page title
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
Appendices
spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer
4 Irrigation infrastructure, management practices and intentions
The survey of irrigation farms in the Murray-Darling Basin included a set of questions on irrigation infrastructure, management practices and farmers’ intentions. A summary of the results from these questions is provided in this section.
Irrigation infrastructure
There is considerable diversity between irrigation farms across the Murray-Darling Basin in terms of area operated, the degree to which farms rely on irrigation, and the extent of on-farm irrigation infrastructure. On average, horticulture producers operated the smallest irrigation farms in terms of total area operated, while the largest irrigation farms were operated by broadacre producers (table 7). However, the area set up for irrigation as a proportion of area operated was generally highest on dairy farms, particularly in the Loddon–Avoca, Goulburn–Broken regions in Victoria, and the Murrumbidgee and Murray regions in New South Wales.

Reflecting average farm sizes, broadacre farms irrigated the largest area and horticulture farms irrigated the smallest area in 2006-07. Despite receiving lower than normal irrigation allocations, the area irrigated by dairy farmers in 2006-07 accounted for around 72 per cent of the area set up for irrigation on those farms. Horticulture producers irrigated around 70 per cent of the area set up for irrigation in 2006-07, while broadacre producers irrigated around 31 per cent of this area.

The use of on-farm irrigation infrastructure tends to differ across regions and industries depending on the type of water access licence held by irrigators, the method of irrigation, and the source of water. Reflecting these factors, more than half the broadacre farms in the Macquarie, Namoi and Loddon–Avoca regions used river pumps to source irrigation water. While groundwater is an important source of irrigation water in all regions, the proportion of farms using groundwater was highest in those regions in the northern half of the Murray-Darling Basin.

Around 30 per cent of irrigation farms had some form of on-farm irrigation water storage, ranging from water held in channels to large farm dams. On average, broadacre farms in the Condamine–Balonne had the largest farm water storages.
spacer
7 On-farm irrigation infrastructure, by industry, 2006-07
average per farm
 
dairy
broadacre
horticulture
spacer
Area operated
ha
273
1 147
127
Area set up for irrigation
ha
160
417
55
Area irrigated in 2006-07
ha
115
131
38
spacer
Percentage of farms with
River pumps
%
22
34
37
Groundwater pumps
%
36
28
18
On-farm irrigation storage
%
55
34
15
Tile drains
%
0
1
16
Other drainage reuse systems
%
48
38
6
spacer
8 Water trading, by industry, 2006-07
 
dairy
broadacre
horticulture
Murray-Darling
Basin
Percentage of farms trading
Permanent entitlements
%
3
1
4
2
Temporary irrigation water
%
31
20
23
23
spacer
Reasons for not buying water
Trade of water restricted
%
10
20
8
13
Price too high
%
42
40
10
25
No irrigation water available
%
12
17
8
13
Not interested
%
5
11
14
11
Extra water not required
%
17
19
46
31
Other
%
5
3
6
5
spacer
Reasons for not selling water
No or low allocation
%
8
20
7
12
Trade of water restricted
%
9
14
9
11
Used all water available
%
56
36
37
40
Prefer to carryover water
%
7
16
18
14
Not interested
%
8
5
18
12
Uncertainty of allocations
%
13
11
18
14
May have needed it
%
28
20
28
26
Water trading
Water trading involves either the transfer of ownership of permanent water entitlements or purchases/sales of irrigation water on a temporary basis, usually within an irrigation season. In 2006-07, an estimated 2 per cent of irrigation farms in the Murray-Darling Basin were involved in trade in permanent water entitlements (either buying or selling), while around a quarter of farms traded irrigation water (either buying or selling) on a temporary basis (table 8).

The most common reasons given for not buying temporary irrigation water across the Murray-Darling Basin were extra water was not required (primarily horticulture farms) and/or the price was too high. For broadacre and dairy farms, the most common reason given for not buying temporary water was prices were too high. The most common reason given for not selling temporary water was because farmers had used all the water they had available.
Irrigation management practices

As part of the survey, irrigators were asked to indicate the soil moisture measuring tools used in 2006-07, and the basis for their decisions on the timing of irrigation water applications (table 9).

Although a range of soil moisture measuring tools are used by irrigation farms across the Murray-Darling Basin, more than three-quarters of farmers assessed soil moisture based on their own observations. Horticulture farms made wider use of tools such as probes and tensiometers and placed less reliance on personal observations.

Farmers’ own observations and knowledge also formed the basis for decisions on the timing of irrigation water applications on around 90 per cent of irrigation farms in the Basin. Nevertheless, soil moisture measuring tools and weather forecasts were also commonly used, particularly on horticulture farms.
spacer
9 Irrigation management practices, by industry, 2006-07
percentage of farms
 
dairy
broadacre
horticulture
Murray- Darling
Basin
spacer
Measuring soil moisture using
Neutron probe % 0 4 11 6
Capacitance probe % 1 8 17 10
Tensiometers % 2 3 21 11
Soil auger/probe % 15 18 22 18
Heat probe % 2 2 1 1
Own observations % 94 87 71 80
Other % 3 2 10 6
spacer
Timing irrigation on the basis of
Soil moisture measuring tools % 28 30 58 41
Calendar based % 16 14 14 13
Weather forecast % 37 35 38 36
Own observations/knowledge % 96 90 87 90
Evaporation pan data % 2 4 6 5
Consultant recommendations % 5 12 8 9
Evapotranspiration estimate % 2 6 6 5
Farmers’ intentions
An estimated 16 per cent of irrigators across the Murray-Darling Basin indicated they were planning to increase the area irrigated over the next three years. These farms indicated they were planning to purchase more temporary water rather than buying permanent entitlements.
At the same time, around 11 per cent of irrigators indicated they were planning to reduce the area irrigated over the next three years, with around 8 per cent of irrigators indicating they were planning to sell some of their permanent entitlements, and 4 per cent planning to sell all permanent entitlements.

More than two-thirds of irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin indicated the uncertainty of water allocations as a major constraint against expanding the area irrigated. Other common reasons given were insufficient irrigation water, lack of financial resources, or no suitable land available.
spacer
10 Farmers’ intentions, by industry, 2006-07
percentage of farms
 
dairy
broadacre
horticulture
Murray-Darling
Basin
spacer
Plans for permanent entitlements:
Increase area irrigated
%
13
17
18
16
Sell some permanent entitlements
%
11
9
6
8
Sell all permanent entitlements
%
5
4
4
4
spacer
Intended changes in next three years:
Expand area irrigated
%
13
17
17
17
Reduce area irrigated
%
14
11
9
11
Buy more water
%
15
13
20
16
Sell more water
%
9
8
6
7
Increase on-farm water storage
%
9
11
4
7
Install water reuse system
%
10
7
1
5
Change  water application method
%
17
8
25
18
Other
%
30
19
17
20
No change
%
28
40
40
38
spacer
Constraints against expanding area irrigated:
No suitable  land available
%
13
15
30
22
Not viable
%
14
22
21
19
Lack of financial resources
%
21
25
18
21
Lack of time
%
1
7
13
9
Insufficient irrigation water
%
50
52
37
44
Uncertainty of water allocations
%
71
80
67
70
Other
%
20
6
12
12
spacer
Plans over next three years:
Spend more time generating
    non-agricultural income
%
11
9
18
13
Scale down agricultural activities
%
22
13
9
13
Retire/sell farms
%
13
9
15
13
No change
%
41
54
53
52
Other
%
20
10
11
12