Coopers Creek Water Sharing Plan. Socio-economic impact assessment of changes to the flow rules

Transcription

1 Coopers Creek Water Sharing Plan Socio-economic impact assessment of changes to the flow rules

2 Publisher NSW Department of Water and Energy Level 17, 227 Elizabeth Street GPO Box 3889 Sydney NSW 2001 T F information@dwe.nsw.gov.au Coopers Creek Water Sharing Plan Socio-economic impact assessment of changes to the flow rules Acknowledgements Authors: Inderpal Singh, Noel Flavel and Maksudul Bari Thanks to the irrigators of Coopers Creek catchment for their participation in the survey that formed the basis of this repport. July 2009 ISBN This publication may be cited as: Singh I., Flavel N., and Bari M. 2009, Coopers Creek Water Sharing Plan. Socio economic impact assessment of changes to the flow rules, NSW Department of Water and Energy, Sydney State of New South Wales through the Department of Water and Energy, 2009 This work may be freely reproduced and distributed for most purposes, however some restrictions apply. Contact the Department of Water and Energy for copyright information. Disclaimer: While every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that this document is correct at the time of publication, the State of New South Wales, its agents and employees, disclaim any and all liability to any person in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document. DWE 09_168

3 Contents Executive Summary...v 1. Introduction... 1 Objectives Methodology Background... 6 Population... 6 Employment... 8 Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA)... 8 Crops... 9 ABS Agricultural Census DWE Irrigation Licence Survey Land Use data Hydrological changes Changes in Water Availability Option 2: DWE Field Verification Irrigation Water Requirements Socio-economic Impacts Assumptions and Data Impacts of changes in continuous number of CTP days Potential Regional Impacts Potential development Irrigators management response Summary and Conclusions References Appendices Appendix 1: Coopers Creek Irrigation Licences Survey Appendix 2: Impact Assessment Detailed Results Appendix 3: Irrigation Survey Form Appendix 4: Supplementary assessment on additional Review Panel Options Introduction Preliminary Assessment Changes in Water Availability ii NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

4 Probability Analysis: Moving the month of monthly restrictions Diagram of general impacts of CTP changes Tables Table 1 Population in Coopers Creek WSP Area Table 2 Total Labour Force, Unemployment and Employment in Selected Sectors in Coopers Creek Table 3 Coopers Creek WSP Socio-Economic Indexes for Area (SEIFA), Table 4 Coopers Creek Irrigation License Survey 2008 structural components Table 5 Irrigated Crop Area Table 6 Water Flow Rate at Greengate Probability analysis by month Table 7: Number of events occurring between 1892 and 2006 by month Table 8: Monthly difference in number of continuous days when crop water requirement is not met over 114 years: Table 9 Water Flow Rate at Greengate probability analysis by month Table 10: Assumptions to link changes in continuous number of CTP and impacts on crops Table 11: Data Used to Estimate the Impacts Table 12: Estimated Impacts of Changing CTP to 31 ML/day JAS and 17 ML/day OJ Total over 114 Years Table 13: Estimated Average Annual Impact Table 14: Irrigators management response Figures Figure 1: Outline of socio-economic assessment... 5 Figure 2: Map of Coopers Creek WSP area... 7 Figure 3: Advantage and Disadvantage Index in Coopers Creek Water Source, Figure 4: Coopers Creek Water Source Land use Data Figure 5: Percent Irrigation extraction by month by crop iii NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

5 Appendix Tables Appendix Table 1: Coopers Creek Irrigation Licence Survey 2008 structural components Appendix Table 2: Users of irrigation in the last 4 years by crop and method of application Appendix Table 3: Immediate potential for activation of entitlement Appendix Table 4: Monthly distribution of irrigation Appendix Table 5: Response to rising CTP levels: from 25 respondents with developed land irrigated in last 4 years Appendix Table 6: Estimated Income Impacts for people who have developed land for irrigation and irrigated in the last 4 years Appendix 2 Table 7: Number of continuous days when crop water requirement is not met over 114 years: during 1-5 yrs of the Plan Appendix Table 8: Number of continuous days when crop water requirement is not met over 114 years: during 6-10 yrs of the Plan Appendix Table 9: Water Flow Rate at Greengate Probability analysis by month Appendix Figure Appendix Figure 1: Coopers Creek Irrigation Licence Survey Appendix Figure 2: Percent Irrigation extraction by month by crop Abbreviations The following terms are used in this document Words Definition ABARE Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics CCWUG Coopers Creek Water Users Group CTP Cease to pump DECC Department of Environment and Climate Change DWE Department of Water and Energy IQQM DWE hydrological model JAS July August and September OJ October to June ML Megalitre ML/d Megalitres per day WMA 2000 Water Management Act 2000 WSP The Coopers Creek Water Sharing Plan iv NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

6 Executive Summary This study was undertaken to provide socio-economic impacts of recommended changes to the flow rules for the Coopers Creek Water Sharing Plan (WSP). It identifies and assesses the economic impacts of the out of court settlement and the recommendations of the field verification report. Specifically the report assessed the economic impacts of the following two options: Option 1 - Out of Court Settlement: Economic assessment of the provisions as given in the WSP i.e. raising the very low flow Cease To Pump (CTP) from its current value of 20 ML/d in July, August and September (JAS) and 14 ML/d in October to June (OJ) to 31 ML/d in JAS and 17 ML/d in OJ; and Option 2 - Field Verification: Economic assessment of lowering the very low flow CTP to 10 ML/d in all months from its current value of 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ as specified in the WSP. The results of this study will contribute to the WSP review panel s deliberations while making final recommendations to the changes in the CTP level. The analysis provided in this report is based on the data obtained from the IQQM model and Survey of Irrigation Licences in Coopers Creek (Appendix 3). In addition, the data were also obtained from other sources such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics, various reports and personal communication with subject matter experts. The methodology used is consistent with earlier guidelines developed by the Independent Advisory Committee on Socio-Economic Assessment and the NSW Treasury. The Coopers Creek catchment is located north-east of Lismore in the northern portion of the Richmond River catchment in north eastern NSW having 106 licensees with 5,939 ML of entitlement. In 2006, the population of the Coopers Creek subcatchment was 11,298 including a labour force of 5,349 and unemployment rate of 7.2%, which was higher than the NSW average of 5.9%. The analysis of hydrology data suggests that: Increasing the current CTP levels from 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ to 31 ML/d in JAS and 17 ML/d in OJ would have significant changes in terms of increase in the number of events and their duration requiring detailed socio-economic evaluation; Lowering the current CTP levels from 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ to 10 ML/d in all months would allow more opportunities to extract water due to higher probabilities of flow rates exceeding CTP levels at Greengate gauge. It is likely that the irrigators will benefit from this situation and no further analysis was undertaken for this proposed change. The analysis indicates that increasing the CTP level to 31 ML/d in JAS and 17 ML/d in OJ would have significant negative economic impacts for the irrigators. The total economic impacts over 114 year period are estimated at $7.1 million. Of these, winter pastures bear the greatest impacts of $4.7 million over 114 years. These impacts have been converted to an average annual basis to provide a clearer understanding. The total irrigated area in Coopers Creek is 500 ha with a total value of irrigated production of $1.2 million as provided in the table below. Average annual impacts are estimated at $62,000 representing 5.1% of gross value of irrigated production in the region. The major impacts would be borne by the winter pasture growers (11.2%) followed by summer pasture growers (7.9%). These crops are predominantly used for dairy industry in this region. The dairy industry will therefore carry a large portion of these impacts. v NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

7 Estimated Average Annual Impact Crop type Estimated Irrigated Area (Ha) Gross Value of Irrigated Production ($'000) Average Annual Impact ($'000) % Impact Winter Pasture 211 $370 $ % Summer Pasture 123 $216 $17 7.9% Orchard 158 $286 $3 1.2% Other 8 $342 $0 0.1% Total 500 $1,213 $62 5.1% The average annual impacts are in the form that is evenly distributed over the years. However, in reality some years would be unaffected whereas the others may register longer duration and or multiple additional CTP events. The economic impacts during the unaffected years will be minimal while the impacts in the affected years would be much higher than the averages presented here. The small dairy businesses in Coopers Creek may not have the ability to survive during such an event. The estimated impacts are based on the current water use and any further development of the inactive licenses will have further negative implications for the currently active irrigators. Based on the multipliers used by ACIL (ACIL Consulting 2002), the potential regional impacts resulting from changing the very low flows are estimated at an average annual loss of $124,000 and one job per year from the Coopers Creek economy. The survey of irrigation license holders in Coopers Creek revealed that about a third of the respondent irrigators would not change the way they have been using the irrigation water on their farms; while 28% and 32% of the respondents said that they would apply less water on a per hectare basis during the months of JAS and OJ respectively. Considering the severity of the impacts, the study highlights that a large number of irrigators in Coopers Creek would need assistance to develop mitigation strategies if higher CTP levels are introduced. vi NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

8 1. Introduction The NSW government, under Water Management Act 2000 (WMA 2000), commenced 34 Water Sharing Plans (WSPs) on 1 July 2004 including the Coopers Creek Water Source (the Plan). The plan sets the legally binding rules for how water will be shared between various water users for ten years, thus providing a decade of security for the environment and water users. The catchment has 106 licensees with 5,939 megalitres (ML) of entitlement. Court case details: The draft Coopers Creek WSP was exhibited for public comment during 2002 and was made as a plan on 14th February The Coopers Creek Water Users Group (CCWUG) lodged a court challenge to that version of the WSP. Subsequently the plan was amended and commenced on 1 July An out of court agreement was reached between DWE and the CCWUG. The CCWUG is comprised of 16 license holders (18%), 9 individuals and 983 ML (18%) of entitlement all of which is in the Lower Coopers Creek management zone. The focus of the court challenge was the flow class definitions in July, August and September (JAS) of years 1-5, potential increase in the CTP during years 6-10 and the input to the mid term review of fish passage assessment provided for in the Plan. The flow classes in years 1-5 were defined to be higher during JAS than for the rest of the year, to provide fish passage for the endangered species, Eastern Freshwater Cod. The mid term review of fish passage assessment is to recommend variations to the flow class level defined in the plan for years 6-10 of the Plan. The flow classes in years 6-10 were defined to be higher during JAS than they were in the same period of years 1-5. Amendments of flow rules: Section 77 of the plan provides for amendments to the rules for the very low flow class. Any amendment recommended under this section will require field verification of the very low flow environmental water provisions to be undertaken before the review of the plan occurs under section 43(2) of the WMA Recommendations of the Hydraulic modelling: A draft report on the hydraulic modelling assessment of fish passage and low flow habitat protection for natural riffles and rapids: lower Coopers Creek (DWE 2008), has recommended the following: Plan objectives for fish passage should be revised to reflect the reliance on flow events for some fish to undertake local and large scale movement. Typically events above the 80 th flow duration percentile at the Ewing Bridge gauging station would be appropriate for the Coopers Creek. Plan objectives that relate to the protection of low flow habitats and dependent biota typically need to be mapped to Cease-to-pump (CTP) rules. Consider a CTP limit of 3-4 ML/d at the Repentance gauging station. This is equivalent to the 96-98th annual flow duration percentiles, the 90-94th flow duration percentiles in the month of minimum flow, and will ensure that flow rates of approximately 10 ML/d will persist through to the end-of-system staff-gauge at Greengate Road. Consider reducing irrigation entitlements to 50% of normal pumping hours when flow rates decrease to 4 ML/d at Repentance, with a final CTP coming into effect when flow rates decrease to 3 ML/d. The Department review the rating table for the Ewing Bridge gauging station in the Coopers Creek, to improve the quality of low flow data. 1 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

9 Review the current analyses and findings if a larger volume of the unused licensed water entitlement becomes active. Consider purchasing unused water licences and allocate the water to adaptive environmental water to limit future potential risks to low flow habitats and dependent biota. This may be a better ecological option than raising the cease-to-pump. Undertake a systematic survey and assessment of road causeways and their associated low-flow pipes that may be problematic to fish passage under low-moderate flow conditions in the Coopers Creek. The hydraulic assessment as part of the ecological field verification of the Coopers Creek WSP recommended that in order to maintain fundamental ecosystem health the very low flow CTP of 10 ML/d is enough. This implies that the CTP is lowered to this level from its current value of 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in October to June (OJ) as specified in the WSP. Objectives While undertaking the field verification the Minister is required to prepare a report covering a number of aspects including the socio-economic impacts of recommended changes to the flow rules. This report is prepared to identify and assess the economic impacts of both out of court settlement and recommendations of the field verification. In specific the report has assessed the economic impacts of the following two options: 1. Option 1 - Out of Court Settlement: Economic assessment of the provisions as given in the WSP i.e. raising very low flow CTP from its current value of 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in October to June (OJ) to 31 ML/d in JAS and 17 ML/d in OJ; and 2. Option 2 DWE Field Verification: Economic assessment of lowering the very low flow CTP to 10 ML/d in all months from its current value of 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ as specified in the WSP. The results of this study will contribute to the WSP review panel s deliberations while making final recommendations to the changes in the CTP level. 2 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

10 2. Methodology This section presents a methodological framework which is simple, relevant and cost effective, to undertake the socio-economic impact assessment of the proposed recommendations of the field verification. This is a staged process involving 6 steps (Figure 1). The socio-economic assessment guidelines for river, groundwater and water management committees as developed by the Independent Advisory Committee on Socio-economic Analysis (IACSEA 1998) and NSW Treasury guidelines for economic evaluation have been followed at every stage of this assessment process. The following provides a brief description of the various stages of the methodology adopted for impact assessment. Step 1: Hydrological Changes: This requires relevant information regarding the recommendations that are based on the hydrological and ecological assessment. This step links the ecological, hydrological and socio-economic assessment. Without such information the socio-economic assessment can not progress. Step 2: Profile of water use and users: This involves collection of information from various sources including Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE), various state government departments, local knowledge and other scientific studies. A dedicated survey of irrigators was undertaken in 2008 to gather precise information for this study. This information was used to provide background to the catchment in terms of social, economic and water use. This is provided in chapter 3. This stage also includes identification of the key stakeholders. Step 3 Initial assessments of recommended changes: The information from the hydrology models such as flow duration curves, number of days when flows do not meet the crop water requirement and critical moisture stress periods were used to compare the change in water availability between with and without the options as recommended by the field verification process. In this analysis the without option is represented by the provisions for years 1-5 of the pre amendment WSP, i.e. the values for Cease To Pump (CTP) are: 20 ML per day for the months of JAS, and 14 ML per day all other months i.e. OJ The analysis deals with two with options for years 6-10 of the pre amendment WSP. These are: 1. as proposed by the original WSP: raising the CTP to 31 ML per day for the months of JAS, and raising the CTP to 17 ML per day for the months of OJ. 2. as proposed by the field verification process: lowering the CTP to 10 ML per day for both Upper and Lower Coopers Creek for all months. A team consisting of agency specialists including economists, hydrologists, ecologists, regional staff and other agency staff undertook a preliminary assessment of the potential change to water availability under the recommended options. The team determined a simple threshold level of change that will trigger requirement for further assessment. The following were considered while identifying the threshold levels: Magnitude and significance of the recommended scientific changes, Structure of the regional economy, and 3 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

11 Potential social and economic changes resulting from change in water availability. The recommended changes were compared against these threshold levels. If the recommended changes are considered to be greater than these threshold level changes, further analysis will be required. Targeted stakeholder consultation may be undertaken in the case where no further assessment is required. Step 4: Identify Impacts: Once it has been determined that the recommended changes are above a minimum threshold level and require detailed assessment, it will involve a detailed study starting with identification of the impacts. This process involves the following two phases: Phase 1: Stakeholders concerns will be considered. If such information is not readily available this may require scoping interview and or focus group meetings to identify their concerns, and Phase 2: interviewing specialists for various areas including economics, hydrology, policy, ecology and other regional staff from various government agencies. The main purpose of this step is to identify all potential positive and negative social and economic impacts on the key stakeholders and the community. Step 5: Assessing Impacts: Using the IACSEA guidelines the assessment of impacts involves: 1. Data and its sources: This involves collecting detailed data relating to hydrological, economic and social aspects from all possible sources. 2. Clearly state key assumptions: These assumptions are concerned with the state of nature on which the science, economics, and social analyses are based. 3. Quality assurance principles: The following quality assurance principles will be incorporated in the analysis: Focus group assessment on important issues, Short term, long term and cumulative impacts, Equity including identification of winners and losers, and Sensitivity analysis where risk is significant. 4. Appropriate methods and techniques; Bio-economic models are available that use both hydrological and economic data. Purpose specific bio-economic models may be built to assess the impact of the proposed hydrological changes. The method use will produce the results at the appropriate level of scale, cost and time, addressing the major objectives. Some of the examples of the models include cost benefit analysis, optimisation techniques and on farm models. Step 6: Impact management strategies: In some cases there would be a need to develop impact management strategies that will help to minimise the negative impacts and enhance the positive impacts. Locally developed and resourced impact management strategies are often the most effective. A team of specialists from various areas will work closely with the stakeholders to develop these mitigating strategies. Targeted key stakeholders will be consulted on these strategies. 4 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

12 Figure 1: Outline of socio-economic assessment 5 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

13 3. Background The Coopers Creek catchment is located north-east of Lismore in the northern portion of the Richmond River catchment (Figure 2) in north eastern NSW. It is typical of coastal upland catchments in the region, and covers an area of around 227 km² with a total stream length of 70 km. The catchment has 106 licensees with 5,939 ML of entitlement. The Coopers Creek catchment receives significant annual rainfall. Average annual rainfall ranges from 1800 mm in the upper part of the catchment to 1200 mm in the lower rural agricultural zone. Irrigation is, however, important to many farms because rainfall is concentrated in the summer and autumn months, while pasture water demand peaks during the usually dry spring period. Considering the out of court settlement, the recent amendments to the WSP have established two management zones in the catchment. These zones are: Upper Coopers Creek management zone: It includes all creeks and rivers flowing into and including Coopers Creek upstream of the junction of Benny s Creek and Coopers Creek. There are 497 megalitres of unregulated access license share in the Upper catchment held by 18 licensees. This zone is dominated by orchard production. Lower Coopers Creek management zone: This zone is the remainder of the water source. There are 5,442 megalitres of unregulated access license share in the Lower catchment held by 88 licensees. This zone is dominated by dairy production with some orchard production. In both management zones 80 % of the entitlement shares are held by 40% of license holders. Population Population of Coopers Creek WSP area, aggregated from the Collection Districts (CD, which consists of approximately 225 households) data available in Population and Housing Census 2006, with 11,298 in 2006 and 1.7% of the population being indigenous (Table 1). The proportion of indigenous population in this WSP area is less than the NSW average and in the All Unregulated WSP Areas. Table 1 Population in Coopers Creek WSP Area 2006 Coopers Creek WSP Area All Unregulated WSP Area NSW Total Population 11, ,156 6,549,075 % Indigenous Population 1.7% 3.4% 2.1% Source: ABS Population and Housing Census NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

14 Figure 2: Map of Coopers Creek WSP area Doon Doon Coopers Creek Water Source Mullumbimby Upper Coopers Creek Management Zone Dunoon Bangalow Lower Coopers Creek Management Zone Co o pers Creek Clunes Byron SLA Lismore SLA Lismore Wilson River Legend Richmond River Catchment Coopers Creek Surface Water Source Statistical Local Area Named Streams Towns { Kilometers Alstonville Prepared by: Economics Team 7 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

15 Employment The Coopers Creek WSP area has a total labour force of 5,349 with an unemployment rate of 7.2%, which is higher than that of NSW and All Unregulated WSP Areas (Table 2). The proportion of the persons employed in agriculture, forestry and fisheries in the Coopers Creek WSP area was 12.9%, lower than All Unregulated WSP Areas but nearly 5 times higher than the NSW average. Table 2 Total Labour Force, Unemployment and Employment in Selected Sectors in Coopers Creek 2006 Coopers Creek WSP Area All Unregulated WSP Area NSW Total Labour Force 5,349 82,848 3,092,610 % Unemployed 7.2% 5.9% 5.9% % Employed in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 12.9% 16.8% 2.7% % Employed in Mining 0.2% 1.0% 0.7% % Employed in Manufacturing 5.5% 7.3% 9.6% % Employed in Wholesale Trade 3.3% 3.0% 4.7% % Employed Retail Trade 10.5% 10.4% 11.1% Source: ABS Population and Housing Census 2006 Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) The average values of the SEIFA 1 indexes (aggregated from CD level information) for the Coopers Creek WSP collection districts (CD) are presented along with those of All Unregulated WSP Area CDs and NSW State as a whole in Table 3. The values of these indexes are relative and a value higher than 1,000 would generally indicate people living in the area are relatively better off as compared to the NSW average. All of these index scores for Coopers Creek are over 1,000 indicating that in general the Coopers Creek water source areas are relatively better off as compared to NSW and the All Unregulated WSP Areas average.. Table 3 Coopers Creek WSP Socio-Economic Indexes for Area (SEIFA), 2006 Coopers Creek WSP Area All Unregulated WSP Area NSW Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage 1, ,012 Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage 1,022 1,004 1,000 Index of Economic Resources 1,005 1,007 1,004 Index of Education and Occupation 1,034 1,002 1,007 Source: ABS Population and Housing Census 2006 The distribution of the value of advantage and disadvantage index indicates that the people living in the mid-east part of the water source have slightly higher access to economic resources and on average would have higher education and skills as compared to the other parts of the water source (Figure 3). 1 ABS 2006, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas. 8 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

16 Figure 3: Advantage and Disadvantage Index in Coopers Creek Water Source, 2006 Data: Australian Bureau of Statistics Census 2006 Map prepared by the Socio-economics Team, DWE, Crops There are a number of sources of data on irrigated crops grown in the Coopers Creek WSP area. ABS Agricultural Census 2006 The main source of data is the ABS Agricultural Census However, at this stage ABS agricultural data is only available at the Statistical Local Area (SLA) level. The boundary of Coopers Creek WSP comprises small areas of Byron and Lismore SLAs (Figure 2). As such it would be inappropriate to use the SLA level data to represent the boundaries of the Coopers Creek WSP. DWE Irrigation Licence Survey 2008 In the absence of ABS Agriculture Census 2006 data at an appropriate scale, a dedicated survey of all Coopers Creek irrigation licence holders in 2008 was undertaken by DWE. A 4 page questionnaire was mailed out to all 92 licence holders in June 2008 with a follow up letter in August 2008 (Appendix 3). The Coopers Creek Irrigation Licences Survey 2008 collected data from a sample of the 108 irrigation licence holders in the Coopers Creek WSP area. Table 4 shows there were 60 (65%) responses received that covered 71 (66%) irrigation licences for 3157 (53%) shares in the water source. The detailed results of the survey are reported in Appendix 1. 9 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

17 Table 4 Coopers Creek Irrigation License Survey 2008 structural components. Units Licences License Holders Entitlement a) Coopers Creek Irrigators number b) Survey Respondents Units Upper CC Lower CC Total CC % Coverage Licences number % Licence holders number % Entitlement ML % Farm area ha Source: Coopers Creek Irrigation Licences Survey 2008 Using the proportion of entitlements (53%) covered by the sample respondents as a basis, the study estimated a total irrigated area in Cooper Creek WSP of around 500 ha during (Table 5). Table 5 Irrigated Crop Area 2008 Crop type Sample Area Irrigated (Ha) Estimated Irrigated Area (Ha) Winter Pasture Summer Pasture Orchard Other 4 8 Total Source: Coopers Creek Irrigation Licences Survey 2008 Land Use data 2005 The cropping information presented in the previous sections does not indicate the distribution of irrigated area. DWE Land use data was used to provide an indication of the distribution of the cropped area within the Coopers Creek catchment. Figure 4 presents this distribution. It is clearly evident from this figure that most of the irrigated pasture is within the Lower Coopers Creek management zone of the plan. However, it is not possible to determine the extent of irrigated horticulture from this data source. 10 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

18 Figure 4: Coopers Creek Water Source Land use Data 2006 DECC land use data 2006 Map prepared by the Socio-economics Team, DWE 11 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

19 4. Hydrological changes This report provides assessment of the following two options: Option 1 - Out of Court Settlement: Assessment of the provisions as given in the pre amendment WSP i.e. raising very low flow CTP from its current value of 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ to 31 ML/d in JAS and 17 ML/d in OJ; and Option 2 - Field Verification: The hydraulic assessment as part of the ecological field verification of the Coopers Creek WSP, which has recommended that in order to maintain fundamental ecosystem health the very low flow CTP of 10 ML/d is enough. This implies that the CTP is lowered to this level from its current value of 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ as specified in the WSP. Changes in Water Availability The following analysis was conducted using IQQM Modelled data based on the 114 year period 1892 to The analysis of hydrology data provides some understanding of change in water availability to the water users under various options. The water availability to the irrigators in Coopers Creek is affected by the rules specified in the WSP dealing with CTP conditions. This section provides an assessment of changes in CTP and its implication for water availability under different options. Option 1: Out of Court Settlement Probability Analysis: The water flow rates at Greengate probability analysis by month are presented in Table 6. The analysis of the Out of Court Settlement option compares the IQQM modelled outcome for the cases where CTP levels are set at 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ (light grey in Table 6) with those foreshadowed in the Plan (31 ML/d JAS and 17 ML/d OJ, dark grey in Table 6 and as indicated by the arrows). Table 6 Water flow rate at Greengate probability analysis by month. ML/day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All_Gg Change Source: DWE IQQM modelling results The probability of flows exceeding 20ML/day during the months of July, August and September are 100%, 99% and 98% respectively. The analysis indicates that the probability of the flow exceeding 31 ML/day during these months will decrease to 99%, 96% and 91% respectively. The change in probability of flows exceeding the levels as specified by the CTP remains the same in the months of April, May and June. The largest decline of 7% is observed in the month of September followed by a 3% decline during August and December. This shows that crops having September, August and December as critical months for water requirements would be impacted under this option and therefore further analysis of event timing and their duration is required. Event Analysis: 12 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

20 The IQQM provides detail of number of events when the crop water requirement is not met. This provides additional information that reflects change in water availability and the extent of the impact. Table 7 indicates that there is a net impact of an additional 10 events due to the implementation of this option over the 114 years of data. However, this is not a complete picture of the impact. Some of the events may have been short duration events in the first case but when the CTP was increased, two or three events may have merged into one event of longer duration and new events may have occurred where there was no event previously. A closer look at the monthly change is required to appreciate the difference. The number of events increased from 4 to 15 in July while the number of events decreased in October from 58 to 50. To get a more detailed understanding we will need to look at the duration of the events. Table 7: Number of events occurring between 1892 and 2006 by month. Total No of Events Change in Events Month CTP of 20 JAS and 14 Other months CTP of 31 JAS and 17 Other months Difference No of Events January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Source: DWE IQQM modelling results Duration of events: To evaluate the socio-economic impacts it is important to identify the timing and duration of the events when crop water requirement is not met. This will help to identify the magnitude of damages to the crops grown in the Coopers Creek. This data is finally used in undertaking the socio-economic impact assessment of the option under consideration. Table 8 presents the monthly difference (between CTPs of 20 JAS & 14 OJ and CTPs of 31 JAS & 17 OJ) in number of continuous days when crop water requirement is not met. The information is presented in 5 events duration classes of 5 days up to 30 days and above. This table is constructed based on the information presented in Appendix Tables 7 and 8. The analysis of this table indicates that there would be significant additional long duration events occurring in the months of June through to November (as indicated by shaded cells in the table). Some of the negative change entries in the table do not indicate a reduction in duration of events but rather are accounted for by an increase in longer duration events. For example there is one less days event in the month of June under higher CTPs. This period has been included as a part of a longer event registered as an addition days event. 13 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

21 Table 8: Monthly difference in number of continuous days when crop water requirement is not met over 114 years: Difference in number of continuous days when crop water requirement is not met Month Up to 5 Days 6-10 Days Days Days Above 30 Days Total January February March April May June July August September October November December Total Source: DWE IQQM modelling results The analysis of hydrological information presented above for option 1 indicates that there would be additional instances when the water users will not be able to extract water. This is likely to have significant negative socio-economic impacts requiring detailed analysis, which is presented in Chapter 5. Option 2: DWE Field Verification The analysis of the recommendations of the field verification report compares the monthly flow duration probabilities at Greengate as presented in Table 9. This comparison considered the IQQM modelled outcome for the case where CTP levels are set at 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ (light grey in Table 9) with those recommended in the Ecological Field Verification Report (10 ML/d in all months, dark grey in the table and as indicated by the arrows). Table 9 Water Flow Rate at Greengate probability analysis by month. ML/day Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec All_Gg Change Source: DWE IQQM modelling results The probability of flows exceeding 20ML/day during the months of July, August and September are 100%, 99% and 98% respectively. The analysis indicates that the probability of the flow exceeding 10 ML/day will increase to 100% for these months. The change in probability of flows exceeding the levels as specified by the CTP remains same in the months of March, April, May and June. The largest increase of 4% is observed in the month of January followed by 3% increase during December. 14 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

22 This means that the water users will have at least the same or greater access to water resulting from moving to a CTP of 10 ML per day under this option. This is likely to have positive socio-economic impacts on the water users. Consistent with the methodology presented in Chapter 2, this requires no further analysis. Irrigation Water Requirements The monthly irrigation water requirement estimates along with the probability of flows exceeding CTP levels, number and duration of events are needed for estimating the economic impacts of changing CTP levels. Such data for Coopers Creek were not available because there are no meters on the unregulated systems and no other source of data that can provide this information. This information was, however, collected under the Coopers Creek Irrigation Licences Survey 2008 to provide an estimate. Figure 5 indicates that the winter and summer pastures and orchard crop demand for water in the WSP area is at a steady low level (less than 5% per month) during January to May, then gradually increases through to a maximum in September through to December. The critical months have been identified using this information where water extraction is over 10% of the total annual water requirement for a particular crop. For instance, the months of November and December are critical months for Orchards. These monthly demand estimates as represented by the extractions, are consistent with an earlier socio-economic study investigating the impacts of flow sharing rules on dairy farms in Coopers Creek sub-catchment (NSW Agriculture 2002). Figure 5: Percent Irrigation extraction by month by crop % 25% 20% Winter Pasture Summer Pasture Orchard Other 15% 10% 5% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Source: Coopers Creek Irrigation Licenses Survey NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

23 5. Socio-economic Impacts This section deals with detailed analysis for option 1. The analysis presented in chapter 4 of this report indicated that there is a need to undertake detailed analysis of the economic implications of changing the CTP levels for option 1. The analysis of probabilities of flow rates at Greengate gauge for the option 2 indicates that under this option the water users will have more opportunities to extract water. It is highly likely that the water users will either have positive impacts or no impact on their irrigated production. Consistent with the methodology presented in Chapter 2, no further analysis is undertaken for option 2. Assumptions and Data This section provides detail of the general and crop production assumptions along with data used in the analysis of socio-economic impacts. General Assumptions The economic impacts resulting from the recommended changes to the very low flow conditions will depend on the change in opportunities for the irrigators to access water. The analysis assumes that: Coopers Creek as a single farm: this assumption will mean that the estimated impacts will be evenly distributed amongst all irrigators. However, in reality the impacts may vary between irrigators depending on their location and timing of irrigation. Once the flows are above CTP levels and irrigators are able to extract water, they will extract enough water that meets their requirements. This may not hold true if the infrastructure of the irrigators is insufficient to extract enough water to meet their demand within the duration when the extraction is allowed. This will mean that the results presented here may be underestimated and some individual irrigators may face higher impacts. Critical month for crop water requirement are assumed to be the month when water used during the month on a particular crop is more than 10% of its total water requirement as discussed in chapter 4. Crop Production Assumptions Advice from the specialists such as the District Agronomist and other local knowledge was used to estimate the potential impacts on the crops production. Table 10 presents the assumptions used in the analysis. For the purpose of evaluation, general crop categories have been replaced with specific representative enterprises as mentioned in column 2 of this table. The assumed percent losses apply to annual production estimates for all crops except Other Nursery, where losses apply to monthly production. The duration of continuous CTP days will impact the crop production differently. In brief it is assumed that: Less than or equal to five continuous CTP days will have no impact except winter pasture; Impacts for 6 to 30 and above continuous days of CTP as specified in table below; and Nurseries will suffer total loss in monthly production over 11 continuous CTP days. 16 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

24 Table 10: Assumptions to link changes in continuous number of CTP and impacts on crops Crop Representative Enterprise Up to 5 Days 6-10 Days Days Days Above 30 Days Winter Pasture Summer Pasture Rye Grass 10% 25% 50% 75% 80% Kikuyu Nil 5% 30% 50% 80% Orchard Macadamia Nil 46% 46% 46% 46% Other Nursery Nil 50% 100% 100% 100% Source: Per comm. Kerry Moore, District Agronomist, NSW DPI, Kyogle and Per Comm. Col Peak, Irrigation Consultant, Alstonville. Production and Value Data The gross value of production for various enterprises has been compiled from various sources in Table 11. The estimates of gross value have been inflated by the relevant Consumer Price Index. Table 11: Data Used to Estimate the Impacts Crop type Unit Produ ction per Ha Source Gross Value ($/Unit) Source Gross Value of Production ($/Ha) Winter Pasture Summer Pasture tonne 6.55 NSW Ag 2002 $ NSW Ag 2002 tonne 6.55 NSW Ag 2002 $ NSW Ag 2002 $ 1,752 $ 1,752 Orchard Kg 456 Per Comm.: N. Sutherland, CC Irrigator survey respondent $ 3.97 DWE Irrigation Survey 2006 $ 1,811 Other Plant Number 20,000 DWE Irrigation Survey 2006 $ 2.14 DWE Irrigation Survey 2006 $ 42,701 Impacts of changes in continuous number of CTP days The section deals with estimating the impact of changes in continuous number of CTP days. The economic impacts were calculated for very low flow CTP of 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ & 31 ML/d in JAS and 17 ML/d in OJ. The differences between economic impacts of these two scenarios are presented for the critical months by crop type in Table 12. While undertaking this analysis any double counting was excluded. The impacts presented in this table are aggregate impacts over 114 years for which the hydrology data was available. The analysis suggests that increasing the CTP level to 31 ML/d in JAS and 17 ML/d in OJ would have significant negative economic impacts for the irrigators. The total economic impacts over 114 year period are estimated at $7.1 million. Of these winter pastures bear the greatest impacts of $4.7 million over 114 years. The biggest monthly losses are recorded for the winter pasture growers during the month of September ($1.7 million over 114 year period). It should be noted that in some cases the number of continuous CTP with events under Option 1 are either the same or less as compared to the without case. For example, October is a critical month for winter pasture yet there is no economic impact recognised because the number of CTP events in the with case was either the same or less compared to the without case (Appendix 2). 17 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

25 Table 12: Estimated Impacts of Changing CTP to 31 ML/day JAS and 17 ML/day OJ Total over 114 Years Month Winter Pasture Summer Pasture Orchard Other Critical Month* Impact ($'000) Critical Month* Impact ($'000) Critical Month* Impact ($'000) Critical Month* Impact ($'000) Grand Total ($'000) January 3% $0 6% $0 6% $0 15% $0 $0 February 2% $0 3% $0 4% $0 15% $0 $0 March 1% $0 3% $0 4% $0 9% $0 $0 April 4% $0 5% $0 4% $0 4% $0 $0 May 2% $0 2% $0 4% $0 3% $0 $0 June 10% $314 5% $0 4% $0 3% $0 $314 July 11% $1,276 11% $517 3% $0 3% $0 $1,793 August 14% $850 11% $388 6% $0 5% $0 $1,238 September 18% $1,719 15% $787 5% $0 4% $0 $2,506 October 17% $0 15% $0 8% $0 11% $0 $0 November 12% $573 12% $248 28% $395 15% $36 $1,251 December 7% $0 12% $0 26% $0 15% $0 $0 Total $4,733 $1,940 $395 $36 $7,103 * Critical month: Where monthly extraction is greater than 10% of annual extraction To provide a clearer understanding of the economic impacts of increasing CTP level, average annual impacts are presented in Table 13. It is estimated that 500 ha of irrigated agriculture would suffer an average annual impact of $62,000 representing 5.1% of gross value of irrigated production in the region. The major impacts would be borne by the winter pasture growers (11.2%) followed by summer pasture growers (7.9%). These crops are predominantly used for dairy industry in this region. The dairy industry will therefore carry the burden of these impacts. Table 13: Estimated Average Annual Impact Crop type Estimated Irrigated Area (Ha) Gross Value of Irrigated Production ($'000) Average Annual Impact ($'000) % Impact Winter Pasture 211 $370 $ % Summer Pasture 123 $216 $17 7.9% Orchard 158 $286 $3 1.2% Other 8 $342 $0 0.1% Total 500 $1,213 $62 5.1% The impact results presented above are in the form that is evenly distributed over the years. However, in reality some years would be unaffected whereas the others may register longer duration and or multiple additional CTP events. The economic impacts during the unaffected years will be minimal while the impacts in the affected years would be much higher than the averages presented here. Small dairy businesses may not have sufficient reserve to survive the economic pressure induced by such events. This will have flow on social impacts for families and the community at large. 18 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009

26 Potential Regional Impacts There will be flow-on impacts for the whole regional economy of Coopers Creek as a result of the impacts presented in the section above. No specific regional economic model was developed to assess the flow-on impacts due to resource, time and budget constraints. The results of a previous study (ACIL Consulting 2002) undertaken to assess the state-wide economic impacts of the draft water sharing plans have been used to provide some indicative estimates of the regional impacts. The ACIL study used a regional flow on multiplier for gross output of 2.0. Further, the ACIL study estimated that there would be a loss of one job for a loss of every $100,000 from the gross output of the regional economy. These multipliers were used to estimate the potential regional impacts resulting from changing the very low flow CTP of 20 ML/d in JAS and 14 ML/d in OJ to 31 ML/d in JAS and 17 ML/d in OJ. The regional impacts as an annual average reduction in the gross output would be in the order of $124,000 ($62,000 x 2) and the loss of 1 full time equivalent job per year from the Coopers Creek economy. Potential development The current extent of development of the irrigation licenses in the Coopers Creek Water Source has been identified at 500 ha (Table 5). The estimated impacts are based on the current water use on this 500 ha. The results of the Coopers Creek Irrigation Licenses Survey 2008 indicated that there is an additional 380 Ha (203 x 53% from Appendix Table 3) that is currently developed for irrigation but is not being irrigated at present. Any activation of this area and new irrigation developments will put further pressure on the existing irrigators access to the available water. This will have further negative implications for the currently active irrigators. Irrigators management response The dedicated survey of all Coopers Creek licence holders undertaken for the purpose of this study asked the irrigators about their management strategies in response to the proposed changes in the CTP levels. The irrigators were asked: How will the proposed changes to CTP level affect the way you manage your water use: in July, August & September, and in October to June The results of the survey responses are presented in Table 14. About one third of the respondent irrigators would not change the way they have been using the irrigation water on their farms; while 28% and 32% of the respondents said that they would apply less water on per hectare basis during the months of JAS and OJ respectively. A further 16% and 8% said that they would reduce the area under irrigated crops during JAS and OJ months. 19 NSW Department of Water and Energy, July 2009