Farm Level Effects of On‐Farm Irrigation Infrastructure Programs in the Southern Murray–Darling Basin

Hughes, Neal; Donoghoe, Manannan; Whittle, Linden

doi:10.1111/1467-8462.12396

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of climate‐induced changes in relative HPWR and LPWR (both water yield and reliability) highly depends on the maturity of water markets, including both water trading and carryover mechanisms (Brennan, 2006; Freebairn & Quiggin, 2006; Hughes, 2015; Hughes et al., 2023; Young & McColl, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, our analysis does not account for user carryover (where some portion of the allocated water right is held in storage). In this case, water users may alter their carryover behavior and control the effective yield and reliability of water rights to mediate the effects of climate change (Brennan, 2010; Hughes et al., 2023). For more general limitations of the Gould‐Dincer method, please refer to McMahon et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Then, these water rights can help allocate limited water resources to achieve the highest market value in periods of shortage. Second, dual‐priority water systems provide a simple and quick way to achieve efficient water resource allocation in areas where there is no water market (trade or carryover, Hughes, 2015; Hughes et al., 2023) or water markets are at an early stage of development (Brennan, 2006; Freebairn & Quiggin, 2006; Young & McColl, 2002). For example, implementing dual‐priority water systems can mitigate the necessity for extensive water trading between users, especially when trade is constrained or costly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Yield of “Dual‐Priority” Water Rights in Carryover Systems at Catchment Scale

Ren,

Stewardson,

Peel

et al. 2024

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Future water availability is threatened by changes in both climate and water demand. Water rights with differing priorities are an important foundation of demand‐side tools (e.g., buyback, water pricing, and water market) to improve water use efficiency and reduce water scarcity, especially in highly regulated river systems. This paper assesses the impact of climate change on water yields from carryover storage with dual‐priority (high/low) water rights allocation systems using a simple and rapid analytical method. The method characterizes reservoir inflows using readily available flow characteristics (annual mean and Cv). We evaluate this method against a water resource simulation model in the Goulburn River basin, Australia. In general, our analytical “dual‐priority” Gould‐Dincer model reproduces water allocation estimates from the simulation model. We further demonstrate this method across 12 Australian catchments to investigate the climate change impact on “dual‐priority” water rights yield at the catchment scale. The hydrological projections show decreasing mean annual runoff and increasing annual runoff variability, except for some catchments in northern Australia. Water yield for high‐priority water rights (HPWRs) and low‐priority water rights (LPWRs) decreases for most catchments except for some catchments in northern Australia. South Dandalup in the 2070s (RCP8.5) shows the largest percentage decrease in HPWR and LPWR yield (about −53.53% and −56.81%, respectively). Our results show that changes in mean annual inflow have a more significant influence on water yield of HPWR and LPWR than Cv. Overall, the simple method provides a rapid assessment of water yields with “dual‐priority” water rights which is applicable across multiple sites at regional or even global scale.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Yield of “Dual‐Priority” Water Rights in Carryover Systems at Catchment Scale

Ren,

Stewardson,

Peel

et al. 2024

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This contributes to the market efficiency in allocating scarce water resources (Young & Macdonald, 2001). Nevertheless, there are existing limitations on interregional water trading in allocations, such as the predetermined limits applied between specific trading zones (Hughes et al., 2023). In cases of binding restrictions on interregional trading of allocations, price differentials emerge between regions (Hughes et al., 2023).…”

Section: Study Area and Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Market Functionality: Evidence From the Australian Experience

Zhao,

Ancev,

Vervoort

2024

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Market approaches to natural resource management have gained popularity over the last few decades. This study provides an encompassing analysis of the water market in the southern Murray‐Darling Basin (sMDB), Australia, in order to evaluate its performance and the importance of having various types of water rights traded in the market. We do so by investigating a set of market attributes, including price and price volatility, traded volume, number and the average size of transactions, and net import across a number of trading zones in the southern Murray‐Darling Basin. Our findings show that the price mechanism in the water market functions as intended, as the water prices signal the level of scarcity and reflect value that can be derived from water resources. Other factors like crop structure and institutional settings also play important roles in explaining differences in water market outcomes across the considered trading zones within the sMDB market. Overall, our findings document that water markets serve well their fundamental purpose in water resource management to allocate water toward its economically‐highest‐valued uses, and that various types of water rights traded in the market are meeting heterogenous needs of market participants in managing water supply and use.

show abstract

“…Water productivity (irrigation receipts per Ml of water) of participating farmers is reported [55] to have increased by 25%, as did water demand; with water trade sufficient to explain additional water use. As shown in Figure 4, it is difficult to separate any impacts from more general IE activities from the IE program alone.…”

Section: Uncertainty With Respect To Implementation and Impact On Proposed Savingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Impact of Irrigation Efficiency Projects on Return Flows in the South-Eastern Murray–Darling Basin, Australia

Walker

Home

Wang

et al. 2021

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving irrigation efficiency (IE) is an approach used globally to help meet competing demands for water and facilitate reallocation of water between sectors. In the Murray–Darling Basin in Australia, the Australian government has invested heavily in IE projects to recover water for the environment. However, this approach has been seriously questioned, out of concerns that improved IE would reduce irrigation return flows to rivers and therefore offset water recovery. In this study, we use a water balance model to assess the impact of the IE projects on return flows and highlight sensitivities and uncertainties. The model enables the impact on return flows to be assessed on specific IE projects and regional characteristics. Overall, reductions in return flows are estimated to be less than 20% of the total proposed IE savings. The history of IE in the southern MDB has meant that most of the current reductions are in ground return flows. Our estimate is much lower than two previous studies, mainly due to different assumptions being used on groundwater connectivity between irrigation areas and major streams. While the IE projects significantly reduce seepage to groundwater (with off-farm and on-farm projects reducing seepage by 19% and 53% of total savings respectively), not all seepage reductions will translate to a reduction in ground return flows to rivers. A lower estimate is consistent with existing monitoring and groundwater modeling studies. In this paper, the study results are discussed in a broader context of impacts of IE projects on volumes and salinity of streams and groundwater resources.

show abstract

Farm Level Effects of On‐Farm Irrigation Infrastructure Programs in the Southern Murray–Darling Basin

Cited by 6 publications

References 30 publications

Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Yield of “Dual‐Priority” Water Rights in Carryover Systems at Catchment Scale

Assessing Climate Change Impacts on Yield of “Dual‐Priority” Water Rights in Carryover Systems at Catchment Scale

Water Market Functionality: Evidence From the Australian Experience

Assessing the Impact of Irrigation Efficiency Projects on Return Flows in the South-Eastern Murray–Darling Basin, Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About