83
Technical Papers
OUTCOMES Outcomes are the broad ecological, social and economic consequences of our water resource management. The expected outcomes of this plan are: • Secure and reliable water supplies for a strong and expanding irrigation industry • A healthy lower Ord River environment • As much hydroelectricity production as possible, within the limits of the water needed by irrigators and the downstream environment • Traditional Indigenous access, water-based tourism and recreational opportunities that complement the irrigation, environmental and power outcomes.
RESOURCE OBJECTIVES Water resource objectives state how we want the water resource to perform as a result of the management we put in place. They are specific and measurable, and ensure the outcomes can be met. This plan’s resource objectives are as follows: a.
flows measured at Tarrara Bar meet the environmental water provision, including:
I.
the baseflow component for wet and dry seasons
II.
annual and inter-annual wet season peak flows
III. infrequent b.
wet season flood events
water levels in Lake Argyle are maintained above irrigation restriction levels in 95 per cent of years.
Box 1. Ord Surface Water Allocation Plan (DoW, 2013, pp 8–9). There are many risks to be considered in regard to further expanding consumptive use through expansion of the Ord River Irrigation Scheme. Best practice should see the WAP address all risks identified by stakeholders and the agreed necessary mitigation measures adopted. Where no action is deemed necessary, this should be communicated in a transparent manner within the plan or its supporting documentation.
DISCUSSION
A transparent, up-to-date, rigorous, collaborative and inclusive Environmental, Social and Economic Impact Assessment process coupled with a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) would begin to address the risks of externalising costs and impacts of Stage Two and Stage Three of the Ord Irrigation Scheme and the risk of moving ahead with expansion projects which may not be financially viable. Head (1999) cites research by BR Davidson that suggests Ord Stage One was constructed despite economic analysis demonstrating that it was not economically viable. The most recent publicly available cost benefit analysis of the Ord River Irrigation Area, undertaken by Hassall & Associates in 1993, “showed that between 1958 and 1991 the government
The Economists at Large (2013 p5) also argue that the 1993 Hassall & Associates analysis could have been updated at relatively low cost. Using tools such as Environmental, Social and Economic Risk Assessment and CBA, decision makers can begin to look beyond the traditional indicators of project cost and payback and put a value to other cultural, social and environmental consequences of the potential project. An example of this
is Hope’s (2002) study of three dams in Malaysia, Nepal and Turkey. Identifying the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems, and placing an economic value on this natural capital, is a critical component that should be included in any analysis. The CBA should then be undertaken through the concept of total economic value (Figure 1), defined by Admiraal et al., (2013, p13) as “an expression of the total value of the benefits derived from a marginal change in an ecosystem, expressed in monetary terms, which can subsequently be used in cost–benefit models while being mindful
Figure 1. Total economic value.
JUNE 2014 WATER
WATER RESOURCES
RISK 1: IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS
had invested $613 million into the scheme to extract benefits of just $102 million” (Economists at Large, 2013, p4).