIRO for the Murray Valley, indicating that the maximum water use intensityto achieve a farm water balance is between 1.5ML/ha and 5ML/ha depending on depth to watertable, soil type, landuse and rainfall. In short, the policy limits irrigation intensity to 4ML/ha. If certain ‘best management practice’works have been implemented the limit may be increased up to 6ML/ha.

For 2003/04 average irrigationintensity ranged from 1.07ML/ha in the Berriquin District to0.855ML/ha in the DenimeinDistrict (Table 4.3). The regionalaverage irrigation intensity of0.84ML/ha was an increase fromthe previous year’s droughthowever less than half the 2001/02 irrigation intensity.

After taking into account the limits set for individual landholdings and making allowances for the volume of shallowgroundwater pumping, six landholdings exceeded their TFWB limit. Penalties will be applied and the volume thatthe limit was exceeded by will be deducted from next years limit.

Season 1999/00** 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04District (ML/ha) (ML/ha) (ML/ha) (ML/ha) (ML/ha)

Berriquin 1.2 2.05 2.15 0.77 1.07

Deniboota 0.3 1.23 1.23 0.31 0.55

Denimein 0.51 1.7 1.59 0.37 0.67

Wakool 0.48 1.57 1.46 0.34 0.84

Region 0.9 1.73 1.74 0.53 0.84

Table 4.3: Irrigation Intensity for each district within MIL

for cereals and to some degree the timing of increases in allocation announcements, which have been too late forfurther rice plantings.

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Vo

lum

e (

ML

)

Rice Annual Pasture Perennial Pasture Cereals

Figure 4.4: Crop Water Use 1992/93-2003/04


District 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

East Berriquin 15,460 25,530 21,407 382.9 6,916

West Berriquin 4,680 8,218 5,869 184.8 2,834

Denimein 2,901 5,578 4,078 119.9 1,462

Deniboota 4,849 10,471 8,394 483.1 3,344

Wakool 10,526 19,728 15,402 374.3 8,173

Total 38,416 69,525 55,150 1,545 22,729

Table 4.4: Area (ha) Grown to Rice 1999/00 – 2003/04

Year Number exceeding

% exceeding

1995/96 212 17%

1996/97 37 3%

1997/98 N/A N/A

1998/99 62 6%

1999/00 38 4%

2000/01 24 2%

2001/02 27 2.50%

2002/03 0 0%

2003/04 26 4.60%

Table 4.5: Number of landholdings whoexceeded their rice water use

Rice Water UseMurray Irrigation has a rice growing policy aimed at reducing accessions to the watertable, increasing water useefficiency and encouraging best management practices. A component of this policy is a soil suitability criterion toselect soils that minimise leakage to the watertable from irrigation of the rice crop. Rice can not be grown on a fieldunless it has been tested and approved by Murray Irrigation as suitable for rice growing. Applications for ricegrowing are reviewed each year and the area of rice grown is quantified using satellite imagery. The criterion waspreviously based on the percentage clay in the soil. This year, in a move toward a more accurate system, suitabilityis now based on soil sodicity measured by exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP).

Rice water use accounted forapproximately 37% of the totalwater used within the MurrayIrrigation area during 2003/04.The area sown to rice in 2003/04 was 22,729ha as seen in Table4.4. This was a significantincrease from the previousseason, however the total areais still relatively low comparedto previous seasons. Table 4.4also shows the area sown to rice for each district since 1999/00.Figure 4.5 shows the spatial distribution of rice in the MurrayIrrigation region and the water use of those rice crops.

The average rice water consumption for the 2003/04 season was12.3ML/ha. The rice crop water use target was set at 15.3ML/ha forall districts this season, in line with the Rice Environment PolicyAdvisory Group (REPAG) agreed method of calculation. There were26 landholdings exceeding the crop water use target in 2003/04 asshown in table 4.5. These growers will be required to re-test theirfields using the latest criteria prior to approval to grow rice again.

Moama

Wakool

Barham Finley

Conargo

Mulwala

Mathoura Tocumwal

Berrigan

Moulamein

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Legend

Main Roads

MIL Boundary

Rice Crops 2003_04

0 - 7.0 ML/ha

7.1 - 12.0 ML/ha

12.1 - 14.0 ML/ha

14.1 - 16.0 ML/ha

>16 ML/ha

®10 0 10 205

Kilometres

Farm Rice Water Usage 2003-2004

Figure 4.5: Farm Rice Water Usage 2003/04


Farm Water Use Efficiency (Benchmark)Farm water use efficiency influences the potential level of groundwater accessions and the risk of downstreamimpacts caused by farm drainage. Three benchmark areas have been identified to assess farm water use efficiency.

Water Usage on Major Land Use Types

Water delivered from the MIL supply system is recorded against six major landuses by landholders at the time ofwater ordering.

The water use for each major landuse is presented in Figures 4.6 to 4.9 in each of the districts for the period 1997/98 – 2003/04. The figures show similar water use in Deniboota, Denimein and Wakool. A higher proportion ofwater is used on perennial pastures and other crops in Berriquin, reflecting the presence of the dairy industry andgreater diversification.

Waterlogging (Benchmark)The waterlogging benchmark was to be established by using a landholder survey to assess surface ponding eachyear.

The annual survey is used to assess the proportion of each landholding considered to be waterlogged during theprevious 12 months. The results are presented in Table 4.6. There was very minimal waterlogging experiencedduring 2003/04.

1 – 5 Ha 6 – 10 Ha > 10 ha

Berriquin 0.041% 0% 0%Cadell 0% 0% 0.211%Denimein 0% 0% 0%Wakool 0.009% 0% 0%

District

Area Waterlogged

Table 4.6: Area of land waterlogged in 2003/04

Figure 4.6: Change in Water Use (% of Total Used) – Berriquin 1997/98 – 2003/04

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

% Rice % Ann Pasture % Per Pasture % Cereals % Other % S&D

Landuse Category

Per

cen

tag

e o

f w

ate

r u

sed

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

All years


Figure 4.7: Change in Water Use (% of Total Used) – Denimein – 1997/98 – 2003/04

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Landuse Category

Pe

rcen

tag

e o

f w

ate

r u

sed

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

All Years

Figure 4.8: Change in Water Use (% of Total Used) – Deniboota – 1997/98 – 2003/04

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Landuse Category

Pe

rcen

tag

e o

f w

ate

r u

sed

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

All Years


Figure 4.9: Change in Water Use (% of Total Used) – Wakool – 1997/98 – 2003/04

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Landuse Category

Per

cen

tag

e o

f w

ate

r u

sed

1997/98

1998/99

1999/00

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

All Years


0.0%

20.0%

40.0%

60.0%

80.0%

100.0%

120.0%

140.0%

1992/93 1993/94 1994/95 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Ric

e W

ater

Use

Eff

icie

ncy

(%

)

Eastern Murray Valley Western Murray Valley

Figure 4.10: Rice Crop Water Use Efficiency 1992/93 – 2003/04

Please note: the 2002/03 figures have not been presented because of some concerns on Murray Irrigation’s behalfof the accuracy of the water use figures.

Rice crop water use efficiency can also be expressed as the tonnage of rice grown per megalitre of water used. Thetonnes of rice grown in the Murray Irrigation area is based on information from Grower Services, RicegrowersCooperative Limited. This information has been matched to the volume of water applied to rice as recorded byMurray Irrigation’s Water Ordering System to derive a tonnes per megalitre figure for rice production. Water fromsources other than Murray Irrigation’s water recording system are included, where the information is available.

These results indicate a trend of increased water use efficiency of rice production. This reflects an overall lowerwater usage relative to the higher yields recorded. As noted above, Murray Irrigation believes the water use valuesattributed to rice production from sources other than Murray Irrigation’s water ordering records in 2002/03significantly under-estimates the true amount of water that was supplied to rice. The company is considering whatactions can be taken to improve water recording from sources other than Murray Irrigation’s supply.

Dairy Water Use Efficiency

This indicator is not reported on this year as the method of reporting was not displaying water use efficiency butmerely trends in pastures grown for dairy. This benchmark will be reviewed along with all of the other benchmarksbefore the 2004/05 report.

Table 4.7: Rice Production (t/ML) 1995/96 – 2003/04

Year 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04

Tonnes/ML 0.52 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.86 0.67 1.3 1.48

Rice Water Use Efficiency

Rice water use accounted for approximately 37% of the total water used within the Murray Irrigation area during2003/04. Rice water use efficiency is measured as the average water use per hectare expressed as a percentage ofthe crop water use requirement (crop evapotranspiration minus rainfall) as shown in figure 4.10.

The efficiency of rice crop water use varies considerably. The apparent efficiency levels above 100% are caused bythe lower water use requirement of short season varieties used on some landholdings, measurement inaccuracy ofwater supplied from river pumps and deep bores and the impacts of high watertable levels in some areas.


Adoption of Best Management Practices (Benchmark)The adoption of best management practices is assessed using three indicators: perennial pastures, drainage andreuse, and groundwater pumping.

Perennial Pastures

The benchmark established for perennial pastures is the percentage of farm area under deep-rooted perennialpasture species as assessed by the annual landholder survey (Table 4.8).

In addition to this information, a further question was asked in the landholder survey concerning the total amountof perennial vegetation. This included areas of woody vegetation, perennial pastures such as lucerne, areas ofnative grassland (which contained greater than 50% native grasses) and saltbush. The results are summarised inTable 4.9.

Drainage and Reuse

The benchmark established is the percentage of landholdings (over 50ha) with a LWMP approved drainage and reusesystem as shown in table 4.10.

Groundwater Pumping

The groundwater pumping benchmark was established as the number of shallow groundwater pumps operating andthe volume pumped each year.

The Annual Landholder Survey indicated that 9% of landholdings pumped 14,739ML of shallow groundwaterduring 2003/04. The percentage of landholdings is the percentage of landholdings interviewed that undertookshallow groundwater pumping.

This corresponds to an average annual extraction rate of approximately 80 ML per shallow bore.

The Denimein groundwater pumping incentive provided incentives for 7 landholdings, with 816ML pumped in2003/04.

Approximately 3,306ML of shallow groundwater was pumped by the WTSSDS in 2003/04.

LWMP Area

2003/04 (ha)

1995/96 – 2003/04 (ha)

% total Area

Berriquin 3,517 25,164 1%

Cadell 8,109 59,304 3%

Denimein 301 2,729 1%

Wakool 6,716 31,952 3%

Table 4.8: Area of land with deep rootedperennial pasture species established.

LWMP Area

% perennial vegetation

Area of District (ha)

Berriquin 7.06% 23,847

Cadell 25.92% 77,413

Denimein 12.03% 6,416

Wakool 40.79% 85,897

TOTAL 193,573

Table 4.9: Area of land under perennial vegetation

LWMP AreaNumber of Reuse Systems

Landholdings > 50ha Proportion (%)

Berriquin 345 1,235 27.9%

Cadell 185 794 23.3%

Denimein 61 136 44.9%

Wakool 135 358 37.7%

Table 4.10: Landholdings that have accessed or completed aDrainage and Reuse System 1995/96-2003/04


Soil Acidity (Benchmark)Soil acidity is a key indicator of soil condition. The Murray Catchment Management Plan has identified it to be akey catchment issue. In 2002 a soil monitoring and analysis project was initiated by the Murray LWMPs to assessthe current status of soil condition, and to determine benchmark levels. The methodology was developed in conjunctionwith NSW DPI.

Twenty-eight primary sites were identified with two rounds of soil sampling completed throughout 2002 and 2003.The analyses showed that lighter soils acidify at a faster rate than heavier textured soils and that certain landuse/soiltype combinations can increase the acidity of soils. Such combinations include horticulture and legume crops/pastures grown on sandhill soils, or rice grown on transitional red brown earths (TRBE). The monitoring concludedthat priority sites for liming programs and further monitoring could be easily identified based on their soil types andlanduses. Further monitoring will be undertaken in the future to benchmark changes over time.

Status of Native Vegetation (Benchmark)There have been five benchmarks established for native vegetation.

The Area of Remnant Vegetation Fenced Annually and inTotal

The information obtained from the annual landholder survey is detailed inTable 4.12.

See chapter 5 for information on the fencing of remnant vegetation througheach of the LWMPs.

The Area of Trees Planted

The benchmark established is the number oftrees planted annually and the total since 1995/96 (Table 4.13). This information is obtainedfrom the LWMP annual landholder survey.

Vegetation Health

Vegetation health discussions have been ongoing between the Murray LWMPs, the DIPNR, the Murray CatchmentManagement Authority (MCMA) and other organisations in order to develop a cost-effective monitoring programto measure the health of existing native vegetation.

General concepts have been agreed to however the specific methodologies have not been fully identified. Oneoutstanding issue is the monitoring of native vegetation health that will be required as part of the implementation ofthe Murray Catchment Management Plan. Discussions have established that any monitoring undertaken as part ofthe catchment management process needs to fulfil the requirements of the LWMP program, and vice versa.

It is anticipated that monitoring sites established as part of the Murray LWMP monitoring program will form partof the network established to meet the monitoring requirements of the catchment management plan.

District2003/04

(ha) Total (ha)

Berriquin 1,383 4,893Cadell 379 7,594Denimein 145 1,759Wakool 3,444 6,394

TOTAL 5,351 20,640

Table 4.12: Area of remnant vegetationfenced in 2003/04

District

Area (ha) Number Area (ha) Number

Berriquin 449 161,673 5462 1,288,869

Cadell 543 100,957 13963 1,160,908

Denimein 53 5,216 567 156,056

Wakool 10 574 1149 56231

TOTAL 1,055 268,420 21141 2,662,064

2003/04 Total 1995/96 - 2003/04

Table 4.13: Number and area of trees planted within the LWMPareas


Vegetation Cover

Mapping of the existing native vegetation was completed in 2001/02, which was based on a desktop analysis ofsatellite imagery.

Tables 4.14 and 4.15 detail the area of native woody vegetation (not including saltbush or cottonbush shrublands)with a canopy density of greater than 5%. This involved using satellite imagery to identify existing woody vegetationby means of grouping areas of similar canopy density into categories using standards developed by the DIPNR foruse across the state. Individual paddock trees were not included.

Identifying areas of native grasslands and shrublands is significantly more difficult. Currently, there is no accurateestimate of these areas, but it can be assumed that in the less intensive irrigation districts, their extent is likely to besignificant.

Status of Wetlands

The benchmark established is the status of selected wetlands. A wetland watering program was initiated by theMurray Wetlands Working Group and Murray Irrigation during 2003/04. Detailed monitoring of these sites occurredincluding fauna and flora surveys. This work is continuing, with further sites earmarked for watering during 2004/05.

Whilst not necessarily a representative sample of the wetlands in existence throughout the area, the results of thiswork did give an indication of the health, resilience and ability to respond to inundation of such areas.

LWMP Total area (ha)

5-10% Cover (ha)

10-20% Cover (ha)

20-50% Cover (ha)

50-100% Cover (ha)

Total Cover (ha)

On Farm (ha)

Cadell 320,763 14,100 8,457 9,745 9,956 42,257 34,166

Wakool 228,766 6,495 8,673 14,197 12,501 41,865 34,484

Denimein 62,679 2,937 3,837 2,877 2,462 12,112 8,314

Berriquin 358,324 10,299 7,015 5,145 2,932 25,481 22,467

Total 970,532 33,831 27,982 31,964 27,851 121,715 99,431

Source: Murray Irrigation, 2001

Table 4.14: Extent of existing woody vegetation

Plan area 5-10% Cover

10-20% Cover

20-50% Cover

50-100% Cover

Total Cover

On Farm

Cadell 4.40% 2.60% 3.00% 3.10% 13.20% 10.70%

Wakool 2.80% 3.80% 6.20% 5.50% 18.30% 15.10%

Denimein 4.70% 6.10% 4.60% 3.90% 19.30% 13.30%

Berriquin 2.90% 2.00% 1.40% 0.80% 7.10% 6.30%

Total 3.40% 2.80% 3.20% 2.20% 12.50% 10.20%

Source: Murray Irrigation, 2001.

Table 4.15: Percentage of existing woody vegetation cover


Socio Economic Status (Benchmark)The benchmark established is selected farm financial indicators including debt/equity ratios.

A farm financial survey was established in 1993/94 and again in 1997/98. Details of the previous surveys werereported in the 1997/98 Environment Report.

Community Understanding of Best Management Practices (Benchmark)The benchmark established is the cumulative percentage of farmers attending courses.

123 landholders completed Irrigation Training Program or Property Management Planning courses during 2003/04. This brings the cumulative total of landholders having successfully completed either course to 1140 by the endof 2003/04. This represents approximately 47% of total landholdings (excluding East Cadell landholders).

Compliance Report 2004 M U R R A Y I R R I G A T I O N L I M I T E D 47

Chapter 5: Murray Land and Water ManagementPlansThe Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMPs) are a natural resource management program developedaround a strong community-government partnership. The LWMP program has 15 years of government fundingwith contributions from federal and state natural resource management programs. The landholder contributionsare in the form of levies on water fees, council rates, and cash and in-kind contributions to works on theirproperties. Government-landholder cost shares vary from 100% landholder funded to 100% government incentivesbased on public and private good.

Murray Irrigation is the implementation authority for the plans that were endorsed by the NSW Government in1995. The four component plans are based on the geographic sub-districts of Cadell, Denimein, Wakool andBerriquin. While the boundaries of the Berriquin, Denimein and Wakool LWMPs reflect the boundaries of MurrayIrrigation’s supply and stormwater escape operations, the Cadell plan extends beyond these to incorporate drylandfarming, private irrigation schemes and trusts, and river pumpers along the Murray River. The Murray LWMPsaddress the full spectrum of land and water management issues and include the following programs.

LWMP ImplementationTables 5.1 outlines the achievements where incentives are available and progress against targets. This informationis presented in terms of landholdings that have accessed LWMP incentives to date. 2003/04 marked year 9 of the15 year government funded program.

In 2003/04 a total of $6.5 million of government funding and $3.9 million from landholders was spent on LWMPinitiatives. Landholders spent another $57 million on LWMP items, as indicated by the annual landholder survey.Details of this expenditure is outlined in tables 5.2-5.5.

1 Commercial holdings are defined in Berriquin, Denimein and Wakool as greater than 50ha,with greater than 50ML entitlements. For Cadell commercial holdings are defined as greaterthan 50ha.2 Defined as fully approved whole farm plans.3 Defined as farms meeting the minimum LWMP storage requirements.4 Includes lucerne and saltbush.

Table 4.2: LWMP On-Farm Implementation Summary 1995- 2004

Incentive Item Works

Completed Target

Achievement Works

Completed Target

Achievement Works

Completed Target

Achievement Works

Completed Target

Achievement Total

Landholdings 1,481 1,015 189 384 3,069

Commercial Landholdings1 1,207 794 135 354 2,490

Irrigation Training Program 829 holdings 63.0% 99 holdings N/A 63 holdings N/A 149 holdings N/A

1140 holdings

Farm Plans2 479 holdings 44.0% 242 holdings 34.0% 76 holdings 58.0% 148 holdings 46.5% 945 holdings

Drainage Reuse Systems3 357 holdings 33.0% 111 holdings 15.5% 34 holdings 26.0% 95 holdings 30.0% 597 holdings

Groundwater Pumps Installed 91.00 350.0% N/A N/A 8.00 80.0% N/A N/A 91 Pumps

Perennial Vegetation Establishment4 N/A N/A 22,906ha 39.0% 1,888ha 32.0% 411ha 45.7% 25,025ha

Revegetation 0ha5 N/A 665ha 8.3% 50ha 6.8% 55ha 2.1% 770ha

Regeneration 42ha5 N/A 1003ha 9.6% 94.7ha 3.0% 1,438ha 10.6% 2,578ha

Irrigated Woodlot Establishment N/A N/A N/A N/A 13.5ha 4.5% 4.5ha 6.6% 18ha

Revegetation of Saline Land N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 141ha 118.0% 141ha

Groundwater Pumps Upgraded N/A N/A 22 pumps 22.00 N/A 85.0% N/A N/A N/A

Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool

4 8 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report 2004

Table 5.2: Implementation of the Berriquin LWMP

Government

Contribution 2

($) Levy 3 LWMP Incentives 4 Additional 5

($) ($) ($)

Research & Development 40,220.86 40,220.86

Monitoring 63,247.83 63,247.83

Administration 35,004.94 35,004.94

Education 80,317.46 80,317.46

Sub total 218,791.09 218,791.09

Whole Farm Plans 505,215.34 134,319.35 1,381,469.40

Drainage Reuse Construction 797,438.52 1,067,072.06 3,742,375.00

Sub Surface Drainage - New 136,848.33 98,413.70 1,527,377.52

Sub Surface Drainage - Upgrade

Biodiversity 2,287.00

Revegetation 23,047.35 7,701.62 872,686.00

Regeneration 8,360.90 703.56 82,004.00

Sub total 1,473,197.44 1,308,210.29 7,605,911.92

Drainage program 2,837,920.27 1,159,150.55

Drainage program O & M 95,807.60

Sub total 2,837,920.27 1,254,958.15

Landforming 6,699,018.04

Improved Pasture Management 702,658.00

Additional landholder works1 21,424,555.61

Sub total 28,826,231.65

Contribution to program 10.36% 3.37% 2.99% 83.28%

LWMP Incentive Program

Capital Works Program

Landholder works Program

TOTAL 4,529,908.80 1,473,749.24 1,308,210.29 36,432,143.57

Berriquin

Funding Item

Landholder Contribution

LWMP Programs

Table 5.3: Implementation of the Cadell LWMP2003/04

Government

Contribution 2

($) Levy 3LWMP

Incentives 4 Additional 5

($) ($) ($)


Monitoring 29,605.15 29,605.15


Education 37,471.23 37,471.23

Sub total 123,146.72 123,146.72

Whole Farm Plans 177,092.64 52,911.45 662,057.00

Drainage Reuse Construction 416,086.37 224,088.09 771,669.00

Perennial pastures 76,351.04 81,395.48 702,658.00

Testwells 522.5 522.5

Trees/saltbush 6,837.00 7,106.45

Revegetation 4,783.56 2,234.43

Regeneration 15,678.94

Sub total 697,352.05 368,258.40 2,136,384.00

Drainage Program 52,793.01 9,316.41

Drainage Program 10,182.00

Sub Total 52,793.01 19,498.41

Landforming 1,085,287.62

Improved irrigation layouts 1,402,544.96

Additional landholder works1 7,651,181.00

Sub total 10,139,013.58

TOTAL 873,291.78 142,645.13 368,258.40 12,275,397.58




Landholder Works Program

Cadell

Funding Item


LWMP Programs

1 Includes items such as conservation tillage,improving paddock layouts (Berriquin only),education activit ies, operation andmaintenance and improved management.2 The actual Government financial contributionto implementation of each component of theLWMP.3 The direct levy charged to all lendholders viatheir water accounts.4 The actual landholder financial contributionto implementation of each component of theLWMP.5 The additional landholder financialcontribution to implementation of eachcomponent of the LWMP as recorded via the

LWMP Annual Survey (2003/04).


Government

Contribution 2

($)

Research & Development 34,941.42

Monitoring 32,773.28

Administration 24,316.99

Education 31,648.93

Sub total 123,680.62

Whole Farm Plans 135,397.55

Drainage Reuse Construction 218,160.29

Sub Surface Drainage - New 12,000.11

WTSSDS O & M

Revegetation 4,943.42

Regeneration 55,406.22

Sub total 425,907.59

Drainage program 5,341.72

Drainage program O & M

Sub total 5,341.72

Landforming

Improved irrigation layouts

Additional landholder works1

Sub total

TOTAL 554,929.93

Contribution to program 6.28% 2.85%

251,735.48 127,306.64 7,908,499.07

1.44% 89.44%

2,434,652.00

4,492,821.12


1,094,509.28

963,659.84

48,161.84

50,239.18


2,077.34

3,159.72 384,972.00

77,815.68 127,306.64 3,415,677.95

74,815.65

4,534.56 7,509.00

78,989.11 2,984,121.00

3,000.03


40,623.25 39,075.95

31,648.93

123,680.62

32,773.28

24,316.99

LWMP Programs

34,941.42

Wakool

Funding Item


Levy 3

($)Incentives 4

($)Additional 5

($)

Table 5.5: Implementation of the Wakool LWMP2003/04

Table 5.4: Implementation of the DenimeinLWMP 2003/04

Government

Contribution 2

($) Levy 3LWMP Incentives

4 Additional 5

($) ($) ($)


Monitoring 12,563.82 12,563.82


Education 20,289.79 20,289.79

Sub total 83,953.13 83,953.13

Whole Farm Plans 62,564.49 23,053.84 24,412.00

Drainage Reuse Construction 447,643.98 204,572.25 175,438.00

Sub Surface Drainage - Upgrade 8,251.77

Perennial pastures 1,773.81 1,773.80

Revegetation 2,632.79 170,393.00

Regeneration 6,906.31 2,076.17 20,865.00

Sub total 521,521.38 8,251.77 231,476.06 391,108.00

Drainage program 15,867.78 3,966.95

Sub total 15,867.78 3,966.95

Landforming 569,607.05

Improved irrigation layouts 492,639.39 Additional landholder

works1 737,958.20

Sub total 3,006,211.00

TOTAL 621,342.29 96,171.85 231,476.06 4,573,820.00





Denimein

Funding Item


LWMP Programs


Berriquin LWMPThe Berriquin LWMP area encompasses the East and West Berriquin Irrigation Districts, which covers an area of341,546ha of farm land consisting of 1,481 landholdings. Of these landholdings 1,207 are considered to becommercial being larger than 50ha with more than 50 Murray Irrigation share and water entitlements. A communityworking group develops implementation policies and sets priority actions. The Berriquin Working Group comprises20 landholders, 3 agency representatives and Murray Irrigation as the implementation authority.

Summary of progress

Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives has steadily increased since commencement of implementation in 1995.During the 2003/04 financial year over $1.46 million dollars was allocated to farm planning, irrigation recyclesystems, installing shallow ground water pumps and enhancing native vegetation. This was matched with $1.314million of landholder spending across 202 landholdings.

Berriquin landholders have made significant progress towards meeting the plan targets over the past nine years ofimplementation. A total of 599 Berriqun landholdings (50%) have accessed LWMP incentives. Of commerciallandholdings 40% have approved farm plans and 30% have constructed irrigation recycle systems. Beyond this,the annual survey indicates that 83% of landholdings have completed farm plans and 73% have drainage and reusefacilities. Farm plans carried out on holdings without LWMP incentives may or may not be of a standard that meetsLWMP requirements.

Since the release of the regional vegetation strategy in January 2003, landholders have been actively encouragedand approached to protect and enhance existing native vegetation on their farms. A total of 86.5ha has alreadybeen fenced and enhanced throughout the Berriquin district. Although adoption has been slow a number of landholdershave been preparing and planning for large areas of native vegetation to be fenced and managed in the comingyear.

Education

In 2003/04 the education program focused on one-on-one education. This approach proved to be very successfulwith record levels of incentives provided for farm planning and irrigation recycle systems.

The formal component of the program focuses on a four day Irrigation Training Program (ITP) that is offered 8times a year (depending on participant numbers). Good levels of landholder participation continue to be seen with52 landholders completing the program representing 97 holdings over the 2003/04 period. In the Berriquin districtthis brings the total participation to 63% of commercial landholdings being represented.

With the release of the new vegetation incentives a vegetation field day was held to promote the program. The dayfocused on the importance of protecting remnant vegetation and how these areas can be easily incorporated andmanaged into the design and layout of a farm. Discussion topics included how to manage and enhance remnantvegetation, direct seeding, methods to promote regeneration, the benefits of creating corridors for wildlife, andpest control techniques. The day was well attended with more than 70 landholders present.

To ensure the Berriquin plan maintains a strong community focus 12 woolshed meetings were held across thedistrict, for the second consecutive year. The aim of the meetings was to seek feedback from landholders on theBerriquin LWMP, to help determine the plans future direction and ensure its success. Landholders were askedwhat was successful about the plan, why landholders weren’t being involved and ways in which the program couldbe improved. Approximately 20% of landholdings were represented.

The education program continues to be adapted to better meet the needs of individuals and local groups. Theongoing co-operation and participation of landholders and other organisations in the education program is essential.NSW DPI, Murray Indigenous Seed Services, DIPNR, private industry, landholders and others continue to makesignificant contributions.


Implementation Progress

Farm plan

Target

By 2010, 90% of commercial landholdings will have completed a Whole Farm Plan or a Farm Assessment(followed by a Farm Plan).

2003/04 Progress:

There were 94 farm plans completed and approved in 2003/04.

Total Implementation

As of June 30, 2004, 479 landholdings had completed an approved farm plan. This is 44% of the farm plan target,16% behind on the 2004 milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 83% of landholdings had completed a farm plan, 23% of which had undertakenfarm planning in 2003/04.

Irrigation Recycle and Storage

Target

By 2010, 90% of commercial landholdings to have recycling and drainage systems including a minimum storageof 4ML per 100ha of irrigated land where soil types permit.

2003/04 Progress

There were 87 landholdings that received an incentive to construct a farm drainage reuse system in 2003/04.


As of June 30, 2004, 357 landholdings had constructed (in part or all) an approved drainage reuse system. This is33% of the irrigation recycle target, 27% behind the 2004 milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 73% of landholdings had an irrigation recycle facility which serviced 71% ofthe irrigated area. The landholder survey also indicated that $3.74 million was invested in irrigation recycle andstorage in 2003/04 and $1.32 million was spent on irrigation recycle operation and maintenance.

Groundwater pumping

Target

By 2010, 26 pumps to be installed and 26 pumps to be upgraded.

2003/04 Progress

There were 13 private pumps installed in 2003/04.


The total number of new groundwater pumps now installed is 91 and 22 pumps upgraded. This has exceeded thetarget on new pumps by 350% ahead of the 2004 milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 10% of landholdings have shallow groundwater pumps in 2003/04.


Irrigation Training Program (ITP)

Target

A representative of all commercial holdings will have completed the Irrigation Training Program by March 2006.

2003/04 Progress

A total of 52 Berriquin landholders attended the ITP in 2003/04 representing 97 landholdings.


As of June 30, 2004, landholders representing 829 landholdings (of these 73 lanholdings are non commercial)have attended ITP in the Berriquin District. This is equivalent to 63% of the target, 19% behind the 2004 milestone.

Landforming and Topsoiling

Target

All landholdings will have achieved optimal levels of landforming with top-soiling by 2010.

2003/04 Progress

No incentives available.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that landholders invested $6.7 million in landforming during 2003/04. The totalarea landformed has increased by 9,439ha to 185,409ha landformed since 1995.

Alternative Irrigation & Water Saving Technologies

Target

Alternative irrigation and water saving technologies will be encouraged where environmentally and economicallydesirable.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 8% of landholdings utilised automatic irrigation methods and 3% undertookirrigation scheduling, with 2.4% of the irrigated area with overhead irrigation.

Biodiversity

Target

Vegetation incentives or targets were not originally part of the Berriquin LWMP as Greening Australia (GA)provided funding for vegetation projects. With the ceasing of GA funding and the release of the Murray CatchmentBlueprint, CMA targets have been adopted. Incentives for vegetation projects under the Berriquin LWMP wereintroduced in January 2003.

2003/04 Progress

Eight incentives totalling $14,624.25 were paid for enhancing and revegetation of 19.38ha of Grassy Box woodland,8.1ha of Sandhill woodland and 15ha of Floodplain woodland.

Survey Results

Landholders invested $73,000 in tree and saltbush plantings, $287,575 in maintenance associated with revegetationand $77,194 in fencing native vegetation areas in 2003/04.

Irrigation of Summer Pastures

Target

Best management practices for summer pasture are to be promoted.


2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

Of landholdings surveyed, 7.1% irrigated their summer pasture after the 15th of April. Of these landholdings,14.2% irrigated after 1st May 2004. Approximately $460,000 was invested in upgrading summer pastures in 2003/04.

Perennial Species in Annual Pastures

Target

Farmers are to introduce perennial pasture species into existing pastures within 15 years.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

Of landholdings surveyed, 11% incorporated perennial species into their pastures during 2003/04, over an area of3,531ha. Approximately $702,658 was invested in incorporating perennial species into irrigated annual pasturesduring 2003/04.

Sealing the Channel System

Target

By 2005, sealing the top 27 seepage sites will occur subject to detailed investigations on a site by site basis.

2003/04 Progress

Murray Irrigation is continuing to undertake investigations at key sites to determine what sealing works areappropriate. During the 2003/04 year Murray Irrigation completed a major seepage investigation project. Theproject commenced in 2000 and involving the MDBC, ANCID and several other irrigation authorities. Evaluationswill be conducted in the future to determine the success of the channel lining at the various sites (refer to Seepageand Erosion Control, page 3).

Tree Planting at Identified Seepage Sites

Target

By 2010, tree plantings and establishing lucerne will take place adjacent to 54 minor identified seepage sites.

2003/04 Progress

All 54 identified seepage sites have been planted, with a total of $113,920 being spent on fencing and trees.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 1% of landholders established a lucerne plantation along a district supplychannel during 2003/04. This involved an investment of $13,189.

Conservation Farming

Target

Encourage the adoption of conservation farming techniques.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholdings surveyed indicated that approximately 79.5% of respondents practiced conservation farmingtechniques.


Cadell LWMPCadell LWMP implementation commenced in November 1995. The LWMP area covers the Deniboota IrrigationDistrict (operated by Murray Irrigation), a number of smaller private irrigation districts and the neighbouringdryland area, known as East Cadell as shown in Figure 5.1 (as Cadell). The Cadell LWMP area comprises301,848ha with 1,015 landholdings, 77% (794) of these holdings are commercial (greater than 50ha in size).

The Cadell LWMP has joint implementation authorities, Murray Shire Council and Murray Irrigation. In 1996/97,Murray Shire Council formally contracted Murray Irrigation as its agent to implement the East Cadell componentof the LWMP. In this role Murray Irrigation reports to a formal committee of the council.

The Cadell Working Group comprises fourcommunity representatives, each fromDeniboota and East Cadell, representativesfrom Murray Irrigation as well as variousother agencies. This committee has assistedthe two implementation authorities indetermining specific priority actions andongoing community consultation.

Summary of Progress

Landholder adoption of LWMP incentives hasincreased steadily since commencement ofimplementation in 1996. During the 2003/04financial year, more than $0.726 million wasprovided to Cadell landholders for farmplanning, drainage reuse construction,perennial pasture and saltbush establishment,and native vegetation protection andenhancement. This was matched with $1.11million of landholder spending over 180landholdings. Since 1996, 425 Cadelllandholdings (42%) have accessed an LWMPincentive.

Cadell landholders have made significantprogress towards meeting the implementationtargets established in 1995. A total of 81% ofthe area is owned by landholders who havebeen accredited with a Cadell Card and 34%of commercial holdings (landholdings largerthan 50ha) have completed a farm plan. Morethan 26% of commercial holdings haveinstalled an irrigation recycling system.

The Cadell LWMP has also made significant progress towards meeting the vegetation targets. Landholders haveestablished or protected 23,571ha of perennial vegetation (including perennial pasture) in Cadell since 1996.

#

#

#

#

#

#

Moama

Barham

Wakool

Bunnaloo

Deniliquin

Mathoura

DENIBOOTA

CADELL

10 0 10 Kilometres

N

EW

S


Cadell LWMP showingDeniboota Irrigation area

Figure 4.2: Map of East Cadell and Deniboota


Education

The Cadell LWMP education program has three components; the Cadell Card, community education and trainingactivities, and one-on-one landholder education.

Accreditation for the Cadell Card requires a landholder to complete an awareness test and submit a farm mapidentifying soil types, remnant vegetation areas, waterlogged and saline areas as well as current and proposedirrigation layouts. This is a prerequisite for receiving financial incentives from the LWMP.

As of June 30, 2004, 636 (80%) of commercial holdings had received their Cadell Card accreditation. Theselandholdings cover 243,834ha or 81% of the LWMP area. The landholder accreditation process has provided anopportunity to improve individual landholder awareness and understanding through direct contact with the LWMPOfficer.

The second component of the education program is less formal and has been carried out by Murray Irrigation withsupport from private and industry consultants and NSW DPI.

Activities conducted in 2003/04 included:• Three field days covering alternative irrigation practices, farm drainage and recycling and native vegetation

establishment methods;• Four community newsletters;• Numerous media releases in local and regional newspapers;• Landholder participation in the Murray Irrigated Training Program.

As in previous years, LWMP staff have continued to increase the focus of the education program towards one-on-one landholder education. This approach has been successful in increasing landholder awareness of the LWMP andencouraging implementation of plan recommendations.


Farm Plans

Target 1

By 2001, 95% of landholdings (commercial & non-commercial) will have completed a Farm Development Plan(Cadell Card).

2003/04 Progress

The Cadell Card target was not met by 2001, therefore implementation is continuing. In 2003/04, there were 32Farm Development Plans (Cadell Card) completed.


As of June 30, 2004, 636 landholdings had received their Cadell Card accreditation. The number accredited isequivalent to 80% of the 2001 target.

Target 2

By 2010, 90% of landholdings (commercial) will have produced a farm plan to ensure a high degree of controlover water flow within the farm boundary.

2003/04 Progress

There were 23 farm plans completed in 2003/04.


As of June 30, 2004, 242 landholdings have completed a farm plan. 300 holdings have accessed a farm planincentive of which 58 landholdings are at the grid survey stage. The number of completed farm plans is equivalentto 34% of the farm plan target, 43% behind the required 2004 milestone.


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 72% of landholdings had completed a farm plan, with 15% of landholdersundertaking farm planning in 2003/04.

Drainage Reuse Construction

Target

By 2010, 90% of landholdings (commercial) will have implemented recycling and drainage works including aminimum storage of 11ML per 100ha of irrigated land where soil types permit.

2003/04 Progress

There were 9 drainage reuse and storage systems completed in 2003/04. Incentives were provided for the constructionof a farm drainage reuse system on 43 landholdings during 2003/04.


As of June 30, 2004, 111 landholdings have a fully completed drainage reuse and storage system (including astorage dam). Incentives to construct a drainage reuse system have been provided for 187 landholdings withconstruction started but not completed on 76 of those landholdings. The number of completed drainage, reuse andstorage systems is equivalent to 15.5% of the target, 74% behind the required 2004 milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 37% of landholdings had a drainage reuse facility. The landholder survey alsoindicated that $727,000 was invested in drainage reuse and storage in 2003/04 and $428,000 was spent on drainagereuse operation and maintenance.

Establishing Perennial Vegetation

The Cadell LWMP area has a significant component of low intensity irrigation and dryland areas. Therefore theprotection and establishment of perennial vegetation (native trees, shrubs, lucerne and saltbush) is an importantpart of recharge control in the area.

The following are original targets set by the Cadell LWMP, which will be modified to suit the recently developedvegetation targets as part of the Murray Catchment Management Plan.

Target 1

By 2010, 8,445ha of irrigated annual pasture will be converted to annual/perennial pasture.By 2010, 50,420ha of land dedicated to growing sub-clover will incorporate lucerne.

2003/04 Progress

The total area of perennial pasture established in 2003/04 was 5,025ha on 68 landholdings.


As of June 30, 2004, 22,906ha of perennial pasture has been established on 240 holdings. This is equivalent to39% of the combined perennial pasture target, 35% behind on the required 2004 milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 8,109ha of perennial pasture was established on 15% of landholdings acrossthe Cadell area in 2003/04, at a cost of $970,788.

Saltbush

Target 1

Plant 4,000ha of saltbush or salt tolerant native trees by 2025, as green pumps.

2003/04 Progress

In 2003/04, 6 landholdings received incentives to establish saltbush on 33ha.



As of June 30, 2004, 665ha of native vegetation (including saltbush) had been established on 134 landholdings.Implementation of saltbush and native trees has previously been recorded as one target, therefore the calculation ofprogress against this target is not possible.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that:• 2.6ha of saltbush were planted in 2003/04 at a cost of $610• The total area of saltbush planted since 1996/97 is 26,206ha at a cost to landholders of $1,063,810.

Target 2

Identify where saltbush or salt tolerant native trees will be beneficial or of maximum advantage.

2003/04 Progress

Murray Irrigation is undertaking an area at risk of salinity investigation as part of a CSIRO R&D project.

Native Vegetation

With the introduction of the Murray Catchment Blueprint in 2003, some of the initial vegetation targets establishedby the Cadell LWMP were no longer appropriate. These targets have been replaced with those described in theMurray Catchment Blueprint as outlined below.

Target 1

By 2010, 10,451ha of existing native vegetation (covering the six broad vegetation types outlined in the MurrayCatchment Blueprint) will be actively managed for conservation.

2003/04 Progress

The total area of native vegetation fenced in 2003/04 was 45ha, with 7 landholdings receiving incentives for theseworks. Implementation of this target commenced in mid 2003/04, therefore accurate records (outlining broadvegetation types) are not available.


As of June 30, 2004, more than 1,003ha of native vegetation has been fenced on 118 landholdings.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 379ha of remnant vegetation was fenced to encourage active management forconservation at a cost of $17,773. The total area of remnant vegetation protected since 1996/97 is 7,044ha at a costof $615,373.

Target 2

By 2010, restore and regenerate 4,040ha of under represented broad vegetation types (covering the six broadvegetation types outlined in the Murray Catchment Blueprint).

2003/04 Progress

In 2003/04, 6 landholdings received incentives to establish native vegetation on 60ha. Implementation of thistarget commenced in mid 2003/04, therefore accurate records (outlining broad vegetation types) are not available.


As of June 30, 2004, 665ha of native vegetation (including saltbush) had been established on 134 landholdings.Implementation of saltbush and native trees has previously been recorded as one target, therefore the calculation ofprogress against this target is not possible.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 543ha of trees/shrubs were planted in 2003/04 at a cost of $835,737.


Soil Management

Target 1

By 2010, 50% of landholdings will implement conservation farming techniques such as minimum tillage or directdrilling.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 62% of landholders used conservation tillage techniques during 2003/04.

Target 2

By 2010, 90% of landholdings will place rice fallow into crop to decrease accessions to the watertable subject toappropriate management techniques being developed via industry research.

2003/04 Progress

No incentives available. CSIRO is currently undertaking research into appropriate cropping systems immediatelyfollowing rice.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 1% of rice growers direct drilled a winter crop into rice stubble from the 2002/03 rice season totaling 1,125ha. A further 536ha of winter cereals was direct drilled into the 2003/04 seasons ricestubble by 2% of rice growers.

Irrigation Management

Target 1

By 2005, 95% of landholdings will be aware of crop and pasture water usage and the importance of paddockselection for irrigation.

2003/04 Progress

A series of education activities were conducted in 2003/04 to improve landholder awareness.

Target 2

By 2004, a target for water use will be developed for crops and pastures other than rice.

2003/04 Progress

CSIRO is currently undertaking research involving crop water use and the level of groundwater accessions foreach major crop type.

Target 3

Farm water use monitored annually.

2003/04 Progress

Farm water use is currently monitored annually via metered inlets and the Murray Irrigation Water Orderingservice, recording six different crop/pasture types. Information is also collected on the water usage of licenseddeep aquifer bores.

Irrigation of Annual Pastures

Target

Irrigation of annual pastures after the 1st May to be discouraged.

2003/04 Progress



Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that less than 6.7% of landholders irrigated winter pastures after 1st May.

Irrigation of Cereal Crops

Target

By 2005, 90% of landholdings on which pre-irrigation for winter crops is carried out, complete pre-irrigating bymid March on contour layouts and the 1st May on lasered country.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated 19% of landholders pre-irrigated winter crops. There were approximately 13,157hapre-irrigated in 2003/04, compared to 6,996ha in 2002/03.

Irrigation of Summer Pastures

Target 1

By 2005, 10% (320ha) of existing summer pastures will be incorporated with perennial species of lucerne orphalaris.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that approximately 484ha of summer pasture with a perennial plant componentwere established in 2003/04.

Target 2

Irrigation of summer pastures after 1st May be discouraged.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated no respondents irrigated summer pasture after 15th April, 2004.

Irrigation Scheduling

Target

By 2010, 31,500ha of irrigated land will have irrigation scheduling practices (e.g. daily evaporation figures ormoisture probes, in particular annual pastures, lucerne and summer crops.)

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 5% of farmers were adopting irrigation scheduling techniques across thedistrict. This compares with 2% in 1997/98, 5% in 1998/99, 3% in 1999/00, 9% in 2000/01, 7% in 2001/02 and6% in 2002/03.


Infrastructure

Target 1

By 2005, culverts/syphons will be installed in 95% of obstructions to watercourses, (e.g. channels, roads, banks).

2003/04 Progress

Steady progress was made on the Cadell surface drainage program during 2003/04. Murphy’s Timber Stage 2,Yaloke Stage 2 and Yaloke Laterals have all been surveyed and designed, with construction approval for all threedrainage lines granted by Murray Shire Council. Construction of both Murphy’s Timber and Yaloke are expectedto begin mid 2004. For further information see page 33.

Target 2

By 2005, 90% of landholdings will use the correct maintenance procedures for farm channels to ensure flow ratesare not restricted by the build up of weeds or sediments.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 30% of landholders undertook channel maintenance during 2003/04 at a costof $374,966.

Landforming

Target

By 2010, an additional 30,000ha will be landformed to minimise waterlogging and reduce accessions.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that landholders invested $1.09 million on landforming in 2003/04. This equated toapproximately 1,809ha. The total landformed area since 1995 is 47,259ha.

Contour and Bordercheck Irrigation Layouts

Target 1

By 2010, 90% of landholdings will use contour layouts only on impermeable soil types for rice production.

2003/04 Progress

In 2003/04 Murray Irrigation upgraded its rice soil suitability criteria to be based on soil sodicity rather thanpercentage clay. Research shows that this move will double the accuracy of detection of unsuitable rice soils.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 1% of landholders had undertaken an EM31 survey during 2003/04 for riceground approval. Approximately 946ha were surveyed, at a cost of $24,608.

Target 2

By 2010, 90% of contour layouts on soil not suitable for rice production will be converted to border check.

2003/04 Progress

Murray Irrigation requires landholders to retest soils where the rice crop has exceeded the target water use limit.In 2003/04, six rice growers exceeded the rice water use target in Deniboota.

Rice Water Use

Target 1

100% of landholdings will meet the annual total rice water usage figure.


2003/04 Progress

Six landholders exceeded the crop water use target in 2003/04 (page 32).

Target 2

All unsuitable rice ground will be removed from production as it is identified.

2003/04 Progress

Murray Irrigation’s Rice Soil Policy requires the identification via EM31 survey and soil sodicity analyses of allpreviously untested rice ground, rice ground where water is supplied from sources other than Murray Irrigationand land where the annual rice water use target has been exceeded.

Alternative Farming Practices

Target 1

By 2005, 50% of landholdings will be well informed with information on marketing skills and alternative farmingoperations.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that no landholders established an alternative farming enterprise during 2003/04.However 7 indicated they had alternative enterprises ranging from vineyards to nurseries and feedlots.

Target 2

By 2005, 500ha of dryland alternative crops (canola, field peas, lupins and vetch) will be established.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 7,474ha of oilseeds and 1,609ha of winter grain legumes were grown in 2003/04.

Groundwater Pumping

Target 1

By 2001, develop a strategy for groundwater pumping and commence the implementation of the strategy forresearch and development purposes.

Target 2

By 2004, complete the research and development for groundwater pumping.


A groundwater pumping investigation program was undertaken in 1999/00 to identify the cause of groundwaterrecharge in areas with significant watertable rise. This study was finalised in 2000/01 however there were nosignificant conclusions drawn as to the cause of this watertable rise.

Further investigations by CSIRO into watertable dynamics in the Cadell area was undertaken during 2003/04. Theinfluence of various LWMP recommendations (including groundwater pumping) will be studied during this researchproject. This research is to be completed by 2006.

Identification and Management of Areas Most at Risk of Salinisation

Target 1

By 2001, identify areas at risk of salinisation and provide information to landholders regarding water discharge inCadell.


2003/04 Progress

Murray Irrigation is undertaking an area at risk of salinity investigation as part of the benchmarking requirements.

Target 2

By 2002, develop and distribute a management plan to those landholders whose land is at greatest risk of becomingsaline.

2003/04 Progress

As part of the Cadell LWMP education program, those landholders at risk of salinity are being identified andencouraged to adopt the best management practices recommended to overcome salinity.

Sealing the Channel System

Target

By 2003, Murray Irrigation will seal the economically viable sites.

2003/04 Progress

The company is continuing to undertake investigations at key sites to determine appropriate sealing works. In2003/04, no major seepage sites were sealed in Cadell.

Tree Plantings at Identified Seepage Sites

Target

By 2005, plant trees alongside other identified seepage sites.

2003/04 Progress

• No trees were planted by Murray Irrigation along supply channels during 2003/04.• No trees were established along farm channel seepage areas during 2003/04

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that no landholders established a tree plantation along a district supply channel forseepage control during 2003/04.


Denimein LWMPDenimein LWMP implementation commenced in October 1996. It covers an area of 53,379ha, and comprises 189holdings. In total there are 138 commercial holdings (holdings greater than 50ha) on which the targets are based.

The Denimein Working Group comprises 15 landholders from throughout the district and two agency representatives.They make decisions on behalf of the community regarding the operation and implementation of the LWMPs.

Summary of Progress

There has been a steady increase in landholder adoption of incentives since plan commencement in 1996, withapproximately 83% of commercial landholdings being actively involved in the Denimein LWMP.

The enthusiasm to undertake on-farm drainage works in 2003/04 was pleasing. During the year 26 landholderscompleted some form of drainage works while construction of storage dams was completed on three landholdings.Since 1996, drainage works have been completed on 68 landholdings in Denimein.

Uptake of farm planning by the Denimein community is progressing extremely well. Throughout the year severalgrid surveys were finalised, with the majority of these landholders going on to implement major drainage works.

Education

The education program for 2003/04 involved a range of coordinated activities, accompanied by a significantcomponent of one-on-one discussions with individual landholders.

After eight years of implementation, the Denimein Working Group has recognised that landholders require moreguidance in the uptake of LWMP works. The one-on-one approach has allowed the implementation officer toencourage best management practices to match individual farm needs.

Every three months the Denimein newsletter is published. This newsletter covers all aspects of the LWMP.Numerous media articles are also published in regards to LWMP activities.

A number of ITP courses ran throughout the year with five landholders from the Denimein district attending.

Vegetation management education has occurred with the wetland watering on private property trial Murray Irrigationoperate in conjunction with the Murray Wetlands Working Group. Landholders who applied to be involved in thisproject were targeted to carry out further vegetation enhancement of the site. One-on-one discussions with landholdershave resulted in the fencing of some sites and direct seeding activities.

A high level of co-ordination and co-operation is maintained with NSW DPI, Murray Indigenous Seed Services(MISS), DIPNR, the Murray Wetland Working Group and private organisations in the delivery of the educationprogram.


Farm Plans

Target

80% of commercial holdings to have completed an appropriate level of farm plan by 2006, 95% by 2011.

2003/04 Progress

Eight landholdings accessed a farm planning incentive in 2003/04.


As of June 30, 2004, 76 landholdings have a completed farm plan. 110 landholdings have accessed a farm planincentive, of which 34 landholdings are at the grid survey stage. The number of completed farm plans is equivalentto 69% of the 2006 farm plan target, 16% behind the required 2004 milestone. The 2011 farm plan target is 58%achieved, 3% behind the required 2004 milestone.


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 56% of landholdings had completed a farm plan, however none had undertakenfarm planning in 2003/04.

Drainage and Recycling

Target

70% of commercial holdings to have implemented drainage reuse and storage systems by 2006, 95% by 2011.

2003/04 Progress

There were 26 landholdings that undertook drainage and reuse work in 2003/04.


As of June 30, 2004, 34 landholdings have completed drainage reuse and storage works. An additional 38 arepartly completed taking the total landholdings that have accessed funds for drainage, reuse and storage works to72. The number of completed drainage, reuse and storage systems is equivalent to 35% of the 2006 target, 57%behind the required 2004 milestone. The 2011 drainage, reuse and storage target is 26% achieved, 57% behind therequired 2004 milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 56% of farms have reuse facilities and that these systems service 29% of theirrigated area. Landholders invested $175,438 on drainage reuse construction and $55,060 on operation andmaintenance of these systems in 2003/04.

Native Vegetation

The introduction of the Murray Catchment Blueprint vegetation targets in 2003 has resulted in the redundancy ofmany of the initial vegetation targets developed by the Denimein LWMP. The new Murray Catchment Managementtargets are outlined below.

Target 1

By 2010, 3,216.9ha of native vegetation (covering the six broad vegetation types outlined by the Murray CatchmentBlueprint) will be actively managed for conservation.

2003/04 Progress

Remnant vegetation was fenced on three landholdings in 2003/04, totaling 27.7ha. Implementation of this targetcommenced mid 2003/04, therefore accurate records (outlining broad vegetation types) are not available.


As of June 30, 2004, 94.7ha across 15 landholdings had been actively managed in the Denimein LWMP area. Thenumber of hectares managed is equivalent to 3% of the target, 92.5% behind the required 2004 milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that $20,865 was spent on fencing 145ha of remnant vegetation to encourageactive management for conservation in 2003/04.

Target 2

By 2010, restore and regenerate 731.8ha of under-represented broad vegetation types (as outlined in the MurrayCatchment Blueprint).

2003/04 Progress

Three landholdings received an incentive to establish native vegetation over 8.16ha in 2003/04. Implementation ofthis target commenced mid 2003/04, therefore accurate records (outlining broad vegetation types) are not available.


As of June 30, 2004, 50.16ha had been revegetated across the Denimein LWMP area on 18 landholdings. Thenumber of hectares revegetated is equivalent to 6.8% of the target, 88.7% behind on the required 2004 milestone.


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 146ha of native vegetation was established during 2003/04, at a cost of$170,393.

Dryland Pasture

Target

5,900ha (or 18%) of unimproved dryland pasture to incorporate perennials or be managed to maintain a perennialmix by 2011.

2003/04 Progress

Four holdings incorporated perennials in 2003/04, totaling 151ha.


As of June 30, 2004, 1,888ha of perennials had been planted in the Denimein LWMP area. The number ofhectares to incorporate perennials is equivalent to 32% of the target, 46.6% behind the required 2004 milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that approximately 21ha of annual pasture had a perennial component establishedduring 2003/04, of which none was dryland. Total investment was $2,216.

Farm Forestry

Target

Establish 300ha of commercial farm forestry by 2011.

2003/04 Progress

No holdings received an incentive to complete farm forestry works in 2003/04.


As of June 30, 2004, 13.5ha of farm forestry had been established in the Denimein LWMP area. The number ofhectares of established farm forestry is equivalent to 4.5% of the target, 92.5% behind on the required 2004milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that no commercial farm forestry was established during 2003/04.

Ground Water Pumps

Target 1

Upgrade 10 existing shallow bores by 2001. Maintain pumping of these bores annually.

2003/04 Progress

There were no existing shallow bores upgraded under the incentive scheme in 2003/04. In 2003/04 DIPNRintroduced a moratorium on the installation of new shallow groundwater pumps. As a result, this target is redundant.


Eight shallow bores have been installed/upgraded in the Denimein district.

Target 2

Aim to pump 1,200ML/year.

2003/04 Progress

Seven Denimein holdings pumped groundwater during 2003/04, with a total of 816ML pumped.


As of June 30, 2004, 6,037ML of water had been pumped in the Denimein LWMP area. The number of megalitrespumped is equivalent to 50.3% of the target, 16.7% behind the required 2004 milestone.


Target Water Use

Target 1

90% of landholders to be aware of best irrigation management practices for all irrigated production by 2006.

2003/04 Progress

No incentive available.

Survey Results

No landholders exceeded the TFWB in 2003/04.

Target 2

95% of rice crops to be within maximum water use targets by 2006.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

One landholder exceeded the rice water use target in 2003/04.

Management of Contour Layouts

Target

70% of landholders to adopt correct strategies by 2011, 95% by 2025.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 9% of the irrigated area had implemented a side ditch into the contour layoutsystem.

Irrigated Winter Crops

Target

90% of pre-irrigated crops to adopt the appropriate seasonal strategy by 2001.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 56% of irrigated area is landformed.

Summer Pasture/Forage Crops

Target

95% of non-rice summer irrigation enterprises to adopt the correct autumn watering strategy by 2001.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 100% of respondents did not irrigate their summer pastures after the 15thApril, 2004.


Landforming

Target

8,000ha to be landformed by 2015.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that $569,607 was invested in landforming over an area of 949ha. Total arealandformed since 1995 is 17,736ha.

Farm Channel Sealing

Target

Identify areas of significant farm channel seepage and seal as appropriate.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 50% of Denimein landholdings undertook some form of channel maintenanceduring 2003/04 and spent $190,565 on these works. No landholdings planted trees or lucerne at seepage sitesalong farm channels.

Channel Seepage Control

Target 1

Seal economically viable sites by 2001. Quantify seepage more accurately and seal additional sites as appropriate.

2003/04 Progress

A channel seepage investigation coordinated by ANCID will provide information on identification of channelseepage sites, remediation of these sites and a decision support system for channel seepage. This project hasrecently been completed with results circulated around the working group.

Target 2

Plant trees alongside marginal seepage sites over 30 years.

2003/04 Progress

A total of four sites, identified by the Murray Irrigation Infrastructure Committee, have been planted with appropriatemixes of trees and shrubs to utilise any seepage. No trees were planted in 2003/04.

Deep Groundwater Pumping

Target 1

Install 8 deep bores by 2001

2003/04 Progress

The installation of new deep bores is subject to a moratorium imposed by DIPNR. Accordingly, no work on theinstallation of deep bores is being carried out.

Target 2

Once achieved, aim to pump 8,000ML per annum from the deep aquifers (subject to refinement by DIPNR).

2003/04 Progress

Approximately 4,220ML of water was pumped from existing deep bores in 2003/04. This information is basedwater usage data monitored and recorded by Murray Irrigation.


Channel Escapes and Box Creek Upgrade

Target 1

Identify the requirements for upgrading the escape system by 2001.

2003/04 Progress

Six escapes have been identified and incorporated into the surface drainage program for completion by 2005.Progress on escape upgrade is reported below (target 2).

The Box Creek concept design project was completed in 2002, with hydraulic modeling of the creek using a DigitalElevation Model (DEM) completed this year. The hydraulic modeling indicated that the MDBC design flow wasgenerally contained within the depression of the creek although it over toped the constructed channel. There werehowever four locations that will require some minor bank works to prevent the design flow flooding irrigationinfrastructure. Murray Irrigation aims to commence desilting, fencing, earthworks, and revegetation works onBox Creek in 2004/05.

Target 2

Construction based on these outcomes to be completed by 2006.

2003/04 Progress

All six escapes requiring upgrade have been surveyed. All of these escapes have been incorporated into thedrainage program and are expected to be completed by June 2005.

Management Packages

Target

90% of all landholders to be aware of the basic best management practice principles for crop/pasture production by2006.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 22% of respondents undertake regular soil testing, and 17% actively participatein and use crop management programs.


Wakool LWMPWakool LWMP implementation commenced in January 1996. It covers an area of 210,694ha and comprises 381holdings with 354 commercial holdings (holdings greater than 50ha).The Wakool LWMP Working Group provides much of the ongoing direction and initiative for the Wakool LWMP.The group is comprised of 18 landholders, as well as representation from Murray Irrigation Ltd, Department ofInfrastructure, Planning and Natural Resources (DIPNR) and NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI).

Summary of Progress

Despite continuing difficult farm economic conditions, implementation has continued to occur during 2003/04.Compared to 2002/03 there has been a decrease in the number of holdings uptaking the LWMP incentives.

Education

Education has been an active component in the Wakool LWMP area during 2003/04. The major component oflandholder education remains one-on-one informal meetings. Approximately 125 landholder meetings were heldduring 2003/04. More formal aspects of the education program were held through field days, presentations andthrough the Irrigation Training Program.

Tours & Presentations on Salinity Management

Tours and presentations were conducted to groups including; Barham Primary School, Deniliquin High School,Barham High School, NSW DPI and DIPNR staff, Charles Sturt Univeristy Students, Probus at Holbrook, MurrayCatchment Natural Resource Officers and Western Murray Irrigation Landholders.

Field Days

Two biodiversity field days have been held. They include:1 Rabbit Control and Native Vegetation Field Day2 Carnivorous Native Mice Field Day


Farm Plans

Target 1

Currently, the Wakool LWMP has no specific target for farm planning. Informally, the working group aims tohave at least 90% of commercial landholdings with a completed farm plan by 2010.

2003/04 Progress

A total of 34 landholdings have accessed farm planning incentives during 2003/04


As of June 30, 2004, 148 landholdings have completed a farm plan. 227 landholdings have accessed a farm planincentive of which 79 landholdings are still at the grid survey stage. The number of completed farm plans isequivalent to 46.5% of the farm plan target, 22.5% behind the required 2004 milestone.

Survey Results

The landholder survey indicated that 97% of landholdings had completed a whole farm plan, 7.7% of which hadbeen undertaken in 2003/04. It should be noted that the annual survey is of only 10% of landholdings and thisinformation is then extrapolated to a regional scale, some error may occur in this extrapolation.


Irrigation Recycling

Target 1

90% of farms (commercial) will have drainage for most of their irrigated land by the year 2010. Education willcontinue to highlight the benefits of drainage and, combined with the farm assessment, move towards this overallgoal.

2003/04 Progress

A total of 95 landholdings have completed drainage reuse and storage works. An additional 44 are partly completedtaking the total landholdings that have accessed funds for drainage, reuse and storage works to 139. The numberof completed drainage, reuse and storage systems is equivalent to 30% of the 2010 target, 50% behind the required2004 milestone.

Target 2

90% of farm channels will be designed and maintained correctly by 2010. 80% of leaking on farm channel siteswill be sealed by 2005. Landholders have the responsibility of upgrading and maintaining their on-farm supplysystem.

2003/04 Progress


Survey Results

The results from the annual survey indicate that 78% of landholdings have a drainage reuse system and thesesystems are able to command approximately 32% of the irrigated area.

Establishing Vegetation

Vegetation management and establishment is an integral component of the Wakool LWMP and a range of incentivesare available. The Wakool LWMP follows the recently developed vegetation targets under the Murray CatchmentBlueprint.

Target 1

To actively manage 13,504ha of existing broad vegetation types, including boree woodland, sandhill woodland,mallee woodland, grassy box woodland, floodplain forest/woodland, riverine forest/woodland by the year 2012.

2003/04 Progress

There has been 15.1ha of sandhill woodland, 1,335.3ha of floodplain forest/woodland, 87.55ha of riverine forest/woodland actively managed during 2003/04. This is a total of 1,437.95ha of native vegetation actively managed.This is overall 106% of target achieved against the milestone of 1,350.4ha to be managed annually.


As of June 30, 2004, 1,437.95ha of native vegetation has been actively managed as part of the adopted catchmentvegetation program.

Target 2

To restore and regenerate 2,650ha of under represented broad vegetation types including boree woodland, sandhillwoodland, grassy box woodland and floodplain forest/woodland.

2003/04 Progress

A total of 54.8ha of under represented broad vegetation types have been restored and regenerated during 2003/04.This is overall 20.7% of the target achieved against the milestone of 265ha to be restored and regenerated annually.


As of June 30, 2004, 54.8ha of native vegetation has been restored and regenerated as part of the adoptedcatchment vegetation program.

Target 3

The Wakool LWMP is proposed to establish one irrigated woodlot per year with an area of 2ha or greater.


2003/04 Progress

No incentives were used to establish irrigated woodlots in the 2003/04 season.


A total of one irrigated woodlot (4.5ha) has been established using the Wakool LWMP incentives as of June 30,2004. In terms of area, this is equivalent to 6.6% of the irrigated woodlot target, 89% behind the required 2004milestone.

Target 4

It is proposed that 100ha of saline land be revegetated by 2005 and a further 100ha by 2010.

2003/04 Progress

No incentives were used to revegetate saline land in 2003/04


A total of 141.3ha of saline land has been revegetated in the Wakool LWMP area as of June 30, 2004. This isoverall 118% of target achieved against the 2004 milestone of 120ha. Of this, 99.3ha is on private land and theremaining 42ha is on land surrounding the WTSSDS evaporation basins.

Survey Results

The annual landholder survey indicates that no landholders with suspected saline land re-established vegetation onthese areas during 2003/04.

Target 5

100ha of deep rooted perennials to be established per year. This will mainly cover dryland areas with risingwatertables and increased salinity. Areas along and bordering creeks and depressions will be targeted to helpreduce the impact of run-off and the export of salt to downstream users.

2003/04 Progress

A total area of 219.4ha of perennial vegetation was established in 2003/04 using Wakool LWMP incentives.


As of June 30, 2004, a total area of 411.1ha of deep rooted perennials has been established. This is overall 45.7%of target achieved against the 2004 milestone of 900ha.

Survey Results

The annual survey indicated that landholders established 6,716ha of perennials in their dryland and irrigated pasturesduring 2003/04 at a cost of $679,908.

Other on-farm practices

Target 1

All landholders are to remove summer pasture systems from contour layouts by 2010

2003/04 Progress

No incentives available

Survey Results

Results from the landholder survey indicate that $963,660 was invested by landholders to improve their irrigationlayouts during 2003/04. A further $1.09 million was invested in landforming.

Target 2

All landholders are encouraged to improve internal drainage lines of rice layouts so that uninterrupted drainage isprovided.


2003/04 Progress

No incentives available

Target 3

Murray Irrigation continue to further develop and implement the Total Farm Water Balance (TFWB) policy asimproved information is found out.

2003/04 Progress

No incentives available. Murray Irrigation has continued to implement the TFWB policy and annually reviewswater use data. One landholding in Wakool exceeded their TFWB limit during 2003/04.

Target 4

Murray Irrigation will establish a series of Australian Height Datum (AHD) benchmarks across the district by theyear 2005.

2003/04 Progress

No incentives available. The company has established AHD benchmarks across the Wakool LWMP area.

Structural Adjustment

The Wakool LWMP recognised the need to facilitate adjustment where necessary to achieve the objectives of theLWMPs. A structural adjustment program was developed by the Wakool community to facilitate adjustment wherea significant area of land has salinised on individual landholdings and to assist the removal of rice from non-suitable areas. It is recognised that the removal of rice from areas previously approved for rice growing willadversely affect the viability of these farms, particularly where the area to be removed is a significant proportionof the available land.

This policy, developed by the Wakool Community Implementation Advisory Committee and involving extensivecommunity consultation, was endorsed by the NSW Government in 1997/1998. The policy was applied to specificcases on a confidential basis in 1997/1998, with negotiations completed in 1998/1999.

Target 1

Murray Irrigation is responsible for highlighting the availability of incentives for rural adjustment schemes throughannual newsletters. Cases are dealt with as an as-needs basis and in confidentiality.

2003/04 Progress

No cases were made to receive structural adjustment packages in 2003/04. Where appropriate, the LWMP officerinforms landholders of possible assistance packages.

Subsurface Drainage

Target 1

• Conduct a detailed investigation of the high watertable area (0-2m) culminating in identification of prioritypumping zones.

• Investigate, design and construct groundwater pumping and disposal schemes within the priority areas.


The Wakool community and Murray Irrigation have identified an area of 6,000ha west of the existing stage IIevaporation basin that has been subject to a significant watertable rise in recent years. Watertables are within 2m ofthe surface and groundwater salinity typically exceeds 50,000EC.

Australian Water Environments (AWE) was contracted to further evaluate the potential for expansion of groundwaterpumping around the stage II evaporation basin. When this report was completed a cost benefit analysis of thescheme was undertaken. The results of this report showed that the current benefit cost ratio was generally around


0.7 to 1. To be considered economic, it is preferred to have a benefit cost ratio of at least 1 to 1. Other options arebeing explored by CSIRO which may reduce the overall cost of the proposed scheme, but still deliver similarwatertable control.

Target 2

Landholders with shallow groundwater of less than 3,000EC be encouraged to fully utilise this water resource.

2003/04 Progress

No incentives were accessed for this program.

Floodplain Management

Target 1

The floodplain Management Strategy for Stage 4 to be completed by DIPNR by 2001.

2003/04 Progress

The fieldwork for the Stage 4 strategy has been completed and signed off and gazetted. Field investigations are stillunderway for Stage 1, 2, and 3 of the floodplain plans, which have an influence in some of the Wakool LWMP area.


Murray LWMP R&D ProgramThe Murray LWMP R&D program is a dynamic and innovative program addressing a wide range of issues withthe objective of improving the environmental knowledge and actions of landholders. Strong linkages have beenmaintained between research organisations to enhance specific, locally-based research outcomes.

A formal, elected committee presides over the implementation of the R&D program. Coupled with this formalcommittee structure, a strategic plan has been developed to focus R&D efforts into disciplines which will directlyimpact on the sustainability of the Murray LWMP area.

Since implementation of the LWMPs first commenced in 1995, thirteen projects have been funded. More informationon these past projects is available on our website www.murrayirrigation.com.au.During 2003/04 five projects were conducted with the support of the R&D program, with one project finalised.Two of the five projects in 2003/04 were new projects that were approved and commenced in the last 12 months.

Completed Projects

‘Policy Options for Environmentally Sustainable and Economically Viable Cropping Patters in the Murray Valley’conducted by CSIRO Land & Water was completed in 2003/04. This project integrated an understanding of waterand salt movement with economic considerations at both the farm and regional scales to assess strategic planningand policy development for the sustainability of the region.

A final report is not yet available for this project however a number of components have been completed andothers carried over into the new CSIRO project ‘Economic and Hydrologic Appraisal of Regional Groundwaterand Salinity Management Actions in the Murray Valley’.

Verification of the SWAGMAN Farm model, in conjunction with the CSIRO/MIL/LWRRDC research project‘Rigorously Determined Water Balance Benchmarks for Irrigated Crops and Pastures’ is complete and results havebeen presented to the steering committee, landholders and the R&D committee.

The regional groundwater modelling component of the project is complete and maps of leakage as well as discharge/recharge maps for the Murray Irrigation region have been developed. Reports have also been completed for theWakool region quantifying the impact of rainfall and flooding on shallow groundwater dynamics.

Programming is complete to enable SWAGMAN Farm to be linked to a Geographic Information System (GIS).The steering committee intend to initiate a focus group of landholders from the region to test and provide feedbackon the program.

Current Projects

Economic and Hydrologic Appraisal of Regional Groundwater and Salinity ManagementActions in the Murray Valley – CSIRO Land & Water

Building on past work this project will evaluate the hydrologic and economic merit of LWMP groundwatermanagement optionsThe objectives are:

• Hydrologic and economic evaluation of existing LWMP regional groundwater and salinity managementoptions

• Hydrologic and economic analysis of alternative management options to achieve regional vertical andlateral recharge rates by incorporating surface water-aquifer interactions

• Provide support for ongoing implementation of SWAGMAN Farm, on the basis of policy options determinedfrom the existing project.

Maintaining the Productivity of Soils under Continuous Intensive Cropping – Vic DPI

This project aims to determine more robust and profitable systems of continuous cropping using conservationtillage practices through increased knowledge of how to maintain effective soil aggregation under repeated wettingand drying cycles. It will ascertain the benefits of organic matter management, improve farming systems through


increased knowledge of organic matter and provide growers with an understanding of different organic mattermanagement options for soil health.

Determining the Quality and Quantity of Runoff from Irrigation Farms in the MurrayValley – MIL

Determining the quantity (both from irrigation and rainfall) and quality of runoff from irrigation farms in theMurray valley is an important factor in determining the efficiency of resource use. At the farm level, these resultswill be used to assist irrigators to make better management decisions about water storage and recycle pumprequirements, fertiliser application rates, methods and types.

Inland Saline Aquaculture – NSW Fisheries

This project is investigating the viability of commercial opportunities for farming a variety of fish species usingsaline groundwater, including examining optimum stocking strategies and market acceptance. Water qualitypreferences have been determined for a number of species however the main challenge continues to be the extremesof climate the researchers face at Wakool.

Groundwater Management and Optimisation of the Wakool Tullakool Sub-surfaceDrainage Scheme (WTSSDS) – CSIRO Land & Water

This study aims to optimise the operation of the sub-surface drainage scheme in the Wakool Irrigation District soas to balance aquifer levels and pump operation and maintenance costs. This study involves the development ofsimulation and optimisation models.

New Projects

In 2004 the R&D committee undertook an extensive advertising campaign to identify projects to add value to ourprogram. This process included a prioritisation of topic areas of specific interest to the program, aligning with thestrategic plan. A number of topic areas including quantification of the benefits of on-farm LWMP actions, biodiversity,centre pivots and productive use of saline water were included with the advertisement. We advertised acrossAustralia in a variety of email listings and newspapers, and as a result we had more interest in the program thanany other time in its history. Fifty preliminary project proposals were received and twenty then asked for moredetail.

The following new projects have been approved by the LWMP R&D committee in 2003/04:Managing sodic soils and groundwater irrigation in the Murray Irrigation region – University of AdelaideStubble/soil organic matter management – processes, practices and improvements – CSIRO Land &WaterInvestigation of Combined Solar Thermal Power Generation and Desalination System – ANUPerennial native groundcovers for biodiversity enhancement – development of cost-effective establishmentmechanisms – University of AdelaideDirect seeding of native tree and shrubs in the LWMP areas – Western Murray Land Improvement GroupFactors Affecting the Rate of Adoption of Best Management Practice – RM Consulting GroupReducing waterlogging and improving the WUE of rice farming systems – NSW DPIWater use and yields under centre pivot irrigation in the Southern Riverina – NSW DPIRemote sensing of land condition for soil monitoring in the Murray LWMP area – NSW DPIFactors affecting landholder adoption of native vegetation best management practices – Charles SturtUniversity (CSU)Risk Based Irrigation Management Using Ocean Based Short to Medium Term Forecasts – CSIRO Land& Water/CSUFeasibility of Box Creek Salinity Management to Achieve Salinity Benefits for the Murray River – CSIROLand & Water/CSU


Stormwater Escape Construction

Construction of SECs is a significant salinity control component of the Murray LWMPs for the Berriquin andWakool districts.

Since the commencement of the LWMPs implementation in 1995, a large proportion of the stormwater escapeprogram has been completed. This, combined with relatively dry seasons and improved practices, has assisted inreducing watertable levels. As a result the region is in a much stronger position to cope with future large stormwaterevents.

Berriquin

Construction of stormwater escape channels during 2003/04 progressed well.• The Logie Brae extensions (9, 14, 14a & 14b) covering 11 holdings and a distance of 7.68km have been

completed.• The Booroobanilly stormwater escape channel which covers 80 landholdings and is more than 80km in

length is almost complete. The contract was split into three, North, Middle and South due to the size ofthe project. Booroobanilly North has been completed, draining 19 holdings and covering a distance of25km. Booroobanilly Middle is 100% constructed with fencing 85% completed. Draining 33 holdingsand a distance of 22km, this project is due to be completed by the end of August 2004. BooroobanillySouth is 50% constructed with fencing to follow. This section of the SEC makes up the remaininglandholdings and totals 30kms.

• Construction has also started on the Mundiwa SEC which drains 7.37km and 9 landholdings. This projectis due to be finished by October 2004.

• Wollamai North SEC is awaiting environmental approval. It is currently before NSW National Parks andWildlife Service threatened species unit, due to a concern with disturbance of Plains Wanderer habitat.All designs and negotiation are complete, awaiting outcome.

• A concept design of the Box Creek Escape including flood modelling and hydraulic efficiency was completedin February 2003. The company currently has an application with DIPNR to desilt the entire length of theescape. Work is due to commence once approval is given.

• Negotiation of West Warragoon drainage lines is currently underway. It has been drilled and surveyed. Itis proposed to discharge to Tuppal Creek via a storage.

• Warragoon Stage II is being negoatiated to drain via a storage on the levee of the Tuppal Creek. Extremeflows will escape over the levee into the Tuppal Creek.

Detail on Berriquin stormwater escape implementation see Table 5.6.

Figures 5.2 and 5.3 show holdings with access to formal district drainage in 2003/04 and pre 1995 respectively.


D r i l l i n g E n v i r o n m e n t a l

S u r v e y i n g A p p r o v a lN t h D e n i l iq u in D r a in

W a r r a g o o n

N o r t h

W a r r a g o o n

S t a g e I I

W e s t W a r r a g o o n

B a c k B a r o o g a

S t a g e 1

B a c k B a r o o g a

S t a g e 2

O d d y ’s

P in e le a

D c L a la l t y 1 8

W o l la m a i E a s t

W o l la m a i N o r t h

W o l la m a i W e s t

W i l le r o o

L o g ie B r a e

L o g ie B r a e

E x t e n s io n s

B o o r o o b a n i l l y

N o r t h


M id d le


S o u t h

G r e e n S w a m p 5 0 %

W u n n u m u r r a 8 5 %

B e r r ig a n C r e e k

E s c a p e

J e r i ld e r ie

S o u t h

C o r e e

B o x C r e e k

E s c a p e

3 5 % 5 0 % 2 5 %

5 %

1 5 %

4 5 % 1 5 % 5 %

M u n d iw a

5 0 %

4 0 %

O p e r a t i n g

S t a g e 4

D r a i n L a n d h o l d e r N e g o t i a t i o n s

D e s ig n C o n s t r u c t io n

Table 5.6: Summary of the Berriquin District Drainage Programs as at the 30th of June 2004.

Finley

Blighty

Barooga

Tocumwal

Berrigan

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

0 52.5 Kilometres

µ

Legend

Proposed Drains

Existings Drains

Proposed Catchments

Existing Catchments

Farm Boundaries

LWMP towns

Figure 5.2: Berriquin holdings with access to formal district drainage in 2003/04


Cadell

The Cadell stormwater escape program focusses on enhancing the capacities of natural depressions to ensure thatthey drain effectively following storm events.

Approval by the Murray shire has been given for the construction of the Murphy’s Timber stormwater escape. Thecontract has been awarded, with works underway. Approval has also been granted in 2004 for the commencementof the Yaloke stormwater escape and lateral depressions. Construction is due to commence in September 2004.

Finley

Blighty

Barooga

Tocumwal

Berrigan

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

µ0 52.5

Kilometres

Legend

Drains Pre 1995

Farms Drained Pre 1995

Farms Boundaries

Figure 5.3: Berriquin holdings with acces to formal District Drainage pre 1995

Landholder Environmental

Negotiations ApprovalYaloke Stage 2

Sth Deniliquin

Murphy’s Timber

OperationalDrain Survey Design Construction

Table 5.7: Summary of the Cadell District Drainage Program 1995/96 – 2003/04


Landholder EnvironmentalNegotiations Approval

DC 2005Ext

Yallakool No 3

Burragorima

Neimur Upgrade

Burraboi

DC2500 West

Bunna #

# Denotes private drainage system.

OperationalEscape Survey Design Construction

Table 5.9: Summary of the Wakool District Drainage Program.

Denimein

The focus of the Denimein LWMP drainage strategy is on farm drainage and reuse, with the ability to store allirrigation runoff and the 12mm/100ha of rainfall runoff from the irrigated area on farm. Excess stormwater wouldthen be disposed of via existing gravity drainage or by pumping into the Murray Irrigation supply system.

There were 6 Escape anomalies presented to the working group for upgrade and construction, with progress todate outlined in Table 5.8.

Wakool

The stormwater escape program in Wakool is now winding down, with construction of the Burraboi escapechannel completed in 2002/03. This is the last of the formal drainage systems to be completed. Some areas withinthe Wakool district however still require stormwater relief. These areas are not suitable for a formal stormwaterescape system due to terrain, soil type, and floodway considerations. Some of these areas have substandard privatedrainage systems or are in a floodway. It is proposed that these properties and private drainage systems in theWakool district be upgraded to ensure they meet Murray Irrigations Environment Protection and Water ManagementWorks licence requirements. The first of these to be considered by the Wakool working group is the Bunna privatedrainage system. Landholders on this system have met with the working group to consider options and developguidelines for the implementation and operations of these private systems.

For details on progress in Wakool surface drainage see Table 5.9.

Landholder EnvironmentalNegotiations Approval

Moulamein 1

Moulamein 2

Moulamein 4a

Dahwilly Channel

Dahwilly 3

Moulamein 8

OperationalEscape Survey Design Construction

Table 5.8: Escapes to be upgraded in the Denimein area

8 0 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004

APPENDICES

Compliance Report Appendices 2004 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED 81

Appendix One: Benchmark and Compliance Index

Appendix 1.1: Table of Benchmarks

The location of Benchmark items throughout the Compliance report is outlined in Table 1.1 below.

Benchmark Location Page Number

Delivery Efficiency Chapter 1: Supply Management 2

Supply Water Quality Chapter 1: Supply Management 3

Farm Water Use Efficieny Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 37-39

Rootzone Salinty Chapter 3: Groundwater Management 30

Risk of Salinity Chapter 3: Groundwater Management 30

Soil Acidity Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 42

Waterlogging Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 37

Discharge Water Quality Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 8-20

Adoption of Best Management Practices Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 41

Status of Native Vegetation Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 42

Socioeconomic Status Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 43

Community Understanding of Best Management Practices Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 44

Condition Issue Format Chapter Page Number

A.1.1 Annual Environment Management Report

All reporting requirements of LWMP & licences

Submitted

A.1.2 LWMP Documentation Current reference list of reports Appendix 3 84A.2.2 Diversions, volume ML/month, trend Chapter 1: Supply Management 4A.2.2 Diversion, salt load Ton/year Chapter 1: Supply Management 5A.2.2 Supply Efficiency Loss % of diversion, ML/month lost &

delivered, trendChapter 1: Supply Management

4A.2.2 Water balance loss & gain ML/year Chapter 1: Supply Management

4A.2.2 Channel Seepage ML/year, trend, measures, prevented Chapter 1: Supply Management

6A.2.2 Escape Flow/Loss ML/month, trend, measures, prevented Chapter 1: Supply Management

4A.2.2 Crop Statistics Ha & ML/year delivery to crops, trend Chapter 4: On-Farm Management

36-37A.2.2 On-farm WUE ML/year excess, trend, research,

measuresChapter 4: On-Farm Management

39-42Chapter 1: Supply Management 5Chapter 2: Stormwater Management

17A.2.3 Chemical Contingency Type, location, time, quantity,

measures, riskChapter 2: Stormwater Management

16-17A.3.3 Groundwater Levels Chapter 3: Groundwater Management

26-31A.3.3 Groundwater Salinity Chapter 3: Groundwater Management

32-33A.3.3/.2.2 Groundwater Pumping ML/year pumped, reused, exported,

trend, salt loadChapter 3: Groundwater Management

43A.3.3 Groundwater Accession

ControlType, ML/year, measures, trend Chapter 4: On-Farm Management

22-34; 38-37A.3.3 Groundwater Pollution

EventsType, location, concentration, risk, measures


N/AA.3.3 Groundwater Pollution

StatusType, location, concentration, risk, trend, measures


N/AA.4.2 Flood levels Exception report Chapter 1: Supply Management 6A.4.2 Floodplain structures Asset dimension change and impact Chapter 1: Supply Management

6A.5.2 Aquatic environment assets

condition & management change

Any significant change, trend and register of activities

Chapter 2: Stormwater Management

18-19A.5.2 Potential management

impactsEIS, REF, SIS Appendix 3

84A.5.2 Noxious Aquatic Weeds Type, extent, control measures Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 20A.6.4 General Environmental

assets condition and management change

Any significant change, trend and register of activities

Appendix 3

84A.6.4 Potential management

impactsEIS REF SIS Appendix 3

84A.6.4 Noxious weeds Type, location, risk, measures, trend Chapter 2: Stormwater Management

20A.6.4 Soil salinity dS/m, class, location, trend, ha Chapter 3: Groundwater Management

32A.6.4 Remnant Vegetation Type, location, ha, trend, condition Chapter 4: On-Farm Management 44-45A.7.1 Saline discharges Notify/apply, EC level & load, duration,

dilutionChapter 2: Stormwater Management

12A.7.1 High salinity event Notify, EC level & load, location,

dilution, duration, measuresChapter 2: Stormwater Management

12A.7.3/.2.2 Salt export Ton/month Chapter 2: Stormwater Management 12

A.2.2 Blue Green Algae Counts, changes

Appendix 1.2: Table of Compliance Items


Appendix Two: Pesticide Summary

Site DateAtrazine

(ug/L)Thiobencarb

(ug/L)Molinate

(ug/L)

Berrigan Creek Escape

BIBE 23-Sep-03 < 0.1

BIBE 02-Oct-03 <0.1 < 0.1

BIBE 07-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

BIBE 09-Oct-03 < 0.1

BIBE 29-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

BIBE 30-Oct-03 < 0.1

BIBE 11-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

BIBE 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1BIBE 09-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

Finley Escape

BIFE 23-Sep-03 <0.1

BIFE 30-Sep-03 < 0.1

BIFE 07-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

BIFE 09-Oct-03 < 0.1

BIFE 30-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

BIFE 04-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

BIFE 06-Nov-03 < 0.1

BIFE 11-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

BIFE 13-Nov-03 0.8

BIFE 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

BIFE 09-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1BIFE 16-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

Box Creek

MOXM 23-Sep-03 <0.1

MOXM 02-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 07-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 09-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 12-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 14-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 16-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 19-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 21-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 23-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 26-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 28-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 30-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 02-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 04-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 06-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 09-Nov-03 < 0.1 0.1

MOXM 11-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 13-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 02-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

MOXM 09-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1MOXM 16-Dec-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

Burragorrimma Drain

NMBR 02-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1NMBR 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 0.1

Deniboota Canal EscapeDBCE 25-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

Neimur Drain

TCND 02-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

TCND 05-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1

TCND 12-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1TCND 14-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1TCND 26-Oct-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1TCND 02-Nov-03 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1

Total number of tests: 33 29 53

Appendix 2.1: Pesticide Summary October-December 2003


Year

No. of exceedence of environmental

levels

No. of exceedence

of notification

levels

No. of exceedence

of action levels

No. of exceedence of environmental

levels

No. of exceedence

of notification

levels

No. of exceedence

of action levels

1995 -1996 2 12 19 * * *

1996 - 1997 5 17 4 * * *

1997 - 1998 3 7 0 * * *

1998 - 1999 6 12 1 0 0 0

1999 - 2000 0 7 0 0 0 0

2000 - 2001 3 29 6 8 1 1

2001 - 2002 3 3 1 0 1 0

2002 - 2003 0 0 0 0 0 0

2003 - 2004 * * * 0 0 0

*: tests not required

Thiobencarb (ug/L) ELIZA Molinate (ug/L)

Appendix 2.2: Exceedence Levels of Molinate and Thiobencarb


Appendix Three: Environment Report Compliance Issues2002/03.

The issues documented by DLWC and the then EPA and NSW DPI in their formal response to the 2002/2003Environment and Compliance Report have been responded to below.

Appendix 3.1: DIPNR

Results of the Audit

Discrepancy between the measurements provided by MIL’s piezometer monitoring and figures obtained byDIPNR has been addressed through stressing to Channel Attendants who collect the data that this information isextremely important and that accuracy is necessary and auditing will be carried out with mistakes highlighted.

A reference List of all Guidelines, reports etc was not published in the LWMP Report.Response: A reference list was published in the report appendices, specifically Appendix 6 on page 17 of theappendix document.

Future reports must include a summary of the register of activities as required by the Irrigation Corporationlicense.Response: This information was included as Appendix 6 in the appendices document on page 17.

Future reports must include hydrographs showing the average median July depth and average median seasonalbehaviour of each of the four sub districts as required by the Irrigation Corporation license.Response: This data was included in the Environment Report; Appendix 4, page 9.

Future reports must include a contour map showing regional water table contours reduced to datum to show flowdirections.Response: Included for 2003/04

Summary of ResponsesThe number of targets are behind the milestones set to measure progress towards the required targets. Where thisis the case it would be useful for reasons to be discussed as well as the proposed strategy to improve perform-ance.Response: This has been done as part of the Mid Term Review carried out over the last twelve months and iscontained in the Mid Term Review document submitted to DIPNR.

A number of target areas are unclear on progress.Response: As part of the Mid Term Review process effort has been made to ensure targets are clear, achievableand able to be quantified.

Develop a clear system for reporting potentially significant changes in the status of native vegetation in the area ofoperation and report on the status of native vegetation in next years’ Annual Report against the benchmarkmeasured in the mapping program in 2001/2002.Response: MIL believes that there has not yet been a reasonable and effective method developed for monitoringsignificant changes in the status of native vegetation. This is an issue that DIPNR, CMA and MIL, has an interestin resolving over the next twelve months.

It is requested that the reporting of compliance against licence conditions is separated from the overall environ-mental reporting.Response: Murray Irrigation has, in 2003/2004, separated our public Environment Report and our ComplianceReport, both of which have been submitted.


Appendix 3.2: NSW Department of Primary Industry

The greatest concern is Cadell where only a few farms in the Eastern part of the Plan area, where low irrigationintensity or non-irrigated farms predominate, have completed or are likely to complete farm plans.Response: Murray Irrigation has recently employed a second Cadell Land and Water Management Plan Officer tocover the East Cadell area with the aim of increasing incentive uptake in this region.

There is evidence that many landholders are content to complete drains and re-usage only and are not planning tobuild the storage to the minimum level recommended under the Plans.Response: As part of the Mid Tem Review process, some drainage incentive has been tied to the storage compo-nent in order to encourage landholders to complete drainage and reuse works. In addition the drainage re-usetarget has been separated into re-use and storage targets.

With regard to NSW Agriculture’s comment on the underutilisation of farm assessments.Response: Implementation staff have found that in very few cases landholders who claim to have an operationaldrainage and re-use system can meet the criteria that has been set. A revision of that criteria has just recentlytaken place with the redrafting of the guidelines.

Appendix 3.3: Department of Environment and Conservation

The EPA chose not to formally submit comment to the MIL 2002/2003 Annual Compliance and EnvironmentReport. Members of the EPA and Murray Irrigation discussed comments and questions about the Annual Reportand it was decided that as the result of the Mid Term Review many of the issues would become redundant orresolved.


Appendix Four: Published Documents

Appendix 4.1: Murray LWMP Documentation ProducedEdraki, M., Humphreys, E., O’Connell, N. (2003) Soil Water Dynamics and Components of the Water Balancefor Irrigated Lucerne in Southern NSW (CSIRO Technical Report No. 41/03). CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Edraki, M., Smith, D., Humphreys, E., Khan, S., O’Connell, N., Xevi, E. (2003) Validation of SWAGMANFarm and SWAGMAN Destiny Models (CSIRO Technical Report No. 44/03). CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Humphreys, E. & Edraki, M. (2003) Rigorously Determined Water Balance Benchmarks for Irrigated Crops andPastures - Final Report. CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Humphreys, E., Edraki, M. & Bethune, M. (2003) Deep Drainage and Crop Water Use for Irrigated AnnualCrops and Pastures in Australia - A Review of Determinations in Fields and Lysimeters (CSIRO Technical Report14/03). CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Marshall, A. (2004) Murray Land & Water Management Plan Mid-term Review - Report to LWMPAT. MIL,Deniliquin.

Marshall, A. & Norwood, C. (2003) Murray Land & Water Management Plans (as appeared in Natural ResourceManagement - Australian Association of Natural Resource Management). MIL, Deniliquin.

Wang, B., Khan, K., O’Connell, N. (2004) Quantifying Impact of Rainfall on Shallow Groundwater Levels in theWakool Irrigation District (CSIRO Technical Report No. 21/04). CSIRO Land & Water, Griffith.

Wang, B., Khan, K., O’Connell, N. (2004) A GIS Approach to Quantify Impact of Flooding on ShallowGroundwater Levels in the Wakool Irrigation District (CSIRO Technical Report No. 22/04). CSIRO Land &Water, Griffith.

White, M. (2004) Torrumbarry Cutting - Hydraulic Modelling, Draft Report. URS Australia, Melbourne.

Appendix 4.2: Environmental Documentation ProducedBarden, M. (2004) Review EF - DC Mundiwa, Stormwater Escape. MIL, Deniliquin.

Barden, M. (2004) REF - DC Wollomai North SEC. MIL, Deniliquin.

Barden, M. (2004) REF - DC Murphy’s Timber SEC Stage 1. MIL, Deniliquin.

Barden, M. (2004) REF - DC Murphy’s Timber SEC Stage 2. MIL, Deniliquin.

Barden, M. (2004) 3A Permit Application, Murphy’s Timber SEC Stage 2. MIL, Deniliquin.


Appendix Five: Landholder Chemical Usage ReportThe Murray Land and Water Management Plans - Landholder Chemical Usage Report for 2003/04 will besubmitted in December 2004.


Appendix Six: Stormwater Escape Additional Information

Appendix 6.2: Salinity Levels Discharged from MIL Area of Operations

Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean MedianMax. daily

Min. daily

June '03 -Aug. '03

Sept.'03- Dec.'03

Jan. '04 -May '04

Total June '03 –May '04

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 327 259 1011 38 39 13 5 57

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 109 109 197 47 72 42 16 130

Box Creek MOXM 1702 1459 5107 316 1160 522 659 2,342

Burraboi SEC JIBU (1) 762 812 1384 92 6.2 0.4 0.0 7

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 250 155 1796 42 15 24 8 47

DC 2500 East JIJS 1551 957 6776 316 0 0 0 0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 1288 757 7225 76 242 432 144 818

Finley Escape BIFE 89 70 215 38 22 186 717 924

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 933 701 4635 219 334 192 23 548

Neimur SEC TCND 320 275 2107 105 75 23 9 107

North Deniliquin SEC DENI 183 171 419 101 2 4 5 12

Pinelea SEC TCPL 279 284 423 135 3.2 1.4 0.0 5

Wakool SEC DRWK 412 290 2249 77 11 17 10 39

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 297 249 786 49 23 14.1 0.6 38

Wollamai Escape BIOW 208 188 638 68 84.6 37 6.7 128

Sub total 5,201

Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 924

Net Discharges 4,276

(1): monitoring commenced 18 July 2003

EC (uS/cm) Total Tonnes Salt

Stormwater Escape Channel Site Mean MedianMax. Daily

Min. Daily

June '03 -Aug. '03

Sept.'03- Dec.'03

Jan. '04 -May '04


Back Barooga SEC BBR1 1.4 0.1 38 0.0 388 66 42 495

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 5.4 2.7 76 0 1031 666 294 1,991

Box Creek MOXM 7.1 4.4 67 0.0 1104 839 646 2,589

Burraboi SEC JIBU (1) 0.1 0.0 2.2 0.0 18.5 1.1 0 20

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR 1.2 0.1 15.3 0.0 64 243 83 390

DC 2500 East JIJS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE 3.7 2.9 15 0.0 196 604 452 1,252

Finley Escape BIFE 78 22 291 0.5 288 5953 19489 25,731

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 2.9 0.0 92 0.0 676 372 26 1,074

Neimur SEC TCND 1.4 0.2 14.6 0.0 223 162 103 488

North Deniliquin SEC DENI 0.3 0.0 3.9 0.0 14 45 59 118

Pinelea SEC TCPL 0.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 25 7 0 32

Wakool SEC DRWK 0.6 0.2 11 0 62 143 31 237

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 0.8 0.0 35.1 0.0 217 86 5 307

Wollamai Escape BIOW 2.9 0.4 61.2 0.0 572 252 110 934

Sub total 35,659

Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 25,731

Net Discharges 9,928


Flow (ML/day) Total Flow (ML)

Appendix 6.1: Summary of Total Flow Discharges from MIL Area ofOperations


Site DateTurbidity

(NTU)

Total Phosphorus

(mg/L)

Total Nitrogen (mg/L)

Back Barooga SEC

BBR1 15-Aug-03 777 0.33 2

BBR1 26-Aug-03 572 0.54 2.4

Berrigan Creek Escape

BIBE 03-Jun-03 170 0.17 1

BIBE 01-Jul-03 576 0.22 2

BIBE 29-Jul-03 366 0.34 1.7

BIBE 15-Aug-03 412 0.34 1.5

BIBE 19-Aug-03 256 0.2 3

BIBE 26-Aug-03 373 0.07 2.3

BIBE 02-Sep-03 310 0.23 0.8

BIBE 16-Sep-03 48 0.08 0.0 (<0.5)

BIBE 23-Sep-03 246 0.282 0.7

BIBE 07-Oct-03 122 0.093 0.1 (<0.5)

BIBE 29-Oct-03 126 0.115 0.1 (<0.5)

BIBE 06-Nov-03 217 0.317 1.3

BIBE 11-Nov-03 83 0.052 0.2 (<0.5)

BIBE 25-Nov-03 91 0.01 0 (< 0.5)

BIBE 09-Dec-03 200 0.247 0.3 (<0.5)

BIBE 21-Dec-03 77 0.102 0.1 (<0.5)

BIBE 20-Jan-04 166 0.099 0.1 (<0.5)

BIBE 03-Feb-04 189 0.108

Finley Escape

BIFE 29-Jul-03 283 0.22 2

BIFE 15-Aug-03 323 0.84 2.3

BIFE 19-Aug-03 197 0.01 1.6

BIFE 26-Aug-03 238 0.39 2.5

BIFE 02-Sep-03 159 0.09 0.8

BIFE 16-Sep-03 104 0.04 0.1 (>0.5)

BIFE 23-Sep-03 102 0.064 0.0 (<0.5)

BIFE 07-Oct-03 72 0.051 0.0 (<0.5)

BIFE 04-Nov-03 43 0.014 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 11-Nov-03 46 0.015 0.6

BIFE 18-Nov-03 55 0.012 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 25-Nov-03 38 0.023 0 (< 0.5)

BIFE 09-Dec-03 150 0.052 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 16-Dec-03 155 0.058 0.3 (<0.5)

BIFE 21-Dec-03 40 0.002 0.6

BIFE 30-Dec-03 48 0.029 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 06-Jan-04 60 0.033 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 13-Jan-04 61 0.048 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 27-Jan-04 62 0.01 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 03-Feb-04 39 0.022

BIFE 10-Feb-04 37 0.039 0 (<0.5)

BIFE 17-Feb-04 32 0.033 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 24-Feb-04 35 0.027 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 02-Mar-04 37 0.036 0.1 (<0.5)

BIFE 09-Mar-04 55 0.031 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 16-Mar-04 37 0.024 0.3 (<0.5)

BIFE 23-Mar-04 36 0.023 0.1 (<0.5)

BIFE 30-Mar-04 41 0.02 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 06-Apr-04 14 0.029 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 13-Apr-04 59 0.017 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 20-Apr-04 62 0.095 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 27-Apr-04 37 0.012 0.2 (<0.5)

BIFE 04-May-04 93 0.034 0.2 (<0.5)

Wollamai Escape

BIOW 03-Jun-03 306 0.09 0.8

BIOW 10-Jun-03 399 0.1 0.6

BIOW 01-Jul-03 430 0.07 1.3

BIOW 29-Jul-03 271 0.23 1.21

BIOW 19-Aug-03 497 0.4 2.5

BIOW 26-Aug-03 277 0.21 1.8

BIOW 02-Sep-03 236 0.37 1.4

BIOW 09-Sep-03 207 0.26 0.6

Wollamai East Escape

BIWE 15-Aug-03 793 0.01 1.5

BIWE 26-Aug-03 369 0.13 1

BIWE 02-Sep-03 215 0.32 1.2

Appendix 6.3: Monthly Turbidity and Nutrient Data for MILDischarge Sites



Site Mean MedianMax. daily

Min. daily

Number of samples

Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * * 777 572 2

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 224 195 576 48 18

Box Creek MOXM 54 26 477 8 41

Burraboi SEC JIBU * * * * *

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR * * 528 338 2

DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * *

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE * * 56 * 1

Finley Escape BIFE 173 97 572 14 33

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 133 87 251 58 6

Neimur SEC TCND 528 471 1072 97 4

North Deniliquin SEC DENI * * * * *

Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * *

Wakool SEC DRWK * * 185 * 1

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 459 369 793 215 3

Wollamai Escape BIOW 328 292 497 207 8

*: insufficient data

Turbidity (NTU)

Appendix 6.4: Turbidity Levels of Surface Water

Appendix 6.5: Total Phosphorus Levels within MILs Stormwater EscapeSystem



Min. daily

June '03 -Aug. '03

Sept.'03- Dec.'03

Jan. '04 -May '04


June '03 -Aug. '03

Sept.'03- Dec.'03

Jan. '04 -May '04


Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * * 0.54 0.33 0.12 * * 0.12 2 0 0 2

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.171 0.143 0.34 0.01 0.22 0.10 0.01 0.33 6 10 2 18

Box Creek MOXM 0.086 0.053 0.54 0.008 0.17 0.10 0.03 0.30 8 13 20 41

Burraboi SEC JIBU (1) * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR * * 0.15 0.07 * 0.01 * 0.01 0 2 0 2

DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE * * 0.026 * * 0.01 * 0.01 0 1 0 1

Finley Escape BIFE 0.074 0.031 0.84 0.002 0.07 0.20 0.53 0.80 4 12 17 33

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 0.31 0.16 0.80 0.06 0.12 0.04 * 0.16 3 3 0 6

Neimur SEC TCND 0.21 0.20 0.36 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.04 1 2 1 4

North Deniliquin SEC DENI * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Wakool SEC DRWK 1.19 * * * 0.1 * * 0.1 1 0 0 1

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.02 * 0.03 2 1 0 3

Wollamai Escape BIOW 0.22 0.22 0.40 0.07 0.16 0.06 * 0.22 6 2 0 8

Sub total 2.12

Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 0.80

Net Discharges 1.32



Number of samplesTotal Phosphorus (tonnes)Total Phosphorus (mg/L)


Appendix 6.6: Total Nitrogen Levels within MILsStormwater Escape System



Min. daily

June '03 -Aug. '03

Sept.'03- Dec.'03

Jan. '04 -May '04


June '03 -Aug. '03

Sept.'03- Dec.'03

Jan. '04 -May '04


Back Barooga SEC BBR1 * * 2.4 2.0 0.6 * * 0.6 2 0 0 2

Berrigan Creek Escape BIBE 0.9 0.2 (<0.5) 3.0 0 (<0.5) 2.3 0.2 0.0 2.5 6 10 1 17

Box Creek MOXM 0.6 0.2 (<0.5) 2.0 0 (<0.5) 1.5 0.4 0.3 2.2 8 13 19 40

Burraboi SEC JIBU (1) * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Burragorrimma SEC NMBR * * 0.3 (<0.5) 0 (<0.5) * 0.0 * 0 0 2 0 2

DC 2500 East JIJS * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Deniboota Canal Escape DBCE * * 0.3 (<0.5) * * 0.1 * 0.1 0 1 0 1

Finley Escape BIFE 0.4 (<0.5) 0 (<0.5) 2.5 0 (<0.5) 0.5 0.6 3.0 4.1 4 11 16 31

Lalalty SEC TUPJ 1.4 1.8 2.3 0 (<0.5) 1.1 0 * 1.1 3 3 0 6

Neimur SEC TCND 0.6 0.3 (<0.5) 1.0 0 (<0.5) 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 1 2 1 4

North Deniliquin SEC DENI * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Pinelea SEC TCPL * * * * * * * * 0 0 0 0

Wakool SEC DRWK * * 2.1 * * * 0.1 0.1 1 0 0 1

Wollamai East Escape BIWE 1.2 0.7 1.5 1.0 0.1 0.1 * 0.2 2 1 0 3

Wollamai Escape BIOW 1.3 0.5 2.5 0.6 1.2 0.2 * 1.4 6 2 0 8

Sub total 12.4

Credited Escapes: Finley Escape (BIFE) 4.1

Net Discharges 8.3



Total Nitrogen (mg/L) Total Nitrogen (tonnes) Number of samples


Appendix Seven: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey

Appendix 7.1: Annual LWMP Landholder Survey Form

Murray Irrigation LimitedA.B.N. 23067 197 933

MURRAY LWMP ANNUALSURVEY

Name: ____________________________________ (Please Print)

Holding Reference No.: _____________

LWMP District: Berriquin

Denimein

Cadell

Wakool

Main enterprise:

Date of interview: ____/____/ 2004

Interviewer’s Name: ________________________ (Please Print)

June/July 2004

Land and Water Management Plans

MURRAY


Land Use – as at June 30, 2004To be filled out by the interviewer before handing the questionnaire in.1. Rice

a. Stubble from 2003/04 rice crop ha

b. Winter crop sown into 2003/04 rice area ha

2. Summer fodder crops (eg. maize, millet, forage sorghum and their stubbles) ha

3. Other summer grain crops (eg. soybean, corn, sorghum and their stubbles) ha

4. Summer pasture (eg. Paspalum, perennial ryegrass, white clover) ha

5. Irrigated lucerne ha

6. Irrigated annual pasture (eg. sub clover and ryegrass) ha

7. Winter Oilseeds (eg. canola) ha

8. Winter Cereals (eg. wheat, barley, triticale, oats ha

9. Winter forage crops (eg. oats, vetch) ha

10. Winter grain legumes (eg. peas, lupins, faba beans) ha

11. Fallow (including stubbles greater than 6 months old) ha

12. Non irrigated, unimproved annual pasture ha

13. Improved dryland pasture (eg. with dryland lucerne) ha

14. Farm forestry plantations ha

15. Horticulture (eg: vegetables, vines) Please list ha

16. Saltbush (i.e. planted) ha

17. Native tree and shrub areas (greater than 5% trees) ha

18. Native grasslands (less than 5% trees) ha

19. Buildings/ Roads/ Airstrip/ Channels/ Drains/ Storage etc ha

20. Other....... (Please list) ha

21. TOTAL AREA (sum of all categories) ha

22. Area perennial vegetation (sum categories 5, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 18) ha

23. Percentage of perennials (category 22 divided by 21 x 100) %

Stock Information

1. a. Maximum number of cows milked from this holding at peak production? _______

b. Number of non milking/dry cows at the same time as (a) above? _______

2. Number of beef cattle _______

3. Number of sheep _______

4. Other? Type Number _______

Type Number _______

Farm Labour

1. Number of employees: Full time Part time

2. Seasonal labour hired (total person days):

Milkers No. of days

Shearers/Shed hands No. of days

Spraying No. of days

Harvesting No. of days

Other No. of days


1. 1. PADDOCK INFORMATIONC

urr

ent

La

you

tL

and

us

e

(Use

key

o

n R

HS

)(U

se K

ey o

n

Pa

ge

2)

Eg

. sid

e d

itc

h,

per

ma

nen

t b

ay

ou

tle

ts e

tcT

A.

Laid

out

for

Irrig

atio

n

B.

Dry

land

/und

evel

ope

d

C.

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

A.

Laid

out

for

Irrig

atio

n

B.

Dry

land

C.

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

A.

Laid

out

for

Irrig

atio

n

B.

Dry

land

C.

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

A.

Laid

out

for

Irrig

atio

n

B.

Dry

land

C.

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

A.

Laid

out

for

Irrig

atio

n

B.

Dry

land

C.

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

A.

Laid

out

for

Irrig

atio

n

B.

Dry

land

C.

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

A.

Laid

out

for

Irrig

atio

n

B.

Dry

land

C.

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

A.

Laid

out

for

Irrig

atio

n

B.

Dry

land

C.

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

A.

Laid

out

for

Irrig

atio

n

B.

Dry

land

C.

Nat

ive

Veg

etat

ion

ha

ha

ha

ha

ha

ha

ha

$$

**

+*

**

*

9

TO

TA

L

$

5 6 7 81 2 3 4

Can

pad

do

ck d

rain

age

wat

er b

e re

cycl

ed?

(h

a)C

an p

add

oc

k b

e ir

rig

ate

d w

ith

re

cycl

ed

wat

er?

(h

a)Ir

rig

ated

are

a

lan

dfo

rmed

03/

04P

add

ock

Imp

rP

add

oc

k N

o.

Mai

n L

an

du

seA

rea

(ha)

Irri

gat

ed A

rea

La

nd

form

ed

(h

a)


To be filled out by the interviewer before handing in.

Total Laid Out (irr) Area haTotal Dryland Area haTotal Native Veg Area haTotal Area of Farm ha

Area landformed haLandformed 03/04 haPaddock Improvement $Area where drainage can be reused? _____ haArea that can be drained to a reuse point? ha

Current Layout

1. Bordercheck (not landformed) ____ha2. Bordercheck (landformed) ______ha3. Contour (not landformed)

a. Side/Centre ditch ______hab. Traditional ______ha

4. Contour (landformed)a. Side/Centre ditch ______hab. Traditional ______ha

5. Furrows/Beds ______ha

* Total these values in the appropriate section on the right of this page

+ Total these values in the appropriate section on the Landuse Section on Page 2

2. 2. FARM PLANNING

a. Do you have a farm plan of this holding? (in map, aerial photo or written form) Yes No

b. If YES, (If no, go to e)

Type Represents what % of Landholding

Represents how many Ha

Farm Map/Aerial photo

Whole Farm Plan

Environmental Management Plan

Property Management Plan

Other

Interviewer to explain the difference.

c. Did you do any farm planning on this holding during 2003/04? Yes No

d. If so, what was the total cost?(Including any LWMP incentive payment)Surveyor/Designer $Soil drilling $Own time (hrs @ $20/hr) $


Other (eg. aerial photo) $TOTAL $

e. Did you complete any EM 31 surveying on this holding during 2003/04 for:

i. rice ground approval or Yes No If yes, what area? ha

ii. farm planning (eg. storage dam) Yes No If yes, what area? ha

f. Have you ever undertaken any EM 31 surveying (not including 2003/04) on this holding for:

i. rice ground approval or Yes No If yes, what area? ha

ii. farm planning (eg. storage dam) Yes No If yes, what area? ha

3. SUPPLY CHANNEL MAINTENANCE

a. Did you do any supply channel maintenance on this holding during 2003/04? Yes No

b. How much did the channel maintenance cost?Contractors: $

Own time: (hours) x $20 = $Fuel $Desilting: $Chemicals $Other: $

TOTAL: $_____—————-______

4. DRAINAGE, REUSE AND STORAGE

a. Does the holding have access to formal District drainage? Yes Nob. If YES, what area of the holding can be drained to this District drain? ha

c. Does this holding have a reuse system? Yes No(if no, go to Section 5)

d. Can drainage water be stored on this holding? Yes Noe. If YES, how much water can you store? (For example: 2m x 0.5m x 1000m = 1ML)

Drains ML Drilled? Yes No

Sumps ML Drilled? Yes No

Storage Dam ML Drilled? Yes No

f. Do you meet your minimum storage requirement? Yes No

To be filled out by the interviewer before handing the questionnaire in.

g. Has the storage area been drilled or a seepage test completed? Yes No


h. How much did you spend on constructing your drainage reuse and storage system on this holding during2003/04? (including any LWMP Incentive payments)

Contractors: $Own time: (hours) x $20 = $Fencing: $Other: $TOTAL: $___________

i. How much did you spend on operating and maintaining the drainage and reuse system onthis holding during 2003/04?

Sprays/chemicals: $Desilting $Fuel/Electricity for pump $Own time: (hours) x $20 = $ (eg mixing and spraying)Contractors: $Other: $TOTAL $___________

5. 5. NEW TREE AND SHRUB PLANTINGS

a. What area of this holding did you plant to trees or shrubs during 2003/04? _______ha (Note: not commer-cial plantings or trees along supply channels). (If none, go to d)

b. How many trees/shrubs were planted? ____________c. How many metres of fence were erected? ____________ metresd. What area of saltbush was planted on this holding in 2003/04? ha (If none, go to g)e. How many shrubs were planted? ____________f. How many metres of fence were erected? ____________ metres

g. How much did you spend on maintaining tree, shrub or saltbush plantations on this holdingin 2003/04?

Materials: $ (replacement trees/saltbush, repairs)Labour: ( hours x $20) =$ (time spent watering, spraying etc)Contractors: $Sprays used $Other: $TOTAL $___________


6. 6. REGENERATION OF NATIVE VEGETATIONa. Do you have areas of native vegetation (not planted) on your holding? (Please exclude individual or very

scattered paddock trees) Yes No (If no, go to Section 7)

b. What area of this holding was fenced or managed to allow natural regeneration of native vegetation during2003/04?(If none, go to Question e.) ____________ ha

c. How many metres of fence were erected? ____________ metresd. How many hectares were direct seeded? ____________ hae. How much did you spend on maintaining areas of native vegetation on this holding during 2003/04?

Materials: $ (eg. Fence repairs)Labour: ( hours x $20) = $ (time spent watering, spraying etc)Contractors: $Chemicals, fox bait: $Other: $TOTAL $___________

f. Of the total area of native vegetation on your holding, how much do you actively manage for environmentalpurposes? (Refer to Question 1 for total area of veg on property) ha.

g. For areas of native vegetation being managed, what is the type of vegetation?

Sandhill Native Grass Yellow box Grey/Black box Red Gum Other

7. 7. TREE PLANTING ALONG IRRIGATION CHANNELS

a. Did you plant any trees/lucerne next to seepage areas from district supply channels in on this holding during

2003/04? Yes (please tick) trees lucerne No (If no, go to e)

b. How many metres of district channel did you plant and where (note on photo)? metresc. What area was planted? ____________ had. How many metres of fence were erected? ____________ metrese. How much did you spend on maintaining any district seepage plantings on this holding during 03/04?

Materials: $ (replacement trees/saltbush, repairs)Labour: ( hours x $20) = $ (time spent watering, spraying etc)Contractors: $Sprays used $Other: $

TOTAL $_____——-______

f. Did you plant any trees/lucerne next to farm channel seepage areas on this holding during 2003/04?

Yes (please tick) trees lucerne No (If no, go to j)

g. How many metres of farm channel did you plant? metresh. What area was planted? ___________hai. How many metres of fence were erected? ____________ metresj. How much did you spend on maintaining farm seepage plantings on this holding during 2003/04?

Materials: $ (replacement trees/saltbush, repairs)Labour: ( hours x $20 = $ (time spent watering, spraying etc)Contractors: $Sprays used $Other: $

TOTAL $___________


8. 8. FARM DIVERSIFICATION

a. Did you establish any commercial diversified enterprise on this holding during 2003/04? (this may include

farm forestry, horticulture such as grapes or olives, aquaculture etc) Yes No(If No, go to c)

b. If YES, what was the enterprise?i. What were the species? (eg. redgums, grapes, silver perch)ii. What size is the enterprise? (eg. hectares, number of vines or fish)iii. What did it cost to establish?

Trees, Fingerlings, Vines: $Materials: $ (Fencing, tree guards, ponds etc)Labour: (Hours ___ x $20) = $Contractors: $TOTAL $___________

c. Do you have any other commercial alternate enterprises on this holding? Yes Nod. If YES, (If no, go to Section 9)

i. What is the enterprise?ii. In what year was this enterprise established?iii. What were the operation and maintenance costs you incurred for all your commercialalternate enterprises on this holding during 2003/04?

Materials: $ (trees, fencing, sprays etc)Labour: (___hours x $20)= $ (watering, spraying, ground preparation etc)Contractors: $Other: $TOTAL $___________

9. 9. PASTURES

a. Do you have lucerne, phalaris or other perennial pasture species on this holding?

Yes No(If no, go to Section 10)

b. If yes, what are the total areas of perennials you have of:i. Dryland pastures (eg. lucerne, native pasture) haii. Irrigated winter pastures (eg. lucerne, phalaris) haiii. Irrigated summer pastures (eg. lucerne, perennial ryegrass) ha

c. Did you establish/re-establish any lucerne/phalaris or other perennial pasture on this holding in 2003/04?

Yes No (If no, go to Section 10)

d. If yes, what were the total hectares established of:i. Dryland pastures (eg. lucerne, native pasture) haii. Irrigated winter pastures (eg. lucerne, phalaris) haiii. Irrigated summer pastures (eg. lucerne, perennial ryegrass) ha

100 MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED Compliance Report Appendices 2004

10. 10. IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT

a. Did you pre-water for winter crops on this holding between February and May in 2004?

Yes No (if No, go to d)

b. If yes, how many hectares? ha

c. What month(s) did you pre-water?

e. Were any winter pastures watered only once during the autumn (March – June) of 2004?

Yes No

e. What month(s) did you sow your crop?

f. Did you irrigate any winter pasture (eg. sub clover) after 1st May on this holding? Yes No

If yes, how many hectares? _______________ What date? _______________

g. Did you irrigate any summer pasture (eg. white clover, lucerne) after 15th April 2004? Yes No

If yes, how many hectares? _______________ What date? _______________

11. WATERLOGGING/SALINITY

a. What area of this holding had water lying on the soil surface for more than five days during 2003/04? (Notactual rice crops, but including rice stubbles after harvest) __________ ha

b. Do you have areas of saline land on this holding (eg. bare scalds, salt on surface)


c. If YES,i. Where do you drain any runoff from these areas?

Recycle system Salt tolerant species No drainage Other

ii. Have you revegetated the area? Yes No

12. MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

a. Do you have any automated irrigation set-up on this holding? Yes No(If no, go to c)

b. If YES,h. What type of system(s) do you use?eg. Alarm Systems/Water baby, Bay Cut off, Spray Irrigationii. How many hectares does it cover? ___________ha

iii. What area was installed in 2003/04 on this holding? __________ha

c. Do you practice any irrigation scheduling techniques on this holding? Yes No (If no, go to e) (eg. Tensiometer, Neutron Probe, EnviroScan, Evaporimeter, published evaporation figures etc)


d. If YES, what techniques(s) do you use? ___________________

e. Have you done any soil fertility testing (i.e. for fertiliser application) in 2003/04 on this holding?

Yes No(If no, go to g)

f. If YES,i. Over what area was the testing done ha

ii. Was lime recommended? Yes No

iii. Did you apply it? Yes No

iv. What rate did you apply tonnes/ha

v. Total tonnes applied tonnes

g. Do you use NSW Agriculture Crop Management Programs? Yes No (If no, go toh) eg. Wheatcheck / Ricecheck / Subcheck / Canolacheck etc.

i. If YES, which one(s)? ________________________________________________

ii. How many of the key recommendations do you think you achieved?(Please tick) MOST HALF SOME NONE

h. Do you practice any conservation tillage (such as direct drilling) on this holding?

Yes No (If no, go to j)

i. If YES,

i. Direct drilled winter crop into 2003/04 (this years’) rice stubble Yes Area (ha)

ii. Direct drilled other winter crops Yes Area (ha)

iii. Direct drilled last seasons (2002/03) rice crop stubble Yes Area (ha)

iv. Other technique(s) Please list

Eg. One cultivation only Area 20 (ha)

Area (ha)

Area (ha)

Area (ha)

j. How do you manage your previous crop residues /stubbles (please tick whichever applies)

Winter cereals Canola Rice Summer cropsGrazingBurningBalingMulchingOther (please describe)

Management methodStubble type


13. GROUNDWATER PUMPING

a. Do you have a groundwater pump for irrigating (not a stock and domestic bore) on this holding?

Yes No (If No, go to Section 14)

b. Is your bore: deep shallow both

c. Over the last two years, has the water been tested for: Sodium Yes No

Salinity Yes No

d. Do you regularly soil test paddocks where you are using groundwater? (At least once every two years)

Yes No

14. 14. CHEMICAL USAGE

What chemicals have you used on a broad acre basis on your farm in 2003/04? (Please tick)

Winter Crops Tick Rice Tick Summer pasture/crops Tick

Roundup Londax 2,4 D Amine

Glean Molinate Trifluralin

Treflan MCPA Endosulfan

Logran Chlorpyrifos Sprayseed

Simazine Other Other

Other Other Other

Other

Annual pasture Tick Channels/Drains Tick Other Tick

Tigrex Roundup

Lemat Diuron

MCPA Ester

Other Other

Other Other

Shallow (Less than 10m deep) Deep (Over 10m deep)

i. What year was it installed? _________ i. What year was it installed? _________

ii. If your pump was installed in 2003/04, ii. If your pump was installed in 2003/04,

a. What was the cost? __________ a. What was the cost? __________

iii. What is the salinity level? ____________ EC iii. What is the salinity level? ____________ EC

iv. What volume did you pump in 2003/04? ML


15. ADDITIONAL HOLDINGS INFORMATION

1. Is there more than one holding in the farm business (Within the Murray LWMP area)?


2. If YES, how many? _______

3. What are the holding numbers? _______ _______ _______ _______ _______

4. What was the total cost of works undertaken on the other holdings in 2003/04?i. Farm planning $__________ii. Drainage, reuse and storage systems $__________iii. Saltbush and tree planting $__________iv. Protection of Existing Native Vegetation $__________v. Farm diversification enterprises $__________vi. Lucerne/phalaris in winter or sub-pasture $__________vii. Dryland lucerne $__________

16. 16. LWMP INCENTIVES

1. Have you accessed any LWMP incentives? Yes No(Financial incentives are available for farm planning, constructing drainage reuse systems, tree planting,fencing native vegetation, planting lucerne etc).

2. If no, why? (Please tick)

i. Too much hassle

ii. Previously completed works

iii. Do not know how to

iv. Do not know about themv. Other

17. PROGRESS IN FARM BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT

1. How far progressed are you in implementing the following on this landholding?

a. irrigation infrastructure (eg. channels, drains, structures, bay outlets etc)

No plans Yes plans If yes, % implemented %

b. paddock landforming (eg. lasering farm paddocks)


c. tree and shrub planting (eg. new plantings of trees for windbreaks, shelter, biodiversity etc)


d. protecting existing native vegetation (eg. fencing to encourage regeneration)

No vegetation on farm No plans Yes plansIf yes, % implemented %

e. business planning (eg. gross margins budgeting, succession planning, etc)



Appendix Eight: Theiss Report

Appendix 8.1: Theiss Services Drainage Water Report

Appendix Nine: Murray LWMP Annual Landholder Survey Audit Report

Murray Land & Water Management Plans

Audit of Landholder Survey 2003/2004

22nd October 2004

Murray Land & Water Management Plans


Review of MIL methodology for determining community (in kind)

contributions to the LWMP’s and verify the authenticity of data

collected during the 2003/2004 Landholder Survey

Prepared by:

Dennis E Toohey & Associates

16/659 Young Street

ALBURY NSW 2640

Telephone: (02) 6041 4955

Facsimile: (02) 6041 4350

E-mail: [email protected]

22nd October 2004

Disclaimer

Dennis E Toohey and Associates makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy or completeness of the Report entitled Murray Land & Water Management Plans – Audit of Landholder Survey 2003/2004 and disclaims all liability for all claims, expenses, losses, damages and costs any third party may incur as a result of them relying on the accuracy or completeness of the Report.

.

D e n n i s E T o o h e y & A s s o c i a t e s

Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc


Table of Contents

Acknowledgements: The support provided by the staff of Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL) enabled the Audit process to be conducted efficiently. In particular, the assistance provided by Demelza Brand, Environmental Officer and the Implementation staff for each Plan in organising the farm level audits is gratefully acknowledged.

Abbreviations

H.O.A. Head of Agreement

ha Hectare

LWMP Land and Water Management Plan

MIL Murray Irrigation Limited

.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Audit process A similar approach to that of previous years was followed for conducting the audit involving ‘desk-top’ assessments of Survey forms and ‘on-farm’ inspection of a number of randomly selected H.O.A. works.

Auditing involved the undertaking of tests to establish the level of agreement between the H.O.A. work in the Survey form to that recorded in the MIL data base, ie Survey Report. Any discrepancies were recorded.

Local knowledge and experience was applied to test the veracity of the recorded statements and figures in the Survey form to reach a conclusion as to the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the landholders claim.

To assist in the continuous improvement process of the Survey a number of comments are made and where further investigations are warranted, these are expressed within recommendations to MIL.

Findings A summary of MIL’s 2003/2004 Landholder Survey shows that landholders’ invested a record amount of approximately $57.4 million in LWMP activities during 2003/2004. This level of investment is around $6.7 million more than the $50.7 million in 2002/2003 or $4 million above the previous highest in 1999/2000. This is a most commendable level of investment having regard for the area being in drought for two consecutive years and water allocations at levels not seen since the mid 1940’s.

Considerable improvement is acknowledged in the level of accuracy in transposing survey data to the database that produces the Survey report which calculates the landholder contributions. A single transposing error was recorded compared to zero in 2002/2003 and five in 2001/2002. With transposing errors under control, a focus of this year’s audit was establishing the accuracy of summing paddock information to that of the farm. A number of discrepancies were noted in the Berriquin (2 out of 12 Survey forms) and Wakool (3 out of 12 Survey forms) Plans. There were no discrepancies in the Cadell and Denimein Plans, which were subjected to intense scrutiny by the Implementation Officers prior to the information being keyed into the database.

Recommendations MIL has addressed all of the recommendations of the 2002/2003 Audit Report that are within their capacity to implement. A number of recommendations relate to the H.O.A.’s that require MIL to achieve agreement from landholders and agencies. The decisions emanating from the Annual Review in March 2004 have provided a timely avenue for the addressing of structural auditing issues to complement the broader actions on the Plans underway within MIL.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

ii

The recommendations are grouped within three themes as follows:

1.0 Landholder Survey Frame, Form and Report

1.1 Establish eligibility criteria for commercial alternate enterprises and the duration for inclusion of costs of operation and maintenance. See Survey question 8 (d).

1.2 Include in Deep Bores, Survey question 13, a question to capture the volume pumped so the operation and maintenance costs can be derived by applying Benchmark Values.

1.3 Undertake a review of the Benchmark Values established for the 2002/2003 Survey and incorporate changes in dollar values.

1.4 Include the changes in the 2004/2005 Survey agreed upon at the debriefing meeting of surveyors held on 1 September 2004.

2.0 Training of surveyors

2.1 Continue the training program of surveyors to return to the high level of accuracy achieved in the 2002/2003 survey.

2.2 To consider the drafting of a set of survey guidance notes to assist inexperienced surveyors in explaining difficult survey questions, eg what items of investment constitute ‘paddock improvements’.

3.0 Reviews of Head of Agreement and Audit frame

3.1 The rationale for the present auditing frame be reviewed to achieve a more proportional level of auditing across the four Plans. For example, in the Berriquin Plan for ‘Improved irrigation layouts’, two Surveys out of 155 Surveys are audited, compared to the same H.O.A in Denimein where two of 18 Surveys are audited. A second deficiency is the rationale for field audits, where presently in Wakool four H.O.A.’s require a field audit, whereas only two HOA’s in each of the other Plans require this level of auditing - see Annexure 7.6 Auditing framework, in-kind works.

3.2 A major review be commissioned of the annual Landholder Survey to achieve a higher level of harmonising of the H.O.A.’s and of MIL’s objectives. Such a review might report upon these matters

3.2.1 Is the survey structured to capture the information required to show landholders are meeting their targets;

3.2.2 A restructuring of the survey so as to provide trend data for selected H.O.A.’s and/or for meeting MIL requirements.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

iii

3.2.3 What are the core annual data requirements and how might the need for in-depth information be best addressed;

3.2.4 Is the survey providing the data as sought for MIL’s environment report;

3.2.5 Is there scope for reducing the costs of undertaking the survey; and

3.2.6 Is MIL receiving from the survey the information it seeks to gain in a statistically valid manner about landholders, eg capacity and state of preparedness to address institutional changes.

3.3 The recommendations from such a review be implemented in a timely manner so that they are in place for the 2004/2005 survey.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

1

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION

The Murray Land and Water Management Plans (LWMP’s) consist of the Berriquin, Cadell, Denimein and Wakool Plans. Each Plan is an integrated natural resource management strategy prepared by the community with technical and financial assistance from the NSW and Commonwealth Governments.

The aim of these Plans is to improve economic and environmental stability throughout the Region. The focus is a combination of improved farm management, district drainage works, education, research and development and monitoring of both adoption levels and impacts. (MIL, 2003).

A financial partnership agreement has operated since 1995 involving the landholders of Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL), the community of the Mid-Murray Region and the NSW and Commonwealth Governments. Financing of the LWMP’s is in accordance with Heads of Agreement (HOA) signed by the community representatives, MIL and Murray Shire, as implementation authorities and the NSW Government.

Each LWMP contains a detailed implementation program and specific targets. The administration of the four LWMP’s reflects both the administrative area of MIL and adjoining lands and the requirement for each Plan to be separately accounted. MIL’s area covers the four former government Irrigation Districts of Berriquin, Denimein, Deniboota and Wakool, as well as the Tullakool Irrigation Area. MIL is the contracted implementer for the lands to the east of Deniboota I. D., referred to as East Cadell, which collectively are known and reported upon as the Cadell Land and Water Management Plan.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

2

SECTION 2: MIL METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING COMMUNITY (IN-KIND) CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE LWMP’S

2.1. Approach

MIL, as in previous years, has undertaken a random survey of landholdings to determine the inputs made to the respective Plans by the ‘community’. The survey has been made on a sub-sample of the entire landholder population. A copy of the Survey form is provided in Annexure 7.2.

The sampling of landholdings was in accord with the statistically valid sampling frame developed by La Trobe University, Wodonga, (Crase and Jackson, 1998). The principal features of the sampling frame are:

o A confidence interval of 95 per cent

o Surveying 320 holdings 1 within the area of the four Plans.

o Stratified on the basis of the four historical irrigation districts with Deniboota renamed Cadell to reflect inclusion of land outside former government administered scheme.

o Additional stratification on holding size and major enterprise.

In Table 2.1 Landholder survey sampling frame the sampling frame for the four Plans is shown along with the percentage of the sample by holding area.

A number of key assumptions underpin the sample frame as designed by Crase and Jackson which are repeated here and commented upon later in this report. These assumptions are:

o “Categories of farms by enterprise and area are accurately described by MIL records

o The MIL data set describing the distribution of rice enterprises is consistent with the MIL data set describing holdings by size”, (Crase and Jackson, 1998).

1 A holding is an area of land with its own water supply point and alphanumeric identifier. A farm business entity usually operates across several holdings. Within the four Plans there are 3 077 holdings (2 424 in MIL) – see Table 2.2.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

3

Table 2.1 Landholder survey sampling frame (Crase and Jackson, 1998).

Plan/Enterprise Holding size category (hectares) Total (numbers)

0-100 100-200 200-400 400-600 >600

Berriquin

Dairying 3 6 6 0 0 15

Horticulture/Viticulture 0 0 3 0 0 3

Mixed/Rice 16 20 34 5 2 77

Mixed/Non-rice 13 16 29 3 0 61

Sub total 32 42 72 8 2 156

Percent of sample 20.5 26.9 46.2 5.1 1.3

Cadell

Dairying 1 0 0 0 1 2


Mixed/Rice 5 4 6 4 3 22

Mixed/Non-rice 15 13 21 12 12 73

Sub total 21 18 27 16 16 98


Denimein



Mixed/Rice 4 2 4 3 0 13


Sub total 6 3 6 5 0 20

Percent of sample 30 15 30 25 0

Wakool



Mixed/Rice 2 2 10 10 10 34


Sub total 3 3 14 14 10 44


TOTAL 62 66 119 43 28 318

Percent of sample 19.5 20.8 37.4 13.5 8.8 100

Table 2.2 Summary of landholdings within Murray Irrigation Limited and LWMP’s presents data on the number of holdings by size category across the four Plans. There is an upward trend in the number of holdings within the four Plans with the largest changes occurring in the small blocks up to 50 ha. These findings emerge from a comparison of data in Table 2.2 with that of 2001/2002, (Toohey, 2002), where:

• The number of holdings within MIL has risen by 10, from 2 414 in 2001/2002 to 2 424 2003/2004; in East Cadell by 10 from 643 to 653 in 2003/2004.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

4

• The largest shift in numbers of holdings has been in the 0 to 50 ha category with an increase of 24 in MIL (372 to 396); in East Cadell by 18 holdings (152 to 170).

• The 100 to 250 ha category has seen the second most substantial shift in the number of holdings were within MIL there has been a decline of 15 (772 to 757); but there has been no change in East Cadell.

The significance of these developments upon the integrity of the Sample Frame is an item for assessment in the major review proposed in Recommendation 5.1.

Table 2.2 Summary of landholdings within Murray Irrigation Limited and LWMP’s

Plan Area (ha) Note 2

Total (number)

Ave. area (ha)

Holding size (hectares) (Note 1)

0-50 50-

100 100-250

250-500

500- 1 000

1 000-6 000

Berriquin 337 669 1 489 227 253 133 603 416 62 21

Deniboota 144 108 362 398 66 11 55 129 84 17

Denimein 53 347 189 282 53 12 37 55 27 5

Wakool 210 575 384 548 24 11 62 126 109 50

Total MIL 745 699 2 424 396 167 757 726 282 93

East Cadell 154 575 653 237 170 74 192 154 56 21

Total LWMP’s 900 274 3 077 566 241 949 880 338 114

Note. 1. Holding size, Pers. comm. Demelza Brand, Environment Officer, MIL 19 October 2004

Note. 2. Area of Plan’s and holding numbers, Annexure 7.3 - MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report.

2.2. Survey methodology

The sample frame as described above and methodology for selecting holdings as reported by Stuart Brown (2000), was again applied in collecting the landholder information for the 2003/2004 reporting period. From Table 2.3 Survey sample - Holdings 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 there were a total of 317 holdings surveyed across the four Plans with Table 2.4 Survey sample - area 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 providing the details of area sampled within each Plan.

The 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 data contained in Table 2.3 Survey sample - Holdings 2002/2003 and 2003/2004, Table 2.4 Survey sample - area 2002/2003 and 2003/2004, and Tables 2.5 - 2.8 Berriquin, Cadell, Denimein, and Wakool Survey stratification - 2003/2004, was compared to Table 2.1 Landholder survey sampling frame. The findings are as follows:

o As expected given the focus on achieving the target number of respondents each year, the total number of holdings within the four Plans surveyed has remained stable and has matched or exceeded those set by Crase and Jackson for achieving a 95 per cent confidence for the major works.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

5

o The surveyed area has varied but this variance is within that anticipated from a random selection of holdings.

o In 2003/2004, the stratification targets were generally met with notable departures being -

o Berriquin. No horticultural holdings surveyed when target is 3.

o Cadell. 6 additional holdings surveyed.

o Wakool. 3 fewer holdings (rice) surveyed.

An appreciation of the locations of the holdings surveyed in 2003/2004 may be gleaned from Figure 2.1. This figure enhances confidence that the survey data is spatially representative of the works being undertaken across the four Plans.

Benchmark Values developed in 2002/2003 were again applied to a number of items of expenditure by landholders. The values were established by reference to merchandise suppliers price lists, eg fencing materials; NSW Agriculture Farm Budgets on advice from agencies, eg Greening Australia. The values are reported in Annexure 7.5 - MIL Landholder Survey Benchmark values.

Table 2.3. Survey sample - Holdings 2002/2003 1 and 2003/2004 2

Item Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool Total

2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04

Number of surveys

154 155 104 104 19 18 40 40 317 317

Total holdings

1 490 1 489 996 1 015 190 189 381 384 3 057 3 077

Per cent of sample

10.34 10.41 10.44 10.25 10.00 9.52 10.50 10.42 10.37 10.30

Notes:

1. Source. Toohey, 2003.

2. Source. Annexure 7.3 - MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report.

Table 2.4 Survey sample - area 2002/2003 1 and 2003/2004 2

Item Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool Total

2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04 2002/03 2003/04

Area of sample (ha)

41 520 33 701 32 773 28 403 4 714 4 602 21 787 22 013 100 794 88 719

District area (ha)

341 546 337 669 299 090 298 683 53 809 53 347 210 694 210 575 905 139 900 274

Per cent of sample

12.1 9.98 10.9 9.51 8.7 8.63 10.3 10.42 11.1 9.85

Notes:

1. Source. Toohey, 2003.

2. Source. Annexure 7.3 - MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

6

Table 2.5 Berriquin Survey stratification - 2003/2004

Number holdings surveyed within each area category Enterprise

5-10 ha 11-50 ha

51-100 ha

101-250 ha

251-350 ha

351-500 ha

> 501 ha

TOTAL

Rice 0 1 5 37 21 10 7 81

Dairy 0 0 2 10 1 1 0 14

Horticulture 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Other 3 14 8 23 8 2 2 60

TOTAL 3 15 15 70 30 13 9 155

Table 2.6 Cadell Survey stratification - 2003/2004


5-10 ha 11-50 ha

51-100 ha

101-250 ha

251-350 ha

351-500 ha

> 501 ha TOTAL

Rice 0 0 0 3 5 6 9 23

Dairy 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1


Other 2 14 10 26 9 8 9 78

TOTAL 3 15 10 30 14 14 18 104

Table 2.7 Denimein Survey stratification - 2003/2004


5-10 ha 11-50 ha

51-100 ha

101-250 ha

251-350 ha

351-500 ha

> 501 ha TOTAL

Rice 0 0 1 2 3 3 3 12

Dairy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


Other 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 6

TOTAL 1 3 2 3 3 3 3 18

Table 2.8 Wakool Survey stratification - 2003/2004


5-10 ha 11-50 ha

51-100 ha

101-250 ha

251-350 ha

351-500 ha

> 501 ha TOTAL

Rice 0 0 0 3 7 6 15 31

Dairy 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2


Other 0 2 0 3 1 1 1 8

TOTAL 0 2 0 7 9 7 16 41


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

7

Figure 2.1. 2003/2004 Holdings Survey

Moama

Wakool

Barham Finley

Conargo

Blighty

Barooga

Mulwala

Burraboi


Berrigan

Moulamein

Jerilderie

Deniliquin

Pretty Pine

Annual Farm Survey 2004

Legend

Farms Surveyed 2004

®0 10 205

Kilometers

Note: Dark areas indicate Holdings included in Survey.

There has been anecdotal information that the process of selecting the 317 holding sample out of the total holding population of some 3 100 holdings has resulted in a number of holdings being surveyed in consecutive years. A recommendation – number 1.6 - in the 2002/2003 Audit Report was made to record the level of occurrence of holdings being selected in consecutive year. The number of holdings surveyed in both 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 has been collated by MIL with results presented in Table 2.9 Holdings surveyed 2002/2003 and 2003/2004.

A somewhat expected finding was the high percentage in the Denimein Plan with the lowest number of holdings – 190 – from which to achieve the common stratifications on holding size and major enterprise.

Table 2.9 Holdings surveyed 2002/2003 and 2003/2004

Plan Holdings surveyed 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 (numbers)

Holdings surveyed 2003/2004 (number)

Berriquin 19 155 Cadell 14 104 Denimein 5 18 Wakool 2 40 Total 40 317

The sampling methodology recognises that the randomly selected holding may not be surveyed for a variety of reasons. MIL in response to recommendation number 1.5 in the 2002/2003 Audit Report recorded the number of second round selections of holdings


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

8

by Plan with results presented in Table 2.10 Holdings second round selection 2003/2004.

The number of landholdings required to be selected in a second round was 40. However by eliminating those where the reason was self evident, eg property sold, an amalgamation, landholder ill and a sampling error, the true second round number was 29. There may have been 22 fewer second round selections if a more convenient time was available, thus if this eventuated, the 7 landholders who declined represent less than 20% of the re-sampling. Put another way the number of declining landholders was 7 or 2% of the 317 holdings surveyed.

Table 2.10 Holdings second round selection 2003/2004

Reasons for re-sample of holdings Number of re-sampled holdings Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool Recently sold property/no longer in region

5 1 1 1

Away from property during survey period 5 2 1 Unable to be contacted 4 10 Declined to be involved 3 3 1 Landholder ill 1 Amalgamated with another holding 1 Accidentally sampled twice 1 Total Number Re-sampled 19 16 2 3


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

9

SECTION 3: AUDIT METHODOLOGY and FINDINGS

3.1. Audit methodology Auditing of the Landholder Survey commenced with a meeting involving MIL staff and survey interviewers on 1 September 2004. A report on the meeting is provided in Annexure 7.4. 2004 Annual Survey Interviewer Debrief.

The contracted auditors were provided with all of the Landholder Surveys and the Survey Report. The latter presents information at two levels, namely the aggregated survey data for each H.O.A. item and their extrapolation to either the area of the Plan or the number of holdings.

The contract specifies six levels of auditing with level one and two, as set out below, undertaken on works as reported upon in the Landholder Survey.

Level 1. Confirm that Implementer’s records of financial expenditure were for the works as specified in the Heads of Agreement and works were completed to specified standard.

Level 2. Physical inspection required of “ground works” and structures, justification of expenses, sign by Auditor.

For each Level there are a minimum number of holdings to be audited over the life of the contract. For Level one, this is six and for Level two the common number is six. In 2003/2004, two holdings were audited (when there were two or more reporting activity).

Auditing of Level one or ‘desk’ H.O.A.’s were undertaken over two days, commencing on 1 September and ending on 2 September. The procedure was as follows:

1. Review the Microsoft Access reports. MIL after keying in all the survey data produced a series of reports - see Annexure 7.3 MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report. These reports inform firstly on the level of activity as established from the physical survey and secondly, when this data is extrapolated across the entire area or holdings encompassed by each Plan, the estimated activity across the whole area.

2. Select at random the two holdings per Plan from a Microsoft Access query list of all those that reported activity on the H.O.A.

3. Test the level of agreement between the work in the Survey form to that recorded in the MIL database. Record discrepancies.

4. Apply local knowledge and experience to test the veracity of the landholders claim.

5. Reach a conclusion as to the appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of the landholders claim.

6. Record comments to assist in the framing of general audit findings and recommendations.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

10

Auditing of Level two ‘on-farm’ H.O.A.’s were undertaken over three days from 6 September to 8 September in the company of the respective LWMP Implementation Officer.

Steps one to three as per Level One were completed in the office with steps four to six from information obtained from ‘on-site’ visits. Landholders generally accompanied the auditor which expedited clarification of any issues. In the absence of the landholder, the Implementation Officer was always able to provide quite detailed information on the property and of the work. One of the properties was not visited due to rain making it impractical. Information collaborating the activities as recorded in the Landholder Survey for this property was sourced via a telephone conversation with the landholder. Rain also cut short a visit to another property with additional information again sourced via a telephone conversation.

3.2. Findings A summary of MIL’s 2003/2004 Landholder Survey is shown in Table 3.1, 2003/2004 Summary - Land and Water Management Plan, On-Farm (in kind) Contributions. The table shows that the landholders invested approximately $57.4 million in LWMP activities during 2003/2004.

Over the last three years, ie 2001 to 2004, the following trends have emerged:

o Landholder investment. Risen from $52.96 million (m) in 2001/2002 to $57.4 m in 2003/2004.

o Farm planning. Declined from $4.09 m in 2001/2002 or 7.7% of the $52.96 m total landholder investment to $2.0 m in 2003/2004 of the $57.4 m total investment.

o Landforming. Declined from $14.9 m in 2001/2002 or 28.2% of total investment to $9.5 m in 2003/2004.

o Improved irrigation layout. Risen from $9.9 m in 2001/2002 or 9.8% to $11.7 m in 2003/2004.

Errors detected

A component of the audit process is establishing confidence in the results from the Survey, thus attention is given to uncovering evidence of over and under recording of items. It does this in three areas:

1. At the desk level, the detection of inconsistencies between the Survey forms and the Survey Report, ie errors of transposition;

2. Inconsistencies at the field level between Survey form and observations/comment; and

3. Inconsistencies at the desk level in calculations.

A summary of the detected errors appears below with full details provided in Annexure 7.1 Audit of H.O.A. works 2003/2004 Landholder survey.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

11

1. Transposing errors.

The level of accuracy achieved in transposing data from the Survey form to the Survey Report has improved over the last three years. In 2001/2002, errors were detected in 5 surveys, no errors in 2002/2003 and in 2003/2004, one error was detected. The error relates to Holding W222 where paddock improvements were under-recorded by $26 650 ($28 500 when $2 850 recorded).

2. Field audit findings.

Holding E-254, over recording of landforming in 2003/2004 with the claimed 200 ha occurring in previous years. This holding’s shallow subsurface bore was not recorded giving rise to an under-recording of O & M for 30 ML pumped.

Holding W-051A, over recording of conservation tillage by 18 ha.

3. Calculation errors. In the 2003/2004 audit, responses at the paddock level to areas of irrigation, landforming, dryland and native vegetation were checked against the summary table for Question 1 – Paddock Information. Information in this summary table is keyed into the Microsoft Access database.

This was the first time when all Surveys were checked in this manner and revealed the following discrepancies:

o Berriquin. Of 12 Surveys audited, three discrepancies recorded in two Survey forms. Holding E183A had two discrepancies, namely over statement of area laid out to irrigation and understatement of dryland by approximately the same area. These are non-auditable items. Holding E851A under recorded the area of landforming in 2003/2004 by 26 ha.

o Cadell. No discrepancies within five Surveys audited.

o Denimein. No discrepancies within nine Surveys audited.

o Wakool. Of 12 Surveys audited four discrepancies in four Survey forms of which three involve an auditable item – landforming. Holding W222 the area of previous landforming was understated by 20 ha (522 ha Survey form – 542 ha Survey Report) with the area of native vegetation over stated by 90 ha (702 ha Survey Report – 612 ha Survey form). Holding W081 did not account for 292 ha of previous landforming in Survey form. Holding W 278 over recorded 359 ha of previous landforming.

Diversified enterprises

There is considerable scope for broadening the economic base within each of the four Plans through alternate enterprises with the decision as to the appropriateness being one made by the individual landholders.

The last two years of surveying have recorded wide interpretations of commercial alternate enterprises with these recorded in 2003/2004 –


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

12

farm forestry, olive trees, rabbit farming and contract hay baling. In the previous year the enterprises were goats, pigs, potatoes, citrus and feedlotting of lambs.

Farmers are reviewing their mainstream enterprises more intensely in response to the Water Reform Agenda. There is an expectation of an even greater spread than presently exists which intensifies the necessity for early clarification and defining of alternate enterprises, the recording of capital investment and for how long may a landholder claim as a contribution the costs of operation and maintenance.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

13

Table 3.1. 2003/2004 Summary – Land and Water Management Plan, On-Farm (in-kind) contributions Landholder Survey

estimate Regional

Berriquin Cadell Denimein Wakool extrapolation Item Survey Extrapolated Survey Extrapolated Survey Extrapolate

d Survey Extrapolated Total

($) Unit ($) ($) Unit ($) ($) Unit ($) ($) Unit ($) ($)

Farm plan etc 129,860 51,345 1,301,202 62,955 33,124 662,057 0 7,944 0 4,085 35,733 39,076 2,002,335

Trees Tree planting (Cap) 80,297 804,582 79,470 835,737 11,269 130,623 785 7,509 1,778,451

Saltbush (Cap) 6,797 68,104 58 610 3,431 39,770 0 0 108,484

Tree/saltbush(O&M) 28,700 287,575 18,320 192,660 3,020 35,006 4,600 44,002 559,243

Rem. Veg (O & M) 7,740 77,555 1,690 17,773 5,480 63,522 6,100 58,351 217,201

Channel,Dist&Farm 1,316 13,189 101 1,065 0 0 0 0 14,254

Channel (O & M) 3,100 31,062 0 0 0 0 0 0 31,062

Diversification Diversify. (O&M) 336,000 3,227,666 349,500 3,409,756 0 0 0 0 6,637,422

Irrigation layout

Landforming etc. 668,562 1,114 6,699,018 103,200 172 1,085,288 49,140 82 569,607 114,420 191 1,094,509 9,448,422

Improved layout 879,760 8,815,230 133,368 1,402,545 42,500 492,639 100,741 963,660 11,674,075

Channel maintenance

195,269 1,956,603 38,434 404,186 16,440 190,565 36,803 352,047 2,903,401

Drainage reuse

Drain Construction 373,489 3,742,375 73,378 771,669 15,135 175,438 311,960 2,984,121 7,673,603

Drainage O & M 132,050 1,323,146 40,695 427,963 4,750 55,060 15,100 144,442 1,950,611

Shallow g'water

Capital 39,000 2 374,640 0 0 0 374,640

O & M 14,250 136,888 0 0 1,000 10,504 0 147,392

Deep g'water Capital 120,000 1 1,152,738 0 0 0 1,152,738

O & M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pasture 70,125 351 702,658 92,312 771 970,788 4,181 26 48,467 71,078 702 679,908 2,401,821

Rice soil survey 3,294 127 33,008 2,340 90 24,608 6,864 264 79,564 1,593 61 15,233 152,413

Con.tillage 407,067 13,569 4,078,830 300,786 10,026 3,163,170 22,050 734 255,270 69,828 2,328 667,980 8,165,250

TOTAL 34,826,069 13,369,875 2,146,036 7,050,838 57,392,817

Source: Annexure 7.3. Regional multipliers are on a percentage of area of Plan except channel works, diversification and groundwater, which are on a percentage of holdings.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

14

3.3. Recommendations

Arising from the 2001/2002 Audit Report, MIL has implemented changes to procedures in the wording of the survey and in the application of benchmark values which have produced a substantial improvement, most notably in the accuracy of transposition of data from the Survey form to the Survey Report.

A number of recommendations are provided to build upon the many improvements implemented by MIL for the 2003/2004 survey.

The recommendations are grouped within three themes as follows:

Landholder Survey Framework, Form and Report

3.1 Establish eligibility criteria for commercial alternate enterprises and the duration for inclusion of costs of operation and maintenance. See Survey question 8 (d).

3.2 Include in Deep Bores, Survey question 13, a question to capture the volume pumped from which is derived the operation and maintenance costs by applying Benchmark Values.

3.3 Undertake a review of the Benchmark Values established for the 2002/2003 Survey and incorporate changes in dollar values.

3.4 Include the changes in the 2004/2005 Survey agreed upon at the debriefing meeting of surveyors held on 1 September 2004.

Training of surveyors

3.5 Continue the training program of surveyors so as to return to the high levels of accuracy achieved in the 2002/2003 survey.

3.6 To consider the drafting of a set of survey guidance notes to assist inexperienced surveyors in explaining difficult survey questions, eg what items of investment constitute ‘paddock improvements’.

Review of Head of Agreement and Audit frame

3.7 The rationale for the present auditing frame be reviewed to achieve a more proportional level of auditing across the four Plans. For example, in the Berriquin Plan for ‘Improved irrigation layouts’, two Surveys out of 155 Surveys are audited, compared to the same H.O.A in Denimein where two of 18 Surveys are audited. A second deficiency is the rationale for field audits, where presently in Wakool, four H.O.A.’s require a field audit, whereas only two HOA’s in each of the other Plans require this level of auditing - see Annexure 7.6 Auditing framework, in-kind works.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

15

SECTION 4: MIL REPORTING OF LANDHOLDER ACTIVITIES

As in previous years, MIL has extrapolated the survey findings on the basis of holding or area surveyed. The results of actual survey and extrapolations for each Plan are presented in summary form in Table 3.1 2003/2004 Summary – Land and Water Management Plan, On-Farm (in-kind) contributions and in detail, in Annexure 7.3 MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report.

The survey instrument due to its structure has limited capacity to generate some general trend information on the performance of the Plans. Four items, namely drainage reuse, landforming, regeneration and revegetation, have been selected as indicators to test the capacity of the Survey for providing generalised trends with results for the years 2001 through to 2004 presented in Tables 4.1 to 4.4. All data in these tables has been sourced from the extrapolated Survey Reports presented in annexures to the Audit Reports for 2001/2002, 2002/2003 and 2003/2004.

Findings from these test indicators are:

o Survey confirms Environment Reports that construction of drainage reuse systems is progressing towards the 2010 target. The picture presented in Table 4.1 is an optimistic one as the respective Plans have standards as well as targets, whereas the Survey records all reuse systems.

o Area of landforming across the four Plans over the past three years is not showing the expected upward trend. The Berriquin Plan figures for 2001/2002 are not accurate – the area of landforming exceeds the total area of the Plan. Increased attention towards addressing errors of calculation in Question 1, as revealed in this years audit, may prove helpful in producing trend data that matches expectations.

o The increased attention being given by landholders to active management of native vegetation is showing up in the two years of data.

o The two years of drought with landholders holding off on revegetation works, are reflected in a decline in the annual areas of trees planted between 2001 and 2004.

Table 4.1. Drainage reuse – holding per cent

Plan (target) 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Berriquin (90% by 2010)

78.5 73.4 72.9

Cadell (90% by 2010)

43.9 47.1 36.6

Denimein (95% by 2011)

66.5 68.4 55.6

Wakool (90% by 2010)

74.3 87.4 77.6

Total 66.0 66.2 60.4


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

16

Table 4.2. Landforming – holding total ha

Plan 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Berriquin 347 830 140 943 185 409 Cadell 56 524 56 145 47 259 Denimein 20 474 18 865 17 736 Wakool 46 331 65 132 51 277 Total 471 158 281 085 301 680

Table 4.3. Regeneration – total holding ha

Plan 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Berriquin n.a 846 1 383 Cadell n.a 128 379 Denimein n.a 582 145 Wakool n.a 648 3 444 Total 2 204 5 351

Table 4.4. Trees planted – total holding ha

Plan 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 Berriquin 307 228 449 Cadell 1 198 245 543 Denimein 93 97 53 Wakool 96 97 10 Total 1 694 667 1 055

4.1. Recommendation

It is recommended that:

4.1 As part of the major review (Recommendation 5.1), there be consideration of a restructuring of the survey so as to provide trend data for selected H.O.A.’s and/or for meeting MIL requirements. The usage of the Survey instrument for providing trend data be assessed as part of the major review.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

17

SECTION 5: FUTURE DIRECTIONS

5.1. Landholder Survey sample frame The survey frame was based, in part, upon an assessment in or around 1995/96 of the major enterprise of each holding, eg rice or dairying. Since then periodic changes have been made, however an on-going mechanism of review is sought to maintain the integrity of the sample frame.

5.2. Survey alignment with H.O.A.’s and MIL’s compliance and reporting The format of the survey has remained relatively the same over the past seven years. There were some major changes as to the phrasing of questions in the 2000/2001 surveys to reflect the first five-year review of the Plans.

During this seven-year period the survey has been successful in meeting the auditing requirements of the H.O.A.’s and compliance and reporting by MIL. Emerging from discussions with personnel within the environmental management section of MIL has a been a strong feeling that the Survey is in need of a major review. The company is committed to achieving an even better alignment of targets and objectives with the H.O.A.’s in the months ahead.

For the last three years the Surveyors meetings have recorded some direct and some indirect rumblings of disquiet from MIL Implementation Officers about the purpose and scope of the annual survey. Those most frequently aired relate to the survey collecting increasing amounts of data, the uses of the collected information and the superficiality, in some areas of data, most notably on revegetation and regeneration. On a positive note, these meetings have assisted greatly in improving the phraseology of the questions and the structure of the tables.

For these reasons it is considered timely to review the survey instrument by examining its rationale, objectives and processes.

5.3. Recommendations With the afflux of time and changes in personnel within MIL there has been a diminishment of clarity as to the objectives of the Survey and the strength of its linkage with the objectives of MIL and the H.O.A.’s, as presently worded and understood. A major review is proposed.

It is recommended that:

5.1 A major review be commissioned of the annual Landholder Survey to achieve a higher level of harmonising of the H.O.A.’s and of MIL’s objectives. Such a review might report upon these matters

5.1.1 Is the survey structured to capture the information required to show landholders are meeting their targets;

5.1.2 What are the core annual data requirements and how might the need for in-depth information be best addressed;

5.1.3 Is the survey providing the data as sought for MIL’s environment report;


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

18

5.1.4 Is there scope for reducing the costs of undertaking the survey; and

5.1.5 Is MIL receiving from the survey the information it seeks to gain in a statistically valid manner about landholders, eg capacity and state of preparedness to address institutional changes.

5.2 The recommendations from such a review be implemented in a timely manner so that they are in place for the 2004/2005 survey.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

19

SECTION 6: REFERENCES

Brown, S. (2000). Audit of landholder survey - Murray Land and Water Management Plans. Report prepared by Farmanco Pty Ltd. Tatura. February.

Crase, L. and Julie Jackson. (1998). Sampling frame for the administration of LWMP survey and the collection of financial data for Murray Irrigation Limited (MIL). Unpublished report prepared for Murray Irrigation Limited, La Trobe University. Wodonga. September.

Murray Irrigation Limited. (2003). Compliance and Environment Report, 2002/2003. Annual Environment Report. MIL. Deniliquin.

Toohey, D. E. (2002). Murray Land and Water Management Plans, Audit of Landholder Survey 2001/2002. Albury. December.

Toohey, D. E. (2003). Murray Land and Water Management Plans, Audit of Landholder Survey 2002/2003. Albury. October.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

20

SECTION 7: ANNEXURES

7.1. Audit of H.O.A. works 2003/2004 Landholder survey.

7.2. Landholder Survey form.

7.3. MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report.

7.4. 2004 Annual Survey Interviewer Debrief.

7.5. MIL Landholder Survey Benchmark values

7.6. Auditing framework, in-kind works

7.7. MIL Response to 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Audit Recommendations


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

21

Annexure 7.1. Audit of H.O.A. works 2003/2004 Landholder survey

Plan H.O.A. Item

Works Audit level Comments

Berriquin A 1 Improved irrigation layout

2 (on-farm) 27 entries - lasering; 21 entries - paddock improvement

a) Property E 367. (194 ha holding with principal land use of annual pastures lucerne and summer pasture, supporting a sheep enterprise). 189 ha landformed. 20 ha landformed in 2003/04 involving 3 paddocks which were also the subject of paddock improvements.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 20 ha of improved irrigation layout. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $11 100 on paddock improvements.

b) Property E851A. (1 277 ha holding with principal land use of winter cereals, winter

oilseeds, dryland pastures, supporting sheep and cattle enterprises). 195 ha landformed. 46 ha landformed in 2003/04. 13 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Area of landforming was 72 ha, whereas Survey Report has recording of 46 ha resulting in an under recording of 26 ha giving a revised property-level area landformed of 221 ha. Field audit revealed that landforming in 2003/04 was of three areas with two in border check sown to wheat with undersown lucerne and the other a direct drilled barley crop into a soybean stubble on raised beds.

c) Property E254. (218 ha holding with principal land use of winter cereals). 200 ha

landforming – all in 2003/04 - preparatory to the installation of centre pivots and associated paddock improvements of $90 000.

Audit findings. Incorrect recording established from field audit of 200 ha of improved irrigation layout in 2003/04. The claimed area of landforming was undertaken in the years leading up to 2003/04 with none occurring in the year of the survey. Verified correctness of recording of $90 000 on paddock improvements – as pipes and associated infrastructure ($50 000) and own labour, ($40 000), for conveying water from a 30 ML storage dam to the pivots.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

22

Plan H.O.A. Item


d) ) Property Q568. (256 ha holding with principal land use of winter cereals and winter oilseeds). 90 ha landforming with 37 ha in 2003/04. Paddock improvements within one paddock of $12 000.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, of recording of $20 000 on constructing a storage.

Comments All four holdings reflect the strong commitment to improving irrigation layouts. Two holdings have completed landforming with subsequent work one of maintaining the established grades. The Water Reform Agenda coupled with the availability of water have been strongly implicated as the major drivers for growing winter crops in lieu of the traditional rice. Integrated return drainage with on-farm storages were features evident on the two holdings subjected to a field visit.

Berriquin A 3 Improved pasture management

1 (desk) 16 entries

a) Property E434C. (231 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures and winter crops supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 1 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Survey form records 8 ha dryland pasture established. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording of $820.13 in Survey Report.

b) Property E539. (201 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures for dairy cattle

enterprise).

Audit findings. Survey form records 9.45 ha irrigated summer pasture established. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording of $3 883.95 in Survey Report.

Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

23

Plan H.O.A.

item Works Audit level Comments

Berriquin A 7 Supply and Drainage and reuse - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk audit) 85 entries - supply channel; 62 entries - drainage system

a) Property E177. (110 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures for a dairy cattle enterprise). 90 ha landformed. Drainage from whole property may be drained into district drain; 166 ha may be recycled on the farm involving a 10 ML storage.

Audit findings. Survey form records expenditure of $680 ($160 own; $20 fuel; $500 chemicals) on Supply O & M of drainage and $460 ($300 fuel; $160 own) on Drainage O & M. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.

b) Property E402 A (10 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated summer fodder crops). 9 ha laid out to irrigation of border check.

Audit findings. Survey form records expenditure of $300 ($200 own; $100 chemicals) on Supply O & M and $2 000 ($600 own; $100 fuel; $100 chemicals; $1 200 enlarging) on Drainage O & M. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.



Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

24

Plan H.O.A. item


Berriquin C 4 Subsurface shallow pumps - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk audit) 12 entries

a) Property E309N. (273 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops, annual pastures and rice). 43 ha native vegetation. Shallow bore installed in 1968. 142 ha laid out to irrigation.

Audit findings. Survey form records pumping of 63 ML that translates to an O & M of $630. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.

b) Property E183A. (276 ha holding with principal land uses of winter cropping and

annual irrigated pastures, supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 178 ha laid out to irrigation. 1 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings Survey form records pumping of 30 ML, which translates to an O & M of $300. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report. Identified a discrepancy between the paddock-level recording of area of landforming and the summary table in Question 1 which results in an overstatement by 7.5 ha or land laid out to irrigation and understatement of 6 ha of dryland country.

Comments Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report. The field audit revealed an under recording of O & M on holding E254 arising from the non-recording of a shallow bore and it pumping 30 ML in the year of survey.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

25

Plan H.O.A.


Cadell A 8 Improved irrigation layout

2 (on-farm) 5 entries - lasering; 4 entries - paddock improvement; 8 entries – storages capital

a) Property C528. (235 ha holding with principal land uses of winter cereals and winter crops supporting a beef enterprise). 160 ha landformed border check.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 13 ha of improved irrigation layout in one paddock Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $4 510 on paddock improvements ($2 000 contractors; $650 own; $1 860 fencing) over 3 paddocks.

b) Property D129 (695 ha holding with principal land use of winter cereals and a sheep enterprise). 92 ha landformed of which 36 ha in 2003/04 as border check/rectangular contour.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at field audit, of recording of expenditure of 36 ha of landforming in 2003/04. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $2 120 on at 100 ML storage. This amount was for minor works by contractors. Landformed paddock was previously a mixture of irregular slopes and bay sizes with hollows holding water. Drainage is now collected and diverted into a 100 ML storage. The shallowness of the surface soils has been a major restraining factor on the farmer in landforming. Post landforming, 1.5 tonnes per ha of natural gypsum applied.

c) Property C056 (329 ha holding with principal land use of annual pastures, winter grain crops supporting a beef enterprise). 300 ha landformed as border check.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at field audit, of recording of expenditure of $19 000 on paddock improvements to 3 paddocks ($5 000 contractors; $5 000 own time; $9 000 fences) in 2003/04. Verified correctness, at field audit, of recording of $2 000 on improvements to 10 ML storage that related to the feeder drain. The redevelopment of the property’s irrigation layout is now nearly completed with some remaining drains requiring upgrading so as to avoid drainage through the border check bays.

Comments The three properties information correctly recorded in the Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

26

Plan H.O.A. item


Cadell D 3 Trees channels -Operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 0 entries

Comments No entries for O & M of trees, at desk audit level, either along District or farm channels in Survey Report.

Cadell I 2 Subsurface shallow pumps - operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 0 entries

Comments No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of shallow subsurface pumps in Survey Report.

Cadell J 2 Supply and Drainage and reuse - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 20 entries -drainage system

a) Property C818. (317 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 7 ha native vegetation. 174 ha landformed to border check. Drains water to adjoining holding. Audit findings. Survey form records expenditure of $170 ($120 own; $50 chemicals) on Drainage O & M. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.

b) Property D149 (634 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 10 ha native vegetation. 262 ha landformed to border check and side ditch. Audit findings. Survey form records expenditure of $630 ($480 own; $150 own) on Drainage O & M. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.



Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

27

Plan H.O.A.


Denimein A 16 Perennial pasture program

1 (desk) 2 entries

a) Property M028 B. (160 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops, irrigated lucerne supporting sheep enterprise). 140 ha landformed border check and contour.

Audit findings. Survey form records 21 ha irrigated winter pasture established. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording of $2 126.25 in Survey Report.

Comments This property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.

Denimein A 18 Revegetation - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 3 entries - revegetation; 3 entries - regeneration

a) Property M001 B. (33 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated annual pastures supporting sheep and pig enterprises, plus 10 ha farm forestry). 17 ha landformed in total – all in 2003/04.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, recording of expenditure $2 000 (water) on maintaining 10 ha farm forestry plantation.

b) Property M027 (399 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated pastures, winter cropping supporting a beef enterprise). 278 ha landformed to border check and contour. 10 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, recording of expenditure $20 ($20 chemicals) on revegetation area.

c) Property M053 A. (549 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated pastures –

dryland and winter cropping). No landforming. 30 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, recording of expenditure $380 ($380 own) on actively managing grey box regeneration area.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

28

Plan H.O.A. item


d) Property M069. (543 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops supporting a cattle enterprise). 192 ha landformed to border check and side ditch contour. 282 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit, recording of expenditure $5 000 ($5 000 materials) on actively managing 282 ha of yellow box, grey box and Red Gum regeneration area.

Comments All four property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

29

Plan H.O.A.


Denimein A 20, A 21, A 22, A 25 and A 26

Improved irrigation layout

2 (on-farm) 6 entries -lasering; 5 entries - paddock improvement

a) Property M001B. (33 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated annual pastures supporting sheep and pig enterprises, plus 10 ha farm forestry). 17 ha landformed in total – all in 2003/04.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field level, of recording of 17 ha of improved irrigation layout. Drainage water from farm is captured and recycled into the main supply channel via a portable pump. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $5 100 on paddock improvements.

b) Property M018. (102 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops and forages supporting a cattle enterprise). 64 ha landformed border check and contour of which 8 ha landformed in 2003/04. 10 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 8 ha of improved irrigation layout. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $15 000 on paddock improvements.

c) Property M032V. (10 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures supporting a cattle enterprise).

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of $150 on drainage storage.

d) Property M069. (543 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops supporting a cattle enterprise). 192 ha landformed to border check and side ditch contour. 282 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field level, of recording of $4 000 on erecting a shed for the pump/motor at the storage site and associated fencing.

Comments Property’s subjected to field audit reflect a high standard of irrigation layout and commitment to recycling of drainage water. All four property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

30

Plan H.O.A.


Denimein A 23 Improved management 1 (desk) 6 entries

a) Property M028 B. (160 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops, irrigated lucerne, supporting sheep enterprise). 140 ha landformed border check and contour.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 22 ha direct drilling of other winter crop stubble, which translates to an expenditure of $660.

b) Property M059A. (672 ha holding with principal land uses of winter cereals). 261 ha landformed.

Audit findings. Verified correctness of recording of 377 ha direct drilling of other winter crop stubble, which translates to an expenditure of $11 310.


Denimein A 31 Agroforestry 1 (desk) 0 entries

Comment Three holdings recorded agroforestry in Question 1, but there were no operation and maintenance expenditure in Survey Report.

Denimein B 17 Supply and Drainage and reuse - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 6 entries - drainage system

a) Property M027. (399 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures and rice supporting a cattle enterprise). 333 ha landformed with 15 ha in 2003/04 contour and border check. 10 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness of recording of expenditure of $600 on maintaining drainage system.

b) Property M069A. (481 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 265 ha landformed of which 22 ha in 2003/04 to contour and border check layouts. 10 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness of recording, at desk level, of expenditure of $1 300 ($1 000 fuel; $300 chemicals) on O & M of the drainage system.



Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

31

Plan H.O.A.


Denimein C 6 Subsurface deep bores - Capital

1 (desk) 0 entries

Comments No entries for capital expenditure, at desk audit level, of deep subsurface bores in Survey Report.

Denimein C 7 Subsurface deep bores - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 0 entries

Comments No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of deep subsurface bores in Survey Report.

Denimein C 8 Subsurface shallow bores - capital

2 (on-farm) 0 entries

Comments No entries for capital expenditure, at desk audit level, on shallow subsurface bores in Survey Report.

Denimein C 9 Subsurface shallow bores - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 1 entry

a) Property M028B. (160 ha holding with principal land uses of winter crops, irrigated lucerne supporting sheep enterprise). 140 ha landformed border check and contour.

Audit findings. Survey form records pumping of 100 ML which translates to an O & M of $1 000. Verified correct, at desk audit, recording in Survey Report.

Comments Property information correctly recorded in Survey report.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

32

Plan H.O.A.


Wakool A 32 Improved pasture management


a) Property W051A. (384 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures and winter crops supporting a cattle enterprise). 42 ha landformed land to border check and contour. 186 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field audit level, of recording of 96 ha sown to dryland lucerne which translates to an expenditure of $9 720. Property inspection revealed a very satisfactory establishment of lucerne and a seed mixture of ‘Winter graze”, at a seeding rate of between 11 to 13 kg per ha in 2003. This was the first large-scale sowing by the landholder on land that had been previously cropped under dryland conditions. The pasture improvement program of this landholder illustrates that with careful planning, most notably attention to management of weeds, successful establishment of lucerne is attainable on land which in decades past was a mixture of perennial and annual plants but now has its watertable of less than 4 metres.

b) Property W278. (1 051 ha holding with principal land uses of pastures with winter cereals supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 280 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of 32 ha sown to dryland pastures which translates to an expenditure of $3 240. Identified a discrepancy between the paddock-level recording of area of landforming and the summary table in Question 1 which results in an overstatement by 359 ha or previous landforming.

Comments Property W051 A represents one of the best sites so far audited for illustrating the introduction of perennial forage plants as a means for managing the rising watertable. Both property’s information correctly recorded in Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

33

Plan H.O.A. item


Wakool A 33, A 35 and A 46

Improved irrigation layout

2 (on-farm) 5 entries - lasering; 2 entries - paddock improvements; 5 entries – drainage storage

a) Property W100. (463 ha holding with principal land uses of winter cereals supporting a beef enterprise). 261 ha landformed of which 44 ha in 2003/04. 50 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field audit levels, of recording of expenditure on 44 ha lasering one paddock with rectangular contour bays. A well-established wheat crop that was direct drilled into a lightly burned rice stubble. Gypsum, naturally-sourced, applied post landforming.

b) Property W222. (2 497 ha holding with principal land uses of improved dryland pastures, winter cereals, irrigated pastures, supporting a sheep enterprise).

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of expenditure of 40 ha on landforming. Audit identified these three errors:

o Paddock improvements were under recorded with $28 500 in Survey form but $2 850 in Survey Report.

o Area of native vegetation over stated in Survey Report by 90 ha with Survey form recording 612 ha, whereas 702 ha in Survey Report.

o Total area landformed under recorded by 20 ha with 522 ha in Survey form, whereas 542 ha recorded in Survey Report.

c) Property T015. (124 ha holding with principal land uses of cropping). 70 ha

landformed with none in 2003/04. 3 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk and field audit levels, of recording of expenditure of $20 000 on storage works ($12 000 contractor; $1 500 own; $6 500 pump). The site of the proposed storage was visited where drainage water from over 90 per cent of farm will be captured. Presently, a sump acts as the storage.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

34

Plan H.O.A. item


d) Property W120 A. (716 ha holding with principal land uses of cropping supporting a sheep enterprise). 249 ha landformed. 413 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit levels, of recording of expenditure of $3 000 on storage works ($600 own; $2 400 fencing).

Comments Whilst the H.O.A. item selected for audit was verified as correct for all four property’s the process identified three discrepancies in one survey in transferring data from the paddock-level to the summary table in Question 1.

Wakool A 36 Retest rice soils 1 (desk) 3 entries

a) Property W257. (774 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated annual pasture winter crops and rice supporting a sheep enterprise). 243 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of use of EM 31 across 10.25 ha for testing suitability of soils for rice which translates to an expenditure of $266.50.

b) Property W220 B. (735 ha holding with principal land uses of cropping – winter, irrigated pastures). 439 ha landformed border check and side ditch contour. 141 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk level, of recording of use of EM 31 across 37 ha for testing suitability of soils for rice which translates to an expenditure of $962.00.



Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

35

Plan H.O.A. item


Wakool A 44 Conservation tillage 2 (on-farm) 27 entries

a) Property W051 A. (384 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated pastures, winter cropping supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 42 ha landformed. 186 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified at field audit recording of 18 ha, not 32 ha of direct drilling of one cultivation which translates to an expenditure of $540.00. Survey Report has over represented the value of conservation tillage by $420.

b) Property W170 A. (433 ha holding with principal land uses of irrigated annual

pastures, winter crops supporting beef and sheep enterprises). 91 ha landformed. 147 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified at field audit recording of 18 ha of direct drilling of other winter crop which translates to an expenditure of $540.00. Field inspection of one paddock of wheat direct drilled into sandy mallee soil around perimeter of centre pivot irrigated lucerne. Uncertain as to location of second paddock subject to conservation farming practices.

Comments It has proven difficult to verify whether there have been any special conservation farming practices beyond the norm on sandy soils as there has been a tradition of retaining stubbles on the surface to reduce the impact of eroding winds.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

36

Plan H.O.A. item


Wakool A 45 Drainage and reuse - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 14 entries

a) Property W081. (520 ha holding with principal land uses of winter forage). 192 ha landformed. 177 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit level, of recording of expenditure of $240 ($160 own; $80 chemicals) on maintaining drainage system. Noted under recording of 292 ha of previous landforming arising from not transferring data from the paddock-level to the summary table in Question 1.

b) Property W270 (153 ha holding with principal land uses of cropping supporting cattle and sheep enterprises). No lasered irrigation land. 16 ha native vegetation.

Audit findings. Verified correctness, at desk audit level, of recording of expenditure of $400 ($100 chemicals; $200 fuel; $100 own) on maintaining drainage system.


Wakool C 10 Subsurface deep bores - Capital

1 (desk) 0 entries

Comments No entries of a capital nature, at desk audit level, of deep subsurface bores in Survey Report.

Wakool C 11 Subsurface deep bores - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 0 entries

Comments No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of deep subsurface bores in Survey Report.

Wakool C 12 Subsurface shallow bores - capital


Comments No entries for capital expenditure on shallow subsurface bores in Survey Report.

Wakool C 13 Subsurface shallow bores - Operation and maintenance

1 (desk) 0 entries

No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of shallow subsurface bores in Survey Report.

Wakool D 7 Trees channels -Operation and maintenance


No entries for O & M, at desk audit level, of O & M for trees along channels in Survey Report.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

37

Annexure 7.2. Landholder Survey form


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

38

Annexure 7.3. MIL 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Report


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

39

Annexure 7.4. 2004 Annual Survey Interviewer debrief

Survey Debrief Meeting

MIL Board Room, Deniliquin

1st September 2004

10am – 1pm

Present: Vivianne Polkinghorne, Demelza Brand, Jill Anthony, Peter Anthony, Sue Fenaughty, Sophie Ingram, Wendy Goudie, Clare Fitzpatrick, Ross Templeton, Kristin Goudie, Christine Richardson, Karen Axton, Fiona Porter, Bernadette Agosta.

Apologies: Robyn Walker, Jenny Adamson, Suzanne Robinson, Karen Donkin, Sarah Rae.

Meeting discussion

1. Survey administration

LWMP officers to be advised of this year’s common locations where there were errors and omissions as experienced when keying the survey data into the database. The advising will include matters such as:

• Return surveys progressively so as to smooth out the work load at keying in level which if implemented will contribute greatly to the present high level of accuracy.

• If supplied holding map isn’t for survey farm, provide a hand drawn one

• If a replacement holding is required then provide early notice to your LWMP Officer

• Record your comments on the farmer to assist both the LWMP Officer for that Plan and future surveys

• Use the supplied photograph as a prompt should the farmer not account for land occupied by native vegetation, roads and buildings.

2. Surveyors’ support

Environment Officer to develop a running sheet of what is expected of surveyors during the interviews, eg explain what the survey is about, confirm that the responses to the survey are confidential to MIL and before leaving the property go through the survey checking that everything is filled in.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

40

To address reluctance by some farmers to fully account for the area of native vegetation as they hold concerns should the information be made available to agencies, a particular advising be provided on this matter to surveyors.

Surveyors to consult the LWMP officers if they have any questions, eg eligibility of a work for an incentive payment.

Surveyors to receive the business cards of their LWMP officer for providing to landholders who want to know more about the LWMP.

Surveyors to be provided with supplementary information:

• For difficult questions as occurs with the Tax Pack.

• Descriptions of environmental management and property management plans.

• On the business planning question, a short description of what is a business plan and the purpose in seeking information on the stage of implementation.

3. Survey questions and layout

Land use. Consider moving the stock information to the end of the survey (if it is required to be left on at all).

Q 1. The grouping of ‘paddocks’ is permissible with the test being – is the land use, layout the same as the one it adjoins, and are the recycling properties the same.

Q 1. Improve the wording of question ‘Can paddock be irrigated with recycled water? (ha)’ to remove ambiguity – is it possible to recycle water from the paddock or reuse recycled water on that paddock.

Q 1. Landuse.

• Double cropping of paddocks, eg a cereal following a tomato crop presents problem – which crop is recorded? Meeting considered the correct response was to record what was in the paddock as at 30 June and make a note of its other use during the year.

• Summer pastures with perennial species, eg paspalum are not accounted for in the percentage of perennials on the holding

Q 1. The succession of well-below water allocations and the longer term prospects for water is and will accelerate the amount of land which is dryland. Meeting offered this advice

- if knocked down banks or knocked out channels then can include as dryland however if these structures still exist, leave as irrigation layout


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

41

- where farmer is uncertain as to the description of a paddock as being irrigation or dryland, record as notes his/her comments and seek guidance from LWMP Officer.

Q 1. Paddock improvements are not to include the cost of lasering.

Q 4 (a). Agreed the whole area of the farm, including buildings and roads, can be included as draining to a district drain.

Q 8. Need for further discussion on the Farm Diversification question, eg what is diversification, for how many years are operation and maintenance costs allowed.

Q 12. In the section on conservation tillage include direct drilling of pasture paddocks to enhance relevance for pasture-based holdings, ie dairy and sheep.

Clarify whether the conservation tillage is only during the last 12 months or if it can include any paddocks you have EVER used conservation tillage techniques on.

Q 13. Why is it necessary to know about the installation year of groundwater pumps? Proposed that in lieu of year a series of time bands be provided, ie early 1980s.

Q 15. Record as a note to not include the surveyed holding.

4. Items for review and / or consideration

Respond to surveyor’s comment of excluding holdings that have been surveyed in the last two years.

Review entire survey to remove redundant questions that are not directly related to HOA’s or used by MIL in other reports.

Revise sample frame

- raise minimum holding size

- account for lands that were formerly used for agriculture but are now urban or rural residential especially in the Moama area.


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

42

Annexure 7.5. MIL Landholder Survey Benchmark values

MIL Landholder Survey 2002/2003 - Benchmark values Section Benchmark specifications Benchmark unit and value Reference Unit Value ($) 1. Paddock Information Landforming

Based on typical field earthworks of 570 m3 @ $1.05/m3

Hectare 600.00 Local contractor rates and farm planning earthworks

2. Farm Planning EM 31 for rice Hectare 26.00 MIL Senior Rice Officer 4. Drainage, reuse and storage Storage approval

item 1 300.00 LWMP Implementation Officers

5. New tree and shrub plantings Q 5 (c and f)

Fencing - materials Steel posts ($3.80/post @ 7 m spacing) Ringlock ($190/200 m roll) Barb wire ($62/500 m roll) Plain wire ($127/1 500 m role 2) End assemblies ($50/assembly 4) Ring fasteners Gates (14’ gate @ $86/gate 2) Sub Total Labour TOTAL

Kilometre Kilometre Kilometre Kilometre Kilometre Kilometre Kilometre Kilometre Kilometre Kilometre

550.00 950.00 120.00 170.00 200.00 20.00 170.00 2 180.00 2 320.00 4 500.00

Merchandise suppliers Merchandise suppliers Merchandise suppliers Merchandise suppliers Merchandise suppliers Merchandise suppliers Merchandise suppliers Contract rates


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

43

Section Benchmark specifications Benchmark unit and value Reference Unit Value ($)

Tree planting

Transplant method

Weed control

Ripping and mounding

Seedlings ($0.40/seedling @ 650 seedlings/ha

Planting

Watering

TOTAL

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

150.00

150.00

260.00

150.00

75.00

785.00

Local suppliers, contractors and LWMP Implementation staff

6. Direct seeding Direct seeding method

Direct seeding

TOTAL

Hectare

120.00

120.00

Greening Australia

7. Saltbush planting

(assumes planting saltbush in 2 rows, 2 m apart and then a space of 20 m per 2 planted rows)

Fencing

Assume costs used above

Deep ripping

Cultivation

Seedlings ($0.18/plant @ 500/ha)

Planting

Watering

TOTAL

Kilometre

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

50.00

42.00

90.00

35.00

15.00

232.00

Contract rates

NSW Agriculture Budget

Supplier

Contract rates

Contract rates


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

44

Section Benchmark specifications Benchmark unit and value Reference Unit Value ($) 8. Pastures - Irrigated lucerne Cultivation

Sowing

Fertiliser

Herbicide

Insecticide

Irrigation (3 Ml/ha @ $17.20/Ml)

TOTAL

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

42.00

110.00

67.50

70.00

70.00

51.50

411.00

NSW Agriculture Farm Budget 2003 (Adapted)

9. Pastures – dryland lucerne, lucerne incorporated into annual pastures and lucerne along irrigation channels

Direct drilled establishment

Seed +Inoculant. 3 kg/ha

Insecticides 0.5l/ha @ $120/l

Insecticide application, contract

Sowing

TOTAL

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

Hectare

26.25

60.00

10.00

5.00

101.25

NSW Agriculture Farm Budget 2003 (Adapted)

10. Management practices Direct drilling Hectare 30.00 Contract rate

11. Groundwater pumping Shallow - operation and maintenance

Deep - operation and maintenance

Megalitre

Megalitre

10.00

20.00

LWMP Implementation staff, landholders

LWMP Implementation staff, landholders, NSW Agriculture Farm Budget (2003)


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

45

Annexure 7.6. Auditing framework, in-kind works


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

46

TABLE 4 - Murray LWMP Items - In-kind Works (0% govt contribution)COMBINED PROGRAM SHOWING ALL WORKS FOR ALL MURRAY LWMPs USING THE HEADS OF AGREEMENT FORMAT OF WORKS

LWMP

ITEM OPTION District Audit

Class over 3 years over 1 year

A ON-FARM WORKSA1 Landforming Ber 2 6 2 2 4 Not on new PlanA2 Large On-farm storages Ber 2 6 2 0 6 Not on new Plan

Improved irrigation layouts Ber 2 6 2 2 4 Amalgamation of A1 and A2A3 Improved pasture management Ber 1 6 2 2 4A7 Operation and maintenance Ber 1 6 2 2 4A8 Improved irrigation layouts Cad 2 6 2 2 4A16 Perennial Pasture Program Den 1 6 2 1 5A18 O&M of revegetation Den 1 6 2 1 5A20 Improved layouts Den 2 6 2 2 4 Amalg of A21, A22, A25, A26A21 Landforming (Cap) Den 2 6 2 1 5 Not on new PlanA22 Landforming (O&M) Den 1 6 2 2 4 Not on new PlanA23 Improved management Den 1 6 2 2 4

A25 Additional landforming (Cap) Den 2 6 2 2 4 Not on new Plan

A26 Additional landforming (O&M) Den 1 6 2 0 6 Not on new Plan

A31 Agroforestry (O&M) Den 1 6 2 0 6

A32 Improved summer pasture layouts Wak 2 6 2 2 4A33 Install / upgrade drainage Wak 6 6 2 0 6 Not on new PlanA35 Upgrade & seal channels Wak 2 6 2 0 6 Not on new PlanA36 Retest rice soils Wak 1 6 2 0 6A44 Conservation tilage Wak 2 6 2 2 4A45 O&M - Reuse & Recycling Wak 1 6 2 2 4A46 Landforming Wak 2 6 2 2 4 Not on new Plan

Improved irrigation layouts Wak 2 6 2 0 6 Amalg of A33, A35, A46 & oth

No. of Sites to be audited

Sites audited 1999/2000

Sites remaining


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

47

No. of sites to be audited Item Option LWMP

District Audit Class

Over 3 years

Over 1 year

Sites audited 1999/2000

Sites remaining

B B 17

Surface drainage Reuse pumps O & M

Den

1

6

2

2

4

C C4

Sub surface drainage O & M/Refurbish private pumps

Ber 1

6

2

2

4

Not on new plan

C7 Deep bores (O & M) Den 1 6 2 1 5 C 8 Shallow bores (Capital) Den 2 3 1 0 3 C 9 Shallow bores (O & M) Den 1 6 2 1 5 D D3

Channel sealing O & M: Trees

Cad

1 6 2 6 Not on survey

D 4 Physical sealing Den 5 6 2 6 Not on survey D 7 Trees – maintenance Wak 2 6 2 0 6 Not on survey I I 2

High watertable management O & M depreciation: Pumping sites

Cad 1 3 1 3

J J 2

Recycling systems O & M costs

Cad 1 6 2 2 4


Skmmil Rpt 2004.doc

48

Annexure 7.7. MIL Response to 2003/2004 Landholder Survey Audit Recommendations