Salt Levy - How Should it be Spent?
David Pannell, Associate Professor, and Ted Lefroy, Research Fellow, Faculty of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia
Millions of dollars are being spent managing salinity in Western Australia already. The need for even greater funding has raised the possibility of a salt levy ("Salt levy - You will pay for this" West Australian 5 February). Farmer groups argue that this money should all be passed on to farmers to help them implement on-ground works such as tree planting, drains and pumping.
Recent research suggests that spending all the salt levy on farms would not be the best way to manage salinity. Because salinity is now so advanced, hard decisions need to be made to choose which areas to rescue and which to write off. These decisions will be politically charged but they must be made if we are to avoid further damage and waste of public money. We suggest the state needs to tackle these decisions in the way set out below if that public money is to be spent effectively
The question of a salt levy arises because the government has realised that the effects of salinity off farms will be enormous. The impacts of salt on mass extinctions of native plants and animals, damage to buildings roads and bridges, increased flooding and ruined water supplies are probably greater than the agricultural costs.
We need to divide the effects of salinity into losses of agricultural production and the rest, and divide the action required into that which will be effective if implemented on farms and that which won’t. This gives us four types of costs, all competing for money raised by the salt levy. Not all warrant public funding.
The first type of cost is damage to towns, roads, rivers and native vegetation that cannot be controlled by on-farm treatments.
An example is the town of Merredin where millions of dollars of damage to buildings and roads is being caused by rising saline groundwater. A recent study showed that the main source of this water is Merredin town site itself. Roads, footpaths, buildings and open space have replaced native vegetation adapted to use up every drop of rain. If the surrounding farmers were to revegetate all their farms, it would not help Merredin much. Towns in this situation need to capture all their rainwater, reduce the release of scheme water through septic tanks and gardens and install groundwater pumps.
For this type of salinity cost, the grounds for a salt levy seem clear and direct, but it would need to be spent in the town. The only argument would be who should pay, those directly affected or the community in general.
For nature reserves in farming areas, drains and pumping may be the only effective remedy. This would benefit the whole community. As the problems were generally not caused by current farmers, and current farmers have no direct power to prevent the problem, the case for this type of public funding seems strong.
The second case is where damage to towns, roads, rivers and native vegetation can be prevented by on-farm treatment. In this situation, a case can be made for the public bearing at least some of the cost. However examples of this type are rare, the most likely candidates being water supply catchments. They are of extremely high value to the community and require stronger protection than the offer of subsidies that may or may not be accepted by farmers.
The third type is damage to farm land where there is very little chance of recovery. This type accounts for a depressingly large area of agricultural land. The most recent studies show that almost regardless of what we do, the amount of salt affected land will double from 2 million to 4 million hectares. A further 2 million hectares is at stake on top of that, depending on what is done. The medium-term loss of 2 million hectares is not practically preventable, even with major engineering works because of the huge amount of water already in the system. It would not be sensible to spend public money (or private farmer money) on fruitless attempts to preserve this land.
The final type is damage on farms that is preventable. Some of the methods for preventing this damage are clearly profitable, such as blue gum forestry near the south coast. Unfortunately this is only a small part of the state. In most areas, profitable solutions simply don’t exist. Across the state, there is land where rehabilitation ranges from slightly to extremely unprofitable. For land at the slightly unprofitable end, public funding would help to encourage adoption of new farming methods. Unfortunately, this land is again in a minority. For the majority of land, incentives provided by public funding would not be enough to prompt effective action.
Amidst all the complexity and uncertainty, some clear conclusions come through. The salinity problem would be dramatically reduced if farmers had a wide range of profitable perennial plants - trees, shrubs and other long lived and deep-rooted plants. Unfortunately, investment in developing farming methods well adapted to this environment continues to be a tiny component of the salinity budget. That is where we are making a tragic error.
Secondly, like the algal blooms in the Swan river, much of the effort will need to be directed at repair rather than prevention.
The third stark reality is that regardless of what we do now, we are going to have a lot more salt. We will have to learn to learn to live with it, to find uses for it and turn some saline land into wetlands and other conservation areas.
Citation: Pannell, D.J. (2000). Salt levy - How should it be spent? SEA Working Paper 2000/01b. http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0001b.htm
Check out the full version of this article for a more complete and better balanced argument: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0001.htm (44K)
It is interesting to compare the above article with the text that actually appeared in the newspaper: http://www.general.uwa.edu.au/u/dpannell/dpap0001n.htm (9K)
The SEA News index is at http://welcome.to/seanews