The Murray-Darling basin plan narrative runs on well-worn tracks. Water theft allegations and short-changed rivers in the northern basin. Booming almonds around Mildura. Quick detour to Murrumbidgee river communities who burned the draft plan in 2010 but are now doing fine. And the story ends at the Coorong and at the Murray mouth.



So all angles covered, yes?

Except for the gaping hole in the map that is the Goulburn-Murray irrigation district (GMID) in northern Victoria. Farmers here have contributed more water than any others to the environment, but few decision-makers seem to want to know what that means for these communities.

The GMID is large. It covers 27,000 sq km, stretching from Cobram in the east to Swan Hill in the west. It is Victoria’s food bowl, generating $5.9bn worth of product, including dairy, fruit, vegetables, meat and cereals. One in three jobs are on farms, farm services and food processing.

Almost all GMID irrigators are family farmers, working hard to keep their businesses afloat despite the continuing uncertainty of the basin plan. Their water use is metered so no one takes more than their permitted share, and the few doing the wrong thing are exposed quickly.

Sign up to receive the latest Australian opinion pieces every weekday

Of the 2100GL recovered for the environment so far, more than 1100GL has come from southern basin farmers, mostly through buybacks but also farmers trading water entitlements in return for funding for on-farm upgrades.

GMID farmers have contributed the most: 340GL. This is the price of healthier rivers, and we are pleased to see this water being used to good effect in northern Victorian rivers and in the Murray.

Murray-Darling: when the river runs dry Read more

But it has not come cheap for this community. History matters: the GMID dairy industry was already under pressure in the millennium drought when the global financial crisis hit in 2008 and milk prices crashed. Not long after, the basin plan buybacks started.

Struggling to keep herds going with mounting debts, many dairy farmers sold water entitlements for cash flow. They survived the drought and the GFC, but the legacy is heavy reliance on the water market to meet their needs rather than being self-reliant as before.

Recovering water from farmers was a deliberate commonwealth market intervention. The southern basin irrigation pool is smaller and the competition is greater with almonds and other nuts expanding downstream from the GMID. The combination is pushing up prices.

Dairy farmers are now very efficient water users, but less water still means less intensive land use. The GMID land base supports 100,000 fewer cows and produces 25% less milk. It still has its high-value stone-fruit, apple and pear orchards, but they rely on dairy as without it the orchardists alone could not afford the upkeep of the GMID’s irrigation infrastructure.

The region is working hard to attract more investment, but this doesn’t happen overnight. In the meantime, reduced production is costing $550m a year, and an estimated 1000 jobs. GMID irrigators pay $20m a year more for water due to the commonwealth’s market intervention.

Recovering more water from farmers in the southern basin will compound the GMID’s challenges, because everyone everywhere is now connected through the water market. It is the butterfly effect.

It is disheartening to see how much misinformation has been spread. The basin plan is not a 3200GL plan. It is a 2750GL plan, but with flexibility to vary the volume to reflect new knowledge on socio-economic impact and environmental management. Tony Burke said as much in a National Press Club address in 2012 when he approved the plan as water minister.

On 8 May, the Senate will decide whether to disallow an amendment to lower the 2750GL target by up to 605GL. The amendment enables projects to use the 2100GL already in the bank more effectively for results equivalent to 2750GL without needing more water from farmers.

It's not perfect but implementing Murray-Darling plan in full can work | Jamie Pittock Read more

No one is suggesting any of the 2100GL be given back to irrigators. The only question is whether to cause more hardship. Another 605GL is more than equivalent to closing down all irrigation along the Murray in South Australia.

Similarly, the extra 450GL promised to South Australia on top of the 2750GL target is not “guaranteed” but conditional on socio-economic effects.

It is not just the GMID affected. Recovering more water from irrigators will also endanger expanding horticulture with supply chain breakdown and market failure in dry years when not enough water is available to keep those orchards alive no matter how much their corporate owners are willing to pay.

The GMID is at tipping point, and too much is a stake for this game to continue. The Senate must allow the basin plan amendments.

• Suzanna Sheed MP is the independent member for Shepparton district, and co-chair of GMID Water Leadership