This is the second special issue prepared on behalf of the International Water Resources Association (IWRA) under the aegis of its Science, Technology and Publications Committee. The first, we hope...
Irrigation has been practised for some 6,000 or 7,000 years in various parts of the world. When sedentary farming emerged in areas along or near major rivers in the Fertile Crescent, the Indus Valley and China, irrigation soon followed to sustain food production through dry periods. Many of the areas suitable for irrigation were also prone to fl ooding and therefore canals and other structures were needed to supply water for irrigation and to provide drainage during fl oods. Such structures were well beyond individual farmers and more complex societies therefore emerged. The term sustainability was not known to these fi rst irrigators. They experimented, observed, learned, changed and adapted to their physical environment and changing climate. In some instances, the physical conditions were not suitable for intensive irrigation practices. Hence, for a number of reasons such as salinization, siltation, soil erosion and deforestation some hydraulic societies ceased to exist, while in other instances irrigation continued for millennia until irrigation intensifi ed due to increased population pressure, resulting in changing technologies and practices. In other instances, irrigation has continued in the same location until today. This chapter explores these experiences from around the world and try to draw lessons for today’s irrigation communities. We fithat decentralizing is better than centralizing, diversity is better than uniformity and local self-ingenuity and self-reliance yield superior results. If exogenous technologies or knowledge are applied, it should be in conjunction with, and adapted to, local conditions, knowledge and cultures.
The Murray Darling Basin (MDB) is central to Australian agricultural production and therefore to the sustainability of the rural communities in its catchments. Excessive water extraction from the MDB is threatening its ecology, however. Water markets are a policy instrument designed to protect the river system. The premise is that water markets will facilitate structural adjustment in the agricultural sector by directing water away from inefficient users who produce low-value commodities to those who use water parsimoniously and who produce commodities with high commercial returns. Little is known, however, about how communities regard the operation of water markets. This paper reports the concerns of residents of one community that has seen a significant volume of its water traded away. While residents concede water trading has economic benefits for individuals, they fear that it erodes the long-term sustainability of their community. Water trading, they believe, will see declining numbers of family farms and will thus accentuate population loss. This, in turn, they argue lead to a contraction of the local economy, leading to diminishing employment opportunities. These factors in turn lead to a weakening of the social fabric of the community. Population loss, according to our respondents, makes it harder for local clubs and organisations to function effectively, making the community less viable in the long-term. The secondary data available do not offer unequivocal support for these views. However, more recent census data is required to adequately assess the accuracy of community members' viewpoints.
Governments in Australia are purchasing water entitlements to secure water for environmental benefit, but entitlements generate an allocation profile that does not correspond fully to environmental flow requirements. Therefore, how environmental managers will operate to deliver small and medium‐sized inundation environmental flows remains uncertain. To assist environmental managers with the supply of inundation flows at variable times, it has been suggested that allocation trade be incorporated into efforts aimed at securing water. This paper provides some qualitative and quantitative perspective on what influences southern Murray–Darling Basin irrigators to trade allocation water at specific times across and within seasons using a market transaction framework. The results suggest that while irrigators now have access to greater risk‐management options, environmental managers should consider the possible impact of institutional change before intervening in traditional market activity. The findings may help improve the design of intervention strategies to minimise possible market intervention impacts and strategic behaviour.
Increased water scarcity causes conflict over water use in many jurisdictions. There is an increased demand for leaving more water in the rivers to support a healthy environment and secure good water quality for human consumption and economic use and a continued increase in the need to extract more water. This has caused governments to support desperate solutions. In some countries such as China and India supply is still being expanded causing both local and global opposition and highlighting the need to ensure that water is being used for inclusive growth. In other countries increasing supply is not a politically viable solution. In these countries governments are introducing new policies and instruments to encourage and facilitate a reallocation of water to secure new supply mainly to urban uses, but also a reallocation from extractive to non-extractive uses such as the environment and recreation. Such reallocation is associated with socioeconomic pain among existing water users and water dependent communities. In these instances the policy challenge is to design policies for inclusive sharing of the pain of achieving this reallocation. In both instances policy makers are struggling to balance the needs for water between economic, social and environmental users.
The presence of pharmaceutical wastes and pollutants in our water and broader natural environment is a wicked problem. In response to growing pressures from changing demographics, climates, sectoral demand and other changes inherent in the earth's cycles, water managers must adapt the ways we manage water resources. Although the mainly concerns developing countries, China in particular, there are wicked water quality problems facing economies at all levels of development. Studies from UNEP on water quality guidelines for ecosystems, as well as by International Water Resources Association and IWA on water quality guidelines for different uses have started to improve knowledge in this area. The diversity of sources and types of pollutants, technologies involved, shareholders, and policies and regulations, render integrated water quality management both necessary and difficult. There is a massive untapped potential in matching water qualities to uses in different sectors.
ABSTRACTABSTRACTOver-allocation of water resources to irrigation, industry, and cities has severely impacted flow-dependent riverine ecosystems and led to growing interest in ways to restore water to the environment; one increasingly popular approach is water buybacks. This paper reviews US and Australian experiences in buying back water, focusing on the conditions which enable and inhibit environmental water acquisitions in each country. We also compare experiences with buyback efforts in fisheries, another natural resource sector. Lessons from these experiences provide important insights into how future water buyback programmes to acquire environmental water could be operated more effectively. The review suggests that the overall success of an environmental water buyback is likely to be enhanced by (1) legal and institutional settings which clearly define water rights and lower administrative and other barriers to water transfers, (2) non-governmental organizations and community groups which play a complementary role to government, (3) creation of a system that will fairly distribute future risk of water availability and provide choices for a variety of ways of obtaining water, and (4) efforts that minimize negative community impacts, thus helping to maximize irrigator participation.KEY WORDS: Buybacksenvironmental waterinstream flowsMurray–Darling basinwestern USAwater marketsfisheries AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to acknowledge Peter Söderbaum and two anonymous reviewers, whose helpful comments improved this paper. This research was funded by grants from the Australian-American Fulbright Commission and the Lois Roth Foundation, which enabled the lead author to spend a year researching in Australia. The research was also supported by a George Perkins Marsh Conservation Fellowship from Vermont Law School and an Australian Research Council linkage grant with partner organizations including the MDBA, Goulburn-Murray Water, NSW Department of Energy and Office of Water, Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, CSIRO, and University of Lethbridge, Canada.
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
