Environmental water includes both quantity and quality: the
health of aquatic ecosystems depends on having sufficient water of adequate
quality. In fully-allocated water systems, quantity is usually the major
concern (although of course there is often a complex interrelationship between quality and quantity),
as there is often not enough left to maintain a healthy environment.
It’s worth taking a moment to consider the concept of ‘full
allocation’. In Australia, it seems to mean that further allocations of water
cannot be made without affecting the reliability of supply of existing water
users (who are usually extractive users). The concept of ‘reliability’ is also
interesting, and reflects the Australian tendency to define classes of water
access entitlements, based on their reliability. In water systems that rely on
the prior appropriation doctrine (‘first in time, first in right’),
this concept of shared reliability may be less meaningful. To me, it can be used
to identify a water system where water is a scarce resource: all of the ‘available’
water has been allocated for use (but where, perhaps for political reasons, it’s
not palatable to talk about ‘over-allocation’). Any additional allocation involves a trade-off: the ‘new’ water must
come from existing users. Fully-allocated systems are usually operating at an
imbalance, due to the recent recognition of the environment as a legitimate
user of water, so recovery of water for the environment is particularly
important.
Bringing together some ideas from my previous posts, as the
provision of environmental water transitions from policy commitment to
implementation, the management of that water becomes increasingly important. Recovery
of water in fully-allocated water systems costs money – it must be found in
water ‘savings’ (by increasing water use efficiency) or by purchasing the water
from other users. Demonstrating that this water is being used effectively and efficiently
is important to reassure investors (usually the public, via donations or taxes)
that their money is going to good use.
In Australia, where water markets are particularly active,
managing a portfolio of environmental water rights effectively and efficiently requires
a new approach. It needs an entity with capacity for independent
decision-making, rapid response to changing circumstances and a clear focus on
the environmental outcomes. We can see a plethora of new organizations emerging
in this space. Perhaps the best known is the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, a statutory function vested in an employee of the Australian public service.
The CEWH is now the largest holder of environmental water in Australia, and is
well on the way to being the single largest holder of water in the
Murray-Darling Basin. It combines both water recovery and management
objectives, and is working with state agencies and NGOs to use its water each
year.
One of the most recent environmental water holders is the Victorian Environmental Water Holder,
a statutory corporation with three commissioners and staff currently seconded
from the Victorian public service. It holds all the environmental water in
Victoria, but is focused on management, rather than additional water recovery.
However, it has recently sold water in northern Victoria to finance water
recovery in southern Victoria, demonstrating its willingness to use the markets as a tool for managing a portfolio of environmental water rights.
One of the other fascinating issues here (and deserving of a
post all its own!) is the role of NGO environmental water holders in Australia.
They have a big role in the USA,
but are more limited in Australia. However, during the recent drought, a number
of NGOs obtained water for the environment. Now, many are transitioning into a
management role. Water For Nature, a water trust established by Nature
Foundation SA, has entered into an agreement with the CEWH to deliver 10 GL of
water each year for the next five years.
This is the first such agreement between the CEWH and a NGO, and I’ll be
watching with interest.
There is so much to say about these new entities.
But for now, let’s just try to understand what they actually do. Many
organizations play a role in environmental water management. Local
organizations like catchment management authorities are usually responsible for
community engagement, long-term planning and on-ground activities (such as
getting water to a site, and monitoring the outcomes of using it). Government
retains a role in policy setting and management of the overall water allocation
and trading framework. Environmental water holders are responsible for holding
(‘owning’) environmental water rights, and making the critical decision on
where and how to use it each year (including whether to trade it). The
following diagram focuses on the role of the environmental water holders in the
Australian context (and comes from my recent article in the Australian Environment Review (see issue 28(3); let me know in a comment if you can’t access Lexis).
I
think the requirement of the
environmental water holders to be the decision-makers, as well as their varying
capacity to do so (they can be constrained by water policies, Ministerial
directions, funding, and/or limits of their operating legislation) is what
makes environmental water holders so interesting.