News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 $70m of water offered in biggest sale 

$70m of water offered in biggest sale

19 Mar, 2009 03:09 PM
In an unprecedented development, Murray Irrigation is selling 50,000 water entitlements, worth an expected $70 million.

According to the Landmark Mills, Finley, the agent offering up the entitlements, the water will be sold as a single parcel or in the largest lots possible.

The permanent water entitlements are presently owned by 100 irrigator members of Murray Irrigation and represent about 3pc of the water managed by the organisation.

Agent acting for Murray Irrigation, Gil Silby, said he was not aware of a water sale of this magnitude before and the development was very much a sign of the times.

"This offering comes about because a number of factors, after years of drought some people need the money urgently and others are making this decision from a purely business point of view," Mr Silby said.

"They are looking to sell their water entitlement and buy some more dry land and there is a surprising number of those people around."

Various private and government interests have already shown interest in the sale and Mr Silby said the sale would probably take about three to four weeks.

"The federal government has been in the water market for a couple of years and has signalled it is likely to be there for some time yet, as have state governments.

"There have also been some keen businessmen, merchant bankers who have been keeping their eyes on water because it is a scarce commodity and some superannuation funds as well so we are not relying on one possible buyer here."

Murray Irrigation general manager Anthony Couroupis said the company was acting after broad shareholder support, with its irrigator members wanting to enter into the water market in this fashion.

"Murray Irrigation is using, to best advantage, its position as Australia's largest private bulk water licence holder, and the largest private irrigation company in the country, to offer them this opportunity to realise an appropriate return on the sale of their water entitlements," Mr Couroupis said.

Mr Silby added the most likely scenario was for the water to be returned to the environment and admitted there would be flow on effects for irrigators and the communities that presently relied on the water for irrigation.

"But if this water is bought by a private entity it may be an investment and the water may be available on the temporary transfer market for irrigators to rent back," he said.

Mr Silby said the water covered by the sale could move to many parts of the Murray Darling Basin although some areas had certain restrictions on such water movements.

"We are in a totally different business environment now that water entitlements are no longer linked to property."

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The formation of Murray Irrigation Limited in the first place put irrigators in a very similar situation to American Indians when their chiefs agreed to move their people to reservations. Just as it was for the Indians, the formation of MIL was only the beginning of the progressive removal of irrigators' rights. The next step in this gradual removal of rights was the imposition of a "cap" to the maximum amount of irrigation water available which reduced their rights by 11% as well as their access to supplementary water in years of maximum allocation. The process of removing irrigators' rights (without compensation) included the transference of water rights from the people of NSW to the Snowy Hydro Corporation during the mad rush to privatisation and continued with smaller and smaller allocations to MIL in relation to the total amount of water in storage. [To be fair this was partly because Jeff Kennett's water managers negotiated a far better deal for Victoria at the expense of the incompetent NSW negotiators under the state water sharing plan]. The high point of the irrigators victimhood was the meek acceptance of having carryover allocations cut in half by the NSW government. Like the Indians, South west Riverina irrigators have been victims at every stage. It may be argued that this collective sale of water at least enables MIL shareholders to negotiate from a position of strength. MIL should think carefully about what is they are agreeing to do. MIL should be demanding that the water buy back be accompanied by a reduction in the amount of irrigation infrastructure they have to manage. Cooperating with a plan that will make their system less efficient represents a gross dereliction of duty.
Posted by Bill Williams, 19/03/2009 2:25:09 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
19 March, 2009
18 March, 2009
POLL
Q: If a federal election were held on Saturday, which party would you vote for?

Labor
(16.8%)

Liberal
(40.5%)

Nationals
(25%)

Greens
(8.6%)

Family First
(1.3%)

Independent
(5.9%)

Other
(1.8%)

Total Votes: 1043
Poll Date: 15 March, 2009

Most popular articles

ELDERS NEWS MREC FW



Stock & Land







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...