Dryland and urba salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin AN

KN

OW

LE

DG

E

Land

scap

es &

Indu

strie

s

Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin

Dr Suzanne M. Wilson

AN OVERVIEW & GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING AND VALUING THE IMPACTS

Dry

land

and

urb

an s

alin

ity c

osts

acr

oss

the

Mur

ray-

Dar

ling

Basi

n

AN O

VERV

IEW

& G

UID

ELIN

ES F

OR

IDEN

TIFY

ING

AN

D V

ALU

ING

TH

E IM

PACT

S

Author: Dr. Suzanne M. Wilson

Published by: Murray-Darling Basin Commission

Postal Address: GPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601

Office location: Level 5, 15 Moore Street, Canberra City

Australian Capital Territory

Telephone: (02) 6279 0100

International + 61 2 6279 0100

Facsimile: (02) 6248 8053


E-mail: [email protected]

Internet: http://www.mdbc.gov.au

For further information contact the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office on (02) 6279 0100.

This report may be cited as:

Wilson, S.M. 2004 Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. An overview & guidelines

for identifying and valuing the impacts, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

ISBN 1 876830 883

© Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2004

This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs and the

MDBC logo) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is not sold or used

for commercial benefit and its source Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. An overview

& guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts, is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for the

purpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction for other

purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or the individual photographers

and artists with whom copyright applies.

To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all liability

to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other

compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material

contained in it.

The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

They are presented to inform discussion for improvement of the Basin’s natural resources.

Cover photo: Arthur Mostead, Dryland Salinity reclamation, Galong NSW.

MDBC Publication 34/04

Integrated catchment management in the Murray-Darling BasinA process through which people can develop a vision, agree on shared values and behaviours, make informed decisions and act together to manage the natural resources of their catchment: their decisions on the use of land, water and other environmental resources are made by considering the effect of that use on all those resources and on all people within the catchment.

Our valuesWe agree to work together, and ensure that our behaviour reflects the following values.

Courage• We will take a visionary approach, provide

leadership and be prepared to make difficult decisions.

Inclusiveness• We will build relationships based on trust

and sharing, considering the needs of future generations, and working together in a true partnership.

• We will engage all partners, including Indigenous communities, and ensure that partners have the capacity to be fully engaged.

Commitment• We will act with passion and decisiveness, taking

the long-term view and aiming for stability in decision-making.

• We will take a Basin perspective and a non-partisan approach to Basin management.

Respect and honesty• We will respect different views, respect each

other and acknowledge the reality of each other’s situation.

• We will act with integrity, openness and honesty, be fair and credible, and share knowledge and information.

• We will use resources equitably and respect the environment.

Flexibility• We will accept reform where it is needed, be

willing to change, and continuously improve our actions through a learning approach.

Practicability• We will choose practicable, long-term

outcomes and select viable solutions to achieve these outcomes.

Mutual obligation• We will share responsibility and accountability, and

act responsibly with fairness and justice.

• We will support each other through the necessary change.

Our principlesWe agree, in a spirit of partnership, to use the following principles to guide our actions.

Integration• We will manage catchments holistically; that is,

decisions on the use of land, water and other environmental resources are made by considering the effect of that use on all those resources and on all people within the catchment.

Accountability• We will assign responsibilities and accountabilities.

• We will manage resources wisely, being accountable and reporting to our partners.

Transparency • We will clarify the outcomes sought.

• We will be open about how to achieve outcomes and what is expected from each partner.

Effectiveness• We will act to achieve agreed outcomes.

• We will learn from our successes and failures and continuously improve our actions.

Efficiency • We will maximise the benefits and minimise the

costs of actions.

Full accounting • We will take account of the full range of costs and

benefits, including economic, environmental, social and off-site costs and benefits.

Informed decision-making• We will make decisions at the most

appropriate scale.

• We will make decisions on the best available information, and continuously improve knowledge.

• We will support the involvement of Indigenous people in decision-making, understanding the value of this involvement and respecting the living knowledge of Indigenous people.

Learning approach• We will learn from our failures and successes.

• We will learn from each other.

iii

ForewordThroughout the 1980s, the prevailing view was that the main impacts of dryland salinity in the Basin were lost

agricultural production due to salinised land, and declining river health due to increased salt concentration in

river water.

Investigations in the early 1990s suggested that off-farm costs are larger than previously anticipated, and

include not only damage to rural and regional assets such as roads, railways, bridges and culverts, but also

damage to urban assets such as street paving and guttering, parks and gardens, and domestic and commercial

buildings. Environmental assets such as floodplain wetlands are also being damaged.

In 1998 the Murray-Darling Basin Commission initiated the Determining the full cost of dryland and urban

salinity across the Murray-Darling Basin project to develop and apply a method to estimate the full range

of dryland salinity impact costs across the Basin. In particular, the method needed to enable comparisons

of salinity impact costs on agriculture with off-farm costs on rural and regional infrastructure and urban

infrastructure. These guidelines introduce and describe the methods developed through this project.

The guidelines have been prepared as one document with two parts. Part 1 of the guidelines gives a

catchment scale overview of the costs related to the impacts of salinity in urban and dryland rural areas,

excluding costs to irrigators, the environment and cultural heritage. Part 2 of the guidelines provide the

detailed instructions and tools of this approach for specialist natural resource economists to assess the costs

related to the impacts of urban and dryland salinity. In combination, these guidelines should be a valuable

resource to assist in local and catchment planning processes.

I commend these guidelines and tools to any person considering investment in dryland salinity management.

Recent research, including the work initiated by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, suggests that focus

should be on protecting future damage to higher value assets, and that close attention should be paid to

analysing costs and benefits before making such decisions.

Kevin Goss

Acting Chief Executive

iv v

How these guidelines are structuredThese guidelines have been prepared in two separate parts to meet the needs of different stakeholders involved in local action planning

Part 1: An overview of the dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin.

This part introduces this project, presents an overview of the nature and costs of salinity in urban and

dryland rural areas, and demonstrates how this information fits into the bigger picture of preparing a

local action plan and cost-sharing arrangements. It is suggested that readers are conversant with the

material presented in Part 1 before working through Part 2.

Part 2: Guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts.

This part provides the detailed instructions, tools and questionnaire forms a skilled natural resource

economist will need to assess the nature and impact costs of dryland and urban salinity to various

agricultural and non-agricultural stakeholders, the environment and cultural heritage in a particular

catchment or area.

iv v

ContentsForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

How these guidelines are structured . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part One: An overview of the dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin . . . 3

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.1 Why have these guidelines been produced? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.2 Who are these guidelines for?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.3 What information is (and is not) provided? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.4 How were these guidelines produced? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 What is dryland and urban salinity and how is it caused? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Where does dryland and urban salinity occur? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

4 What are the impacts of dryland and urban salinity and who bears them?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.1 Dryland agriculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4.2 Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.3 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.5 Flow-on social impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.6 Are there any benefits from dryland salinity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5 What are the costs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

6 Why value the costs of dryland and urban salinity? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

7 How do these guidelines assist local action planning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Part Two: Guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

2 Identifying the nature of the salinity problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3 Identifying the affected stakeholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3.2 Proforma for identifying the stakeholders affected by dryland and urban salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3.3 Unsure whether urban salinity is a problem in your LAP area? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

4 Valuing the costs of dryland and urban salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.2 Dryland agricultural producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.3 Rural and urban households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.4 Commerce and industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

4.5 Saline town water supplies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4.6 Local governments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.7 State government agencies and public utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

4.8 Natural environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

4.9 Cultural heritage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

4.10 Costs to downstream water users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

4.11 Flow-on social costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

vi vii

5 Conducting a survey or census of stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.2 Preparation of a questionnaire form. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

5.4 Implementing a survey or census. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

5.5 Data analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

5.6 Publicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

6 Compilation of salinity cost data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

7 Analysing the data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Attachment A: Extent and severity of urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Attachment B: Example dryland agricultural producer questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Attachment C: Example local government questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Attachment D: Example state government and utility questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Attachment E: Example state governments and utilities to be considered for survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

PART ONE

Tables

1 Towns subject to urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 Median stream EC (dates various) and flow weighted average river salinity

at selected gauging stations (Source: MDBC 1997 and MDBMC 1999).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3 Total current annual impact costs of dryland and urban salinity to key

stakeholders in the Murray-Darling Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figures

1 Cause of dryland salinity in rural areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2 Key MDBC dryland projects and how they assist with Local action planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Boxes

1 Common impacts of dryland salinity on farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

PART TWO

Tables

1 Breakdown of dryland agricultural impact and preventative work cost categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

2 Salinity cost functions for dryland agricultural producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

3 Household salinity damage cost functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4 Typical no. of commercial and retail buildings in towns of varying size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

5 Salinity damage cost functions to commercial and industrial buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6 Marginal salinity cost functions: Households and businesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

7 Marginal saline water cost functions: Households. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

8 Marginal saline water cost functions: Commercial water users. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

9 Marginal saline water cost functions: Industrial water users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

10 Marginal saline water cost functions: Combined commercial and industrial water users . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

11 Salinity damage cost functions for local rural roads: Increased repair and maintenance (R&M) expenditure . . 63

12 Salinity damage cost functions for local rural roads: Cost from shortened expected lifespans . . . . . . . . . 63

13 Salinity damage cost functions: Local rural bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

vi vii

14 Relationship between town size and length of urban roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

15 Salinity damage cost functions: Urban roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

16 Cost of salinity to local government per head of population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

17 Marginal salinity cost functions: Local government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

18 Salinity cost functions: Highways, freeways and main sealed roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

19 Salinity cost functions: State and national bridges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

20 Salinity cost functions: Railways. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

21 Salinity cost functions: Infrastructure (excl. roads, bridges and rail) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

22 Salinity cost functions: ‘Other’ salinity costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

23 Marginal salinity cost functions: Government agencies and utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

24 Valuation techniques and their applicability to natural resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

25 Proforma for recording estimated costs of dryland and urban salinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

viii

viii

Summary

Despite the worsening problem of salinity across

many rural and urban areas of the Murray-Darling

Basin, catchment communities have previously

lacked the tools to confidently answer the questions

What are the impacts of dryland and urban salinity

in our catchment, who are affected, and what are

the costs?

To address this information gap, the Murray-Darling

Basin Commission and the National Dryland Salinity

Program contracted Ivey ATP and Wilson Land

Management Services Pty Ltd to undertake a 3-

year research project entitled ‘Determining the

full nature and costs of dryland salinity across the

Murray-Darling Basin’ (MDBC Project No. D9008).

These guidelines are an important outcome from this

project and describe how to identify and value the

current impact costs of dryland and urban salinity at

the catchment level.

These guidelines are produced in two separate parts

to meet the needs of different stakeholders involved

in local action planning.

Part 1 describes the impacts and costs of salinity in

urban and dryland rural areas and outlines how this

information can help improve the rigour of local

action plans and cost-sharing arrangements.

Part 2 provides detailed technical guidance and tools

for assessing the impacts and costs of dryland and

urban salinity in a catchment.

How is salinity caused?Most dryland and urban salinity outbreaks in

the Murray-Darling Basin have been caused by

widespread land use changes since European

settlement. In rural areas, these changes have

included the clearing of deep-rooted trees, shrubs

and perennial grasses, and their replacement with

shallow-rooted annual crops and pastures. In urban

areas, these changes have included tree clearing,

over-irrigation of parks and gardens, disruption of

natural drainage lines, over-flowing septic tanks

and sullage pits, and leaking water, sewerage and

drainage pipes.

Where does dryland and urban salinity occur?Dryland salinity is a significant problem across many

rural areas of the Murray-Darling Basin, with at least

2.5 million hectares currently affected by salt. What

has been less well known however, is the extent

and severity of salinity outbreaks in rural towns

and cities.

Detailed research conducted as part of the

Determining the full cost of dryland and urban

salinity across the Murray-Darling Basin project

has shown that there are also at least 220 rural towns

and cities located throughout the Murray-Darling

Basin currently experiencing an urban salinity

problem caused by high saline watertables. There

are also likely to be many other rural towns where

the current salinity problems are less well known,

or that are likely to develop serious problems in

future years.

What are the impacts of dryland and urban salinity and who bears them?The impacts of salinity in both urban and dryland

rural areas fall into two main classes. Those caused

by saline water supplies, and those caused by

high saline watertables. The impacts of saline

water supplies include damage to household water

appliances, commercial water appliances and

increased production costs for irrigators.

The impacts of high saline watertables include

reduced dryland agricultural production, structural

damage to buildings, deterioration of parks and

gardens, and damage to other infrastructure such

as roads & sewerage supply systems.

There are a number of stakeholders in a catchment

who may be affected by dryland and urban

salinity. These include urban householders,

farmers, commercial and industrial businesses,

State government agencies and utilities, and local

councils. Dryland and urban salinity may also have

adverse impacts on the natural environment and

cultural heritage.

1

The broader Australian community may also be

affected by dryland and urban salinity occurring in

a catchment. This is because of flow-on regional

economic impacts, costs imposed on downstream

irrigation, household and industrial water users, and

damage to the downstream environment.

Presented in this report is a description of the

potential impacts of dryland and urban salinity in

the Murray-Darling Basin on dryland agriculture,

infrastructure, the environment, and cultural heritage.

A brief overview of the possible flow-on social

impacts and benefits from dryland and urban salinity

is then presented.

What are the costs of dryland and urban salinity?The costs of dryland and urban salinity may be

grouped into six categories:

1 Repair and maintenance costs.

2 Costs from the reduced lifespan of infrastructure.

3 Costs of taking preventative action.

4 Increased operating costs.

5 The ‘value of income foregone’.

6 Environmental costs.

In many cases, these costs will not occur

independently. For example, a high saline watertable

under a particular stretch of road may reduce the

time before major reconstruction is required, as well

as increase the ongoing funds needed to maintain

the road in an acceptable condition.

Why value the costs of dryland and urban salinity?The last decade has seen considerable improvements

in knowledge of the extent, severity and cost of

dryland salinity in rural areas. In contrast, despite

significant salinity problems now emerging in our

urban towns and cities, knowledge of the extent,

severity and cost of the problem in these areas is in

its infancy. Improving knowledge of the full nature

and costs of salinity in both rural and urban areas

will therefore serve three main purposes.

• Collecting this information at the sub-catchment

level will help catchment communities more

accurately gauge the importance of salinity in their

urban and rural areas, prepare or refine their local

action plans, and enhance their case for funding

from various programs.

• Collecting this information at the regional-level

will help catchment communities prepare or refine

their regional strategies.

• Collecting this information at the Basin-wide

level will help all tiers of government take a more

strategic approach to policy development and on-

ground investment on a broad or Basin-wide scale.

Furthermore, improving knowledge of the extent,

severity and cost of salinity in urban areas will

dramatically enhance the case for boosting total

funding available for urban salinity management.

Dryland salinity is often considered to be primarily

a ‘farm-level’ problem, resulting in a loss of farm

income and capital value of farmland. However,

as the results show, it is the non-agricultural

stakeholders, and not the dryland agricultural

producers, who bear the greatest costs from dryland

and urban salinity across the Basin. Specifically, the

results indicate that the total current impact cost

across the Basin is approximately $304.73 million

per annum, of which only 33 per cent is incurred

by dryland agricultural producers. Current impact

costs are greatest on households, commerce and

industry, at around $142.78 million per annum

or 46 per cent of the total. This significant cost is

primarily due to the magnitude of costs imposed

on these stakeholders from their use of saline town

water supplies. The results also confirm that in the

majority of Basin catchments (20/26), it is the non-

agricultural stakeholders in rural and urban areas,

and not dryland agricultural stakeholders, that make

the greatest contribution to total ‘$ per ha per annum’

impact costs.

2

Part One: An overview of the dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin

Photo: Arthur Mostead

4 PART ONE

1-1

PART ONE 5

Introduction1.1 Why have these guidelines

been produced?

1.1.1 History

Dryland salinity has long been recognised as a

significant and worsening problem across many

rural areas of Australia, causing a reduction in

dryland agricultural production and damaging

the natural environment. However, it has become

increasingly apparent that urban salinity is also

becoming a very serious and costly problem in

many rural towns and cities. Indeed, across the

Murray-Darling Basin, the current estimated cost of

dryland salinity to all urban and rural stakeholders

is approximately $304.73 million per annum,

of which only 33 per cent is incurred by dryland

agricultural producers (Wilson 2003).

Despite the magnitude of salinity problems in the

rural and urban areas, catchment groups have lacked

the tools to confidently answer the questions What

are the full impacts of dryland and urban salinity in

our catchment, who are affected and what are the

costs? Without this information, it has been difficult

to assess how much effort and money should be

allocated to salinity management.

1.1.2 Aims of this study

To help fill this information void, Ivey ATP and

Wilson Land Management Services Pty Ltd were

contracted by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission

(MDBC) and the National Dryland Salinity Program

(NDSP) in 1999 to:

1 produce draft guidelines that describe how to

identify and value the current impacts of dryland

and urban salinity at a catchment level

2 raise community awareness of the nature and cost

of dryland and urban salinity

3 implement the guidelines to assess the full current

impacts and costs of dryland and urban salinity

to key stakeholders, the environmental cultural

heritage in all catchments across the Murray-

Darling Basin

4 trial the guidelines outside the Basin to ensure the

approach is applicable and relevant across Australia

5 finalise the guidelines document, after taking on

board the lessons arising from objectives 3 and 4,

and

6 produce a centralised Basin-wide GIS database on

the nature and costs of dryland and urban salinity

across the Basin.

1

Photo: Salt Action NSW

1-

4 PART ONE

1-1

PART ONE 5

The production of this Version 2 of the guidelines

represents the completion of the fifth objective of this

larger project (version 1 was published in 1999). Full

details of the approach used to complete all project

objectives, together with the final project results,

appear in the final project report by Wilson (2004).

A complete list of all reports arising from this project

also appears in the ‘Reference’ section of this Part 1.

1.2 Who are these guidelines for?Part 1 has been prepared mainly for catchment

management groups guiding the development of

local action plans. The aim is to provide an overview

of dryland and urban salinity across the Murray-

Darling Basin, and to demonstrate how obtaining this

information will enhance the rigour of local action

plans prepared for a catchment or sub-catchment.

Part 2 has been prepared mainly for natural resource

economists advising catchment management groups

on the nature and costs of dryland and urban salinity

in their area. Its aim is to provide the information

and tools needed to actually identify and value the

costs of dryland and urban salinity in a catchment.

Some of the information presented may also be of

interest to catchment management groups.

In addition to catchment management groups and

natural resource economists, there are several

other groups who may find these guidelines useful,

particularly Part 1. While not exhaustive, these may

include:

• State government agencies wanting to develop

state level dryland and urban salinity policies or

programs

• local governments, financial institutions and

companies with large infrastructure investments

wanting to better understand their potential

exposure to dryland and urban salinity problems

• other interested members of the community such

as students studying natural resource management

related subjects

• Landcare and other farming groups.

1.3 What information is (and is not) provided?

The aim of these guidelines is to provide the

following information:

• the cause and symptoms of dryland and urban

salinity

• locations where dryland and urban salinity occurs

• the potential impacts of dryland and urban

salinity on dryland agriculture, infrastructure, the

environment and cultural heritage in the Murray-

Darling Basin

• the various agricultural and non-agricultural

stakeholders that may be affected by dryland and

urban salinity

• the types of dryland and urban salinity costs

• the importance of salinity cost information

• guidance on how to identify and value the impact

costs of dryland and urban salinity on agricultural

and non-agricultural stakeholders, the environment

and cultural heritage in each catchment

• case studies and examples of how these techniques

can be used

• guidance on how to prepare for, and run, surveys

or censuses of stakeholder groups

• references for obtaining further information.

In these guidelines, the term ‘dryland and urban

salinity’ refers to all salinity problems that occur in

dryland rural (irrigation areas excluded) and urban

areas of the Murray-Darling Basin. It includes the

problems directly attributable to saline surface and

groundwater supplies, rising saline watertables, and

where soil erosion has exposed a naturally saline

sub-soil.

The guidelines are not designed to help establish

the cause of specific salinity problems, identify

or evaluate the costs and benefits of possible

management options, or to prepare a full local action

plan. Rather, the focus is to show how to assess the

nature and impact costs of dryland and urban salinity

problems that are occurring in any given dryland or

urban area — regardless of the underlying cause.

Where appropriate however, the reader is referred to

other reports where this information is presented.

Finally, these guidelines only discuss dryland and

urban salinity. However, salinity is not a ‘stand-

alone’ issue, and catchment management groups

will still need to at least consider the other important

natural resource issues facing their community

when developing their local action plans or

6 PART ONE

1-2

PART ONE 7

regional strategies. However, many of the issues

and instructions included in these guidelines will be

equally applicable when assessing various other land

degradation issues, such as soil acidity, soil sodicity,

and tree decline.

1.4 How were these guidelines produced?These guidelines were produced after an extensive

review process. The key steps involved:

• a detailed literature review of Australian studies

reporting on the impacts and costs of dryland and

urban salinity to catchment stakeholders and the

wider Australian community

• extensive liaison with key individuals across

Australia at the national, state and catchment levels

• compiling the information during these

two previous steps to prepare a draft

guidelines document

• a panel of prominent natural resource economists

to formally review this draft document

• refining the draft document in response to the

comments provided by this panel

• convening a National Workshop to receive further

state agency, catchment community and local

government feedback on the revised document

• finalising the draft guidelines in response to the

comments provided by the Workshop participants

• working with state agency staff, catchment

representatives and others to apply the methods

described in the guidelines across the Murray-

Darling Basin and in two case study areas outside

the Murray-Darling Basin, and

• using the lessons learnt during this implementation

stage to finalise these guidelines.


6 PART ONE

1-2

PART ONE 7

What is dryland and urban salinity and how is it caused?

Salinity is a degradation problem that may occur in

both dryland rural and urban areas. In most cases, it

is caused by a rising watertable or sub-surface water

flow that brings dissolved salts to within 1–2 metres

of the soil surface1. These salts can then enter the

nearby streams and rivers, causing stream salinity.

Dryland and urban salinity associated with a high

watertable has generally been caused by widespread

land use changes since European settlement that

increase rates of groundwater recharge. In rural

areas, these changes have included the clearing of

deep-rooted perennial trees, shrubs and grasses,

and their replacement with shallow-rooted annual

crops and grasses (see Figure 1). In urban areas,

salinity problems may result from increased rates

of groundwater recharge in the surrounding rural

areas. However, there are several local factors that

may worsen, or even directly cause an urban salinity

problem. These include:

• over-watering of parks, gardens and sporting

grounds

• disruption to surface runoff and infiltration

• inefficient drainage systems

• overflowing sullage pits and septic tanks, and

• leakage from water and sewerage pipes.

2

Figure 1 The Water Cycle and Dryland Salinity

1 A less common form of dryland salinity is caused through soil erosion exposing a naturallly saline sub-soil.

Rainfall

A healthy tree cover uses groundwater reserves and evapotranspiration keeps the watertable at a safe depth.

A cleared catchment increases infiltration which in turn raises the watertable. A minimal amount of moisture is transpired while an increase is experienced in surface runoff.

Saline seepage occurs where the ground surface intercepts the watertable, usually on footslopes and in drainage depressions.

Decreased vegetative cover predisposes the ground surface to erosion.

Surface streams become saline through runoff from saline seepages and interception of the watertable.

Land degraded by saline seepage and affected by a high watertable severely limits productive agricultural activity.

A rising watertable brings natural salts toward the surface, killing the existing vegetative cover.A low watertable does not

bring salts to the surface.The lower slopes of a well timbered catchment permit a range of productive agricultural land uses.

A vegetative cover together with minimal runoff ensures surface stability.

Source: Yass Valley Soil Conservation Project (1988) PP 6-7

1-

8 PART ONE

1-3

PART ONE 9

Where does dryland and urban salinity occur?

Dryland salinity is a significant problem across

many rural areas of the Murray-Darling Basin, with

at least 2.5 million hectares currently affected by

salt. Research conducted as part of this project has

shown that there are also at least 220 rural towns

and cities located in the Murray-Darling Basin

currently experiencing some degree of urban salinity

problem caused by high saline watertables. There are

also likely to be many other rural towns where the

current salinity problems are less well known, or that

are likely to develop serious problems in the future.

Table 1 shows a summary of the latest information

on the towns affected, and the percentage of

each town affected to some degree. More detailed

tables displaying a breakdown of the percentage

of each town currently experiencing very slight,

slight, moderate and severe urban salinity problems

appear in the regional-level project reports listed

in the ‘Reference’ Section and available on-line at

www.ndsp.gov.au. These reports were generated

when the methods described in Part 2 of these

guidelines were implemented across the Basin.

The database on urban salinity was compiled with

the assistance of numerous state agency staff and

catchment representatives across the Basin, and

through on-ground inspections of over eighty

Victorian towns. The number of salinity affected

urban town centres is substantially higher than ever

previously documented and has a major impact

on total estimated dryland and urban salinity costs

across the Basin.

In each of the towns inspected, the key visible

indicators used were salt scalding, bare patches,

and the presence of spiny rush both in the drainage

lines as well on the higher ground. Other indicators

were visible damage to building structures and

foundations, damage to sports grounds and other

open spaces, and damage to other infrastructure

(including roads, bridges, kerbs, footpaths and

drainage lines).

Every effort has been taken to compile the best available information on the extent and severity of

urban salinity. Despite this effort, the information must be regarded as indicative only until more

definitive hydrogeological studies and on-ground inspections of towns and cities in the Basin can

be undertaken.

3


1-

8 PART ONE

1-3

PART ONE 9

Table 1 Towns subject to urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin

Estimated extent of high saline watertables in towns and cities (expressed as percentage of total town area)

Albury 5 % Crookwell 10 % Lake Boga 90 % Seymour 5 %

Alexandra <5 % Cudal 10 % Lake Cargelligo 20 % Shepparton-Mooroopna

5 %

Ashford 10 % Cumnock 70 % Lexton 15 % St Arnaud 5 %

Attunga 20 % Curlewis 40 % Lockington 5 % Stanhope 15 %

Avoca 10 % Deepwater 20 % Lyndhurst 30 % Stawell 5 %

Baan Baa 100% Delungra 30 % Maldon 20 % Stockinbingal 10 %

Balranald 2 % Dimboola 20 % Manildra 18 % Strathfieldsaye 10 %

Barham 5 % Donald 20 % Manilla 50 % Strathmerton 5 %

Barnawartha <5 % Dookie 35 % Maryborough <5 % Swan Hill 10 %

Barooga 5 % Dubbo 30 % Mendooran <5 % Talbot 5 %

Barraba 20 % Dunedoo <5 % Meningie 5 % Tallarook 5 %

Bathurst <5 % Dunolly 30 % Milang 5 % Tambar Springs 19 %

Bendemeer 10 % Echuca 5 % Milthorpe 5 % Tamworth 10 %

Bendigo 7 % Finley <5 % Minyip 5 % Tarcutta 7 %

Binalong 60% Forbes 30 % Moama 10 % Tatura 10 %

Bingara 10 % Geurie <5 % Molong <5 % Temora 10 %

Binnaway <5 % Gilgandra <5 % Moree 20 % Tenterfield 20 %

Birchip 5 % Girgarre 10 % Mount Russell 50 % Texas 20 %

Blayney 20 % Glen Innes 10 % Moyhu <5 % Tingha 20 %

Boggabri 50 % Glenrowan 5 % Mudgee 50 % Tocumwal 5 %

Boorowa 60 % Goolwa 5 % Mulwala 10 % Tongala 15 %

Boort 10 % Goornong 10 % Murrabit 5 % Tottenham 10 %

Bourke 20 % Graman 40 % Murray Bridge 5 % Trangie 10 %

Brewarrina 15 % Gravesend 50 % Nagambie <5 % Trundle 5 %

Bridgewater 5 % Grenfell 5 % Narrabri 20 % Tullamore <5 %

Broadford <5 % Griffith 8 % Narrandera 4 % Tumut 2 %

Broken Hill 5 % Gulgong <5 % Narromine <5 % Tungamah <5 %

Bundarra 20 % Gullargambone ? % Nathalia <5 % Tungkillo 5 %

Buronga 3 % Gum Flat 20 % Natimuk 10 % Ungarie 5 %

Campbells Creek 10 % Gunbower <5 % Newstead 5 % Upper Horton 40 %

Canowindra 20 % Gunnedah 35 % North Star 20 % Violet Town 5 %

Carcoar 10 % Gunning 20 % Nullamanna 40 % Wagga Wagga 50 %

Cargo 10 % Harcourt 5 % Numurkah <5 % Wahgunyah 5 %

Carisbrook 5 % Harden-Murrumburrah

10 % Nyah 5 % Wangaratta <5 %

Castlemaine 10 % Hay 60 % Nyngan <5 % Warialda 15 %

Charlton 5 % Heathcote 5 % Oberon <5 % Warren 10 %

Estimated extent of high saline watertables in towns and cities (expressed as percentage of total town area)

10 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 11

Cherry Tree Hill 20 % Hillston 10 % Orange <5 % Weddeburn 5 %

Chewton 20 % Holbrook 15 % Ouyen 30 % Wellington 20 %

Chiltern <5 % Hopetoun 10 % Paringa 5 % Werris Creek 10 %

Cobar 10 % Horsham 15 % Parkes 20 % West Wyalong 10 %

Cobbadah 20 % Howlong 5 % Peak Hill <5 % Wodonga 5 %

Cobram 5 % Huntly 10 % Perthville <5 % Wongarbon <5 %

Cohuna <5 % Inglewood 20 % Portland ? % Woodstock 30 %

Condobolin 36 % Jeparit 35 % Pyramid Hill 15 % Wycheproof 5 %

Coolah 50 % Junee 40 % Quambatook 5 % Yackandandah <5 %

Coolamon 5 % Kandos 30 % Queanbeyan 3 % Yarrawonga 10 %

Coonabarabran <5 % Katamatite <5 % Rainbow 15 % Yass 12 %

Coonamble <5 % Kerang <5 % Renmark 15 % Yea 5 %

Cootamundra 75 % Kingstown 30 % Rochester 5 % Yelarbon 40 %

Corowa 5 % Koondrook 10 % Rushworth 5 % Yeoval <5 %

Cowra 10 % Kyabram 10 % Rutherglen 10 % Yetman 30 %

Creswick <5 % Ladysmith 44 % Rylstone 85 % Young 30 %

Note: This database on urban salinity was compiled from the latest information provided by numerous

state agency staff and catchment representatives across the Basin, and through actual on-ground inspections

of over eighty Victorian towns. However, this information must be regarded as indicative only until more

definitive hydrogeological studies and on-ground inspections of towns and cities in the Basin can be

undertaken. Increased groundwater recharge in irrigation areas may contribute to the salinity problem in

some of these towns.


10 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 11

What are the impacts of dryland and urban salinity and who bears them?

The impacts of salinity both within urban and

dryland rural areas of a catchment fall into two main

classes, namely:

• saline water supplies, and

• high saline watertables.

The impacts of saline water supplies include

increased production costs for urban businesses,

damage to household water appliances and

reticulation systems, and damage to the natural

environment.

The impacts of high saline watertables include

reduced farm productivity, structural damage to

buildings such as urban households and commercial

premises, damage to other infrastructure such as

roads, bridges, underground telephone, water,

electricity and sewerage systems, and remnant

vegetation.

There are several stakeholders in a catchment who

may be affected by saline water supplies and high

saline watertables in the urban and rural areas.

These include:

• dryland agricultural producers

• urban and rural householders

• commercial and industrial businesses

• state government agencies

• road and rail authorities

• water, gas, electricity suppliers, and

• local governments.

Dryland and urban salinity can also affect:

• remnant vegetation, threatened fauna and flora

species, wetlands, rivers and streams, and aquatic

ecology, and

• historic buildings and other areas with cultural,

historical or natural significance. These include

Aboriginal sacred sites and other archaeological

sites that contain buried pottery, quartz and metal

artefacts that are particularly prone to damage from

high watertables.

The purpose of this section is to elaborate on the

adverse impacts that saline town water supplies

and high saline watertables may have on dryland

agricultural and non-agricultural stakeholders, the

environment and cultural heritage across the Basin.

4.1 Dryland agricultureOne of the first symptoms of dryland salinity on

farms is that yields of crops and pastures growing in

the saline environment declines. This reduction may

be followed by the death of less salt tolerant species

including trees, and the appearance of bare patches

of soil or plant species that are more tolerant of

the saline conditions such as sea barley grass (PDP

Australia Pty Ltd 1992). These changes may result

in decreased agricultural production, an increase in

production costs, or both.

Different crops and pastures vary in their tolerance

to salinity. The yield of each pasture or crop species

only begins to decline once the salinity level

increases beyond

a threshold that is unique to that species.

The cost of agricultural production foregone is often

thought to be the largest cost of salinity to farmers.

However, dryland salinity may also have a range of

other impacts on a farm business.

41-

12 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 13

Common impacts of dryland salinity on farms

Reductions in dryland agricultural and forestry production

Reductions up to 100 per cent at salt affected sites

Damage to farm infrastructure

Access roads and tracks

Fences and stockyards

Vehicles, machinery and equipment

Farm buildings including houses

Water tanks, pipes & bore casings

Secondary land degradation

Soil erosion of saline sites

Soil structural decline and erosion along stream banks

Farm management problems

Weed invasion (e.g. spiny rush) that limits livestock access and harbour feral animals such as foxes and

rabbits

Reduced access to waterlogged areas and the need to detour stock and equipment around these flooded

areas

Bogged equipment

Increased cost of livestock management

Increased input requirements on saline land

Increased cost of farm drainage

Decreased flexibility for growing salt or waterlogging sensitive pastures or crops

Increased cost of fencing off wet and saline areas

Reduced water quality

Increased turbidity of water supplies and siltation of farm dams and streams

Increased salinity of livestock water supplies and the need to obtain and store drinking water for stock

Loss of water suitable for irrigation

Accelerated corrosion of water pipes and supply systems

Environmental degradation

Loss of flora and fauna species from farms (i.e. reduced biodiversity)

Deterioration of farm wetlands or lakes

Loss of shelter and shade

Loss of aesthetic value

Farm household problems

The range of household impacts are discussed in a following section

Land values

All the above factors are likely to lead to a reduction in land values

Source: Modified from Wilson (1995)

12 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 13

4.2 InfrastructureThe purpose of this section is to describe the various

impacts of saline town water supplies and high saline

watertables on non-agricultural infrastructure. The

section on saline water supplies draws extensively

on the report by Gutteridge Haskins and Davey

(GHD) (1999) and the latest report by Wilson and

Laurie (2002) entitled Cost functions to estimate the

cost of saline town water supplies to households,

commerce and industry which is available on-line

at www.ndsp.gov.au

4.2.1 Saline water supplies

There are two main non-agricultural

stakeholders affected by saline water supplies:

• Household water users

• Industrial/Commercial water users

This section begins with a brief description of the

key factors that influence water quality. This is

followed by a review of the range of saline water

related impacts that may be imposed on the two

groups listed above.

Factors affecting water quality

Water contains both suspended substances (silts,

clays and vegetable matter) and dissolved substances

(salts, metal ions and vegetable decomposition

products). The level and type of suspended and

dissolved substances influence the taste, colour,

hardness, odour and salinity level of the water.

Hence, when investigating the cost of saline water to

households, commerce and industry, it is desirable

to isolate, as far as possible, the costs attributable to

salinity from the other components.

The term total dissolved solids (TDS) is sometimes

used to define ‘salinity’ or the total level of dissolved

salts in water. However, TDS is a simple measure

of the amount of total dissolved solids in water,

irrespective of the type of solids present. Therefore

water samples with similar TDS levels may have

different water quality characteristics, reflecting the

different types / proportions of solids present in the

water. For example, where two water samples have

equal TDS levels, one may be characterised as ‘Hard’

and the other characterised as ‘Saline’.

‘Hardness’ is a measure of the concentration of

particular ions in water such as magnesium and

calcium. The presence of excessive quantities of

these elements in water supplies can cause scale

build up on water pipes and fixtures.

‘Salinity’ is a measure of the concentration of

dissolved salts in water and is associated with

corrosion. Salinity is more commonly measured

using the units of Electrical Conductivity (EC) or

microSiemens per centimetre (µS/cm).

As the impacts of saline and hard water may be

different, it may be advantageous to distinguish

between the impacts of salinity and hardness,

where possible. However, there is a strong

correlation between hardness and salinity, and in

practice it will be difficult to differentiate impacts

associated with each.

Household water users

Soap and detergent use

Early research suggested that saline or hard

water supplies could lead to increased domestic

consumption of soaps and detergents (Cox and

Dillon 1982). However, GHD (1999) suggest that

there is no significant relationship between soap or

detergent consumption and TDS (within the range of

salinity levels recorded for the River Murray).

Plumbing corrosion

Water pipes and fixtures (including shower rosettes

and taps) come in a variety of materials, including

copper, galvanised iron, PVC and other plastics,

brass and stainless steel. Wilson and Laurie (2002)

has demonstrated that there is a direct relationship

between the TDS of town water supplies and the

expected lifespan and maintenance cost of these

items in towns and cities located across the Murray-

Darling Basin.

• Saline corrosion results when saline water causes

rust to form on iron and steel pipes and fittings.

• Scaling results when hard water causes deposits

of calcium, magnesium and other soluble ions to

build up on the internal surfaces of water pipes

and fixtures. These deposits eventually restrict the

flow of water and can reduce the expected lifespan

of the affected materials. Generally, the rate of

scale formation increases with the hardness, and

hence the TDS, of the water (GHD 1999).

Over time, the extent of damage to water pipes

and fixtures caused by saline corrosion is likely to

decline. This is because plumbers are increasingly

using alternative materials in new houses such as

plastic piping and other materials that are corrosion

resistant. This change is being made for sound

economic reasons, and a side benefit is reduced

salinity impacts (GHD 1999).

14 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 15

Hot water systems

Hot water systems come in a variety of forms,

including electric, gas and solar. Wilson and Laurie

(2002) have shown that there is a direct relationship

between the TDS of the water supply and the

expected lifespan and maintenance cost of hot water

services in towns and cities across the Basin. This

impact is due to an increase in scale build-up on

the heating elements and pressure relief valves, and

accelerated corrosion of the lining (GHD 1999).

The cost associated with accelerated corrosion

and scale formation will decline over time as

manufacturers sell more units supplied with

corrosion resistant vitreous enamel or glass linings,

and as new water treatment plants that extract scale

forming impurities from water supplies are built

(GHD 1999).

Bottled water

Early research suggests that saline or hard water

supplies could lead to an increase in domestic

consumption of bottled water (Cox and Dillon

1982). However GHD (1999) rejected this claim,

and concluded that no significant relationship exists

between bottled water consumption and TDS at the

various salinity levels recorded for the River Murray.

This situation may be different, however, in rural

towns that periodically experience very saline town

water supplies.

Domestic filters

Wilson and Laurie (2002) demonstrate that there is

a direct relationship between the average annual

cost of installing and operating domestic water

filters and the TDS level of water supplies across the

Basin. However, as noted by GHD (1999), the use

of domestic water filters, like the consumption of

bottled water, enjoy greater popularity in cities than

in country areas.

Rainwater tanks

Wilson and Laurie (2002) also demonstrate that

there is a direct relationship between the TDS

level of town water supplies and the proportion of

households installing rainwater tanks.

Water softeners

Wilson and Laurie (2002) demonstrate that there is

a direct relationship between the TDS level of town

water supplies and average household expenditure

on purchasing, installing and maintaining water

softening units.

Industrial/Commercial water users

There are five key areas where saline water supplies

may impact on industrial/commercial water users.

Cooling towers

Cooling towers are commonly used in commercial

buildings, hospitals, schools and industrial premises

to provide air conditioning. As all cooling towers

rely on water in their operation, they are affected

to varying degrees by the quality of the water used

(GHD 1999).

The main impact of saline water on cooling towers

is increased operating costs. This is because

operators need to flush out the water contained in

these cooling towers once the salinity of the water

reaches a critical level (the salinity level of the water

increases over time as the stored water evaporates).

Typically, flushing is carried out before the salinity

of cooling towers reaches a maximum level of 4,000

EC. While there is a direct cost from replacing the

flushed water, the main cost arises from replacing the

chemicals added to the water to control corrosion,

scaling and microbial activity (GH&D 1999).

Saline water supplies generally do not increase

the cost of purchasing cooling towers or decrease

their expected lifespan. This is because the

majority of these units are manufactured out of

timber or fibreglass which are corrosion resistant

(GH&D 1999).

Evaporative coolers may also be found in commercial

buildings and industrial premises. However, as these

units are generally made with corrosion resistant

materials and do not require chemicals in their water

supply, the impact of saline water supplies on these

units is only considered to be negligible at salinity

levels below 1,600 EC (GH&D 1999).

Water supply infrastructure

It is generally thought that saline water supplies

increase the rate of corrosion in water pipes and

reticulation systems. However, it is the salinity level

of the surrounding soils, rather than the salinity level

of the water itself, that is the critical factor affecting

the rate of corrosion and hence the expected life of

water supply infrastructure (GHD 1999).

The GHD report concludes the following:

• The occurrence of salinity induced corrosion in

water supply pipes and reticulation systems is

likely to decline over time as towns replace their

infrastructure with corrosion resistant plastic or

cement-lined ductile iron components. This change

14 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 15

is already being made for sound economic reasons,

and a side benefit is reduced salinity impacts.

• Rural towns that retain their old cast iron pipes

may continue to experience corrosion. However,

as a number of complex factors affect the rate

and severity of corrosion (including the presence

of free chlorine ions, temperature, pH, and

hardness), it is extremely difficult to derive a

relationship between the salinity level of the water

and corrosion.

Boiler operation

Boilers are used to supply steam under pressure for

various commercial and industrial purposes. Saline

water supplies do not generally impact on the boilers

themselves. Rather, they have an impact on the

frequency with which the water must be flushed,

and hence on the chemical, water and energy losses

involved. As the salinity level of the water supplies

increase, so too does the frequency with which

the stored water must be flushed. Under an ideal

regime, the water stored in a medium pressure boiler

would be flushed when the salinity (TDS) reached

a maximum level of 3,200 EC (GHD 1999).

Municipal water treatment costs

Most towns have built water treatment plants

to improve the quality of town water supplies.

Typically, these plants remove contaminants from the

water or modify the physical characteristics (such as

the hardness and pH levels).

A commonly held belief is that salinity (TDS) levels

have an impact on municipal water treatment

processes and hence costs. However, the research

conducted by GHD (1999) has shown that most

treatment processes are designed to address daily

fluctuations in water turbidity, colour and microbial

activity, and that they are relatively independent

of salinity levels. Some form of reverse osmosis

treatment may be needed if the salinity level

consistently exceeds 1,600 EC (GHD 1999).

Industrial water treatment

Water is a key input into many industrial processes,

including:

• food and beverage preparation

• paper production

• electroplating, and

• automotive painting (GHD 1999).

As the quality of water used in these processes is

critical, commercial businesses and industry often

make significant investments to purchase and operate

water treatment equipment to improve the quality

of the water prior to its use (including ion exchange

and reverse osmosis equipment) (GHD 1999).

4.2.2 High saline watertables

High saline watertables can cause adverse impacts on

public and private infrastructure located in urban and

rural areas including:

• roads (including gutters and culverts) and bridges

• stone and brick buildings

• footpaths, driveways and other concrete structures

• water, stormwater and sewerage systems

• powerlines, fences and other steel structures, and

• railway lines.

Roads and bridges

Most roads and bridges have been designed for sites

with a dry sub-soil and a low frequency/duration of

soil saturation. Where groundwater saturates the soil

within 2 metres of the surface, the foundation often

deteriorates rapidly causing a breakdown of the base

and deterioration of the surface (Hamilton 1995).

This deterioration in the road surface occurs because

the downward pressure applied to the surfaces,

especially those subject to frequent truck use,

penetrates to a depth of 1.5 m or more. When the

subsoil at this depth is saturated, there can often be

considerable movement of the sub-soil, especially

if this sub-soil has a high clay content. This sub-soil

movement is frequently transmitted upwards through

the road base, and eventually results in localised

‘heaving’ of the road surface, followed by cracking

of the bitumen surface, complete break-up of the

road itself, and further penetration of surface water

into the road foundation (ACTEW 1997; Wooldridge

1998). The end result is premature road failure, more

frequent and costly maintenance, or a combination

of both.

However, there are numerous factors that ultimately

influence the impact of high saline watertables on

roads and bridges, including the:

• intensity of use

• rainfall

• groundwater level and salinity concentration

• soil type

• method and material used during construction

• quality of the road drainage

16 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 17

• elevation of the road above the surrounding area,

and

• condition of the bitumen seal (Hill 1999).

Buildings and other concrete structures

High watertables can often bring moisture and

salts close to the foundations of houses and other

buildings. This periodic wetting of the foundations

may cause rising damp where the groundwater is

drawn into the brick, stone or cement by capillary

action (Salt Action 1997).

The extent and severity of a rising damp problem

will depend on the materials used, the amount of

moisture and salt present, the amount of evaporation,

and the effectiveness of any damp-proof barrier

(these barriers are designed to prevent moisture

moving from the foundations to the walls of the

buildings).

Salinity and rising damp damage to houses and other

buildings is most noticeable when the damp-proof

course is absent (common in older houses), broken

(common in houses with renovations), or bypassed.

Bypassing the damp proof course is the most

common, and can be caused by:

• adding new floors

• rendering the outside of the building

• installing raised paths next to walls, and

• accumulation of topsoil or garden mulch against

walls (Salt Action 1997).

As the building materials undergo periodic wetting

and drying cycles, salt crystals often grow within the

confined pore spaces. In severe cases, these crystals

can cause deterioration of the brick, stone and

cement, and can result in:

• cracked bricks or stone

• mortar turning to dust, and

• cement render flaking off internal and external

walls (Spennemann 1997).

While salinity damage to houses and buildings

is often a very visible impact of salinity, other

brick and concrete structures found extensively

in urban areas can also be affected. These include

footpaths and bicycle paths, paved or cemented

areas, and driveways.

Underground water, sewerage and septic systems

As noted in the previous section, rising saline

watertables are the main cause of corrosion to

underground concrete, cast iron, brass, copper and

galvanised iron water pipes and fixtures. When any

such corrosion occurs, it can substantially increase

the maintenance costs and reduce their useful

operating life. Any leakage of water from rusted

pipes can also substantially increase the amount

of recharge to groundwater in the urban areas,

hence exacerbating the problem. In the urban city

of Wagga Wagga, for example, it is estimated that

approximately 47 per cent of total groundwater

recharge originates from leaking water pipes

(Slinger 1998). In many cases, however, these leaks

go undetected.

When the watertable rises, groundwater can often

flow into underground sewerage systems. The end

result is that additional, and often saline, water

drains into sewerage treatment plants, resulting

in increased plant operating costs, a decrease in

treatment efficiency, and less opportunity for re-

using the treated water for other purposes such as

irrigating urban parks (Hamilton 1995, Wilson and

Laurie 2002).

High watertables can also lead to a failure of septic

systems. Failures can result from groundwater

entering septic systems and/or poor function of

‘rubble pits’ which accept the processed outflows

from the septic systems. The end result may be raw

sewerage overflowing from septic tanks.

Railways, powerlines and other steel structures

There are a number of metal structures present in

urban and rural areas that are prone to corrosion

from high saline watertables. These include:

• railway tracks

• surface mounted steel water storage tanks

• underground steel fuel storage tanks

• concrete power poles with internal steel reinforcing

• underground cast iron gas supply lines and

telephone cable casings

• reinforced concrete structures and tower footings

• underground power cables

• steel lattice towers and hollow or concrete filled

steel poles, and

• nuts, bolts, screws and flange plates (Electricity

Association of NSW 1997).

16 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 17

Corrosion of metal structures can cause an increase

in operating costs, an increase in maintenance costs,

a reduction in expected lifespans, or a combination

of all three. More importantly, system safety and

reliability can be compromised, and the local

environment can be contaminated if any spill of toxic

chemicals occurs because of a corrosion-induced

leak (Electricity Association of NSW 1997).

Miscellaneous

While not strictly infrastructure, high saline

watertables can also have an adverse impact on

urban lawns, gardens, street trees, sporting fields and

parklands. The symptoms are often the same as for

agricultural production, and can include the decline

or death of the salt-sensitive turf, shrub and tree

species, and waterlogged playing areas. Depending

on the severity of the impacts, some areas may no

longer be suitable for their intended use and may be

either downgraded or abandoned. Soggy backyards

can also be found where rubble pits associated with

septic tanks are no longer functioning effectively.

To address this problem, households, businesses,

and local governments often apply higher rates of

fertiliser and seed in an attempt to mask the adverse

impacts of ‘sick’ lawns, replace salt-sensitive shrubs

and trees with more salt tolerant species, or install

sub-surface drainage to lower the watertable. In

worst-case scenarios, the affected areas are simply

covered up by landscaping such as concrete or brick

and clay pavers.

Similarly, high watertables can cause problems with

cellars and grain silo loading hoppers located below

ground level. These structures frequently fill with

water and require continuous pumping.

4.3 EnvironmentThe Murray-Darling Basin is home to significant

biodiversity on both public and private land, and

in rivers, streams and wetlands. Dryland salinity is

impacting on some of these areas, and is increasing

pressures on endangered species and ecological

communities.

The purpose of this section is to draw on published

and unpublished information, GIS analysis of

environmental datasets and recent output from the

National Land and Water Resources Audit to highlight

how salinity is adversely affecting the natural

environment across the Basin. Much of the text

draws from the 1997 ABARE report entitled ‘Loddon

and Campaspe catchments: Costs of salinity and

high watertables to the environment’ and the final

report on this ‘Cost of dryland salinity’ project by

Wilson (2003).

A more detailed discussion on the environmental

impacts of salinity in each catchment across the

Basin is presented in the regional-level project

reports listed in Section 9 and available on-line at

www.ndsp.gov.au. Further information can also

be obtained from the biodiversity reports by the

Standing Committee on Conservation Task Force

(2001) and the National Land and Water Resources

Audit (2002).

4.3.1 Terrestrial impacts

Naturally occurring saline soils and salt pans

have always been a feature of the Murray-Darling

Basin. However, widespread clearing of the native

vegetation and its replacement with shallow-

rooted crop and pastures species has contributed

to groundwater rises and a substantial increase in

the extent and severity of dryland salting across

the Basin.

Apart from the obvious direct economic costs

associated with large areas of land either affected

by high saline watertables or at risk, there is the

less obvious impact on the remnant vegetation in

these areas.

A large proportion of remnant vegetation remaining

in catchments occurs on public land in blocks or

along roadsides and railway lines. These remaining

sites provide refuge for plants and animals and act

as corridors to permit wildlife to travel between

habitats. In addition, large areas of remnant

vegetation are used for recreational and commercial

activities such as bush walking, bird watching,

and timber, honey and wildflower harvesting. The

impacts of salinity are magnified as little regeneration

of native vegetation occurs in most catchments.

Following the widespread clearing of native

woodlands and grasslands that has occurred in the

Gwydir, Namoi and NSW Border River catchments

for example, many of the remaining areas are now

home to a wide variety of shrubs and groundcovers

that are listed in urgent need of conservation

and protection. Many of these remaining areas

correspond to those same areas that are currently

subject to high watertables or at risk from developing

high watertables and salinity over the next 30 years

(Wilson 2003).

Similarly along the South Australian Murray

floodplain, an estimated 25,000 hectares (or 25

18 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 19

per cent of the total area) are visibly salt affected

(MDBMC 1999). This vegetation provides a critical

habitat for many of the region’s remaining flora and

fauna of important conservation value, as well as

important movement corridors for other species.

The predicted expansion of dryland and urban

salinity across most areas of the Basin over the

next 100 years will only exacerbate the extent and

severity of salinity impacts on remnant vegetation

in the region.

4.3.2 Threatened fauna and flora impacts

Individual floral species vary in their tolerance to

salinity. While some species are remarkably tolerant,

many are adversely affected by salinity to varying

degrees. At sufficiently high levels, salt-sensitive

vegetation may disappear completely from affected

areas, which may in turn have direct implications

on the biodiversity value of affected landscapes

(Wilson 2003).

Recent research conducted as part of the National

Land and Water Resources Audit suggests that the

current impact of salinity on fauna and flora in the

Victorian catchments may be significant. Specifically,

following an assessment of the recorded sightings of

Victorian rare or threatened fauna and flora species,

it was observed that many species have been

recorded at locations subject to high watertables.

In the Victorian Mallee for example, 42 of Victoria’s

rare or threatened fauna species (including the

Malleefowl, Mallee emu-wren and Regent Parrot)

and 27 rare or endangered flora species have been

sighted at locations where the watertable is less

than two metres from the soil surface (Wilson 2003).

Similarly, in the Goulburn-Broken Region, 40 species

of fauna and 16 species of fauna listed as rare and

endangered have been recorded at sites with shallow

watertables (Wilson 2001).

4.3.3 River and stream salinity impacts

Rivers and streams have a critical environmental

value by providing a habitat for various in-stream

fauna and riparian vegetation. They also provide

important commercial, recreational and educational

values. Salinity is increasingly expressed in riparian

environments because of increased salt loads in

the Basin’s waterways and because they frequently

intersect saline groundwater discharge points (due

to their location in catchments).

The environmental impact of saline rivers and

streams will vary from one site to another, and

will be influenced by several factors including the

duration of raised salinity levels, the magnitude

of salinity peaks, the diversity of species using

the site, and the nutrient status of the water. In

general, however, increasing salinity levels will

often be associated with a decline in the numbers

and diversity of species present (Wilson, 2002). On

the whole, these impacts are likely to be greater

than the corresponding impacts in the dryland parts

of catchments due to diverse nature of riparian

environments.

At present, the quality of water flowing through the

Basin’s main rivers is fair to moderate, with median

and flow weighted average stream salinity levels

generally falling below 550 EC (Table 2). Despite

this, very high salinity levels continue to be an issue

in many of the smaller sub-catchment tributaries,

particularly during the summer and autumn months.

In the 17 smaller tributaries above Wagga Wagga, for

example, some are contributing the highest salt loads

per unit area found in the NSW component of the

Murray-Darling Basin.


18 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 19

Table 2 Median stream EC (dates various) and *flow weighted average river salinity at selected gauging stations

Gauging stationSalinity

level (EC) Gauging stationSalinity

level (EC)

SA portion of Murray-Darling Basin Lachlan Region

River Murray downstream of Rufus River Junction

389 Lachlan River at Cowra 388

River Murray @ Morgan 595 Lachlan River at Forbes (Cotton Weir) 395

River Murray @ Murray Bridge 599 Lachlan River at Condobolin Bridge 450

Victorian Mallee and Wimmera Lachlan River at Hilston Weir 530

*River Murray @ Euston 242 Murrumbidgee Region

*River Murray @ Swan Hill 270 Murrumbidgee River at Burrinjuck Dam 157

Wimmera R at Horsham 488 Murrumbidgee River at Wagga Wagga 124

Wimmera R at Lochiel 680 Murrumbidgee River d/s of Balranald Weir 189

Wimmera R upstream of Lake Hindmarsh 680 Billabong Creek at Walbundrie 939

North Central Region Wakool River at Stoney Crossing 842

Campaspe River at Eppalock 440 Molongolo River at Coppins Crossing 235

Campaspe River at Rochester 715 Central West Region

Loddon River at Laanecoortie 770 Castlereagh River at Gilgandra 660

Loddon River at Kerang Weir 448 Castlereagh River at Coonamble 469

Barr Creek at Capel’s Crossing 5,341 Talbragar River at Elong Elong 769

Gunbower Creek at Koondrook 129 Macquarie River at Dubbo 330

Pyramid Creek at Kerang 475 Macquarie River at Warren Weir 349

*Avoca River at Quambatook 970 Gunningbar Creek below Regulator 311

*Avoca River downstream of Third Marsh 1,440 Macquarie River at Carinda 437

Goulburn-Broken Region Murra Creek at Billybingbone Bridge 270

Broken Creek at Rice’s Weir 168 Bogan River at Gongolgon 315

*Broken Creek at Casey’s Weir 130Gwydir, Namoi and NSW Border River Regions

Goulburn River at Seymour 83 Macintyre River @ Holdfast (yelarbon Cr) 325

Goulburn River at McCoy’s Bridge 210 Gil Gil Creek @ Weemelah 365

*Goulburn River upstream of Murray River 130 Boomi River @ Neeworra 250

North East Region Gwydir River @ Pinegrove 236

Mitta Mitta River @ Tallandoon 52 Gwydir River @ Pallamallawa 450

Kiewa River @ Bandiana 50 Mehi River @ Moree 313

River Murray @ Heywoods 56 Gwydir River @ Yarraman Bridge 380

Ovens River @ Peechelba East 71 Namoi River @ Gunnedah 499

Lower Murray-Darling and Western Regions

Namoi River @ Mollee 501

Culgoa River @ Collerina (Kenebree) 186 Namoi River @ Goangra 450

Bokhara River @ Bokhara (Goodwins) 220 Queensland portion of the Murray-Darling Basin

Warrego River @ Ford’s Bridge (Channel) 100 Balonne River @ Weribone 240

Warrego River @ Ford’s Bridge (Bywash) 140 Condamine River @ Cecil Weir 420

20 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 21

Gauging stationSalinity

level (EC) Gauging stationSalinity

level (EC)

Paroo River @ Willara Crossing 78 Condamine River @ Chinchilla 438

Darling River @ Bourke Town 344 Condamine River @ Cotswold 340

Darling River @ Wilcannia Main Channel 288 Condamine River @ Londoun Bridge 595

Darling River @ Menindee Weir 32 430 Condamine River @ Warwick 348

Darling River @ Burtundy 427 Culgoa River @ Whyenbah 236

Murray Region Dumaresq River @ Mauro 239

Billabong Creek @ Walbundrie 939 Macintyre @ Goondiwindi 295

Billabong Creek @ Darlot 218 Macintyre @ Inglewood 395

River Murray @ Swan Hill 288 Moonie River @ Nindigully 150

River Murray @ Torrumbarry Weir 106 Warrego River @ Wyandra 137

River Murray below Yarrawonga Weir 60 Weir River @ Talwood 192

River Murray @ Haywoods 56

Wakool River @ Stoney Crossing 842

Wakool River @ Kyalite 298

Source: MDBC 1997 and MDBMC 1999

*MDBMC 1998–1999 Flow weighted average river salinity.

These high salinity levels are leading to a reduction

in the biodiversity and total numbers of invertebrates

and aquatic plants. This is having adverse flow-on

impacts on fish, frogs and larger insects that rely on

these smaller invertebrates and aquatic plants as a

food source, which in turn, is having an impact on

the reptiles, birds, mammals and other larger fish

higher up the food chain.

4.3.4 Wetlands

Wetlands provide essential feeding and breeding

habitats for a variety of birds, mammals, fish,

amphibians and invertebrates. They also support

a large range of plant species that are crucial for

the survival of fauna in the area. For example,

waterbirds such as ibis feed on agricultural pests and

reduce the need for chemical pest control — which

is particularly important in the cropping areas of

Australia. Many wetlands also provide valuable

services to the catchment community by supporting

recreational activities such as fishing, hunting, bird

watching and camping.

When combined as a linked system extending over

vast areas of land, wetlands are critically important to

the living creatures they support. Wetlands also play

a critical role in absorbing, recycling and releasing

water borne nutrients, trapping sediments, increasing

the productivity of associated aquatic and terrestrial

ecosystems, and mitigating the adverse impacts of

floods by storing water during the peak flows and

releasing it gradually (Crabb, 1997).

Salinity affects six key components of stream and

wetland ecology (macrophytes and microalgae,

macro-invertebrates, riparian vegetation, amphibians

and reptiles, fish and waterbirds). Of these,

freshwater invertebrates and aquatic plants are the

most salt sensitive (Robley 1992a) and are present in

most if not all rivers, streams and wetlands.

Aquatic macrophytes are large plants found in river

and wetlands that assist in the cycling of nutrients

and provide food and habitat for herbivores.

Microalgae are single or multicellular algae that may

attach to solid objects or float freely in the water and

are an important source of food for invertebrates

and fish. Salinity levels from 1,500 EC are expected

to result in some lethal biological effects to both

macrophytes and microalgae. At 6,000 EC, it is

believed that most freshwater macrophytes and

microalgae will cease to exist (Hart et al. 1989).

Macroinvertebrates are also very important to stream

and wetland ecologies, supplying abundant amounts

of food to aquatic fauna. Invertebrates are unable

to regulate the dissolved salt concentrations in their

bodies and are therefore most susceptible to the

effects of increased salinities. Although salt tolerance

differs between species, some of the more salt

20 PART ONE

1-4

PART ONE 21

sensitive species can be adversely affected at salinity

levels of just 160 EC units.

Riparian vegetation provides a habitat and refuge

for native plants and animals around rivers, streams

and wetlands. Waterside vegetation also provide

a corridor for the movement of animals between

separate blocks of native vegetation.

Eucalypts and melaleucas will begin to suffer

significantly at salinity levels in excess of 3,100 EC

units. Rising watertables will also lead to degradation

of the vegetation as waterlogging begins to occur.

Even for species that have adapted to waterlogged

conditions (such as those in wetlands), the combined

effect of salinity greatly affects plants’ adaptive

mechanisms (O’Donnell, Lugg, Flemming and

Heron 1991).

Frogs are known to leave areas experiencing

ecological imbalance such as salinity. However,

research suggests that they may tolerate salinity levels

up to 15,600 EC for short periods before leaving the

affected area (Hart et al. 1989).

Fish are the most salinity tolerant inhabitants of

streams and wetlands. For example, some adult fish

species in the Loddon and Campaspe rivers tolerate

salinity levels up to 15,600 EC. It is believed that the

tolerance levels are considerably lower for younger

fish and for the maintenance of normal reproduction

(Robley 1992a,b).

Waterbird species also vary in their tolerance to

salinity. However, waterbirds are far less confined

to individual wetlands, rivers or streams, as they can

move to a new location if salinity levels become too

high. Despite this ability, however, low breeding

success of waterbirds has been attributed to salinity

levels above 4,600 EC. Waterbirds are also directly

dependent on macrophytes for food which are

affected by salinity levels well below 4,600 EC units

(Robley 1992a).

In addition to the above-mentioned affects of salinity,

saline streams often contain areas or pools of water

below the surface that contain very low levels of

oxygen. Without this oxygen, aerobic organisms and

benthic (bottom) dwelling organisms cannot survive

and the food chain is disrupted.

4.4 Cultural heritage

Salinity and high watertables can also affect

other places with cultural, historical or social

significance. These include Aboriginal sacred

sites, historic buildings and other structures, and

other archaeological sites that may contain buried

pottery, quartz or metal artefacts that are particularly

prone to damage from high saline watertables

(Spennemann 1997).

Old buildings, for example, are often more prone to

high saline watertables than newer buildings because

of the more porous materials used and the frequent


22 PART ONE

1-5

PART ONE 23

absence of effective damp proof barriers between the

foundations and the walls. These heritage buildings

are often associated with significant grounds and

gardens that can be damaged or destroyed by

high saline watertables. The loss or damage to

these gardens can further diminish the cultural

value of the properties and should not be ignored

(Salt Action 1997).

A more detailed discussion of the impacts of dryland

and urban salinity on cultural heritage in the Basin

can be found in the regional-level reports listed in

the ‘Reference’ section of this report and available

on-line at www.ndsp.gov.au.

4.5 Flow-on social impactsIn many areas of Australia, it is thought that salinity

is having flow-on social impacts on catchment

communities.

In saline areas, marginally profitable farmers may sell

up or supplement their income with off-farm work.

The opportunities for such work, however, will be

reduced if the region becomes more adversely

affected. Remaining farmers may be required

to expand their scale of operation to maintain

their financial status, or experience declining net

incomes. They may also be required to adopt

more conservative land management practices and

enterprises to minimise fluctuations in net farm

incomes, and to spend less on goods and services

(Tragowel Plains Sub-Regional Working Group 1989).

The loss of dryland agricultural income may also

generate flow-on effects on the outputs, incomes

and workforce of rural towns. Businesses supplying

agricultural goods or services may suffer declining

incomes due to a lower demand for their goods and

services, and this may result in job losses, business

closures, and population declines. Due to the lower

population, government authorities and banks may

then subsequently reduce (or remove completely)

the services provided to these rural centres, such as

public schools, post offices, libraries and hospitals

(Dumsday, Peglar and Oram 1989; Salinity Pilot

Program Advisory Council 1989). The cycle may

then continue with declines in population then

placing further pressure on the viability of businesses

supplying non-agricultural goods and services.

4.6 Are there any benefits from dryland salinity?

In some instances, there may be some benefits

to stakeholders from dryland salinity or high

watertables, namely:

• a reduction of pest populations (for example, some

environmental weeds have lower salinity thresholds

than indigenous vegetation)

• natural ‘irrigation’ of pastures and crops (this

is evident as patches of green grass during dry

summer periods)

• the conversion from unsustainable cropping to

sustainable grazing (for example using deep rooted

perennial pastures)

• production of aquaculture, betacarotene products,

and salt

• production of salt tolerant seeds, and

• reduced production of subsidised commodities

(this is uncommon in Australia, but it is not

impossible—for example, some dairying).

22 PART ONE

1-5

PART ONE 23

What are the costs?

The impact costs of dryland and urban salinity

caused by both high saline watertables and saline

water supplies may be grouped into one or more

of the following six categories.

1 Repair and maintenance costs. These relate

to the additional cost of maintaining assets in an

undamaged state in saline areas. For example,

if the annual cost of maintaining a sports oval

increases from $20,000 to $25,000 due to salinity,

the repair and maintenance cost attributable to

salinity equals $5,000 per year.

2 Costs from the reduced lifespan of

infrastructure. These relate to the cost of

replacing infrastructure earlier than normal

because of damage caused by the wet and/or

saline conditions. For example, a council usually

resurfaces sealed roads every 15 years, but must

do this 5 years earlier in those areas affected by

salinity. This imposes an additional cost on the

council and the community.

3 Costs of taking preventative action. These

relate to the additional amelioration costs incurred

by the community to minimise current and

future problems. It may, for example, include

the up-front cost of purchasing rainwater tanks

and pressure pumps, planting trees in recharge

areas, or installing sub-surface drainage. It may

also include the cost of undertaking research or

extension programs.

4 Increased operating costs. These relate to the

cost of using additional goods and services to

overcome the adverse impacts of saline water

supplies and high watertables. It may, for example,

relate to the need to replace industrial chemicals

more frequently.

5 The value of income foregone. This relates to

the reduction in net income to stakeholders

because of salinity. Most commonly, it involves

agricultural production foregone on saline

farmland, although it may also involve other

areas, such as reductions in rates revenue to local

governments due to lower property values of

salinity-affected rural and urban properties.

6 Environmental and cultural heritage

costs. These relate to the adverse impacts that

dryland and stream salinity have on the natural

environment and on cultural heritage.

In many cases, these costs will not occur

independently. For example, a high saline watertable

under a particular stretch of road may reduce the

time before major reconstruction is required, as well

as increase the ongoing funds needed to maintain

the road in an acceptable condition.

5


1-

24 PART ONE

1-6

PART ONE 25

Why value the costs of dryland and urban salinity?

The last decade has seen considerable improvements

in knowledge of the extent, severity and cost of

dryland salinity in rural areas. This improvement

has been associated with a dramatic increase in the

level of public funds available from state and federal

budgets to address the salinity problems in these

rural areas.

In contrast, despite significant salinity problems

now emerging in the urban areas, knowledge of the

extent, severity and cost of the problem in these

areas has generally been in its infancy2. This lack

of knowledge has caused a number of problems:

• Surveys consistently show that urban stakeholders

generally have a low awareness of the nature of

the urban salinity problem and how it may be

impacting on them.

• Public works budgets for urban salinity

management are very small or non-existent.

• There is increasing concern from farming and

environmental groups that the limited funds

available from rural and environmental funding

programs will be progressively diluted to pay for

salinity management in the urban areas.

Improving knowledge of the full impacts and costs of salinity in both rural and urban areas will

therefore serve three main purposes.

• Collecting this information at the sub-catchment level will help catchment communities more

accurately gauge the importance of salinity in their urban and rural areas and prepare their local

action plans. It will also enhance their case for funding from various programs.

• Collecting this information at the regional-level will help catchment communities prepare or refine

their regional strategies.

• Collecting this information at the Basin-wide level will help governments take a more strategic

approach to policy development and on-ground investment on a broad or Basin-wide scale.

Furthermore, improving knowledge of the extent, severity and cost of salinity in urban areas will

dramatically enhance the case for boosting total funding available for urban salinity management.

To demonstrate the importance of collecting

information on both the costs of salinity in both

the urban and rural areas of a catchment, Table 3

summarises the total annual costs that have been

quantified for each catchment in the Basin as part

of this project. It summarises for each stakeholder

group the current annual impact costs attributable

to increased repair and maintenance expenditure,

increased construction costs, reduced infrastructure

lifespan costs, increased operating costs and

foregone income.

Dryland salinity is often considered to be primarily

a ‘farm-level’ problem, resulting in a loss of farm

income and capital value of farmland. However,

as the results show, it is the non-agricultural

stakeholders, and not the dryland agricultural

producers, who bear the greatest costs from dryland

and urban salinity across the Basin. Specifically, the

results indicate that the total current impact cost

across the Basin is approximately $304.73 million

per annum, of which only 33 per cent is incurred

by dryland agricultural producers. Current impact

costs are greatest on households, commerce and

industry, at around $142.78 million per annum

or 46 per cent of the total. This significant cost is

primarily due to the magnitude of costs imposed

on these stakeholders from their use of saline town

water supplies. The results also confirm that in the

majority of Basin catchments (20/26), it is the non-

agricultural stakeholders in rural and urban areas,

and not dryland agricultural stakeholders, that make

the greatest contribution to total ‘$ per ha per annum’

impact costs.

2 It is hoped the regional level reports produced as part of the Determining the full cost of dryland and urban salinity across the Murray-Darling Basin project will help raise community knowledge of urban salinity issues.

61-

24 PART ONE

1-6

PART ONE 25

Table 3 Total current annual impact costs of dryland and urban salinity to key stakeholders in the

Murray-Darling Basin

Catchment

Urban & rural

households ($/yr)

Commerce & industry

($/yr)

Local governments

($/yr)

State govt agencies &

utilities ($/yr)

Dryland agricultural producers

($/yr)

Environment & cultural

heritage ($/yr) Total ($/yr)

Avoca 2,290,786 2,014,162 829,440 1,391,665 8,848,917 Identified 15,374,970

Benanee 62,300 9,525 3,588 3,871 688,442 but not 767,726

Border 1,903,350 1,634,555 357,521 355,209 1,361,856 valued 5,612,491

Broken 357,623 456,599 1,154,013 2,602,184 1,547,936 6,118,355

Campaspe 1,109,528 672,119 686,798 608,063 2,362,290 5,438,798

Castlereagh 398,702 209,295 43,115 263,065 522,515 1,436,692

Condamine-Culgoa

8,764,262 8,849,124 104,598 216,060 1,664,324 19,598,368

Darling 2,304,173 4,887,825 241,799 442,269 2,430,217 10,306,283

Goulburn 2,630,580 4,475,424 2,554,407 1,958,949 2,749,413 14,368,773

Gwydir 1,365,188 453,191 385,395 540,923 2,834,356 5,579,053

Kiewa 213,231 339,933 56,699 191,290 71,629 872,782

Lachlan 8,702,369 6,306,152 6,199,723 4,127,270 12,188,255 37,523,769

Lake George 43,591 4,252 69,798 89,113 185,409 392,163

Loddon 3,852,813 1,482,730 1,713,484 2,679,811 6,121,732 15,850,570

Lower Murray 3,784,561 2,323,555 321,191 849,090 8,953,866 16,232,263

Macquarie-Bogan

12,637,915 9,148,883 1,697,558 2,302,521 6,536,874 32,323,751

Mallee 2,812,575 3,636,074 785,802 1,518,070 10,753,007 19,505,528

Moonie 8,655 36,582 0 0 152,141 197,378

Murray Riverina

1,120,326 1,942,886 148,301 339,471 690,241 4,241,225

Murrumbidgee 14,338,561 7,837,204 9,299,565 4,100,075 9,339,283 44,914,688

Namoi 3,238,610 3,611,325 661,548 568,587 2,510,228 10,590,298

Ovens 374,838 1,206,538 499,695 422,583 373,475 2,877,129

Paroo 61,302 34,444 22,208 0 385,851 503,805

Upper Murray 41,135 33,921 20,309 59,263 407,978 562,606

Warrego 555,995 857,979 0 0 238,726 1,652,700

Wimmera Avon

4,293,686 3,046,948 3,409,274 6,814,162 14,320,762 31,884,832

Total 77,266,655 65,511,225 31,265,831 32,443,564 98,239,726 304,727,001

26 PART ONE

1-7

PART ONE 27

How do these guidelines assist local action planning?

Local action plans are prepared at a catchment or

sub-catchment level to help catchment communities

understand the major biophysical and socio-

economic processes occurring in the area, and to

identify the best solutions for addressing the natural

resource management issues confronting them. These

plans may cover an area from 10,000 hectares to over

2,000,000 hectares in the case of the Murray Mallee

Local Action Planning area in South Australia.

There are several key steps involved in the local

action planning process and these are summarised

in Figure 2. Also shown in this diagram is how these

guidelines (prepared as part of the Determining

the full cost of dryland and urban salinity across

the Murray-Darling Basin project), and three

other MDBC funded projects, provide the tools to

help catchment communities work through this

planning process.

7

Readers interested in learning more about the related ‘Tools’ and ‘Catchment Classification’ projects

should refer to www.ndsp.gov.au Similarly, the MDBC Discussion Paper entitled ‘Cost Sharing for On-

Ground Works’ (1996) can be obtained from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission ([email protected]).

Readers interested in learning more about preparing natural resource management and local action plans

at the sub-catchment, catchment or regional scale should consider reading the following documents:

• Guide to Catchment Management Committees and Assessment Panels for preparing and assessing

submissions for funding from the Natural Resources Management Strategy (MDBC 2001).

• Natural resource management planning framework for the Murrumbidgee River catchment (see

insert in the Murrumbidgee Catchment Action Plan) (Murrumbidgee Catchment Management

Committee 1998).

• Guidelines for review and renewal of action plans/sub-strategies to the regional catchment strategy

(Victorian Dept of Natural Resources and Environment 2002).

• Local action planning resource folder (South Australian Community Action for the Rural Environment

Program 1997).

• Guidelines for the preparation of salinity management plans (Victorian State Salinity Program 1988).

• National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (2002).

• Commonwealth-State Bilateral Agreements for the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.

A fully worked example of how the information

arising from the ‘Tools’, ‘Catchment Classification’,

‘Cost sharing’ and Determining the full cost of

dryland and urban salinity across the Murray-

Darling Basin projects can be brought together

to help work through the steps outlined in Figure

2 appear in a recent report by Wilson Land

Management Services and Ivey ATP (2002b).

This report to the Glenelg-Hopkins Catchment

Management Authority presents:

• a full economic assessment of the impacts and

costs of salinity across the Glenelg-Hopkins

catchment over a 30-year ‘No-Plan’ scenario

• the likely public and private benefits and costs

of implementing a detailed 30-year program of

on-ground works to address this problem

• a discussion of the sensitivity of the final

recommendations to changes in the underlying

assumptions, and

• a discussion of implementation priorities and

appropriate cost sharing arrangements.

1-

26 PART ONE

1-7

PART ONE 27

Figure 2: Key MDBC dryland projects and how they assist in local action planning

Source: Modified from MDBC (1996)

28 PART ONE

1-9

PART ONE 29

How do you assess the costs of dryland and urban salinity?

This section introduces the issues involved in assessing the impacts and costs of dryland and urban

salinity in a particular catchment. Full details on the range of techniques available to value the costs of

dryland and urban salinity in a catchment appear in Part 2 of these guidelines.

There are a variety of approaches that can be used

to assess the impacts and costs of dryland and urban

salinity, and each is associated with different levels of

accuracy (and hence cost). When deciding what mix

is most suitable, however, the catchment community

must first work through the following check-list:

1 What information do you actually need?

For example, do you need information on the

impact costs of dryland to feed into a ‘No-Plan’

scenario, do you need information on the costs and

benefits of implementing a range of ‘abatement’

options as part of a ‘With-Plan’ scenario, or do you

need information on both?

2 What level of detail will meet your needs?

For example, do you only need an ‘order of

magnitude’ estimate of the cost of dryland and

urban salinity in your catchment to help assess the

relative importance of dryland and urban salinity

to your community, or do you need more detailed

information to make a specific investment decision?

3 What relevant information is already available

and what are the gaps?

Before launching into a study of the costs of

dryland and urban salinity, it will be important to:

• compile all relevant existing information

• assess how useful the information is

(i.e. is it accurate and up-to-date), and

• identify what information still needs to

be collected.

4 What other useful information is available?

In many instances, access to supporting

information will help identify those areas where

efforts need to be focussed, or to improve the

accuracy of information previously compiled.

While not an exhaustive list, the information

that may be particularly useful includes GIS

datasets or other maps showing the location

and distribution of:

• the catchment and sub-catchment boundaries

• local government boundaries

• current areas of dryland and urban

salinity outbreaks

• current areas of high watertables

• areas at risk of rising high watertables

• land use (dryland agricultural and urban/

industrial)

• land capability

• current and predicted population

• urban centres and localities

• dryland agricultural productivity

• public utilities such as roads, bridges, railway

lines and power lines

• houses

• wetlands, streams and rivers

• areas of high natural, historic or aboriginal

significance.

81-

28 PART ONE

1-9

PART ONE 29

ReferencesKey ‘Determining the full cost of dryland and urban salinity across the Murray-Darling Basin’ project reportsAs part of the Determining the full cost of dryland

and urban salinity across the Murray-Darling Basin

project, many of the recommended methodologies

contained in Part 2 of these guidelines have been

implemented. The end result is numerous regional-

level reports that describe the current impacts

and costs of dryland and urban salinity to various

stakeholders, the environment and cultural heritage

across all 26 catchments in the Murray-Darling Basin.

Two other reports have also been prepared that

present ‘costs’ data for two trial catchments located

outside the Basin.

These reports are listed below. If you would like to

access these reports, they are available on the NDSP

website (www.ndsp.gov.au).

All reports were prepared in four distinct batches:

• Batch 1 reports present results for 10 catchments in

NSW and Victoria

• Batch 2 reports present results for the 2 trial

catchments located outside the Murray-Darling

Basin

• Batch 3 reports present results for the South

Australian catchments as well as the remaining

Victorian catchments that were not analysed in

Batch 1

• Batch 4 reports present results for the Queensland

catchments as well as the remaining NSW

catchments that were not analysed in Batch 1.

Batch 1: Study of dryland and urban salinity in the Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Central West, Goulburn-Broken and North Central Catchment Management Regions

Ivey ATP 2001, The cost of dryland salinity to

agricultural landholders in selected NSW and

Victorian catchments, Report to the Murray-Darling

Basin Commission and National Dryland Salinity

Program, Wellington, NSW.

Wilson, S.M. 2000, Assessing the cost of dryland

salinity to non-agricultural stakeholders across

selected Victorian and NSW catchments: A

methodology report, Report to the Murray-Darling


Program, Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 2001a, Dryland salinity: What are

the costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?: North

Central Region, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin

Commission and National Dryland Salinity Program,

Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 2001b, Dryland salinity: What are the

costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?: Goulburn-

Broken Region, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin


Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 2001c, Dryland salinity: What are

the costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?: Central

West Region, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin


Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 2001d, Dryland salinity: What

are the costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?:

Murrumbidgee Region, Report to the Murray-Darling


Program, Canberra.

Wilson, S.M, 2001e, Dryland salinity: What are the

costs to non-agricultural stakeholders?: Lachlan

Region, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin


Canberra.

Pelikan, M.R.P. 2000. Cost of dryland salinity: GIS

Methodology Paper, Report to the Murray-Darling

Basin Commission.

Batch 2: Trials outside Basin

Wilson Land Management Services and Ivey ATP

2001a, Dryland salinity—What are the current

impacts & costs in the Mount Pleasant sub-catchment

of the River Torrens (SA)?, Report to the Murray-

Darling Basin Commission and National Dryland

Salinity Program, Canberra.


2001b, Dryland salinity—What are the current

impacts & costs in the Lower Fitzroy catchment?,

91-

30 PART ONE

1-9

PART ONE 31

Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and

National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra.

Batch 3: Study of dryland and urban salinity in the

remaining South Australian and Victorian

catchments

Ivey ATP 2002a, The current cost of dryland salinity

to agricultural landholders: Upper Murray, Ovens,

Kiewa, Mallee, Wimmera-Avon, Murray-Riverina,

and Lower Murray catchments, Report to the Murray-

Darling Basin Commission and National Dryland

Salinity Program, Wellington, NSW.

Wilson S.M. 2002b, Assessing the costs of dryland

salinity to non-agricultural stakeholders, the

environment and cultural heritage in selected

catchments across the Murray-Darling Basin—

Methodology report 2, Report to the Murray-Darling


Program, Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 2002c, Dryland salinity—What are the

impacts & costs to non-agricultural stakeholders, the

environment and cultural heritage: SA portion of the

Murray-Darling Basin, Report to the Murray-Darling


Program, Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 2002d, Dryland salinity—What are the


environment and cultural heritage: Victorian Mallee

and Wimmera-Avon River catchments, Report to the

Murray-Darling Basin Commission and the National

Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 2002e, Dryland salinity —The current

impacts & costs to non-agricultural stakeholders,

the environment and cultural heritage: North East

Region of Victoria, Report to the Murray-Darling


Program, Canberra.

Batch 4: Study of dryland and urban salinity in the remaining New South Wales and Queensland catchments

Ivey ATP, 2002b, The current cost of dryland salinity

to agricultural landholders: Benanee, Border,

Condamine-Culgoa, Darling, Gwydir, Lake George,

Moonie, Paroo and Warrego River Catchments,


National Dryland Salinity Program, Wellington, NSW.

Wilson, S.M. 2002f, Dryland salinity—The current


environment and cultural heritage: Lower Murray-

Darling and Western Regions, Report to the Murray-

Darling Basin Commission and the National Dryland

Salinity Program, Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 2002g, Dryland salinity—The current


environment and cultural heritage: Murray Region,


the National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 2002h, Dryland salinity—The current


the environment and cultural heritage: Gwydir,

Namoi and NSW Border Rivers Regions, Report to the




30 PART ONE

1-9

PART ONE 31

Wilson, S.M. 2002i, Dryland salinity—The current


the environment and cultural heritage: Queensland

Portion of the Murray-Darling Basin, Report to the



Saline water cost function study

Wilson S.M. and Ivey-ATP 2002, Validation and

refinement of the Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey

saline water cost functions, Report to the Murray-

Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Final project report

Wilson S.M. 2003, Determining the full costs of

dryland and urban salinity across the Murray-

Darling Basin, MDBC Project D9008, Final project

report, A Wilson Land Management Services Pty Ltd

report to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission and

National Dryland Salinity Program, Canberra.

MDBC dryland salinity report

Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2003, Dryland and

urban salinity: An assessment of current impacts and

costs across the Murray-Darling Basin, Canberra.

Other sourcesAACM 1996, Guide to cost-sharing for on-ground

works, Report the Murray-Darling Basin Commission,

Adelaide.

ABARE 1997, Guidelines for quantifying the costs of

dryland salinity and high watertables, In-Confidence

ABARE report to the Murray-Darling Basin

Commission, Canberra.

Cox, S.A. and Dillon, B.I. 1982, Summary on effects

of salinity on municipal and industrial consumers in

respect to the Murray River, South Australia. Stage II.

The effect of salinity on domestic consumers, AMDEL

Progress Report No. 2.

Crabb, P. 1997, Murray-Darling Basin Resources,

Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Hall, N. and Watson, B. 1998, On-farm impacts of

acid, sodic and saline soils in the Loddon-Campaspe

catchment, Report to the Cooperative Research

Centre for Soil and Land Management, Canberra.

Hill, C.M. 1998, Assessing economic impacts of

salinity in rural and urban areas, In: Managing

saltland into the 21st Century: Dollars and sense from

salt, Proceedings, 5th National PUR$L Conference,

Tamworth, NSW, 9–13th March, 1998 pp. 110–13.

Ivey-ATP 1998a, Determining the costs of dryland

salinity: Dryland salinity survey of the Talbragar and

Little River catchments—Central West NSW: Volume

1 of 5: Methodology, Report to the Murray-Darling

Basin Commission, Wellington NSW.

Ivey-ATP 1998b, Determining the costs of dryland


Little River catchments—Central West NSW: Volume 3

of 5: Costs to the Little River catchment, Report to the

Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wellington NSW.

Ivey-ATP 1998c, Determining the costs of dryland



5 of 5: Detailed data for Background Report, Report

to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wellington

NSW.

Ivey-ATP 1998d, Determining the costs of dryland



4 of 5: Background Report, Report to the Murray-

Darling Basin Commission, Wellington NSW.

Ivey-ATP 1998e, Determining the costs of dryland


Little River catchments—Central West NSW: Volume 2

of 5: Costs to the Talbragar catchment, Report to the

Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Wellington NSW.

Ivey-ATP 1998f, Determining the costs of dryland

salinity: Dryland salinity survey of the Troy Creek

catchment—Central West NSW, Report to Salt Action

New South Wales, Wellington NSW.

Lubulwa, M. 1997, Salinity and High Watertables

in the Loddon and Campaspe catchments: Costs to

urban households, ABARE report to the Murray-


Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 1996, Cost-sharing

for on-ground works: A discussion paper, Murray-


Murray-Darling Basin Commission 1997, Salt trends:

Historic trend in salt concentration and saltload of

streamflow in the Murray-Darling Drainage Division,

Dryland Technical Report No. 1, Canberra.

Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, 1999,

The salinity audit of the Murray-Darling Basin—A

100-year perspective, 1999, Murray-Darling Basin


Powell, J. 1998, A principled approach to cost sharing

for urban salinity, paper presented at the Urban

Salinity Conference, Charles Sturt University, Wagga

Wagga, 11th August.

32 PART ONE

Salt Action 1997, Urban salinity—a threat to cultural

heritage places, Dryland Salinity Information Sheet

SSC 03/97.

Spennemann, D. 1997, Urban salinity as a threat to

cultural heritage places, A primer on the processes

and effects of chloridation, Charles Sturt University,

Johnstone Centre of Parks, Recreation and Heritage,

Albury NSW.

Standing Committee on Conservation Task Force,

2001, Implications of salinity for biodiversity

conservation and management, report prepared for

ANZECC.

Streeting, M. and Hamilton, C. 1991, An economic

analysis of the forests of south-eastern Australia,

Resource Assessment Commission Research Paper

no. 5, AGPS, Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 1995, Draft guidelines for quantifying

the full range of costs of dryland salinity, ABARE

paper presented at a National Workshop on Dryland

Salinity, Convened by ABARE and the Victorian

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,

Bendigo, Victoria, 21–23 June.


2002, Cost of dryland salinity to the Glenelg-Hopkins

Region, Report to the Glenelg-Hopkins Catchment

Management Authority.

Van Hilst, R. and Schuele, M. 1997, Salinity and high

watertables in the Loddon and Campaspe catchments:

Costs to the environment, ABARE report to the


Whish-Wilson, P. and Lubulwa, M. 1997, Salinity

and high watertables in the Loddon and Campaspe

catchments: Costs to local councils, government

agencies and public utilities, ABARE report to the


Whish-Wilson, P. and Shafron, W. 1997, Salinity

and high watertables in the Loddon and Campaspe

catchments: Costs to farms and other businesses,

ABARE report to the Murray-Darling Basin


Young, D. and Mues, C, 1993, An evaluation of

water management strategies in the Barmah-Millewa

Forest, ABARE paper presented at the 37th Annual

Conference of the Australian Agricultural Economics

Society, University

of Sydney, 9–11 February.


32 PART ONE

Part Two:Guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts


2-1

PART TWO 35

0

2-1

PART TWO 35

0 IntroductionPart 2 provides detailed technical instructions on how

to assess the impacts and costs of dryland and urban

salinity in a catchment. It is assumed the reader is

conversant with the material presented in Part 1

before working through this Part.

Originally, the project focused on presenting

methods that could be used to assess the current

impact costs of dryland and urban salinity in the

Murray-Darling Basin. However, catchment groups

also require information on how these impact costs

may change from this base level over time. Salinity

damage cost functions are also needed to enhance

the quality and consistency of cost estimates where

community awareness of the extent and severity of

dryland and urban salinity was low and/or where

only a relatively low cost approach was required.

To address these needs, salinity cost information

has also been expressed on a marginal or ‘$ per

unit’ basis. This information can then be used by

catchment groups and others to:

• examine the current cost of dryland and urban

salinity to the various stakeholder groups in a

particular catchment or sub-catchment;

• assess how these costs are likely to change over

time under a ‘No-Plan’ scenario;

• assess the expected public and private costs and

benefits associated with implementing a large

program of salinity remedial projects across this

area; and

• formulate equitable cost sharing frameworks.

This part also provides information on how

to assess the cost of undertaking preventative

works or actions. As noted in Part 1, ‘abatement’

or ‘preventative’ costs can include the cost of

purchasing rainwater tanks, installing sub-surface

drainage, and the cost of using higher specification

materials during the construction of infrastructure

so that it is more tolerant of the wet and

saline conditions.

Part 2 is presented in 6 sections.These sections should be worked through in

order to estimate the impacts and costs of

dryland and urban salinity in a catchment

or other local action planning area.

• Section 2 describes how to identify the

broad nature of the dryland and/or urban

salinity problem in the study area.

• Section 3 presents a checklist that will help

clarify which stakeholder groups are affected

by dryland and/or urban salinity in the area

and hence which parts of Section 4 are

relevant. For example, if after completing the

checklist it is apparent that no town centres

in the area under investigation are either

affected by urban salinity or at risk, then the

parts of Section 4 dealing with salinity costs

in urban town centres can be ignored.

• Section 4 presents the detailed instructions

needed to estimate the impact and cost

of dryland and/or urban salinity to each

stakeholder group, the environment and

cultural heritage in an area. It is strongly

recommended that the checklist included

in Section 3 be completed prior to working

through this section.

• Section 5 presents a discussion of how to

prepare for and conduct a survey or census

of stakeholders who may be affected by

dryland and/or urban salinity.

• Section 6 presents a proforma that can

be used to summarise the cost estimates

compiled after working through the previous

sections. It also highlights where readers

may obtain detailed information on the full

impacts and costs of dryland and/or urban

salinity to dryland agricultural and non-

agricultural stakeholders, the environment

and cultural heritage that have been

compiled for all towns and catchments in the

Murray-Darling Basin.

• Section 7 highlights key issues that should

be considered when analysing the salinity

cost data compiled for a local action planning

area and when feeding the information into

the local action planning process.

12-

36 PART TWO

2-3

PART TWO 37

0Identifying the nature of the salinity problem

One of the first steps that should be undertaken

when assessing the impacts and costs of dryland and

urban salinity in a particular area is to identify the

general nature of the problem. As noted in Part 1, the

problem may take the following forms:

1. Salinity outbreaks in the rural areas

2. Saline town water supplies

3. High saline watertables in the urban areas

In many instances, a combination of one or more

of the above forms is likely to occur in the area

being studied.

2


2-

36 PART TWO

2-3

PART TWO 37

0 Identifying the affected stakeholders3.1 IntroductionAs noted in Part 1, the three forms of dryland

and urban salinity summarised above may impose a

variety of impacts on various dryland agricultural and

non-agricultural stakeholder groups, the environment

and cultural heritage across an area. These adverse

impacts may be incurred within the local action

plan area being investigated, or downstream from

the area.

When preparing a local action plan, it will rarely be

practical or economically viable to identify and value

all impacts on the various stakeholder groups. At

some point, it is likely that the cost of obtaining the

detailed information will exceed the benefits gained

for the purposes of decision-making. Rather, what

will be more important will be to first identify the

main stakeholders either currently affected, or likely

to become affected, by the various forms of dryland

and urban salinity listed above. For example:

• Is it just the stakeholders located in the rural

areas of the catchment (e.g. rural householders,

local governments, farmers, state agencies and

utilities with infrastructure in the rural areas,

the natural environment and any rural sites of

cultural significance)?

• Is it just the stakeholders in the urban town

centres (e.g. urban households, urban commercial,

retail and industrial businesses, local governments,

state agencies and utilities with infrastructure in

the urban areas, and any urban sites of cultural

significance)?

• Is it just the downstream agricultural, industrial

and/or domestic water users?

• Is it a combination of two or more of

these options?

The next step as described in Part 1 is to identify

the likely change in salinity costs to each of

these stakeholder groups over time under a ‘No-

Plan’ scenario.

The proforma on the next page can help to identify the main impacts of dryland and urban salinity on

stakeholders. Once completed, the information will:

• act as a checklist for the main impacts that should be assessed (or at least considered) as part of the

local action planning process (see section 4), and

• help identify the likely beneficiaries arising from the implementation of a local action plan. These

beneficiaries can then be accounted for when transparent cost-sharing arrangements based on a

‘Beneficiary Pays’ principle are being developed.

32-

38 PART TWO

2-3

PART TWO 39

3.2 Proforma for identifying the stakeholders affected by dryland and urban salinity

Instructions

After defining the boundary of your local action planning (LAP) area, use the following checklist to identify

which parts of Section 4 must be worked through to estimate the likely impacts and costs of dryland and

urban salinity to dryland agricultural and non-agricultural stakeholders, the environment and cultural heritage

over time.

38 PART TWO

2-3

PART TWO 39

3.3 Unsure whether urban salinity is a problem in your LAP area?

In recent years, considerable work has been

undertaken by researchers to map the extent of

dryland salinity in the rural areas of the Murray-

Darling Basin. Unfortunately, awareness of the

worsening salinity problem in our urban areas is far

less developed.

Part 1 of these Guidelines highlighted that high saline

watertables in urban town centres may impose costs

on the various stakeholders in these towns, as well

as on the urban environment and sites of cultural

significance. It also highlighted that while land use

in the urban centre may contribute to these urban

salinity problems, the problems are frequently caused

by land use in the surrounding rural areas. When

formulating a local action plan to address salinity in a

particular catchment, it will therefore be essential to:

• identify the current extent and severity of urban

salinity in this area

• predict how the extent and severity of urban

salinity in this area is likely to change under a ‘No-

Plan’ scenario

• identify the cause of the salinity problem in each

urban centre either currently affected or at risk, and

• identify a range of ‘best-bet’ management

options to address the problem (this may include

implementing a mix of on-ground works to reduce

groundwater recharge in both the affected urban

centre and in the surrounding rural areas).

Presented in Attachment A is an initial database of

220 rural towns and cities located in the Murray-

Darling Basin currently subject to urban salinity.

It shows a breakdown of the percentage of each

town believed to be experiencing very slight, slight,

moderate and severe urban salinity.

As noted in Part 1, this database was compiled as

part of this project with the assistance of numerous

state agency staff and catchment representatives

across the Basin, and through actual on-ground

inspections of over eighty Victorian towns. In each

of the towns inspected, the key visible indicators

used were visible salt scalding, bare patches, and

the presence of spiny rush both in the drainage

lines as well on the higher ground. Other indicators

were visible damage to building structures and

foundations, damage to sports grounds and other

open spaces, and damage to other infrastructure

(including roads, bridges, kerbs, footpaths and

drainage lines).

This database should provide a useful initial

checklist of whether any towns in your area are

currently subject to urban salinity, and the extent and

severity of any impacts. However, as this database

presents preliminary information only, it is strongly

recommended that further work be conducted to

obtain more definitive data. This work could involve:

• identifying whether local governments or state

government agencies responsible for natural

resource management have compiled any more

detailed information on urban salinity in your area

• implementing a groundwater monitoring program

in the towns either affected or at risk, and

• conducting a detailed on-ground inspection of

salinity affected towns to obtain more accurate

information on the infrastructure and sites affected

by high saline watertables and the severity of

these impacts.


40 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 41

Valuing the costs of dryland and urban salinity

4.1 IntroductionThe purpose of this Section is to provide guidance

on how to assess the impacts and costs of dryland

and urban salinity to the various stakeholder

groups identified in the previous checklist. It is

not intended to represent an inflexible set of ‘how

to do it’ instructions. Rather, it describes a range

of approaches for assessing these costs — each

of which are associated with different levels of

detail and accuracy. As noted in Part 1, catchment

communities will need to work through the following

checklist before deciding what approach, or level

of detail, may best meet their needs when assessing

these impacts and costs:

1 What information do we actually need?

2 What level of detail will meet our needs?

3 What information is already available and

what are the gaps?

4 What other useful information is available?

Note: Once any costs of salinity have been

quantified, any information published or

disseminated should not enable the reader to identify

costs specific to any one individual or individual

organisation (including individual local councils).

Rather, costs should be presented at an aggregated

level that ensures confidentiality.

4.2 Dryland agricultural producersDryland salinity can affect dryland agricultural

producers in several ways. High saline watertables

may reduce crop and pasture production and cause

damage to fences, yards, buildings and roads. Saline

water supplies may cause damage to water pumps,

water tanks and supply systems, water troughs, and

irrigated pasture or crops.

• Work through this Section if you noted in your

checklist in Section 3.2 that there are rural areas

in your study area currently affected by dryland

salinity, or are at risk.

4.2.1 Background

The impact of dryland salinity and saline water

supplies on dryland agricultural producers may

include productivity losses resulting in foregone

income, increased repairs and maintenance to

infrastructure, increased cost of new infrastructure,

reduced lifespan of infrastructure, and increased

operating costs.

Dryland agricultural producers may also experience

significant costs implementing preventative works

to minimise current and future salinity problems.

This may, for example, include the up-front cost of

purchasing rainwater tanks and pressure pumps,

planting trees or deep-rooted perennial pasture in

recharge areas, or installing sub-surface drainage to

minimise damage.

Climatic conditions and dryland agricultural

production throughout the Murray-Darling Basin

varies significantly, as does the resulting dryland

salinity impacts in a given region. Therefore,

considerable groundwork may be necessary to assess

the impacts and costs of high saline watertables and

saline water supplies across a catchment or region.

The purpose of this Section is to present methods for

estimating these costs at a catchment level.

4.2.2 Conduct a survey of dryland agricultural producers

Conducting a survey of dryland agricultural

producers within the catchment being studied is a

very effective method of obtaining information. This

approach may involve surveying every producer,

or a random number of producers, depending on

the size of the area being considered, the depth of

information required, and the resources available.

Combined with knowledge from local experts,

producer surveys also provide an excellent view

of producer perceptions and awareness of dryland

salinity and associated costs in the area.

The survey method, while relying on each individual

producer’s perception of the problem, is effective

in estimating salinity costs to dryland agricultural

producers, if conducted correctly.

42-

40 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 41

An example questionnaire that can be used to assess

the current nature and costs of salinity to dryland

agricultural producers is presented in Attachment B.

This questionnaire helps to collect information on

each producer’s perception of:

• the area of dryland salinity and high watertables on

their property

• the severity of dryland salinity and high watertables

on their property

• the type of land affected

• reductions in crop and pasture production and

hence foregone income

• components of their farm, household and other

property affected

• the impact on both stock and domestic supplies

• structural damage to houses

• damage to farm roads and tracks

• additional expenditure on repair and

maintenance activities

• increased construction costs

• amount spent on salinity-related preventative

works, and

• the cost of shortened lifespan of salinity-affected

infrastructure.

This type of survey requires a reasonable level

of detail. To achieve a good response rate, a

meeting with either individual producer or group of

producers is usually necessary.

The individual interview ensures accurate completion

of surveys, with the interviewer being able to clarify

sections of the survey where necessary. Time and

expense is the main drawback for conducting

individual surveys, compared with a group meeting,

where many surveys can be filled in accurately

at once.

Group meetings are more difficult to organise,

and require greater explanation on the type of

information required. There is also a likelihood that

some surveys, or sections of surveys will not be filled

in correctly. It is easier to conduct a meeting of this

nature if producers receive the survey in advance, in

order to think about their answers.

A more detailed description of how to conduct a

census or survey of producers and other stakeholder

groups is presented in Section 5.

4.2.3 Enhance accuracy of survey results

It is difficult for producers to distinguish the

proportion of total costs attributable to dryland

salinity, and is one of the main limitations of using

surveys to collect this information. Every producer

varies in their understanding and awareness of

dryland salinity impacts and associated costs. While

many producers are aware that salinity is causing

damage to some of their infrastructure, many cannot

accurately quantify these additional costs. Where

possible, surveys should encourage producers to

determine the increase in costs due to dryland

salinity as a percentage or component of total costs.

For example: a property has 5 km of road, of which

four kilometres are unaffected by salinity and cost

$150 per kilometre to maintain. One kilometre

is affected by dryland salinity and costs $200 to

maintain. Therefore, the increased repair and

maintenance cost of roads as a result of dryland

salinity is $50 per annum, not the total maintenance

cost of $200 per annum.

Another problem is that dryland salinity damage to

infrastructure and land is often insidious in nature,

and either not recognised, or attributed to other

causes. This problem is multiplied when salinity is

only an emerging problem or community awareness

is low. For example, many factors may contribute to

poor pasture establishment in an area of a paddock,

making it difficult for the producer to recognise that

high, saline watertables is a factor, unless electrical

conductivity readings or soil testing are undertaken.

Once a survey of affected producers is complete, it

will be highly beneficial to enhance the accuracy of

the results by combining the survey information with

more reliable and objective information obtained

from other sources. GIS information showing the

current (and predicted future) areas subject to

dryland salinity is particularly useful for validating

producer perceptions of the location of salinity

outbreaks in the study area.

As the cost of salinity is normally calculated on

an annual basis, the majority of cost information

collected should be for an average 12-month period.

However, preventative works costs and other

increased infrastructure costs that result from dryland

salinity or saline water supplies are often intermittent,

such as tree planting or water tank installation.

Hence surveys should request information on costs

experienced over a three or five year period, which

are then averaged to give an annual figure.

42 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 43

4.2.4 Calculating Foregone Dryland Agricultural Income

High saline watertables impact on the production

of crops and pastures resulting in foregone dryland

agricultural income through either reduced crop

yield, or reduced livestock production. There are

several ways to calculate the cost of lost production

in affected areas. Two methods that have been used

while trialling these Guidelines across the Murray-

Darling Basin are outlined below.

Reduced Land Capability

By obtaining information on both current and

potential land capability of salt-affected areas, it

is possible to estimate the production loss caused

by salinity. The land capability codes used in the

producer surveys were:

Irrigated pasture or

cropping

Good dryland cropping

and pasture

Irrigated horticulture Dryland pasture with

occasional cropping

Dryland horticulture Dryland pasture with

no cropping

Prime dryland cropping Limited grazing

No agricultural value Tree lot or

regeneration area

One method of estimating Production Loss of salt-

affected land is by assigning an estimated value of

agricultural production ($/ha/year) to each land

classification, and then subtracting Current Gross

Margin from Potential Gross Margin. This approach

is demonstrated in the following example where the

assumed gross margins were:

Dryland pasture,

occasional cropping

$140 / ha / year

Dryland pasture $120 / ha / year

Limited grazing $50 / ha / year

Tree lot $30 / ha / year

Producer: Bill Smith

Affected paddock Top paddock Bottom paddock House paddock

Saline Area (Ha) 0.5 36.0 2.0

Potential land capability Dryland pastureDryland pasture,

Occasional croppingDryland pasture

Current land capability Limited grazing Dryland pasture Tree lot

Typical symptoms Bare ground, barley grassSalt scald, poor pasture

species and poor growth

Potential Gross Margin ($/ha/yr)

120 140 120

Current Gross Margin ($/ha/yr)

50 120 30

Loss ($/ha/yr) 70 20 90

Total loss ($/yr) 35 720 180

These figures can be altered to suit different regions or catchments. Total Loss is calculated by multiplying the

Loss ($/ha/yr) by the Area (Ha) affected.

42 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 43

Percentage of production potential

An alternative to comparing current and potential production is to ask producers to estimate the reduced

productivity of salt-affected areas as a percentage, compared to production potential. Production Loss

(per hectare) is calculated by multiplying Potential Gross Margin of an area by the % Production Loss, as

shown below.

Producer: John Citizen

Affected paddock or area Hill paddock Flat paddock River paddock

Area (Ha) 3 10 15

Potential land capability Dryland pastureDryland pasture,

Occasional croppingDryland pasture

Production Loss (%) 20% 75% 50%

Typical symptoms change in pasture speciessalt scald, poor pasture

species and poor growthpoor pasture

species and poor growth

Potential Gross Margin ($/ha/yr)

120 140 120

Loss/ha ($/ha/yr) 24 105 60

Total loss ($/yr) 72 1,050 900

4.2.5 Calculating Loss on a Catchment Scale

To determine the cost of salinity across a large

dryland area, it is usually not feasible to survey every

producer. Therefore, it is necessary to extrapolate the

cost from a survey sample.

To conduct a large-scale study of salinity costs to

dryland producers, data may be obtained from state

agencies, local governments and regional water

authorities, and by utilising the latest Geographic

Information System (GIS) datasets available.

The following notes describe the methodology used

to quantify the costs of dryland salinity in selected

Local Government Areas (LGAs) throughout the

Murray-Darling Basin. As well as producing an

estimate of the total salinity costs, the extrapolation

process provided a breakdown of those costs

associated with saline water supplies and those

associated with high saline watertables. Each of these

cost centres have been further dissected into the six

cost components detailed in the following section.

Benchmarks

The cost of salinity to the dryland agricultural

producers surveyed were subdivided into the

following six categories:

1 Increased repairs and maintenance.

2 Increased cost of new infrastructure.

3 Reduced lifespan of infrastructure.

4 Increased operating costs.

5 Foregone income from agricultural land.

6 Cost of preventative works.

These costs can be further sub-divided into two

categories depending on whether they were caused

by (a) high saline watertables or (b) saline water

supplies. Within these two categories, some costs

are associated with general farm production, while

others are more closely related to the livestock

infrastructure such as fences, stockyards and water

troughs. Table 1 shows how impact and preventative

works costs collected in surveys were quantified into

the following four categories:

A Cost of surface salinity associated with the level of

dryland agricultural production.

B Cost of surface salinity associated with the level of

livestock infrastructure (livestock DSE).

C Cost of saline water supplies associated with the

level of dryland agricultural production.

D Cost of saline water supplies associated with the

level of livestock infrastructure (livestock DSE).

44 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 45

Table 1. Breakdown of dryland agricultural impact and preventative work cost categories

Cause: Surface Salinity Saline Water Supplies

Extrapolation Means:

ProductionLivestock DSE Production Livestock DSE

Cost Item (A) (B) (C) (D)

Repairs and maintenance

Vehicles, machinery, tree replacement, household items.

Fencing and stockyards

Drainage systems Water supply systems

Infrastructure costs Roads, earthworks Fencing and stockyards

Drainage systems Water supply systems

Preventative works Trees, erosion controls, fencing, drainage, bores

Perennial pasture Water purification, groundwater monitoring

Water supply systems

Reduced lifespan of infrastructure

75% of total cost 25% of total cost

Increased operating costs

Maintaining trees and gardens

Soap use, heating, pumping, water purification, air conditioning

Foregone income 100% of loss

The above cost components, when assessed on

a per hectare basis, were used as indices in the

determination of surface salinity and saline

groundwater costs within each LGA, as shown below.

To extrapolate salinity costs in each LGA from the

results of surveyed producers, it is necessary not only

to account for the areas of land affected by salinity,

but also to apply adjustments or weighting factors

to the benchmark catchments. These adjustment

factors were to account for variations in the

following parameters:

• Area of known dryland salinity.

• Level of salinity in groundwater.

• Intensity of infrastructure (number of sheds, fences,

yards and tanks).

• Intensity of agricultural production (Gross Value of

Agricultural Output per hectare).

The method by which each of these factors was

applied to adjust the benchmarks during the trialling

of these Guidelines across the Murray-Darling Basin

is described below.

Area of Dryland Salinity

The area of known dryland salinity in each LGA is

critical for calculating accurate salinity costs. While

trialling these Guidelines, the known areas of dryland

salinity in each LGA of the Murray-Darling Basin

were identified from GIS data provided by several

state agencies. The relevant dryland salinity costs

from the benchmark study were then extrapolated

across each LGA, taking into account the relative

difference in salinity areas. For example, if a LGA

has twice the area of dryland salinity as the surveyed

area, then (all other things being equal) twice the

cost recorded in the survey areas would be expected

for that LGA.

Extrapolation by RelativeEC Levels of the Groundwater

The level of damage to some assets is largely

dependent on the salt content of the groundwater.

For example, water with lower dissolved salts

generally has less impact on water supply

infrastructure compared with water of higher salt

content. Therefore, the extrapolation process was

used to multiply the cost recorded in the surveyed

areas by a factor representing the relative salinity

level of groundwater in the subject catchment.

Only costs caused by saline water supplies were

treated in this way. For example, if a catchment has

groundwater with twice the salinity levels of the

surveyed area, then (all other things being equal)

twice the cost recorded in the survey areas would

be expected.

This approach assumes that there is a linear

relationship between salinity levels and impact costs.

In reality, it is likely that high salinity levels will result

in a stepped or threshold response from farmers.

For example, once the salinity level of the water

44 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 45

supply reaches a critical level, producers may change

to more salt resistant equipment, or alternatively,

the water may not be of adequate quality for use.

More detailed studies could be conducted in each

area to obtain better information on the current

costs of saline water supplies at particular levels of

salinity. However, the costs of this more detailed

work should outweigh the benefits resulting from the

improvements to the information obtained.

General Intensity of Production

The effect that a given area of dryland salinity

or high saline watertables has on costs or loss of

production depends largely on the general intensity

of the area’s agricultural production. For example, a

hectare of surface salinity in a high rainfall cropping

area is likely to result in a greater loss of income

($ per hectare) than the same area of salinity in

low rainfall rangelands. Similarly, 10,000 hectares

of rangelands, with a low stocking density is likely

to consist of larger properties and relatively low

levels of infrastructure (such as sheds and fences).

In contrast, a large number of smaller properties

occupying 10,000 hectares of more intensively

stocked land, will have smaller paddocks, more

fencing per hectare and more infrastructure per

hectare. Consequently, the damage to infrastructure

is also expected to be greater.

While trialling these Guidelines, the intensity of

agricultural production within a LGA was calculated

with reference to the Gross Value of Agricultural

Output (GVAO) statistics published by the Australian

Bureau of Statistics (ABS). The GVAO takes into

account the entire value of commercial agricultural

production that occurs within a Statistical Local

Area (SLA). A more intensive agricultural area with

a higher GVAO per hectare will experience on

average, more foregone income from each hectare

of land affected by salinity. It will also have more

infrastructure per hectare that could be affected by

dryland salinity, compared with a less productive

land area with a lower GVAO per hectare.

Livestock Intensity

The GVAO is used to extrapolate most dryland

salinity costs experienced by producers. However,

this measure is limited in its ability to extrapolate the

cost of damage to livestock infrastructure. An area

with a large proportion of cropping and relatively

little livestock would result in an inflated estimate

of damage to livestock infrastructure if the GVAO

were used to extrapolate the results from the survey

area results.

Therefore, livestock numbers in each LGA were used

to reflect the degree of livestock infrastructure within

that LGA. The number of livestock in a SLA was

drawn from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

Integrated Regional Database (IRDB). To aggregate

different types of livestock, their estimated feed

requirements were summed in terms of Dry Sheep

Equivalents (DSE). Each type of livestock was given

a DSE rating (DSE per head) and the total DSE for

a SLA was summed. Therefore, it was assumed that

livestock infrastructure within an area is proportional

to livestock intensity (DSE per hectare). This provides

a method of comparing the relative amount of

livestock infrastructure that may be affected by

dryland salinity in a given area.

The following section shows how the cost of salinity

for a given dryland area can be extrapolated using

cost information collected using surveys or other

intensive methods.


46 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 47

Extrapolation of dryland salinity costs

The cost of dryland salinity within a catchment area

can be quantified by extrapolation, based on the

following mathematical equations. The sum of items

A-D is equal to the total salinity costs of a given

catchment area (Z).

Refer to Table 1 to determine which of the following

equations are used for the various cost items.

A. Cost Items Extrapolated from Salinity Effect and GVAO

Cost A(z)

= Cost A(s)

x[Area(z)

/Area(s)

]x[GVAO(z)

/

GVAO(s)

]

Where

Cost A(z)

= Cost of item in Catchment Area Z ($).

Cost A(s)

= Cost of item to the surveyed areas ($).

Area (z)

= Salinity effect in Catchment Area Z (ha).

Area (s)

= Salinity effect in surveyed areas (ha).

GVAO (z)

= GVAO in Catchment Area Z ($/ha)

GVAO (s)

= GVAO in the surveyed areas ($/ha).

B. Cost Items Extrapolated from Salinity Effect and DSE

Cost B(z)

= Cost B(s)

x[Area(z)

/Area(s)

]x[DSE(z)

/DSE(s)

]

Where

Cost B(z)


Cost B(s)


Area (z)

= Salinity effect in Catchment Area Z (ha).

Area (s)

= Salinity effect in surveyed areas (ha).

DSE (z)

= Livestock intensity in Catchment Area Z

(DSE/ha).

DSE (s) = Livestock intensity in surveyed areas

(DSE /ha).

C. Cost Items Extrapolated from Groundwater EC and GVAO

Cost C(z

= Cost C(s)

x[GW(z)

/GW(s)

]x[TGVAO(z)

/

TGVAO(s)

]

Where

Cost C(z)


Cost C(s)


GW (z)

= Average groundwater EC of Catchment

Area Z.

GW (s)

= Average groundwater EC in the

surveyed areas.

TGVAO (z)

= Total GVAO in Catchment Area Z ($)

TGVAO (s)

= Total GVAO in the surveyed areas

($).

D. Cost Items Extrapolated from Groundwater EC and DSE

Cost D(z)

= Cost D(s)

x[GW(z)

/GW(s)

]x[TDSE(z)

/TDSE(s)

]

Where

Cost D(z) = Cost of item in Catchment Area Z ($).

Cost D(s) = Cost of item to the surveyed areas ($).

GW (z) = Average groundwater EC of Catchment

Area Z.

GW (s) = Average groundwater EC in the

surveyed areas.

TDSE (z) = Total livestock in Catchment Area Z

(DSE).

TDSE (s) = Total livestock in surveyed areas (DSE).

Therefore the total of all the dryland salinity

costs = Cost A(z)

+ Cost B(z)

+ Cost C(z)

+ Cost D(z)

Presented in Table 2 is a summary of salinity

cost functions calculated for dryland agricultural

producers, based on detailed surveys of landholders

in the Talbragar, Little River, Glenaroua, Guildford,

Harnham, Holbrook, Molly Tatong, Nullamanna,

Sutton and Sea Lake catchments. The figures are

derived by substituting (for each type of annual cost)

the costs and other parameters in our surveyed areas,

into the equations on the previous page.

These cost functions should only be used to obtain

a preliminary estimate of agricultural dryland salinity

costs in a catchment or where no direct survey can

be justified. These cost functions should be used in

conjunction with the information provided in Table

1 and the preceding text, to ensure that the annual

costs are categorised properly and extrapolated using

the correct function(s) from the four choices (A–D).

46 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 47

Table 2. Salinity cost functions for dryland agricultural producers

Annual Costs

Surface Salinity Saline Water Supplies

Production

$ per salt area (ha) per GVAO

($/ha) per annum

(A)

Livestock

$ per salt area (ha) per livestock

intensity (DSE/ha) per annum

(B)

Production

$ per EC unit (µS/cm) per

total GVAO ($m) per annum

(C)

Livestock

$ per EC unit (µS/cm) per

100,000 DSE per annum

(D)

Repairs and maintenance 0.60 12.32 0.19 3.91

Increased Cost of New Infrastructure 0.38 10.14 0.06 1.65

Preventative Works 2.46 10.97 0.18 0.45

Reduced Lifespan of Infrastructure 0.01 4.57 - 0.09

Increased Operating Costs < 0.01 - 0.27 -

Foregone Income 1.25 - - -

Total Annual Costs 4.71 38.00 0.70 6.11


48 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 49

Worked example 1

In order to calculate the costs of surface salinity (Parts A & B) to a particular cost category (for example

Repairs and Maintenance) in a given area using the cost functions in Table 2, it is necessary to know the

salt area (ha), the GVAO ($/ha) and the livestock intensity (dse/ha). To calculate the costs arising from

saline water supplies (Parts C & D) it is necessary to know the EC units (µS/cm), the total GVAO ($m)

and the total DSE (in 100,000’s).

In the case of the Severn LGA located in the Basin, our survey showed that the salt area was

approximately 355ha, the GVAO per hectare $106, the livestock intensity 7.71 dse/ha, the EC of the

water 770µS/cm, the total GVAO $28 million and the total DSE approximately 2,030,000.

Therefore the annual total costs to dryland agricultural producers for repairs and maintenance in the

Severn LGA was estimated by summing each of the components below:

A. Cost Function: $0.60 per salt area (ha) per GVAO ($/ha)

Salt Area: 355 ha GVAO: $106/ha

Cost: 0.60 x 355 x 106 = $22,580

B. Cost Function: $12.32 per salt area (ha) per livestock intensity (DSE/ha)

Salt Area: 355 ha livestock intensity: 7.71 dse/ha

Cost: 12.32 x 355 x 7.71 = $33,720

C. Cost Function: $0.19 per EC unit (µS/cm) per total GVAO ($m)

EC of water: 770 µS/cm TGVAO: $28m

Cost: 0.19 x 770 x 28 = $4,100

D. Cost Function: $3.91 per EC unit (µS/cm) per total 100,000 DSE

EC of water: 770 (µS/cm) Total DSE: 2,030,000

Cost: 3.91 x 770 x 20.3 = $61,120

Therefore the total annual cost for repairs and maintenance to dryland agricultural producers in the

Severn LGA was estimated equal to:

$22,580 + $33,720 + $4,100 + $61,120 = $121,520

To calculate the overall annual costs to dryland agricultural producers in the LGA the same steps should

be repeated, but using the total cost functions on the bottom line of Table 2.

4.3 Rural and urban households

4.3.1 Background

Survey-based approaches generally provide

unreliable estimates of the cost of high saline

watertables to urban and rural households for two

main reasons:

• Most householders have a low awareness of the

nature and cost of salinity impacts.

• Most householders demonstrate a poor ability

to separate costs caused by salinity and high

watertables from those caused by other factors

(Ivey 1988).

With these limitations in mind, the suggested

approach for estimating the cost of high saline

watertables to rural and urban households is outlined

below (Details for estimating saline water costs

appears in Section 4.4).

• Work through Section 4.3.2 if you noted in

your checklist that there are rural areas in

your study area currently affected by dryland

salinity, or are at risk.

• Work through Section 4.3.3 if you noted

in your checklist that there are towns or

cities in your study area suffering urban

salinity problems, or are at risk (refer back

to section 3.3 if you are unsure).

48 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 49

4.3.2 Rural households

The number of rural households affected by high

saline watertables in an area can be estimated using

the following approach.

First, draw on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)

household census or local government data to

identify the total number of rural households

located in each Statistical Local Area (SLA) or Local

Government Area (LGA).

Second, draw on GIS datasets to identify the

percentage of each SLA or LGA located within

the study area, the percentage of each affected by

dryland salinity, and if possible, the proportion

affected by very slight, slight, moderate and severe

salinity. The digitised GIS datasets that can be used

to help in this process are:

• areas currently affected by severe, moderate, slight

and very slight dryland salinity

• areas predicted to be affected by high saline

watertables in 2020, 2050 or 2100

• Statistical Local Area and Local Government Area

boundaries, and

• the boundaries of your study area.

Based on the assumption that rural households are

evenly distributed across the study area, it is then

possible to draw on the information derived in the

two previous steps to estimate:

• the percentage of rural households currently

affected by very slight, slight, moderate and severe

high saline watertable problems (and at risk);

and hence

• the approximate number currently affected by

very slight, slight, moderate and severe high saline

watertable problems (and at risk) in each SLA or

LGA across the catchment.

Once the number of rural households affected have

been estimated, the cost of this damage can then be

obtained by applying the following assumptions:

• Houses displaying no salinity impacts are

accumulating no additional repair and maintenance

costs to the house and garden.

• Houses displaying very slight salinity impacts are

paying or accumulating $75 per annum in repair

and maintenance costs to the house and garden.

• Houses displaying slight or moderate impacts are

paying or accumulating around $250 per annum

in repair and maintenance costs to the house

and garden.

• Houses displaying severe impacts require one-

off remedial house and garden works costing

approximately $10,000 to $20,000. The average

remedial cost of $15,000 is equivalent to an average

annuity of $2,135 per household per annum (based

on a 7% pa discount rate and an effective lifespan

of 10 years).

Shown in Table 3 is a summary of the

assumed salinity damage costs imposed on

affected households.

Table 3. Household salinity damage cost functions

Salinity classDamage cost

($/household/yr)

No impact 0

Very slight impact 75

Slight to moderate impact 250

Severe impact 2,135

These cost functions are based on detailed studies

of household salinity costs in the City of Wagga

Wagga, NSW. While the actual impact costs may be

influenced by a variety of factors (such as building

materials used, size and location of property),

there are two main reasons why seeking a more

accurate estimate of costs to individual houses is not

recommended for the majority of areas:

• First, the marginal costs of collecting more detailed

estimates are likely to be very high.

• Second, the marginal benefits of collecting more

detailed estimates are likely to be low as the

implementation of these Guidelines across the

Murray-Darling Basin has shown that high saline

watertable damage to households generally

represents only a small proportion of total costs in

a catchment.

If you have access to more detailed costings

prepared for households in your particular catchment

or area, then these updated figures should be used.

50 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 51

Worked example 2

While trialling these Guidelines in the Avoca catchment of Victoria, the methodology described

above was used to estimate the number of rural households currently subject to the four classes of

salinity damage.

Local Government Areasa

Total Rural Householdsb Rural Households Affected By Salinityc Total Costd

(No.) Very Slight (No.)

Slight (No.) Moderate (No.)

Severe (No.) ($/yr)

Avoca River catchment

Buloke 1,444 41 1 1 8 20,655

Central Goldfields 378 39 3 3 7 19,370

Gannawarra 2,176 0 2 3 8 18,330

Loddon 517 11 3 2 41 89,610

Mildura 80 4 0 1 1 2,685

Northern Grampians 761 24 10 9 65 145,325

Pyrenees 674 25 11 7 51 115,260

Swan Hill 6156 152 1 2 31 78,335

Yarriambiack 6 1 0 0 0 75

Total 297 31 28 212 489,645

a: Only Local Government Areas with salinity-affected rural households are listed. b: Rural households contained within the boundaries of each LGA but outside the boundaries of the Avoca catchment are excluded. c: The no. of households affected by each salinity class was estimated by multiplying the total no. of rural households for each LGA (Column 2) by the percentage of each LGA affected by very slight, slight, moderate or severe high saline watertables (Attachment A). d: Total cost is estimated by multiplying the no. of households affected by each salinity class by the corresponding household salinity damage cost (Table 3).

In this example, the estimated cost of high saline watertables to rural houses in the Avoca catchment

is currently $489,645 per year. By replacing the GIS dataset showing current high saline watertables

with one showing the predicted area in say 2020, 2050 or 2100, one could then re-run the analysis to

predict the likely increase in costs to rural households if no local action plan is implemented (i.e. the

‘No-Plan’ scenario).

50 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 51

4.3.2 Urban households

In rural towns and cities where detailed urban

salinity studies have been conducted, information on

the number of households affected by high saline

watertables should be available. However, where

this information is not available, the recommended

approach for estimating this number involves first

contacting state agency salinity officers operating in

your area and asking them to draw on available data

or personal observation to specify:

• the urban town centres currently subject to high

saline watertables, and

• their best estimate of the percentage of each of

these towns that experience very slight, slight,

moderate and severe high saline watertables.

This information can then be combined with

household data to estimate the total number of

urban households in each salinity-affected town, and

hence the approximate number affected by the four

salinity classes. Household data for each town can be

obtained from either ABS Census data, or from your

Local Council.

To help you get started in this process, the Basin-

wide urban salinity database discussed in Section

3.3 and presented in Attachment A provides a

preliminary assessment of the extent and severity of

urban salinity in 220 rural towns and cities across

the Basin.

Once the number of households affected by the four

salinity classes is estimated for each town, the cost

of this damage can be estimated by applying the

household damage cost functions shown earlier in

Table 3.


52 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 53

Worked example 3

While trialling these Guidelines in the Campaspe catchment in Victoria, the methodology described

above was used to identify six towns currently subject to high saline watertables. The names of these

towns, their population, and the estimated percentage subject to very slight, slight, moderate and severe

high saline watertables are listed below:

Affected urban town centres Populationa Estimated percentage of town affected

(No.) Total % Very slight %

Slight % Moderate %

Severe %

Campaspe River catchment

Bendigo 62,001 1 0.5 0.5 - -

Echuca 10,216 5 - 5 - -

Heathcote 1,639 5 3 1 1 -

Lockington 5,339 5 - 5 - -

Rochester 2,682 5 - 5 - -

Strathfieldsaye 1,589 10 5 3 1 1

a: ABS Population data (1996 Census). Where an urban town centre extends beyond the boundary of the Campaspe catchment, only the urban population fully contained within the boundary of the catchment is shown here.

The number of urban households affected by high saline watertables in each town centre, together with

the total cost, was then estimated based on the number of households in each town and the percentage

affected by the four salinity classes:

Affected Town Centres Total Urban

Householdsa Estimated no. of affected urban householdsb Total Costc

No. Very slight %

Slight % Moderate %

Severe % ($/yr)

Bendigo 28,055 140 140 0 0 45,500

Echuca 4,623 0 231 0 0 57,750

Heathcote 742 22 7 7 0 5,150

Lockington 2,416 0 121 0 0 30,250

Rochester 719 0 36 0 0 9,000

Strathfieldsaye 1,589 79 48 16 16 56,085

Total 909 3,152 796 117 $1,259,470

a: ABS Household data (1996 Census). b: Figures estimated by multiplying the number of urban households in each town, by the percentage figures in the first table. As these figures relate to the analysis of data collated at the township level, the results should not be attributed to any specific household in these town centres. c: Total cost estimated by multiplying the no. of households affected by each of the four salinity classes by the salinity damage cost functions shown earlier in Table 2.

In this worked example, the estimated annual cost of high saline watertables to urban households in the

Victorian Campaspe River catchment is approximately $1.26 million per annum.

52 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 53

4.4 Commerce and industry

4.3.1 Background

There are a variety of commercial, retail and

industrial businesses that may incur costs from high

saline watertables. These include:

• retail outlets (e.g. plant nurseries, clothing stores

and take away food shops)

• hospitality businesses (e.g. hotels, clubs, motels

and restaurants)

• service centres (e.g. banks, hospitals, nursing

homes, accountancy firms and stock agents), and

• manufacturing premises (e.g. printing works and

food processors).

Survey-based approaches generally give unreliable

estimates of the current costs of high saline

watertables

to urban businesses for two main reasons:

• Most business staff have a low awareness of the

nature and cost of salinity impacts.

• Most business staff demonstrate a poor ability to

separate costs caused by high saline watertables

from those caused by other factors.

Earlier trialling of the Guidelines also demonstrated

that the cost of high saline watertables to businesses

was relatively low compared to the costs imposed on

the other stakeholder groups.

With these issues in mind, two complementary

approaches for estimating the cost of high saline

watertables to commercial, retail and industrial

businesses are outlined below.

• Work through this section only if you noted in your

checklist that there are towns or cities in your

study area are currently suffering urban salinity

problems, or are at risk (refer back to Section 3.3 if

you are unsure).

4.4.1 Low cost approach

The following approach provides a particularly useful

low-cost method to estimate of the cost of high

saline watertables to commercial, retail and industrial

businesses in towns or cities with an urban salinity

problem.

In rural towns and cities where detailed urban

salinity studies have been conducted, information on

the number of commercial and industrial buildings

affected by high saline watertables (or at risk) should

be available. However, where this information is not

available, the following three-stepped approach can

be used.

Step 1 involves drawing on the information compiled

on the current and predicted future extent and

severity of urban salinity in the study area (after

working through section 4.3) to identify:

• the urban town centres affected by high

saline watertables

• their population, and

• the percentage of each town affected by very

slight, slight, moderate and severe salinity.

Step 2 then involves identifying the number of

commercial, retail and industrial buildings located in

each salinity-affected town. This information may be

obtained from your local government, Chamber of

Commerce or regional water authority. Alternatively,

the numbers can be estimated using the formulas

shown in Box 1. These formulas describe the

relationship between the size of an urban centre

and the typical number of commercial, retail and

industrial buildings. Full details of the methods

used to generate these formulas appear in an earlier

project report Wilson (2002).

54 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 55

Box 1: Relationships between town size and the number of commercial, retail and industrial buildingsa

• The total number of commercial, retail and industrial buildings in a town can be estimated using the

formula:

YT = 0.14 x X0.86 (r2 = 0.89)

where:

YT = the total number of commercial, retail and industrial buildings in the town

X = the population of the town

• The total number of commercial and retail buildings in a town can be estimated using the formula:

YC,R

= 0.15 x X0.85 (r2 = 0.89)

where:

YC,R

= the total number of commercial and retail buildings in the town

X = the population of the town

• The total number of industrial buildings in a town can be estimated using the formula:

YI = Y

T - Y

C,R

a: These formulas are based on a detailed assessment of ABS population data (1996 Census) and the town water connection records for 98 towns located across Victoria. Source: Wilson (2002).

Table 4 presented below draws on these formulas to summarise the typical number of commercial, retail

and industrial buildings located in urban centres with populations ranging from 500 to 100,000 people.

Table 4. Typical no. of commercial and retail buildings in towns of varying size

Urban centre population

Total commercial, retail and industrial buildings

(No.)Commercial and retail

buildings (No.) Industrial buildings (No.)

500 29 29 0

2,000 97 96 1

5,000 212 209 3

10,000 386 377 9

20,000 700 679 21

100,000 2,793 2,667 126

Source: Wilson (2002)

The information compiled in steps 1 and 2 can then

be combined to estimate the number of commercial,

retail and industrial buildings affected by very slight,

slight, moderate and severe high saline watertables

in each salinity affected urban town centre. For

example, if a town was estimated to (a) contain 100

commercial buildings and (b) to have 10 per cent of

its area affected by slight high saline watertables, it

can be assumed that, all other things being equal, 10

of these buildings (i.e. 100 x 10%) can be expected

to experience slight damage from high saline

watertables.

At this stage, the advice of a local hydrologist or

salinity officer should also be sought to validate and,

where appropriate, enhance the accuracy of the

estimated number of buildings affected.

The information compiled in step 3 can then be

combined with the salinity damage cost functions

shown in Table 5 to estimate the cost of high saline

watertables to the commercial, retail and industrial

businesses in each affected town. These cost

estimates were derived from data presented in

Hardcastle and Richards (2000) and are based on 75

per cent of the combined value of (a) the physical

damage cost caused by high watertables and (b) the

chemical damage cost caused by salts.

54 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 55

Table 5. Salinity damage cost functions to commercial and industrial buildings

Building type Salinity class

Very slight Slight Moderate Severe

Commercial/retail ($/building/yr)

450 1,500 3,750 6,000

Industrial buildings ($/building/yr)

450 1,500 3,750 6,000

Source: Hardcastle and Richards (2000)

Worked example 4

Building on Worked example 3 describing the extent and severity of urban salinity in the Campaspe

catchment, the following example shows the number of urban businesses affected by high saline

watertables in each town centre, together with the total estimated cost. In this example, the total number

of buildings was derived from actual water connection records.

Affected Town CentresTotal

Buildings Estimated no. of buildings salinity affecteda Total cost

Very Slight (No.) Slight (No.)

Moderate (No.) Severe (No.) ($/Yr)

Industrial buildings

Bendigo 712 4 4 0 0 7,800

Echuca 142 0 7 0 0 10,500

Lockington 89 0 4 0 0 6,000

Commercial/retail buildings

Bendigo 1,235 6 6 0 0 11,700

Echuca 329 0 16 0 0 24,000

Heathcote 49 1 0 0 0 450

Lockington 243 0 12 0 0 18,000

Rochester 48 0 2 0 0 3,000

Strathfieldsaye 48 2 1 0 0 2,400

Total 13 52 0 0 $ 83,850

a: Figures estimated by multiplying the estimated number of buildings in each town, by the percentage of each town subject to very slight, slight, moderate and severe urban salinity. As these figures relate to the analysis of data collated at the township level, the results should not be attributed to any specific building located in the urban town centres. Total costs are estimated by multiplying the number of buildings affected by the salinity damage cost functions (see Table 5). Note: Only urban town centres with salinity affected industrial buildings are listed here.

In this worked example, the estimated current cost of high saline watertables to urban commercial, retail

and industrial businesses in the Campaspe River catchment (Vic) is approximately $83,850 per annum.

56 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 57

4.3.2 Summary of salinity cost functions for households and businesses

Presented in Table 6 is a summary of the various salinity cost functions that have been compiled to help assess

the current (and future) cost of high saline watertables to households and businesses.

Table 6. Marginal salinity cost functions: Households and businesses

Stakeholder and Cost Category Salinity Class


Households and businesses

Urban and rural households ($/household/yr)

75 250 2,135

Commercial/retail buildings ($/building/yr)

450 1,500 3,750 6,000

Industrial buildings ($/building/yr)

450 1,500 3,750 6,000

4.3.3 Advanced approach

Despite the general low level of awareness of salinity

impacts on businesses, there may be some instances

where researchers may also wish to undertake a

survey or census of businesses in affected towns

in a catchment to enhance any results obtained

through implementing the approach outlined above.

In these instances, the high time and cost involved

can be minimised by adopting the following five-

stage approach.

1 Draw on available information (including GIS

datasets and business directories) to identify

businesses in areas that are susceptible to high

saline watertable problems, and classify them on

the basis of this susceptibility (it can be assumed

that businesses not located in areas subject to high

watertables will incur zero cost).

2 Depending on the numbers involved, contact

all (or a sub-set of) the susceptible businesses.

This can be done via an initial letter that informs

them of the purpose of the study and alerts them

that further contact will be made to discuss any

potential salinity problems.

3 Follow up this letter with a brief phone interview

to collect data on the nature of any impacts, and

to ask whether they have incurred any costs related

to salinity.

a. While a relatively large sample will be required

if the level of incidence is low, a telephone

survey with a large sample can be conducted at

a relatively low cost.

b. As this approach assumes that businesses that do

not report any salinity problems incur zero cost,

the advice of the local salinity officer should be

sought to help validate the initial responses.

4 A survey or census can then be used to collect

more detailed information from those businesses

that acknowledge a salinity problem. This can be

conducted by mail or face-to-face interviews.

a. Targeting individuals who report a problem

during the initial telephone survey minimises

the time and cost involved in a mail or face-to-

face survey, and reduces the potential for non-

response bias.

b. A census of susceptible businesses is favoured

over a survey-based approach in catchments

with only a small number of targeted businesses.

A survey approach will be more appropriate in

larger targeted populations.

c. Where a survey approach is used, the results

of the survey can be extrapolated according

to the relative number of businesses in each

classification.

5 Supplement the information collected with

information from other sources. For example GIS

datasets may help locate infrastructure susceptible

to salinity problems.

The total cost of salinity to businesses can then

be extrapolated on the basis of the number of

businesses in the susceptible category (assume that

remaining businesses incur zero cost).

In a small-scale study, it may be reasonable to

derive the sample from the entire population of

businesses, and hence overcome the need to classify

businesses according to their likely susceptibility to

high watertable damage. This approach would also

overcome the possible limitation of the assumption

that businesses classified as non-susceptible do not

incur any costs.

56 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 57

A description of how to conduct a survey or census is presented in Section 5. Where a survey or census

is conducted, however, it will be essential to employ the services of a qualified statistician to ensure the

survey design will minimise survey bias and produce meaningful results.

4.5 Saline town water suppliesAs described in Part 1 of the Guidelines, saline town water supplies may impose costs on the following urban

stakeholder groups:

• Households

• Commercial and industrial water users

This section describes how to quantify the cost of saline town water supplies to these two groups.

• Work through this section if you noted in your checklist that there are towns or cities in your

study area.

• Note: Water users in the towns or cities may incur saline water costs even if no urban salinity is

present and if the water supply is of low salinity.

4.5.1 Households

The recommended approach for quantifying the cost of saline town water supplies to households involves

applying the marginal saline water cost functions developed by Wilson and Laurie (2002). These cost functions

express the relationship between the average annual salinity level of town water supplies and the marginal

costs imposed on households from a one unit increase (decrease) in salinity levels, expressed in the units

‘mg/L’ (Table 7).

Table 7. Marginal saline water cost functions: Households

Category Cost function ($/household/annum)

Soap and detergent use No relationship

Water pipes and fittings $0.0923 T 1.25 per household per annum

Household plumbing:

Tap corrosion $ 0.0731 T per household per annum

Cistern, ball valves etc $ 0.0231 T per household per annum

Shower roses/arms $ 0.0156 T per household per annum

Hot water systems $ 0.253 T per household per annum

Bottled water No relationship

Domestic water filters No relationship (T < 72 mg/L)

$ 0.011 T per household per annum (T ≥ 72 mg/L)

Rainwater tanks No relationship (T < 132 mg/L)


Domestic water softeners No relationship (T < 123 mg/L)


Source: Wilson and Laurie (2002) (T=TDS in mg/L)

58 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 59

To apply these cost functions, use the following

six steps.

1 Identify the towns in the study area connected to

town water supplies. For each town, then:

2 Identify the main water source(s) used to supply

the town water supplies (these may include rivers,

dams or bores).

3 Obtain the weighted average annual TDS

or electrical conductivity readings of these

water sources.

4 Identify the number of households connected to

the town water supply.

5 Apply the salinity cost functions listed in Table 7 to

calculate the impact cost of saline water supplies to

each household.

6 Multiply the estimated cost to each household

by the number of households in the town to

obtain the total cost of saline town water to

all households.

These steps can be used to calculate both present

and future costs for each town. The latter calculation

requires estimates of the likely future salinity levels

of the town’s water supply, and the future number of

households connected to this source:

• Water quality officers with the regional water

authorities, water boards or local governments

should be able to indicate expected trends in the

quality of town water supplies in future years.

• The ABS and Department of Infrastructure (Vic)

publish data on the predicted trend in population

numbers at the SLA, LGA and township levels.

In situations where it is not possible to identify

the number of households in an area, the number

of domestic water connections may be used

as a surrogate figure. The difference between

households and domestic water connections is

that the latter relates to the number of domestic

accounts. For example, an apartment block will

consist of several apartments, but where all water

consumption is billed to one meter, the number of

domestic connections equals 1. Hence, the impact

of using domestic water connections is that it may

underestimate the total cost of saline domestic water

supplies in a catchment.

Worked example 5

While trialling the Guidelines in the Qld portion of the Border Rivers catchment, the cost of saline

town water to urban households located were estimated. For each town, information on the number

of households connected to town water supplies and the average TDS level of the water supply was

collected. The TDS information was fed into the cost functions listed in Table 7 and multiplied by the

number of households to estimate the cost of saline water supplies to households in each town. These

costs are summarised below:

Town, by

catchment

Plumbingcorrosiona

($/yr)

Hot watersystemsb

($/yr)

Waterfilters

($/yr)

Rainwatertanks

($/yr)

Watersofteners

($/yr)

Totalcosts

($/yr)

Qld Border catchment

Goondiwindi 89,616 150,938 4,980 43,551 5,091 294,175

Inglewood 16,131 27,448 855 6,829 812 52,074

Stanthorpe 74,483 126,710 3,952 31,654 3,760 240,559

Texas 19,407 32,361 1,116 10,379 1,201 64,463

Wallangarra 7,078 12,041 376 3,008 357 22,860

Yelarbon 1,724 3,064 53 0 0 4,840

Total 208,439 352,562 11,332 95,421 11,221 678,971

a: Plumbing corrosion costs include the estimated cost of salinity (and associated hardness) to household pipes and fixtures, taps, cisterns, and shower roses and arms. b: Hot water system costs include costs to cylinders, relief valves and electric elements. In this example, the average current cost of saline water supplies to urban households in the Queensland portion of the Border Rivers catchment was estimated at $678,971 per annum.

58 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 59

4.5.2 Commercial and industrial water users

The recommended approach for quantifying

the impact cost of saline town water supplies to

commerce and industry in each town involves

applying the marginal saline water cost functions

outlined by Wilson and Laurie (2002) and

summarised in Tables 8 and 9. These cost functions

express the relationship between the average annual

salinity level of town water supplies and the marginal

costs imposed on commercial and industrial water

users from a one unit increase (or decrease) in

salinity levels, expressed in the units ‘mg/L’.

Table 8. Marginal saline water cost functions: Commercial water users

Category Cost function ($/kL/annum)

General water use $0.000245 T per kL per annum

Hot water/steam generation $0.00097 T per kL per annum

Cooling towers $0.0012 T per kL per annum

Process water Nil

Australian commercial sector as a whole $0.00242 T per kL per annum

Source: Wilson and Laurie (2002), (T=TDS in mg/L)

Table 9. Marginal saline water cost functions: Industrial water users


General water use 0.5 x $ 0.0003 T per kL per annum

Boilers 0.23 x $ 0.0162 T per kL per annum

Cooling towers 0.13 x $ 0.0096 T per kL per annum

Process water 0.14 x $ 0.003 T per kL per annum

Australian industrial sector as a whole $0.00554 T per kL per annum


For most regions across the Murray-Darling Basin, detailed water consumption figures at the town or LGA

are available from the regional water authorities, water boards, and/or local governments. Hence, whenever

possible these ‘actual’ consumption figures should be used to estimate the cost of saline town water to

commerce and industry.

In some situations, however, only an aggregate figure of annual water consumption by industrial and

commercial water users is available. In these situations, the following Australia-wide ABS water consumption

data (averaged over the four financial years 1993-94 to 1996-97) should be used as a proxy for the ‘typical’

proportional weightings of water consumption across the commercial and industrial sectors:

Industry: 59 %

Commerce: 41 %

Total: 100 %

Using these weightings, the cost functions that can be used to estimate the combined cost of saline water to

both commercial and industrial water users in specific towns or LGAs are shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Marginal saline water cost functions: Combined commercial and industrial water users


General water use $0.000189 T per kL per annum

Boilers/hot water $0.002596 T per kL per annum

Cooling towers $0.001228 T per kL per annum

Process water $0.000248 T per kL per annum

Total $0.00426 T per kL per annum


60 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 61

Worked example 6

While trialling the Guidelines in the Qld Border Rivers catchment, the cost of saline town water to

commerce and industry was estimated by applying the cost functions shown in Table 10. For each

town, information on the average TDS level of the water supply was collected. Information on the total

volume of water consumed by commercial and industrial water users was also estimated by multiplying

actual figures on non-residential water consumption in each town by 72 per cent*.

The TDS information was then fed into the cost functions listed in Table 10 and multiplied by the total

estimated annual volume of water consumed by commercial and industrial water users to estimate the

combined cost of saline water supplies to both commerce and industry in each town. These costs are

summarised below:

Town, by catchment

General water use ($/yr)

Boiler operation ($/yr)

Cooling tower ($/yr)

Process water ($/yr)

Total costs ($/yr)

Qld Border catchment

Goondiwindi 22,861 310,746 148,539 29,998 512,145

Inglewood 3,331 45,280 21,644 4,371 74,627

Stanthorpe 13,656 185,619 88,727 17,919 305,921

Texas 4,191 56,970 27,232 5,500 93,893

Wallangarra 3,344 45,458 21,729 4,388 74,919

Yelarbon 457 6,215 2,971 600 10,243

Total 47,840 650,288 310,842 62,776 $ 1,071,748

*Note: Only those costs fully incurred by commercial and industrial water users within each town are presented here. Commercial water users include shops, restaurants and cafes, offices, hotels, hospitals and education centres.

In this example, the average current cost of saline water supplies to commercial and industrial water

users in the Queensland Border Rivers catchment was estimated at $1.07 million per annum.

Note: The combined commercial and industrial cost

functions shown in Table 10 should only be applied

when it is not possible to separate out the volume

of water consumed by industry from the volume

consumed by commerce in each town or LGA. This is

because the weighting used to derive this generalised

cost function represents averaged Australia-wide

data, while the actual weighting is likely to differ

from town to town. In small towns with no industry,

for example, the actual weighting will be 100 per

cent commerce and 0 per cent industry.

Also note that in some towns and LGAs, only

residential and non-residential water consumption

figures are available. In these instances, the non-

residential water consumption figure should be

multiplied by 72 per cent to remove the ‘typical’

volume of non-residential water used for municipal

and recreational purposes such as irrigation of public

parks and ovals (see Wilson and Laurie 2002 for

details). Failure to exclude this water used for non-

commercial and industrial purposes will result in a

substantial over-estimation of costs in these towns.

4.5.4 Where to go for information

There are several sources that provide information

on (a) the quality of town water supplies, (b) the

number of domestic households or domestic water

connections and (c) the volume of water consumed

by commercial, retail, or non-residential water users.

These include:

• Regional water authorities and water boards

• Local governments

• The Town Water Services Division of the NSW

Department of Land and Water Conservation

• State Health Departments

• SA Water

• Queensland Department of Natural Resources,

Mines and Energy

• United Water

• Chambers of Commerce

• Australian Bureau of Statistics

60 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 61

4.5.5 Methods to enhance the accuracy of the results

The standard marginal cost functions for households,

commerce and industry shown in Tables 7 to 10

are based on a detailed analysis of survey data

collected from numerous rural towns and cities

across the Basin and from other published data.

Where economically justified, the results obtained for

individual towns can be refined by compiling further

infrastructure usage and costing data specific to each

town. This town specific data could, for example,

include the actual percentage of households installing

water tanks or filters due to elevated TDS levels in

the town water supply, or the typical percentage

reduction in expected life spans of infrastructure

located in the town under consideration. This town

specific information could then be fed back into the

methodologies fully documented in the report by

Wilson and Laurie (2002) to create saline water cost

functions that more accurately reflect the unique

characteristics of each town.

It is important to recognise, however, that this

more detailed assessment of the cost of saline

water supplies will be a time consuming and costly

process, and require a detailed appreciation of the

methods used to develop the standard cost functions

summarised in this report. Hence, any decision to

adopt this more detailed approach should only be

made after carefully weighing up the likely costs and

benefits involved, and the economic competency of

the research team.

4.6 Local governmentsAs noted in Part 1, dryland and urban salinity can

affect local governments in many ways. It may

damage local government funded infrastructure both

in the rural areas (such as roads and bridges) and

in the urban areas (such as urban roads, footpaths,

and public ovals). This damage may impose a

variety of costs on local governments, including

increased repair and maintenance expenditure, early

replacement of the affected infrastructure, and loss

of income.

This section describes how to quantify the

cost of dryland and urban salinity to local

governments.

• Work through this section if you noted in

your checklist in Section 3.2 that either:

- there are rural areas in your study area

currently affected by dryland salinity or at

risk; or

- there are towns or cities in your study area

currently suffering urban salinity.

4.6.1 Background

Local governments vary greatly in their ability to

identify the impact of dryland and urban salinity on

their infrastructure, and to quantify the cost of the

associated damage in dollar terms. Their ability to

accurately identify and value these impacts generally


62 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 63

decrease substantially in areas where salinity is

only an emerging problem and hence community

awareness is low.

With these issues in mind, the suggested approach

for estimating the impact and cost of dryland and

urban salinity to local governments involves using a

combination of techniques as outlined below.

4.6.2 Conduct a survey or census

Conducting a survey or census of local governments

whose boundaries are located either wholly or in

part within the study area provides an excellent

way of collecting information on their perceived

exposure to dryland and urban salinity and the

associated costs. It also enables information on their

actual expenditure on salinity-related preventative

works (such as tree planting) and community

education, research and extension activities to

be collected.

Local government questionnaire

An example questionnaire that can be used to

assess the current nature and costs of dryland and

urban salinity to local government is presented in

Attachment C. This questionnaire helps to collect

information on:

• the nature and impacts of dryland and urban

salinity in the LGA

• additional expenditure on repair and

maintenance activities due to salinity

• increased water treatment costs due to salinity

• increased construction costs due to salinity

• the amount spent on salinity-related

preventative works

• the cost of shortened life spans of salinity

affected infrastructure

• the cost of reduced rate levies due to the

reduction in property values

• loss in income due to the introduction of

rate rebate schemes

• the cost of implementing community

education, research and extension programs

• the source of funds used to meet dryland

and urban salinity costs, and

• whether salinity has led to a reduction in the

quality of services provided to their community.

The following two-stepped approach generally works

well when conducting such a survey or census of

local governments. Step one involves sending the

questionnaire to each local government accompanied

by an introductory letter. Step two then involves

making follow-up phone calls or sending reminder

facsimiles to those local governments that do not

return the questionnaire by the due date. Where

more time and budget is available, a face-to-face

approach also works well.

The example questionnaire recognises the limitations

involved in asking local governments to allocate

costs to a particular catchment. Instead, it relies on

the assumption that it is acceptable to allocate LGA-

wide costs obtained via a survey on a pro-rata $/ha

basis to smaller areas.

For many local governments, no one person will be

aware of all dryland and urban salinity impacts. In

smaller councils, this can be overcome by surveying

one or two key individuals. In the larger councils

such as Dubbo City Council where the costs are

incurred by several separate departments however,

it may be necessary to ask the Mayor to coordinate

a response from each of the relevant departments.

Further details on how to conduct a census or survey

of stakeholders is presented in section 5.

4.6.3 Enhance accuracy of survey results

One of the main difficulties with assessing the cost of

dryland and urban salinity damage to infrastructure

is that the damage is often insidious in nature and

either not recognised or attributed to other causes.

This problem is multiplied when salinity is only an

emerging problem and hence community awareness

is low. For example, local governments may often

not recognise that a subtle increase in the need to

repair damaged footpaths or to increase the fertiliser

application on sports ovals may be attributable to an

emerging salinity problem. Similarly, while council

engineers will generally have a good appreciation of

the costs involved in constructing a new road, they

may be less confident identifying what length of road

is actually affected by dryland and urban salinity, and

the cost of this damage.

Hence, once a survey of local governments in the

study area is complete, it will be highly beneficial

to enhance the accuracy of the results using GIS

analysis and the application of detailed salinity

cost functions.

Rural road impacts and costs

To enhance the accuracy of estimated salinity costs to

local government funded rural roads, the following

digitised GIS datasets should first be combined to

estimate the current (and predicted future) length of

62 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 63

minor sealed roads and non-sealed roads intersecting

saline sites of varying severity across the study area:

• the location of minor sealed and non-sealed

roads in the study area3

• the current (and predicted future) areas affected

by severe, moderate, slight and very slight dryland

and urban salinity

• study area boundary, and

• smaller scale boundaries, such as groundwater

flow systems or Local Government Areas.

The length affected by each of the four salinity

classes should then be multiplied by the ‘$ per

kilometre’ salinity damage cost functions shown

in Tables 11 and 12 to estimate the current (and

predicted future) cost of dryland and urban salinity in

the rural areas from:

• increased repair and maintenance expenditure

on minor sealed and unsealed roads; and

• shortened expected life spans of minor

sealed and unsealed roads.

These cost functions express a relationship between

the severity of dryland salinity outbreaks on minor

sealed and unsealed roads, and the per kilometre

costs imposed on local governments. Full details

on these cost functions are presented in the project

report by Wilson (2000).

Table 11. Salinity damage cost functions for local rural roads: Increased repair and maintenance (R&M) expenditure

Road class Additional annual R & M expenditure due to high saline watertables

Severe impacts ($/km/yr)

Moderate impacts ($/km/yr)

Slight impacts ($/km/yr)

Very slight impacts ($/km/yr)

Minor sealed road 1,200 700 300 100

Non-sealed road 800 500 200 75


Table 12. Salinity damage cost functions for local rural roads: Cost from shortened expected life spans

Road classConstruction

cost ($/km)

Expected lifespan (No high

saline watertables)

(yrs) Expected lifespan Salinity damage cost functions

Severe to moderate

impacts (yrs)

Slight to very slight

impacts (yrs)

Severe to moderate

impacts ($/km/yr)a

Slight to very slight impacts

($/km/yr)

Minor sealed road

80,000 30 20 27 1,333 296

Non-sealed road

30,000 15 10 13.5 1,000 222

a: The ‘$/km/yr’ cost functions were derived using the following formula: (Construction cost ÷ Expected lifespan with salinity)—(Construction cost ÷ Expected lifespan with no salinity).


3 It is assumed that State and Federal Governments fund highways and major sealed roads

The standard cost functions in Tables 11 and 12 were

derived from data provided by 111 local governments

located in Victoria and NSW, and from data collated

from several research reports investigating the cost of

high saline watertables to infrastructure (see Wilson

2000). However, where local governments in your

area can provide specific information on the road

construction costs and expected life spans with and

without salinity, then this data should be used to

fine tune the cost functions presented in Table 12 for

your study area.

64 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 65

Worked example 7

While trialling these Guidelines in the North Central Region of Victoria, application of the methodology

described above indicated that the following lengths of minor sealed and non-sealed roads were

currently intersecting high saline watertables:

Catchment Length of road intersecting high saline watertables, by severity

Minor sealed road Non-sealed road

Severe (km)

Moderate (km)

Slight (km)

Very slight (km)

Severe (km)

Moderate (km)

Slight (km)

Very slight (km)

Avoca 140 13 15 105 4 2 0 71

Loddon 187 26 45 182 7 0 2 13

Campaspe 97 17 36 213 3 0 3 9

Total 424 56 96 500 14 2 5 93

By applying the cost functions shown in Tables 11 and 12, it was estimated that high saline watertables

in the region are causing local governments to spend (or accumulate):

• $646,975 per annum in additional repair and maintenance costs to these minor sealed and non-sealed

roads

• $47,790 per annum from the cost of the shortened expected lifespan to these roads.

Rural bridge impacts and costs

A similar GIS-based approach can be used to

estimate the current cost of high saline watertables

to local government funded bridges in the rural

areas, and the likely increase in costs under the most

likely ‘No-Plan’ scenario. In this case, however, the

salinity cost functions incorporate both the cost from

increased repair and maintenance costs and the costs

attributable to shortened expected life spans (see

Table 13).

Table 13. Salinity damage cost functions: Local rural bridges

Salinity severity Damage costs to minor sealed and unsealed road bridges ($/km/yr)

Severe 3,000

Moderate 2,000

Slight 1,000

Urban road impacts and costs

If you noted in your initial checklist in Section 3.2

that there are towns or cities in your study area

affected by high saline watertables or at risk, the

cost of high saline watertables to roads in these

urban areas can be estimated using the three-stepped

approach outlined below.

Step one: If a detailed study of urban salinity has

already been completed in your study area, there

should already be information on the length and

severity of salinity damage to urban roads. Where

these studies have not been conducted, however, the

data compiled for the urban household study can be

used to identify those urban town centres affected

by high saline watertables, their population, and the

percentage of each affected by very slight, slight,

moderate and severe salinity.

The total length of roads in these urban centres

should then be obtained. This information can be

sourced directly from the relevant local governments

or estimated using the formula by Hardcastle and

Richards (2000). In their study, Hardcastle and

Richards estimated the typical length of urban roads

that can be found in urban centres of different sizes

(Table 14).

64 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 65

Table 14. Relationship between town size and length of

urban roads

Urban centre population Length of urban roads (km)

5,000 60

20,000 150

100,000 875

Source: Hardcastle and Richards (2000)

Step two: The data compiled in step one can then be

combined to estimate the length of roads affected by

very slight, slight, moderate and severe high saline

watertables in each salinity affected town.

Step three: The lengths affected by each salinity class

should then be multiplied by the ‘$ per kilometre’

salinity cost functions shown in Tables 15 to estimate

the current (and predicted future) cost of urban

salinity to urban roads. Full details on the derivation

of these cost functions appear in the project

methodology report by Wilson (2002).

Table 15. Salinity damage cost functions: Urban Roads

Salinity severity

Urban Roads

Increased R&M expenditure

($/km/yr)

Cost of shortened life

spans ($/km/yr)

Severe 2,400 1,833

Moderate 1,150 900

Slight 375 407

Very slight 150 165


66 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 67

Worked example 8

While trialling these Guidelines in the Murrumbidgee River catchment in NSW, application of the

methodology described above indicated that the following lengths of urban roads were intersecting high

saline watertables:

Length of urban roads affected Total cost

Salinity affected towns

Length of urban

roads (km)Very

slight (km)Slight

(km)Moderate

(km)Severe

(km)

Increased R&M

expenditure ($/yr)

Cost of shortened life

spans ($/yr)

Binalong 3 - 1 1 1 3,925 4,074

Coolamon 16 1 - - - 150 407

Cootamundra 88 61 4 1 - 11,800 28,315

Griffith 125 4 2 1 2 7,300 7,944

Harden-Murrumburrah

21 2 - - - 300 815

Hay 35 21 - - - 3,150 8,556

Junee 101 10 10 5 10 35,000 35,648

Ladysmith 5 - 1 1 - 1,525 2,241

Narrandera 56 1 1 1 - 1,675 2,648

Queanbeyan 179 5 - - - 750 2,037

Tumut 88 2 - - - 300 815

Wagga Wagga 256 13 38 51 26 137,250 161,944

Yass 59 3 3 1 - 2,725 4,278

Total 123 60 62 39 $ 205,850 $ 259,722

Notes: The costs represent the total costs fully incurred within the boundaries of the Murrumbidgee catchment. The length of urban roads affected have been calculated by multiplying the total estimated length of urban roads in each salinity affected town by the estimated percentage of that town affected by very slight, slight, moderate and severe salinity.

By applying the cost functions shown in Table 15, it was estimated that salinity damage to urban roads

in Murrumbidgee catchment is causing local governments to spend (or accumulate) approximately:

• $205,850 per annum in additional repair and maintenance costs, and

• $259,722 per annum due to the shortened expected life spans of these assets.

Other infrastructure (excl. roads and bridges)

Where surveyed local governments cannot provide

estimates of the impact of dryland and urban salinity

on the expected lifespan of infrastructure other than

roads, or increased repair and maintenance costs

on affected non-road assets, these costs can also be

estimated using the following two-stepped approach.

Step 1: The data compiled for the urban household

study can be used to identify those urban town

centres affected by high saline watertables, their

population, and the percentage of each affected

by very slight, slight, moderate and severe salinity.

This information can then be used to estimate the

population affected by each of the four salinity

classes in each salinity-affected town.

Step 2: The cost of increased repair and maintenance

expenditure to each local government (excluding

road and bridge costs) can then be estimated by

multiplying the information obtained in Step 1 with

the cost functions shown in Table 16. These cost

functions were generated from a detailed analysis of

data obtained from 111 local governments located

in NSW and Victoria where detailed information

on the relationship between the severity of urban

salinity problems and costs to local governments was

available4 (see Wilson 2002 for details).

66 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 67

Table 16. Cost of salinity to local government per head of population

Severity of salinity

Annual R&M expenditure (excl. roads) ($/urban pop’n affected by high

saline watertables/yr)

Cost of shortened expected life spans (excl. roads) ($/urban pop’n affected

by high saline watertables/yr)

Very Slight 16 2

Slight 31 5

Moderate 56 9

Severe 105 16


It is important to note however, that in all instances where standard cost functions are used to estimate

dryland and urban salinity costs to local governments, these estimates should then be validated

with the individual local governments and/or regional salinity officers concerned, and amended,

where appropriate.

4.6.4 Summary of salinity cost functions for local governments

Presented in Table 17 is a summary of the salinity

cost functions that have been compiled to:

• enhance the accuracy of salinity cost information

compiled from a direct survey of local

governments; or

• obtain a preliminary estimate of these costs where

the resources needed to conduct a direct survey of

this stakeholder group cannot be justified.

Table 17. Marginal salinity cost functions: Local government



Increased R&M costs to:

Rural minor sealed roads ($/km/yr) 100 300 700 1,200

Rural non-sealed roads ($/km/yr) 75 200 500 800

Urban sealed roads ($/km/yr) 150 375 1,150 2,400

Infrastructure (excl. roads) ($/urban population affected by salinity/yr)

16 31 56 105

Cost of shortened life spans to:

Rural minor sealed roads ($/km/yr) 296 1,333

Rural non-sealed roads ($/km/yr) 222 1,000

Urban sealed roads ($/km/yr) 407 1,833

Infrastructure (excl. roads) ($/urban population affected by salinity/yr)

2 5 9 16

4 An analysis of the data collated from these 111 Councils demonstrate that the majority of salinity induced costs to council managed infrastructure (excluding roads) occurs in the urban areas of a catchment. It is therefore logical to estimate costs to local governments based on an assessment of the extent and severity of salinity in urban town centres, and the size of these centres.

68 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 69

4.7 State government agencies and public utilities

As noted in Part 1, dryland and urban salinity can

also affect government agencies and infrastructure-

based utilities in many ways. It may damage

infrastructure both in the rural areas (such as state

roads, rail and bridges, transmission towers and

underground gas pipes) and in the urban areas (such

as water treatment plants and underground water,

sewerage and gas pipes). This damage may impose

costs on government agencies and utilities, including

increased repair and maintenance expenditure,

increased infrastructure construction costs, early

replacement of the affected infrastructure, and loss

of income.

This Section describes how to quantify the cost

of dryland and urban salinity in your study

area to government agencies and infrastructure

utilities.



– there are rural areas in your study area


risk; or

– there are towns or cities in your study area


4.7.1 Background

Several government agencies and utilities (both

publicly owned and privatised) operate in

catchments, and each may be affected by dryland

and urban salinity to varying degrees. Agencies

and utilities most likely to incur costs are those

responsible for:

• agricultural or natural resource management

• major infrastructure projects, roads, rail and

public housing, and

• the supply of water, gas, electricity and

sewerage services.

Agencies and utilities vary greatly in their ability to

identify the impact of dryland and urban salinity

on their infrastructure, and to quantify the cost of

the associated damage. Their ability to accurately

identify and value these impacts generally decreases

substantially in areas where salinity is just an

emerging problem and hence community awareness

is low.

With these issues in mind, the suggested approach

for identifying and valuing the costs of dryland

and urban salinity to government agencies and

utilities is very similar to that recommended for local

governments and involves the following steps:

Step 1: Conduct a literature review to collect

whatever relevant information has previously been

compiled for the area under investigation.

Step 2: Survey each of the key agencies and utilities

operating in the study area to collect any information

on the impacts or costs of dryland and urban salinity

they are able to provide.

Step 3: Enhance the accuracy of the information

collected by using GIS to identify where salinity

outbreaks intersect with infrastructure such as roads,

bridges, and rail networks, and applying salinity

damage cost functions to estimate these costs.

Steps two and three are discussed in more detail in

the following Sections.

4.7.2 Conduct a survey or census

Conducting a survey or census of the key agencies

and utilities likely to incur costs because of salinity

in the urban or rural areas being studied provides an

effective method of collecting information on their

perceived exposure to dryland and urban salinity

and the associated costs. It also proves an effective

method of collecting information on their actual

expenditure on salinity-related preventative works

(such as tree planting) and community education,

research and extension activities.

68 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 69

Government agencies and utilities questionnaire

An example questionnaire form that can be used to assess the current nature and costs of dryland and

urban salinity and high watertables to government agencies and utilities is presented in Attachment D.

This questionnaire helps to collect information on their perception of:

• the nature and impacts of high saline watertable and saline water supplies

• additional expenditure on repair and maintenance activities due to salinity

• increased construction costs due to salinity

• the amount spent on salinity-related preventative works

• cost of shortened life spans of salinity affected infrastructure

• cost of implementing community education, research and extension programs

• the source of funds used to meet dryland and urban salinity costs, and

• whether salinity has led to a reduction in the quality of services provided to the local community.

To maximise the relevance of the survey questions

and to minimise the imposition placed on each

survey recipient, it will often be worthwhile tailoring

the questions in the example questionnaire to meet

the specific characteristics of each recipient group.

For example, rather than just asking recipients to

specify any structures managed by their organisation

affected by salinity, it will be useful providing an

example list of direct relevance to the organisation.

In the case of water authorities, for example, the list

could include:

• water supply headworks infrastructure

• rural water distribution infrastructure

• urban water distribution infrastructure

• water supply treatment plants

• waste water reticulation assets

• sewerage treatment plants

• corporate buildings.

Similarly, the length of the questionnaire could be

minimised by only including questions that are

likely to be relevant to the specific organisation.

This approach will help to keep each survey as

short as possible (a critical pre-requisite with mail-

out surveys) and to avoid respondent annoyance

by including questions that are of no relevance to

the organisation.

While preparing tailored questionnaires will require

more research during their development, and

more work in the mail-out process, the trialling of

the Guidelines demonstrated that the extra effort

is well justified. Surveyed recipients generally

seemed more willing to complete and return

the questionnaire forms (when compared with

past survey experiences), and the results were

more comprehensive.

A simple but worthwhile inclusion in the

questionnaire was several blank lines at the bottom

of each question to give respondents the opportunity

to write down any further comments on the matter

raised. In almost all cases, the trialling of the

Guidelines showed that respondents made use of

this opportunity, and either provided qualitative

descriptions of how salinity problems were affecting

specific aspects of both the organisation and the

wider community, or elaborated on the cost estimates

entered into the survey tables. In many cases, this

information would not have been obtained if the

recipients were only given the opportunity to provide

quantitative tabulated responses.

It is also useful to include a simple map of the area

with the questionnaire. This map should at least

show the location of the area in relation to the

rest of the state, its boundary, and any major roads

and towns.

For logistical reasons, it is not practical to send

out survey forms to all government agencies and

utilities operating within the area being studied.

Rather, it is recommended that survey forms only

be sent to those agencies and utilities that are

considered likely to manage land or infrastructure

or to undertake environment-related educational or

research activities. While other agencies operating in

the area may also incur some minor costs, the cost

associated with valuing these additional impacts is

likely to exceed the benefits gained. As an example

of the type of agencies and utilities that should be

contacted, Attachment E lists the various agencies

and utilities operating in 10 Victorian and NSW

catchments that were surveyed as part of this project.

70 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 71

Once likely agencies and utilities are identified, the

location and contact details of the head, regional and

local offices can be obtained by undertaking

a search of the White Pages on the Internet

(www.whitepages.com.au). Phone calls to the head

and/or regional offices can then be undertaken to:

• determine whether their area of operation falls

within the boundaries of the area being studied

• assess which office should receive a questionnaire,

and

• obtain, if possible, the name and position of

the most appropriate person to receive the

questionnaire.

In most cases, the questionnaire form should be sent

to the regional or local offices relevant to the study

area. However, where no clear regional office exists,

the forms should be sent to the head office.

The trialling of the Guidelines demonstrated that

the following two-stepped approach generally

works well when conducting such a survey of key

Government agencies and utilities. Step one involves

sending the questionnaire to each agency and utility

accompanied by an introductory letter. Step two

involves making follow-up phone calls or sending

reminder facsimiles to those agencies and utilities

that do not return their questionnaires by the due

date. Where more time and budget is available, a

face-to-face approach also works well.

4.7.3 Application of GIS technologies and salinity cost functions

While trialling these Guidelines across the Basin,

many government agencies and utilities stated that

while salinity was having some impact on their

infrastructure, they were unable to quantify the

magnitude of this damage or to quantify this damage

in dollar terms. This situation was most common

in those areas where salinity is just an emerging

problem and hence community awareness is low.

The manipulation of digitised Geographic

Information Systems (GIS) datasets and the

application of saline cost functions can help to

enhance the accuracy of the information obtained

from a direct survey of government agencies and

utilities. These approaches may also provide useful

estimates of the costs in the rural and urban areas of

a catchment where only a low-cost assessment with

no direct survey can be justified.

Road, railway, and bridge impacts and costs

To obtain an objective estimate of the cost of high

saline watertables to road and rail authorities, the

following digitised GIS datasets should first be

overlaid to estimate the current (and future) number

and length of this infrastructure intersecting saline

sites of varying severity:

• the location of state and national funded freeways,

highways and main sealed roads in the study area5

• the location of freeway, highway and main sealed

road bridges

• the location of railway lines

• the current (and predicted future) areas affected by

severe, moderate, slight and very slight salinity

• study area boundary, and

• smaller scale boundaries, such as groundwater

flow systems or Local Government Areas.

Once the number of bridges and length of roads

and railways overlaying saline outbreaks has

been determined, multiplying this information by

the salinity cost functions presented in Tables 18

to 20 can be used to estimate the current (and

predicted future) cost of dryland salinity to this

infrastructure from:

• increased repair and maintenance expenditure, and

• shortened expected life spans.

These cost functions express the relationship

between the severity of dryland salinity outbreaks

on roads, rail and bridges, and the ‘per unit’ costs

imposed on road and rail authorities. Full details on

these cost functions are reported in the report by

Wilson (2002).

5 It is assumed that State and Federal Governments fund highways and major sealed roads

Table 18. Salinity cost functions: Highways, freeways and main sealed roads

Salinity severity Freeways/highways Main sealed roads

Increased R&M expenditure ($/km/yr)

Cost of shortened life spans ($/km/yr)

Increased R&M expenditure ($/km/yr)

Cost of shortened life spans ($/km/yr)

Severe 31,105 5,833 3,600 2,167

Moderate 17,325 3,600 1,600 1,550

Slight 6,930 1,300 450 500

70 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 71

Table 19. Salinity cost functions: State and national bridges

Salinity severityDamage costs to freeway/highway

bridgesa ($/bridge/yr)Damage costs to main sealed road

bridgesa ($/bridge/yr)

Severe 13,000 6,100

Moderate 8,500 4,000

Slight 4,000 2,000

a: Damage cost arises from both an increase in repair and maintenance costs, and the expected shortened life of the infrastructure.

Note: across many areas of the Murray-Darling Basin, the GIS datasets showing the location of bridges are

quite incomplete. While the location of unmapped bridges can be estimated using GIS technologies to locate

where highways, freeways and main sealed roads cross over rivers and permanent streams, the time, cost and

skill needed to conduct this added step must be weighed up against the likely benefits gained.

Table 20. Salinity cost functions: Railways

Railway infrastructure Total annual cost of high saline watertables, by severitya

Severe ($/km/yr) Moderate ($/km/yr) Slight ($/km/yr)

Signals 11 2 1

Cess drains 187 94 0

Formation 3,000 1,500 375

Track structure 27,750 9,750 4,200

Buried conduits 0 0 0

Concrete culverts 450 300 263

Steel culverts 900 600 525

Bridges 67 23 8

Other elements 5,625 2,175 1,088

Total 59,456 24,971 11,723

a: Cost arises from both an increase in repair and maintenance costs, and the expected shortened life of the infrastructure.

Impacts and costs to other infrastructure (excl roads, bridges and rail)Where government agencies and utilities cannot

provide an estimate of the cost of dryland and urban

salinity damage to their infrastructure other than

roads, bridges and rail or where a time consuming

survey approach cannot be justified, these costs

can also be estimated using the following two-

stepped approach.

Step 1: The data compiled for the urban household

study can be used to identify those urban town

centres affected by high saline watertables, the

population, and the percentage of each affected by

very slight, slight, moderate and severe salinity. This

information can then be used to estimate for each

salinity-affected town the population affected by

each of the four salinity classes.

Step 2: The added cost of salinity damage to

government and utility managed infrastructure in the

urban areas can then be estimated by multiplying

the information obtained in Step 1 with the cost

functions shown in Table 216. Full details of how

these standard cost functions were generated are

reported in Wilson (2002).

72 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 73

Table 21. Salinity cost functions: Infrastructure (excl. roads, bridges and rail)

Salinity severitySalinity damage cost to urban infrastructure

Increased R&M expenditure ($/urban pop’n affected/yr)

Cost of shortened life spans ($/urban pop’n affected/yr)

Severe 257 224

Moderate 141 123

Slight 77 67

Very slight 39 34


Where possible, any area subject to naturally

occurring primary salinity should not be included

in these calculations. This is because agencies and

utilities are unlikely to spend funds implementing

preventative works to address a naturally occurring

saline site such as a salt lake.

Any figures generated using this approach should be

taken as indicative estimates only. Detailed surveys

of agencies and utilities are needed to obtain more

definitive results.

4.7.4 Summary of salinity cost functions for agencies and utilities

Presented in Table 23 is a summary of the various

salinity cost functions that have been compiled to

enhance the accuracy of salinity cost information

compiled from direct surveys, or obtain a preliminary

estimate of these costs no direct survey of this

stakeholder group can be justified.

These cost functions should only be used to provide

an indication of the costs to government agencies

and utilities. Where possible, the costs obtained

should then be validated with the individual agencies

concerned and/or regional salinity officers, and

amended where appropriate.

‘Other’ salinity-related costs

Conducting a survey of state government agencies

and utilities is the preferred method for determining

whether any additional funds have been spent,

or higher expenditure incurred, on the following

activities, as a direct result of dryland and urban

salinity in the study area:

• construction of new infrastructure better suited to

wet and saline conditions

• preventative works such as tree planting, sub-

surface drainage and damp proofing of existing

buildings

• conducting salinity-related community education,

research or extension programs.

However, where a time consuming survey process

is not feasible, these costs may be estimated by

multiplying the current (and predicted future) areas

of moderate to severe salinity in the study area by

the salinity cost functions shown in Table 227. Full

details on the methods used to generate these cost

functions are reported in Wilson (2002).

Table 22. Salinity cost functions: ‘Other’ salinity costs

Group

Increased construction

costs ($/ha salt/yr)

Preventative works ($/ha salt/

yr)

Education, research and

extension programs

($/ha salt/yr)TOTAL ($/ha

salt/yr)

State Govt Agencies - 50 33 83

Road and Rail Authorities 40 6 16 62

Water, Gas, Electricity suppliers - 1 1 2

Total 40 57 50 147

7 These cost functions were also developed from a detailed study of salinity costs to 102 Government Agencies and utilities operating in 10 NSW and Victorian catchments. Detailed information was compiled on the relationship between the extent of moderate and severe salinity problems in the catchment and their expenditure on high construction costs, and implementing salinity-related prevention works and community education, research or extension programs.

72 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 73

Table 23. Marginal salinity cost functions: Government agencies and utilities



Increased repair and maintenance costs to:

National and state highways ($/km/yr) 2,000 6,930 17,325 31,105

Major sealed roads ($/km/yr) 200 450 1,600 3,600

Railway infrastructure ($/km single track/yr) 11,723 24,971 59,456

Infrastructure (excl. roads and railway) ($/urban population affected by salinity/yr)

39 77 141 257

Cost of shortened life spans to:

National and state highways ($/km/yr) 2,407 10,833

Major sealed roads ($/km/yr) 481 2,167

Infrastructure (excl. roads and railway) ($/urban population affected by salinity/yr)

34 67 123 224

Increased construction costs to:

State govt agencies ($/ha salinity/yr) 0

Road and rail authorities ($/ha salinity/yr) 40

Water, gas and electricity suppliers ($/ha salinity/yr)

0

Expenditure on preventative works by:

State govt agencies ($/ha salinity/yr) 0 50

Road and rail authorities ($/ha salinity/yr) 0 6


0 1

Expenditure on research and extension programs by:

State govt agencies ($/ha salinity/yr) 0 33

Road and rail authorities ($/ha salinity/yr) 0 16


0 1

74 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 75

4.8 Natural environmentThe Murray-Darling Basin is home to significant

biodiversity on both public and private land, and

in rivers, streams and wetlands. Dryland and urban

salinity is impacting on some of these areas, and

is increasing pressures on endangered species and

ecological communities.

This Section describes how to quantify the

impacts and cost of dryland and urban salinity

to the natural environment. Work through

this section if you noted in your checklist in

Section 3.2 that either:

• there are rural areas in your study area


risk, or

• there are towns or cities in your study area


4.8.1 Background

Despite the often substantial impacts of salinity

on the environment, a surprisingly small number

of studies have attempted to value these impacts.

This may be attributed to two main difficulties:

• separating out the effects of salinity from other

forms of land degradation (e.g. soil acidity,

erosion), diseases, urban and industrial pollution,

and the presence of pest flora and fauna such as

carp and rabbits.

• placing a value on these impacts because markets

for environmental resources and amenities are

often poorly defined or absent.

Presented below is a description of several

approaches for assessing the environmental impacts

and costs of dryland and urban salinity. As each

approach is associated with different levels of

accuracy and cost, the approach most appropriate for

a particular catchment or region will depend on the

severity of the problem and the resources available.

4.8.2 Initial assessment

In most instances, the first step should be to

conduct an initial low-cost qualitative assessment

of environmentally significant areas within the

catchment. This can be done by collating existing

information, and contacting groups or individuals

with knowledge of the environmental features of the

area. While not exhaustive, the groups include:

• State government agencies (National Parks and

Wildlife Service, Department of Land and Water

Conservation, State Forests, and Environmental

Protection Authority)

• Local Field Naturalists Societies and other

nature conservation groups

• Urban and Rural Landcare/Rivercare Groups

• Soil Conservation Boards and Local Action

Planning Committees in SA

• State Environmental Protection Authorities

• Universities

• Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs)

• Murray-Darling Basin Commission

• Catchment Boards

• Non-government conservation organisations such

as Greening Australia, Australian Conservation

Foundation, World Wide Fund for Nature, and the

various National and State Conservation Councils.

4.8.3 Expanded assessment

If justified, the next step would involve describing

in qualitative terms the current impacts of salinity

on the environment, and where desirable, the

likely future impacts. The broad headings useful

for describing these impacts on public and private

land and elaborated upon in Part 1 of these

Guidelines are:

• terrestrial impacts

• threatened fauna and flora impacts

• water body impacts

• river and stream impacts

• wetland impacts.

GIS technology also provides an effective method of

compiling objective information on environmental

assets that intersect dryland salinity outbreaks in

a study area. While not exhaustive, digitised GIS

datasets particularly useful for undertaking this

task include:

• areas currently affected by dryland salinity,

and those areas at risk in 2020, 2050 and 2100

• recorded sightings of Victorian rare or

threatened flora species

• recorded sightings of Victorian rare or

threatened fauna species

• Commonwealth Department of Environment and

Heritage datasets showing the location of various

wetland types, including RAMSAR wetlands

74 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 75

• AUSLIG’s:

– ‘Hydrography’ datasets showing the location

of waterbody types (including lakes, reservoirs,

swamps and streams)

– ‘Vegetation’ datasets showing the location

of vegetation types (including forest and

rainforest areas)

– ‘Reserved Areas’ datasets showing the location

of reserved area types (including Nature

Conservation areas, Aboriginal areas, prohibited

areas and water supply reserves)

• the environment and biodiversity datasets compiled

as part of the National Land and Water Resources

Audit (see www.nlwra.gov.au/atlas).

Worked example 9

While trialling these Guidelines in the Macquarie-Bogan River catchment in NSW, overlaying GIS

datasets showing the location and type of natural waterbodies and dryland salinity suggested that the

following lengths of natural waterbodies were currently intersecting dryland salinity outbreaks in this

catchment:

Water body typesLength (or perimeter) affected

(km) Number affected

(No.) (%)

Lake 17 8 6.5

Reservoir 11 1 10.0

Sub-to-inundation 30 8 4.4

Swamp 0 0 0

Waterbody void 0 0 0

Canal 14 3 27.3

Connector 16 8 12.7

Water course (river, stream, creek)

2,439 79 26.6

Total 2,527 107 14.5

The data suggests that there are currently 107 natural water bodies in the catchment currently

intersecting dryland salinity outbreaks, or 14.5 per cent of the total. This includes:

• 79 rivers, creeks and streams in the catchment (or 26.6 per cent of the total)

• 8 lakes (or 6.5 per cent of all lakes), and

• 3 canals (or 27.3 per cent of all canals).

4.8.4 Assessing the costs

In areas where environmentally significant sites (such as RAMSAR listed wetlands or national parks) are at risk from salinity, and there are sufficient funds and skills available, the following steps may be used to

estimate the cost of these impacts:

Step 1: Quantify the environmental costs that are

more easily valued in the market place.

Step 2: Use non-market valuation techniques to

estimate the environmental costs that are not easily

valued in the market place.

Step 3: Conduct sensitivity analysis.

76 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 77

Before working through these steps however, it is important to note that valuing the environmental costs

from salinity will require considerable specialist skills and resources. Unless the study area contains

environmentally sites of national or international significance, the cost required to undertake this work is

likely to be prohibitive because of two inter-related factors:

• Before any valuation can be undertaken, the specific impacts that salinity has on the ‘Use’ and ‘Non-

use’ benefits of the environment must be clearly defined. In many cases, this information is not

available and will be costly and time consuming to collect.

• The cost of conducting a statistically significant non-market valuation study varies enormously, but

can range anywhere from $10,000 to several hundred thousand dollars. The cost will depend on the

nature of the environmental amenity or feature being valued, the survey population and the reliability

being sought.

Quantifying the environmental costs that are more easily valued market place

Once a decision has been made to compile

information on the cost of salinity on the

environment, an initial estimate can be compiled

from existing information, such as the net returns

from bee-keeping, timber cutting, fishing, recreation,

and tourism. For example, information on recreation

values may be obtained from data sources such as

entry fees, fishing licences or park registrations8.

Initial estimates can also be compiled by asking local

environmental agencies and groups to:

• quantify their total expenditure on the following

activities in the study area:

– community education and research

– policy development and program management

– assessing grants, and

– environmental restoration

• estimate the percentage of this expenditure

attributable to dryland and urban salinity, and

• estimate the number of unpaid labour hours that

were allocated to each category. A standard ‘per

hour’ labour rate can then be applied during the

data analysis phase to ensure there is consistency

between the groups.

Using non-market valuation techniques

There are several non-market valuation techniques

available to estimate the environmental costs of

salinity, and these are summarised in Table 24. A

more detailed description of each can be found

Wilson (1995), Tredwelland Short (1997), Bateman

and Turner (1993), and Morrison, Blamey, Bennett

and Louviere (1996).

A recent report produced by van Bueren and Bennett

(2001) for the National Land and Water Resources

Audit also describes a study aimed at estimating non-

market values for land and water degradation using

a relatively new technique called ‘Choice Modelling’.

It is recommended that the reader also review this

report if they are considering using non-market

valuation techniques to estimate the environmental

cost of salinity in their study area.

An alternate and lower cost approach can also

involve extrapolating ‘order of magnitude’ estimates

sourced from other areas to provide an indicative

guide to environmental costs. AACM (1996) present

several tables that identify the range of values

that have been estimated through studies of the

non-market environmental costs and benefits of

controlling dryland salinity across Australia. Similar

information is available from natural resource

management databases such as ENVALUE (see

www.epa.nsw.gov.au/envalue).

Conducting sensitivity analysis

Even where expensive non-market valuation

studies have been conducted, the estimates should

still be regarded as indicative estimates only since

the reliability of the estimate will be strongly

influenced by:

• the characteristics of the environmental asset

being valued

• the relative importance of the use and non-use

values of the environmental asset

• the resources available and the statistical rigour

applied during the non-market valuation

• the ability of the non-market valuation technique

to provide robust answers, and

• the ability of the researchers and respondents

to separate out the effects of salinity from

other factors.

8 Care should be used when using licence or entry fees, as they may not accurately reflect the market value of the environmental amenity or feature.

76 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 77

One particularly useful form of sensitivity analysis is called ‘The Threshold Approach’. This approach

involves assessing how large any environmental impact would have to be to induce a change in any

recommended program of on-ground works for the catchment. In an earlier study by Wilson (1995), for

example, the threshold approach was used to estimate that the unvalued salinity costs across the lower

slopes at Warrenbayne-Boho in Victoria would need to be more than 80 times higher than the combined

value of all other estimated salinity costs before native trees at a density of 250 stems per hectare would

replace perennial pasture as the preferred land use.

This approach will be even more useful in areas where salinity has a noticeable impact on the

environment but no attempt is being made to value these impacts in dollar terms.

Table 24. Valuation techniques and their applicability to natural resources

Goods affected Characteristics Valuation technique Comments

Direct Uses

market uses, eg. honey, minerals

market goods production approach change in individual use of habitat is valued

recreational uses, including fishing

non-market goods travel cost nature of the relationship between travel and site, or the good, needs to be clear

proxy good clear relationship between good and proxy

contingent valuation need realistic payment mechanism

choice modelling change in the good needs to be clearly specified

Indirect uses

uses based on ecological functions, eg. nutrient and pollutant filtration, flood prevention, water recharge capacity

a bundle of functions (the entire ecosystem) or a single ecological function

replacement cost may not reflect social value – use if can replace the service or habitat

preventative expenditure use if costs incurred to alter environment or its effects – may be difficult to separate expenditure

contingent valuation need realistic payment mechanism

choice modelling service or habitat needs to be clearly defined

Non-use values

existence, bequest, and option values

uniqueness contingent valuation

choice modelling

need to clearly define change in resources; amenable to dollar valuation, need realistic payment mechanism

biodiversity hedonic pricing property prices need to reflect land characteristics

Source: Van Hilst and Schuele (1997).

Note: A detailed description of these valuation techniques can be found Wilson (1995), Tredwell and Short (1997), Bateman and Turner (1993), and Morrison, Blamey, Bennett and Louviere (1996).

78 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 79

4.9 Cultural heritageOne of the final impacts of dryland and urban salinity

considered relates to its impact on sites of historical,

natural, or Aboriginal significance.

This section describes how to quantify the

impacts of dryland and urban salinity to

cultural heritage.



– there are rural areas in your study area

currently affected by dryland salinity or

at risk, or

– there are towns or cities in your study area


4.9.1 Background

Despite the availability of several short reports and

fact sheets describing how salinity may have an

adverse impact on sites with high cultural, historic or

Aboriginal significance, a detailed literature review

and contact with numerous with heritage-based

organisations confirmed that:

• there is a low level of awareness of the

potential impacts of dryland and urban salinity

on cultural heritage

•documented information on actual damage is

scarce, and

• field surveys are needed to record the nature and

extent of the problem to heritage and non-heritage

listed sites before widespread and irreversible

salinity damage occurs.

The recommended approach for assessing the

impacts of dryland and urban salinity on culturally

significant sites in the rural and urban areas is

therefore outlined below.

4.9.2 Salinity impacts in rural areas

The recommended approach for assessing the

impacts of dryland salinity on cultural heritage in

rural areas of a particular catchment or area may

involve some or all of the following steps.

Step 1: Conduct a literature review to collate any

existing information on the impacts of cultural

heritage in the study area.

Step 2: Approaching representatives from the

catchment boards, the salinity officers working with

the state government agencies, or relevant heritage-

based organisations may also provide some anecdotal

information.

Some of the key heritage based organisations

operating throughout the Murray-Darling Basin are:

• The ACT Heritage Council

• The National Trust of Australia

• The Australian Heritage Commission

• The Heritage Council of NSW

• The National Parks and Wildlife Service

• The NSW Heritage office

• The Historic Houses Trust of NSW;

• Charles Sturt University in Albury, NSW;

• The NSW Aboriginal Land Council;

• The Queensland Heritage Council

• The National Trust of Queensland

• State Aboriginal Affairs (S.A. Dept for Transport,

Urban Planning and the Arts)

• Heritage South Australia

• Parks and Wildlife (SA)

• Aboriginal Affairs Victoria

• Heritage Victoria

• The Heritage Council of Victoria

• Parks Victoria.

Step 1: If GIS technology is available, then digitised

datasets showing the location of dryland salinity

outbreaks should be overlain with datasets

identifying sites on the Register of the National

Estate. This process enables the identification of

recorded sites of Aboriginal, historical and natural

significance that intersect known dryland salinity

outbreaks in the rural areas. Digitised datasets of the

Register of the National Estate are available from the

Australian Heritage Commission.

78 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 79

Worked example: 10

Application of the methodology described above in the NSW Macquarie-Bogan River catchment

indicated that the following sites listed on the Register of the National Estate intersect areas subject to

high saline watertables:

Site name ClassificationTotal area

of sitea Area of site affected by dryland salinity

Severe (ha)

Moderate (ha)

Slight (ha)

Very slight (ha)

Total (ha)

Burrendong Arboretum

Natural 151 - - - 29 29

Dapper Nature Reserve (1984 boundary)

Natural 943 - - - 9 9

Munghorn Gap Nature Reserve (1978 boundary)

Natural 892 - - - 44 44

Nagundie Archaeological Area

Aboriginal 121 7 2 12 100 121

Wollemi National Park

Natural 7,053 - - - 66 66

Total: 7 2 12 248 269

a: This figure excludes any area of the site that falls outside the boundaries of the catchment.

The results suggest that in the Macquarie-Bogan River catchment, there are five rural sites of cultural

significance that are currently subject to dryland salinity. These sites occupy a total area of at least 269

hectares, and are classed as having high Aboriginal or natural significance. The sites at risk from salinity

under a ‘No-Plan’ scenario could also be assessed by replacing the GIS datasets showing current high

saline watertables with predicted areas in 2020, 2050 or 2100.

On-ground inspections will still be needed to assess

the nature of actual salinity damage at the sites

identified through GIS analysis. However, the process

can focus researcher’s efforts on sites where the risk

of salinity damage is high.

There may also be other culturally significant sites

located in rural areas currently affected by high

saline watertables (or at risk) but that do not appear

on this Register.

4.9.3 Salinity impacts in urban areas

A literature review and discussions with local

governments, state agency staff and heritage-based

organisations may also provide details on the impact

of salinity on cultural heritage sites located in any

towns with an urban salinity problem. However in

those instances where awareness of urban salinity

problems is low, the following approach can be used.

Step one involves using the database on urban

salinity to identify towns affected by high saline

watertables, and the extent and severity of the

salinity problem in each. Step two then involves

collating information on sites of Aboriginal, historical

and natural significance located in the towns

identified in Step one. Much of this information is

included in databases compiled by local governments

and heritage agencies.

If you wish to access the lists compiled by the

heritage agencies, refer to the Australian Heritage

Places Inventory (AHPI) available online on

the Australian Heritage Commission’s website

(www.heritage.gov.au/ahpi). This inventory provides

details on all places listed on the following State,

Territory and Commonwealth Heritage Registers:

• The Register of the National Estate

• The NSW State Heritage Inventory

• The Victorian Heritage Register

• The Northern Territory Heritage Register

• State Heritage Register (SA)

80 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 81

• Queensland Heritage Register

• Heritage Places Database (WA)

• Tasmanian Heritage Register.

In the absence of detailed on-ground inspections

of these sites, it is not possible to specify whether

the heritage-listed sites located in towns with

urban salinity are, or are not, affected by high

saline watertables. However, by also specifying the

percentage of each urban town centre that is salt-

affected (and the severity of the salinity problem), it

is possible to assess the potential risk from salinity

damage. For example, if 60 per cent of a town is

currently subject to moderate to severe salinity, then

there is approximately a 60 per cent chance that each

heritage-listed site in this town is also at risk from

moderate to severe salinity damage.

Worked example: 11

While trialling these Guidelines in the Namoi River catchment, application of the methodology described

above led to the identification of 28 places on the Australian Heritage Places Inventory located in towns

subject to urban salinity. The names of the salinity-affected towns, the total percentage of these towns

affected, and the heritage-listed places located in each are presented below.

Namoi River Catchment

Barraba township (20%): Narrabri township (20%) a: Tamworth township (10%):

Oaky Creek Rail Bridge Collins Park Grandstand Peel River Rail Bridge

Narrabri Gaol (former) Power House Monument

Gunnedah township (35%): Narrabri Post Office St Nicholas Catholic Church

Gunnedah Court House

Gunnedah General Cemetery

Narrabri Telegraph Office (former)

Police Residence, Maitland St

Tamworth Council Chambers

and Town Hall

Gunnedah Railway Station Tamworth Gaol (former)

Ruvigne Homestead Complex Tamworth township (10%): Tamworth Hospital (Main Block

only)

Dominican Convent Group and

School

Tamworth Post Office

Manilla township (50%): Dominican Convent and Chapel Tamworth Primary School

Horsley Private Cemetery Lands Office, Fitzroy St Tamworth Town Hall

Namoi River Road Bridge Mechanics Institute (former) Wesley Uniting Church

Without on-ground inspections, it is not possible to confirm whether any of these sites are actually

being damaged by high saline watertables. However, the reasonably high percentage of Barraba,

Gunnedah, Manilla and Narrabri being affected suggests the likelihood that a significant number of these

sites are currently affected is high. In the Manilla township for example, it is reported that around 50 per

cent of the entire township experiences high saline watertable problems.

4.10 Costs to downstream water users

This Section introduces the concept of

calculating saline water costs to downstream

water users.

• Work through this Section if you noted in

your checklist in Section 3.2 that salt loads

in your local streams of rivers are likely

to affect water users or the environment

downstream from your study area.

Most local action plans implemented at a sub-

catchment, catchment or regional scale include

the estimated cost of saline surface water flowing

from the catchment to downstream agricultural,

domestic and industrial water users9. This estimation

is important when developing transparent cost-

sharing arrangements as downstream water users

will be beneficiaries of any salinity control works

recommended as part of the plan.

9 It will not be appropriate to calculate the costs to downstream water users when calculating the total costs of dryland salinity in numerous neighbouring catchments and then summing them to provide a regional esstimate. To do so may result in double counting of these costs.

80 PART TWO

2-4

PART TWO 81

The provision of detailed instructions on how to

value these downstream costs is outside the Terms

of Reference for this project. However, where salts

from a catchment enter the Murray River, the process

broadly involves:

Step 1: Estimate the current contribution of salt loads

from the catchment to total salinity levels of the River

Murray at Morgan, SA (measured in EC units).

Step 2: Estimate how the salinity level of the Murray

River at Morgan will change over time in the absence

of the catchment plan being implemented.

Step 3: Apply salinity cost figures available from the

Murray-Darling Basin Commission to calculate the

cost to River Murray water users from this change in

river salinity.

4.11 Flow-on social costsThe presence of salinity may generate substantial

flow-on social impacts within the area being

investigated, the surrounding region, and throughout

Australia more generally. In practice, however, these

impacts are generally difficult to clearly identify

and measure. This difficulty arises because other

general social and economic factors also contribute

to social problems in each particular area. These

include high interest rates, declining terms of trade,

strong business competition with larger towns, and

structural adjustment pressures in the service and

agricultural sectors. There may also be compensating

factors that lead to a rise in incomes and population

levels despite worsening salinity impacts. This

suggests that quantifying the flow-on social costs of

salinity may be outside the scope of most local action

plans implemented at a sub-catchment, catchment or

regional scale.

Given these problems, considerable effort to quantify

the flow-on social costs will rarely be warranted.

Rather, available time and resources will generally be

better spent quantifying the costs of salinity which

are more easily identified and valued.

Sensitivity analysis conducted as part of the local

action planning process is one approach that permits

the importance of unvalued flow-on social impacts to

be assessed in a cost-benefit analysis framework. The

‘Threshold Approach’ introduced in the environment

section is particularly useful in this regard.

An alternative approach involves the application of

the Monash model described in Adams (1998 and

1999) to broadly identify the change in income that

could be expected to result from productivity changes

at a farm level. This model has been used with

Dynamic Programming in the Landmark Initiative

project (see www.mdbc.gov.au/landmark/) to assess

the economic and social impacts of broadscale

adoption of alternative dryland agricultural practices

in the Condamine, Billabong and Goulburn-Broken

River catchments.


82 PART TWO

2-5

PART TWO 83

Conducting a survey or census of stakeholders

5.1 OverviewThere are 5 key steps involved when conducting a

survey or census of stakeholders:

Step 1: Preparation of a questionnaire form

Step 2: Survey design

Step 3: Implementation of the survey or census

Step 4: Data analysis

Step 5: Publicity

These steps are discussed in detail below.

5.2 Preparation of a questionnaire formWhen preparing any questionnaire form, it is

important to balance the data required with the

size of the questionnaire. For example, the farm

survey questionnaire contains 22 questions. This

will generally be workable where an interviewer

works with the respondent to fill out the form.

However in other situations, the form may prove too

cumbersome. For example, there may be resistance

to a form of this size in a mail-out survey. In these

situations, the less crucial questions could be

removed. Similarly, in other situations it may not be

necessary to include all questions relating to costs.

This situation will arise, for example, if catchment

communities only need information on the costs

under a ‘No-Plan’ scenario and hence do not need to

collect information on the costs of undertaking any

preventative works.

5.3 Survey designInformation can be collected from stakeholder

groups using either a survey or census-based

approach. A census questions every person, business,

farm, etc., in the target group population, whereas

a survey examines only a sub-set of the larger target

group and then extrapolates the results to the entire

population.

A census, or a survey drawing on a relatively large

proportion of the target group, will generally be

cost effective if there are relatively few target groups

in the area. The larger the target group, the more

likely that the most efficient approach will involve

surveying only a proportion of the groups involved.

There are two main techniques available for

designing a survey-based approach:

• a random sampling technique; and

• a stratified sampling technique.

A random sampling technique involves selecting

a random sample from the entire population. A

stratified sampling technique involves categorising a

larger population into a number of sub-populations

based on a particular characteristic (eg, severity of

salinity problems), and then applying a different

sampling technique to each sub-population. This will

often involve surveying a higher proportion of the

population in areas severely affected by salinity than

in areas where the salinity problem is only minor or

non-existent.

Stratified sampling will generally provide more

accurate results where the salinity problem is not

distributed uniformly across the catchment or among

different target groups. However, the technique

requires more information on the type and location

of the target population affected, adding to the

complexity and cost of the task.

5

Presented below is a broad description of how a sub-sample of a target population can be selected

for a survey-based approach. When undertaking this step in practice, it will be essential to employ the

services of a qualified statistician to provide detailed advice on a survey design that is tailored to the

unique characteristics of the individual catchment or region. Poor survey design will lead to survey bias

and unreliable results.

10 Annual costs can be converted to a capitalised value by dividing by the appropriate discount rate that reflects people’s value of money over time.

2-

82 PART TWO

2-5

PART TWO 83

Preparing a survey sample

When establishing a random sample of a stakeholder

group, it will often be useful to purchase a suitable

database from a direct marketing company. These

databases are readily available for most sectors of

the community and areas within Australia. They

can provide details of names, phone numbers,

addresses and business types (where applicable) of

every telephone number on each local exchange

in the study area (each local exchange has its own

telephone number prefix). From these databases, it is

then possible to derive subsidiary lists of farms and

businesses to produce a random sample for each of

these community sectors.

Using this approach to create a survey sample

has the advantages of being relatively simple but

comprehensive. One drawback is that catchment

boundaries often do not correspond to telephone

exchange boundaries. However, this is a relatively

minor problem as addresses located outside the

catchment boundary can easily be discarded.

Another problem is that it is quite common for some

businesses to have more than one number. Again,

however, this is a relatively minor problem that can

be readily resolved.

The use of a database approach is suitable for

moderate to large areas. However, there may

be more effective methods of establishing a

database for smaller areas. These include local

directories, government departments or Landcare

membership lists.

To demonstrate how a survey can be conducted, the

following worked example describes how samples of

households, farms, non-farm businesses, councils and

government agencies were selected while trialling

an early version of these Guidelines in the Talbragar,

Little River and Troy Creek catchments of NSW.

Worked example 12

Households and farms

In the Talbragar and Little River catchments, databases on the location and contact details of urban and

rural households were purchased from a direct marketing company and used to collate urban and rural

properties according to geographical location. The samples were then selected within each geographical

location by choosing every nth listing. The size of the ‘n’ was determined by the size of the database

and the desired sample size. This resulted in a random selection of listings distributed relatively evenly

across the catchments.

In the more urbanised Troy Creek catchment, the salinity problems were centralised in an area of the

catchment known as the Boogedar Estate. The catchment was therefore divided into 3 sampling areas

to enable the problem areas to be sampled more intensively. In the final analysis, the data from these 3

sub-areas were extrapolated separately according to the relative number of houses.

Councils and government agencies

A census was conducted of all local councils located in the study areas. A census of all government

agencies and environmental groups considered to be susceptible to dryland and urban salinity was

also conducted.

Businesses

In the Talbragar and Little River catchments, the survey focused on businesses considered most

susceptible to salinity. This meant that the sampling intensity for these businesses was much higher than

for other less susceptible businesses. Businesses that were not considered susceptible to salinity were

not sampled. In order to avoid bias, the survey results were then extrapolated according to the number

of businesses in each classification.

In the Troy Creek catchment, each business was included in the census due to the small number of

businesses operating in the catchment.

84 PART TWO

2-5

PART TWO 85

Selecting the sample size

The resources involved in conducting a survey will

always increase with the size of the population and

the size of the sample. However, there is a dilemma

with small population sizes. A small population size

generally means that the costs incurred by that sector

of the community will be small. However, if a large

enough sample is not surveyed then the results of

the study can be unreliable.

During an earlier trial of these Guidelines, this

sample problem was most noticeable in the business

sector, and especially in the Little River catchment

where only three businesses believed they had a salinity problem. With only three businesses affected by salinity, the response of just one business can have marked effect on the overall results of the survey.

There is no simple solution to this problem. The survey of a larger sample (including non-susceptible businesses) may not result in any more positive responses, and will add to the cost of the survey with little potential benefit. It is therefore essential to seek the advice of a qualified statistician when defining the population and selecting a sample size. This will be even more critical when small population

sizes exist.

5.4 Implementing a survey or censusThe way in which a survey or census is conducted

will depend on the time and resources available. In

general, there are three basic approaches available

(e.g. mail, telephone and face-to-face), and more

than one approach can be used as part of a multi-

stepped approach.

When sample numbers are manageable, it will often

be useful to make initial contact with the targeted

group in the sample via a letter detailing the purpose

and motive of the study. These letters will often

increase the effectiveness of the initial personal

contact, as respondents will have time to consider

the impacts of salinity before speaking with the

interviewers.

Conducting an initial brief telephone survey of the

sampled stakeholders will generally offer a relatively

quick and low cost way of determining which

individuals or organisations are affected by dryland

and urban salinity. If they indicate that they are (or

have been) affected, one can then arrange to either

send them a more detailed mail-out questionnaire or

to participate in a face-to-face interview.

Mail-out questionnaires will always be cheaper

and may be appropriate where the higher cost of

conducting face-to-face surveys cannot be justified.

However, the response rate of mail-outs will

generally be lower and can result in some bias as

stakeholders who recognise problems are more likely

to reply. Furthermore, face-to-face interviews have

several advantages, particularly the ability to:

• clearly explain the objectives of the survey and the

content of the questionnaire

• increase awareness of the likely symptoms of

salinity and high watertables

• identify the most qualified individual to respond

to the questionnaire (this is particularly important

when dealing with agencies or utilities with a

management hierarchy within the region)

• collect more in-depth answers than would be

possible with a mail-out questionnaire, and

• collect any additional supplementary or supporting

material that may be useful.

5.4.1 Training seminar

In some situations it may be advantageous to use

students or other individuals to conduct the survey

or census. In these situations, it will often be useful

to run a one or two day training session. Generally,

state agency staff or others with a thorough

knowledge of dryland and urban salinity issues

in the local area and good liaison skills should be

approached to conduct these seminars.

The main purposes of these seminars should be to:

1 Improve the individual’s communication skills.

2 Increase their awareness of the problems caused

by dryland and urban salinity.

3 Discuss the logistics of the survey.

To increase the level of salinity awareness in the

catchment and to gain stakeholder support for

the survey, it will also be useful to invite key

stakeholders (such as Landcare members and local

council members) to observe or participate in the

training session.

Communication skills

The training seminar should include a session with a

person trained in promoting good liaison skills, and

should focus on promoting communication skills and

demonstrating how these skills will enable them to

improve the effectiveness of the survey.

Salinity awareness

This session should give the trainees a good

understanding of the salinity problems in the

84 PART TWO

2-5

PART TWO 85

catchment and the critical issues involved in

conducting a survey of key stakeholder groups. It

should enable the trainees to become clearer on

what is expected of them, and to become familiar

with the other team members. As many of the

tasks involved in undertaking a survey will rely on

cooperation between team members, this training

will be very important to the success of the survey.

In many instances, it will also be beneficial to give

the trainees a tour of the catchment to give them

a more practical understanding of the impacts of

salinity in both the urban and rural areas.

Survey logistics

This session should involve the survey coordinator

discussing in detail the logistics of the survey. This

should include a detailed examination of the survey

forms to permit the trainees to become familiar with

the format and purpose of each question.

It is important that the interviewer has a good idea of

the expected outcomes of the survey. If they have a

good understanding of this, then they are less likely

to overlook crucial information during the interview

process. It is the nature of many respondents to

want to finish a survey form as quickly as possible

and with minimal effort. A well-trained and attentive

interviewer will allow such a respondent some

latitude, but will ensure that the crucial data is

collected. Emphasis during the training session

should therefore be on which questions, or which

parts of questions, were ‘non-negotiable’ and had to

be answered.

Other issues that should be covered include

interview technique, questions for the initial

telephone contact, coordination of telephone

contacts and interviews, and data entry.

5.5 Data analysisRegardless of how many people are actually involved

in conducting surveys or collecting supporting

information, it is recommended that the analysis

of the data be undertaken by one person or small

team at a centralised location. This will ensure

that all the data is analysed and presented in a

consistent manner.

When analysing the data, it is important to look for

double counting of expenditure as respondents may

sometimes double count expenditure under two

different headings (e.g. repairs and reduced lifespan).

Conducting a face-to-face survey using a trained

interviewer will generally minimise this occurrence,

but these problems are likely to be greater if a mail-

out survey approach is used.

5.6 PublicityBefore conducting any surveys, it will always be

beneficial to promote the work and to discuss its

benefits with the relevant state agency staff and the

catchment community.

One important way to raise awareness of the

pending survey is to prepare a media release and

to distribute it to the local media (print and radio)

just before the survey is due to commence. Another

way is to prepare a short fact sheet that discusses the

aims and expected outcomes of the survey, and to

distribute it, as appropriate.

Photo: Matt Kendall

86 PART TWO

2-6

PART TWO 87

Compilation of salinity cost dataTable 25 presents a pro forma that can be used to

record the impacts and costs of dryland and urban

salinity to the catchment stakeholders and the wider

community. The costs are separated into three broad

headings to correspond to the broad headings that

may be useful when identifying the beneficiaries of

salinity control works:

• rural farms

• non-farming catchment community, and

• wider community

The Table includes two columns entitled ‘Impacted?’

and ‘Valued?’. This enables the researcher(s) to

quickly identify where salinity is affecting a particular

stakeholder group, but where these impacts have

not been valued in dollar terms. Where this situation

arises, sensitivity analysis should be conducted as

part of the benefit-cost analysis process to determine

the likely impact of excluding these costs on the final

results.

The Table also includes a column entitled ‘Capital

costs’. This enables the researcher(s) to express the

current (or future) annual impact costs imposed

on each stakeholder groups in a capitalised value

format10. This will, for example, enable local councils

and financial lending institutions (such as banks) to

get a much better appreciation of how dryland and

urban salinity in the catchment may be affecting the

capital value of farms, houses and businesses.

While trialling these Guidelines, a detailed database on the current impacts and costs of dryland and

urban salinity to dryland agricultural producers, households, businesses, local governments, state

government agencies and utilities, the environment and cultural heritage has been compiled for the

entire Murray-Darling Basin. Results are available at the:

• township level

• Local Government Area level

• catchment level, and

• Murray-Darling Basin level.

Full details of these results are available from the project reports listed in Part 1 of these Guidelines and

are available on-line at www.ndsp.gov.au. They are also available from the ‘Cost of dryland salinity’

project CD available from the MDBC and Land & Water Australia.

6


10 Annual costs can be converted to a capitalised value by dividing by the appropriate discount rate that reflects people’s value of money over time.

2-

86 PART TWO

2-6

PART TWO 87

Table 25. Proforma for recording estimated costs of dryland and urban salinity

Stakeholders and ‘impact’ costs’Impacted

(Y/N)Valued?

(Y/N)Current

costs ($/yr)Future

costs ($/yr)Capital cost ($)

Rural Farms

Foregone income

Repair and maintenance

Increased construction costs

Shortened lifespan of infrastructure

Increased operating costs

Sub-Total

Non-farm Catchment Community

Rural households

High saline watertable damage

Sub-Total

Urban households

Saline town water supply cost

High saline watertable damage

Sub-Total

Urban businesses

Saline town water supply cost

High saline watertable damage:

Sub-Total

Local governments

Increased repair and maintenance expenditure:

Rural roads

Urban roads

Other infrastructure

Increased water treatment costs


Cost of shortened life spans:

Rural roads

Urban roads


Cost of reduced rate levies and rebate schemes

Sub-Total

Wider Community

State agencies and utilities

Increased repair and maintenance expenditure:

Rural roads

Railway infrastructure



Cost of shortened life spans:

Rural roads

Railway infrastructure


Loss of income

Sub-Total

Environment

Cultural heritage

Downstream water users

Social

Total

88 PART TWO

2-8

PART TWO 89

Analysing the dataOnce information on the current and predicted

future costs of dryland and urban salinity has been

compiled, it will generally be fed into the overall

local action planning process (as introduced in Part

1). Some of the key issues to be considered when

undertaking this process are outlined below.

When analysing collated data, you will need to assess

its likely accuracy and to assess the implications of

this accuracy on the overall local action planning

process. For example, it will be important to assess

the likely implications of not valuing some or all of

the more intangible environmental or social impacts

through approaches such as threshold analysis.

Similarly, it will be important to assess the

implications of uncertainty in the information used

to derive the cost estimates. This includes possible

variations in annual salinity levels of town water

supplies, or uncertainty over future estimates. One

useful approach to help in this process will be to

record confidence levels for each of the datasets

used, or to record a ‘Lower Estimate’, an ‘Upper

Estimate’ and a ‘Most Likely’ estimate.

Another useful step is to ensure there is no over-

estimation of the costs obtained. In most cases, this

can be done by clearly identifying the purpose of the

study and defining the study area boundaries.

Over-estimation of costs may result when costs

compiled for several local action planning areas,

including the downstream costs, are aggregated to

provide an estimate at the Catchment Management

or Basin-wide level. Similarly, over-estimation of

costs may result when the financial costs of foregone

income to stakeholders in a catchment are included.

This may occur, for example, if the value of net

income foregone from a cancelled horse-racing event

(due to a salinity affected track) was included in the

analysis. If the money that may have been spent at

this racing event was spent on the consumption of

other goods and services in the catchment, there may

have been no net economic costs to the catchment

community. Similarly, if the money saved was spent

on the consumption of goods and services outside

the catchment but within the region, there would

be a financial cost to the catchment community, but

not an economic cost to the wider community. This

demonstrates the need to be clear on the scale and

purpose of the study, and the implications of the

results.

Finally, it will be important to assess the wider

implications of the results to the catchment or

regional communities as a whole. For example, if

dryland and urban salinity is currently a major issue,

or is likely to become a major issue in future years,

then this may have major implications for structural

adjustment pressures in the region. For example,

it may have major implications for future land use

and urban development in the catchment, or on the

financial ability of stakeholders to implement the

preferred mix of on-ground works needed to control

the problem. Individuals interested in learning more

about the structural adjustment issues associated with

dryland salinity and its management across the Basin

can read Adjusting for catchment management:

Structural adjustment and its implications for

catchment management in the Murray-Darling Basin

(MDBC 2000).

72- 2-

88 PART TWO

2-8

PART TWO 89

ReferencesAACM International 1996, Guide to cost-sharing for

on-ground works, Report to the Murray-Darling Basin

Commission, Adelaide.

Adams, P. 1998, Effects of technological improvements

in resources and other industries, Report to Natural

Resources and Environment, Victoria, Centre of

Policy Studies, Monash University.

Adams, P. 1999, Options for growth, A paper

supporting a presentation to the Growing Horizons

Expert Committee, Victoria, Centre of Policy Studies,

Monash University.

Bateman, I.J. and Turner, R.K. 1993, Valuation

of the environment, methods and techniques:

The contingent valuation method—Sustainable

environmental economics and management,

Belhaven Press, London.

Hardcastle and Richards 2000, Impact of rising water

and salinity on infrastructure, Draft report to Dames

and Moore Pty Ltd.

Ivey ATP 1998, Determining the costs of dryland

salinity, Dryland salinity survey of the Talbragar

and Little River Catchments—Central West NSW

(volumes 1–3). Report to the Murray-Darling Basin

Commission, Wellington NSW.

Morrison, M., Blamey, R., Bennet, J. and Louviere,

J. 1996, Choice modelling research reports: A

comparison of stated preference techniques for

estimating environmental values, Research Report

No. 1, University of New South Wales, Canberra.

Treadwell, R. and Short, C. 1997, Nonmarket

valuation of dryland salinity: Guidelines for

incorporating nonmarket values, ABARE

report, Canberra.

van Bueren, M. and Bennett, J. 2000, Estimating

community values for land and water degradation

impacts, Report to the National Land and Water

Resources Audit Project 6.1.4 Unisearch, University of

NSW, Australia.

Van Hilst, R. and Schuele, M. 1997, Salinity and

high watertables in the Loddon and Campaspe

Catchments: Costs to the environment, ABARE report

to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

Wilson S.M. 2002a, Assessing the costs of dryland

salinity to non-agricultural stakeholders, the

environment and cultural heritage in selected

catchments across the Murray-Darling Basin—

Methodology report 2, Wilson Land Management

Services Report to the Murray-Darling Basin

Commission and the National Dryland Salinity

Program, Canberra.

Wilson S.M. and Laurie 2002, Validation and

refinement of the Gutteridge, Haskins and Davey

saline water cost functions, Wilson Land Management

Services and Ivey ATP Report to the Murray-Darling

Basin Commission, Canberra.

Wilson, S.M. 1995, Draft Guidelines for quantifying

the full range of costs of dryland salinity, ABARE

paper presented at a National Workshop on Dryland

Salinity, Convened by ABARE and the Victorian

Department of Conservation and Natural Resources,

Bendigo, Victoria, 21-23 June.

Wilson, S.M. 2000, Assessing the cost of dryland

salinity to non-agricultural stakeholders across

selected Victorian and NSW catchments: A

methodology report, Wilson Land Management

Services Report to the Murray-Darling Basin

Commission and the National Dryland Salinity

Program, Canberra.

82-

90 PART TWO PART TWO 91

Attachment AExtent and severity of urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin

Affected urban town centre, by catchment Estimated percentage of town affected

Total % Very slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe %

Avoca

Avoca 10 0 5 5 0

Charlton <5 5 0 0 0

Lake Boga 90 0 10 40 40

Quambatook <5 5 0 0 0

St Arnaud <5 5 0 0 0

Wycheproof <5 5 0 0 0

Swan Hill 10 0 10 0 0

Benanee

Buronga 3 0 3 0 0

Border Rivers (NSW)

Ashford 10 0 5 5 0

Deepwater 20 10 10 0 0

Glen Innes 10 5 5 0 0

Tenterfield 20 0 10 10 0

Yetman 30 10 20 0 0

North Star 20 10 10 0 0

Cherry Tree Hill 20 0 10 10 0

Graman 40 10 20 10 0

Nullamanna 40 5 30 5 0

Border Rivers (Qld)

Inglewood 20 0 10 10 0

Texas 20 5 15 0 0

Yelarbon 40 10 10 20 0

Broken

Cobram 5 0 5 0 0

Dookie 35 15 12 5 3

Glenrowan 5 5 0 0 0

Katamatite <5 5 0 0 0

Nathalia <5 5 0 0 0

Numurkah <5 5 0 0 0

Strathmerton 5 0 5 0 0



Total % Very slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe%

Tungamah <5 5 0 0 0

Yarrawonga 10 0 0 10 0

Campaspe

Bendigo 1 0.5 0.5 0 0

Echuca 5 0 5 0 0

Heathcote 5 3 1 1 0

Lockington 5 0 5 0 0

Rochester 5 0 5 0 0

Strathfieldsaye 10 5 3 1 1

Castlereagh

Binnaway <5 5 0 0 0

Coonabarabran <5 5 0 0 0

Coonamble <5 5 0 0 0

Gilgandra <5 5 0 0 0

Gullargambone ? 2 0 0 0

Mendooran <5 5 0 0 0

Condamine-Culgoa

None

Darling

Cobar 10 0 0 10 0

Bourke 20 0 0 5 15

Broken Hill 5 0 0 5 0

Goulburn

Alexandra <5 5 0 0 0

Barmah <5 5 0 0 0

Broadford <5 5 0 0 0

Girgarre 10 0 10 0 0

Kyabram 10 0 10 0 0

Nagambie <5 5 0 0 0

Rushworth 5 0 5 0 0

Seymour 5 0 5 0 0

Shepparton-Mooroopna 5 0 5 0 0

Stanhope 15 0 15 0 0

Tallarook 5 0 5 0 0

Tatura 10 0 10 0 0

Tongala 15 0 15 0 0

Violet Town 5 11 0 0 0

Yea 5 5 0 0 0

2-A




Gwydir

Bingara 0 5 5 0 0

Bundarra 20 5 15 0 0

Delungra 30 10 10 10 0

Moree 20 20 0 0 0

Tingha 20 10 10 0 0

Warialda 15 5 10 0 0

Gum Flat 20 5 15 0 0

Gravesend 50 5 20 25 0

Cobbadah 20 10 10 0 0

Mount Russell 50 10 10 30 0

Kingstown 30 10 20 0 0

Upper Horton 40 0 20 20 0

Kiewa

Wodonga 5 5 0 0 0

Yackandandah <5 3 0 0 0

Lachlan

Blayney 20 5 5 10 0

Boorowa 60 15 15 15 15

Canowindra 20 5 10 5 0

Carcoar 10 5 5 0 0

Cargo 10 5 5 0 0

Condobolin 36 10 13 5 8

Cowra 10 0 5 5 0

Crookwell 10 5 5 0 0

Cudal 10 5 0 5 0

Forbes 30 0 5 15 10

Grenfell 5 0 0 0 5

Gunning 20 5 5 10 0

Hillston 10 0 5 0 5

Lake Cargelligo 20 0 5 5 10

Lyndhurst 30 5 5 15 5

Manildra 18 18 0 0 0

Milthorpe 5 5 0 0 0

Parkes 20 0 5 10 5

Stockinbingal 10 0 5 0 5

Temora 10 0 5 0 5

Trundle 5 5 0 0 0




Ungarie 5 5 0 0 0

West Wyalong 10 5 0 5 0

Woodstock 30 5 5 15 5

Young 30 5 10 10 5

Lake George

None

Loddon

Bendigo 7 0 5 2 0

Boort 10 0 5 5 0

Bridgewater 5 0 5 0 0

Campbells Creek 10 5 5 0 0

Carisbrook 5 0 5 0 0

Castlemaine 10 5 5 0 0

Chewton 20 15 5 0 0

Cohuna <5 5 0 0 0

Creswick <5 5 0 0 0

Dunolly 30 10 10 5 5

Goornong 10 0 10 0 0

Gunbower <5 5 0 0 0

Harcourt 5 0 5 0 0

Huntly 10 0 10 0 0

Kerang <5 5 0 0 0

Koondrook 10 0 10 0 0

Lexton 15 0 15 0 0

Maldon 20 0 10 10 0

Maryborough <5 5 0 0 0

Newstead 5 0 5 0 0

Pyramid Hill 15 0 10 5 0

Talbot 5 0 5 0 0

Weddeburn 5 0 5 0 0

Lower Murray River

Goolwa 5 0 3 3 0

Meningie 5 0 5 0 0

Milang 5 0 3 3 0

Murray Bridge 5 0 0 2 3

Paringa 5 0 5 0 0

Renmark 15 0 10 5 0

Tungkillo 5 5 0 0 0

2-A



Total % Very Slight % Slight % Moderate % Severe %

Macquarie-Bogan

Bathurst <5 0 5 0 0

Brewarrina 15 0 10 5 0

Coolah 50 0 0 20 30

Cumnock 70 10 20 20 20

Dubbo 30 0 15 10 5

Dunedoo <5 0 5 0 0

Geurie <5 0 5 0 0

Gulgong <5 0 5 0 0

Kandos 30 5 10 15 0

Molong <5 0 5 0 0

Mudgee 50 10 20 10 10

Narromine <5 0 5 0 0

Nyngan <5 0 5 0 0

Oberon <5 0 5 0 0

Orange <5 0 5 0 0

Peak Hill <5 0 5 0 0

Perthville <5 0 5 0 0

Portland ? - - - -

Rylstone 85 25 25 15 20

Tottenham 10 0 2.5 7.5 20

Trangie 10 0 2.5 7.5 0

Tullamore <5 0 5 0 0

Warren 10 0 2.5 7.5 0

Wellington 20 0 5 15 0

Wongarbon <5 0 5 0 0

Yeoval <5 0 5 0 0

Mallee (SA)

Coomandook 8 2 2 2 2

Moorook 8 0 8 0 0

Waikerie 3 0 3 0 0

Mallee (Vic)

Burgona 20 10 10 0 0

Dareton 20 10 10 0 0

Euston 15 10 5 0 0

Gol Gol 15 10 5 0 0

Irymple 15 10 5 0 0

Merbein 15 10 5 0 0




Mildura 20 10 5 5 0

Ouyen 30 0 20 10 0

Red Cliffs 15 10 5 0 0

Robinvale 15 5 10 0 0

Sea Lake 15 5 10 0 0

Walpeup 10 0 10 0 0

Wentworth 20 5 10 5 0

Moonie

None

Murray Riverina

Albury 5 3 2 0 0

Barham 5 0 5 0 0

Barooga 5 5 0 0 0

Cobram 5 5 0 0 0

Corowa 5 0 5 0 0

Echuca 5 5 0 0 0

Finley < 5 3 0 0 0

Howlong 5 5 0 0 0

Koondrook 5 0 5 0 0

Moama 10 10 0 0 0

Mulwala 10 0 10 0 0

Murrabit 5 0 5 0 0

Nyah 5 0 5 0 0

Swan Hill 10 0 10 0 0

Tocumwal 5 5 0 0 0


Murrumbidgee

Balranald 2 2 0 0 0

Binalong 60 0 20 20 20

Coolamon 5 5 0 0 0

Cootamundra 75 70 4 1 0

Griffith 8 3 2 1 2

Gunning 10 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Harden-Murrumburrah 10 8 2 0 0

Hay 60 60 0 0 0

Holbrook 15 5 5 5 0

Junee 40 10 10 5 10

Ladysmith 44 7 15 15 7

2-A




Leeton 5 2 1 2 0

Narrandera 4 2 1 1 0

Queanbeyan 3 3 0 0 0

Tarcutta 7 3 2 2 0

Tumut 2 2 0 0 0

Wagga Wagga 50 5 15 20 10

Yass 12 5 5 2 0

Namoi

Attunga 20 10 10 0 0

Barraba 20 0 15 5 0

Bendemeer 10 5 5 0 0

Boggabri 50 5 10 35 0

Curlewis 40 10 20 10 0

Gunnedah 35 0 10 15 10

Manilla 50 10 30 10 0

Narrabri 20 5 5 10 0

Tamworth 10 0 5 5 0

Werris Creek 10 10 0 0 0

Tambar Springs 19 5 5 0 0

Baan Baa 100 20 20 60 0

Ovens

Barnawartha <5 3 0 0 0

Chiltern <5 3 0 0 0

Corowa 5 5 0 0 0

Wahgunyah 5 5 0 0 0

Howlong 5 5 0 0 0

Moyhu <5 3 0 0 0

Rutherglen 10 5 5 0 0

Wangaratta <5 3 0 0 0


Paroo

None

Upper Murray

None

Warrego

None




Wimmera-Avon

Birchip 5 5 0 0 0

Dimboola 20 5 10 5 0

Donald 20 5 10 5 0

Hopetoun 10 5 5 0 0

Horsham 15 5 5 5 0

Jeparit 35 10 15 10 0

Minyip 5 5 0 0 0

Natimuk 10 5 5 0 0

Ouyen 30 0 20 10 0

Rainbow 15 0 10 5 0

Stawell 5 5 0 0 0

2-A

98 PART TWO

1-1

PART TWO 99

Attachment BExample dryland agricultural producer questionnaire

Number

Salinity/high Watertable Questionnaire<Insert Catchment Name>

Farms

If you have any questions or queries regarding this questionnaire please contact <Insert Name> on <Insert Phone No. and E-mail Address>

Please read through the questionnaire first before completing it. Unless otherwise specified, answer all

questions with reference to the whole property including the farming business assets and the homestead

facilities.

Property Name

Address:

Contact Person:

Phone Number (optional):

Facsimile Number (optional):

Terms used in the surveyYour property Please include all land owned or managed by you in the <INSERT CATCHMENT

NAME>.

Salinity/high watertables refers to any one of the following problems:

• Watertables at or near the soil surface.

• Saline groundwater such as bores and wells.

• Saline surface water such as rivers, creeks and dams.

• Saline soil conditions.

Discharge areas are defined as areas with salinity/high watertables problems.

Recharge areas do not have salinity/high watertables problems but contribute to the problem

through infiltration of rain or irrigation into the groundwater system.

Capital infrastructure could include structures such as roads and bridges, electricity distribution

facilities, septic systems, buildings, fencing, water supply systems, gardens, and gas supply systems.

98 PART TWO

1-1

PART TWO 99

1 On the attached map of the <insert Catchment Name>, indicate the approximate location of your property.

2 What is the area of your property?

Please subdivide this area between the following land use types:

ha ha

Irrigated pasture/cropping Good dryland cropping and pasture

Irrigated horticulture Dryland pasture with occasional cropping

Dryland horticulture Dryland pasture with no cropping

Prime dryland cropping Limited grazing

No agricultural value Tree lot or regeneration area

3 Are you a member of a Landcare group or any other information sharing producer group? (e.g. TopCrop, Farm Cheque)

Y N

For questions 4, 5 and 6 below, please use the following scale to indicate how serious you think the salinity/high watertable problem is on your property and in the surrounding area.

Serious Moderate Slight No Problem Don’t know

1 2 3 4 5

4 Using the above scale, how do you rate the problems of rural salinity/high watertables in your immediate area?

Code

5 Using the above scale, how do you rate the problems of rural salinity/high watertables on your property?

Code

For question 6 below, please use the following scale to indicate your perception of the changein the salinity/high watertable problem over time on your property.

Seriously Worse

Moderately Worse Slightly Worse No Change

Some Improvement Don’t know

1 2 3 4 5 6

6 Please answer the following questions in relation to the overall change in salinity/high watertables on your property over time.

How long have you been associated with your current property?

Years

Using the above scale, how do you describe the change in salinity/high watertables over the period of your association with your current property?

Code

Using the above scale, how do you expect salinity/high watertables to change on your property over the next 10 years?

Code 2-B


7 What impact has salinity/high watertables had on the operation of your property?Answer questions in columns A, B and C by ticking the appropriate boxes.

Questions

A. Do you experience any of the following Impacts due to salinity/high watertables?

B. From those impacts indicated in A, which are the three most serious today?

C. Which three impacts will be the most serious in 10 years time? (These may include impacts not currently experienced).

Question:A: Salinity

impact

B: 3 most serious

today

C: 3 most serious

in 10 years

Farm Agricultural production foregone

Forestry production foregone

Decreased enterprise flexibility

Damage to water pipes or supply systems

Damage to water tanks

Damage to access roads & tracks

Damage to farm buildings

Damage to fences and stockyards

Damage to vehicles, machinery & equipment

Soil erosion of saline sites

Weed invasion (e.g. spiny rush)

Access to waterlogged sites

Higher drainage costs

Turbidity of water supplies

Salinity of livestock water supplies

Secondary erosion along stream banks

Household Salinity of household water

Damage to houses & other domestic buildings

Damage to driveways and paths

Damage to swimming pool

Damage to gas pipes & supply systems

Corrosion of domestic appliances

Reduced efficiency of septic systems

Damage to gardens and lawns

Increased use of soaps & detergents

Other Other Reduction in farm flora and fauna

Deterioration of farm wetlands or lakes

Other (specify)


8 Please specify the source(s) of domestic water for your household (exclude water used for farm purposes—eg stock water, irrigation, spraying, etc). If more than one source is used, please estimate the relative proportion of each source. If known, please estimate the average salinity level of the water from each source used.

Relative proportion Salinity level

Town water supply % EC

Bore or well % EC

River % EC

Runoff collecting dam % EC

Spring fed dam % EC

Rainwater tanks % EC

Other (specify) % EC

9 Do any houses on your property suffer structural damage due to high watertables?

Y N

If Yes, please specify the number of houses affected by minor/moderate high watertable problems, and the number severely affected. If No, go to Question 10

Households affected by high watertables (no.)

Minor or moderate affect

Severe affect

10 What is the total length of access roads and dirt tracks on your property? What is the estimated length of roads currently or potentially affected by salinity or high watertables?

Type of Road Total length of road (km)

Estimated length affected by salinity/high

watertables (km)Total length potentially

affected (km)

Access roads

Dirt or gravel tracks

11 What is the frequency of periodic maintenance on your access roads and dirt tracks, and what is the average amount spent?

Road typeNo. of years between

each periodic maintenance Average amount spent

Roads not affected by high watertables

(yrs)

Roads affected by high watertables

(yrs)

Roads not affected by high watertables

($/km)

Roads affected by high watertables

($/km)

Access roads

Dirt or gravel tracks

2-B


12 What is your routine annual repair and maintenance (R&M) expenditure on the following items? What percentage would you attribute to the damage caused by salinity/high watertables? How much unpaid labour was used in repair and maintenance activities as a result of salinity/high watertables?

Total R&M expenditure on each item $

Your best estimate of R&M expenditure on item due to salinity $

Unpaid labour used for R&M on item

due to salinity Hrs

Water pipes or supply systems

Water tanks

Groundwater bores

Drainage systems

Farm buildings

Fences and stockyards

Vehicles, machinery and equipment

Gas supply systems

Septic systems

Driveways and paths

Swimming pool

Other (specify)

Comments:

13 What new infrastructure (such as sheds, fences, yards) have you built in the last 3 years (or plan to build in the next 2 years) which has (or will) incur greater costs to minimise damage from salinity/high watertables? Has any unpaid labour been used during the construction phase?

Examples of increased construction costs may include:

• use of high grade materials • raising the height of a road• extra drainage systems • extra damp coursing• marine grade concrete • PVC or other piping material• relocation to a better site

StructureTotal cost of

the structure ($)Expected

lifespan (yrs)

Estimated part of total cost due

to salinity/high watertables

Estimated unpaid construction labour due to salinity/high

watertables (hrs)

Roads, tracks, etc. %

Buildings %

Fences & yards %

Water supply systems %

Drainage systems %

Driveways, paths, etc. %

Other (specify): %

Comments:


14 In the past 3 years, what preventative works have you carried out on your property to minimise the current and future impacts of salinity/high watertables?

Preventative Works

Total cost of preventative works over

the past 3 years ($)

Estimated part of total cost due to salinity/high

watertables (%)

Estimated unpaid labour due to salinity/high

watertables (hrs)

Saline Water Supplies

Installed rainwater tank(s)

%

Installed water purifier/filter

%

Installed dam(s) %

Installed bore(s) %

Other (specify): %

High Watertables/Saline Soils (discharge areas only)

Sub surface drainage %

Tree plantings and fencing

%

Saline tolerant pasture %

Bore sinking %

Erosion controls %

Land management fencing

%

Damp proofing existing building

%

Other (specify) %

%

15 In the past 3 years, what preventative works have you carried out on the recharge areas of your property to minimise the current and future impacts of salinity/high watertables?

Preventative Works

Total cost of preventative works over the past 3

years ($)


watertables (%)

Estimated unpaid labour due to salinity/high

watertables (hrs)

Commercial tree plantings

%

Non-commercial tree plantings

%

Perennial pastures %

Other (specify): %

%

Comments:

2-B

104 PART TWO

2-8

PART TWO 105

16 Do you expect that the lifespan of any major capital infrastructure to be shortened due to salinity/high watertables?

Y N

If so please provide details below:

Features

Amount of infrastructure

affected (unit) km

Estimate of expenditure

needed to replace infrastructure ($/unit) $/km

Current total expected

lifespan of capital infrastructure

(years)

Expected total lifespan given

no salinity and high watertable

problems (years)

Fences

Other (specify)

Comments:

17 Have you adjusted the nature of your farming operation in response to the problems of salinity/high watertables? (e.g. changing enterprises, reduced irrigation)

Y N

If Yes, please provide details

18 Have any of the changes outlined in Question 17 led to a decrease in net income?

Y N

If yes, please provide details

19 Have any of the items outlined in Question 17 led to a decrease or increase in the farming equipment required on your property?

Y N


104 PART TWO

2-8

PART TWO 105

20 Do salinity/high watertables result in increased operating costs to your farm business (do not include costs to your household)? (See examples below)

Y N

If Yes, please provide details below

If No, go to question 21.

Questions

A. Which of the following increased costs have affected your farm as a result of salinity/high watertables?

B. Estimate the total expenditure on each item during the last completed accounting period (optional).

C. Estimate the proportion of the total expenditure that is due to salinity/high watertables.

D. Estimate the expenditure ($) that is due to salinity/high watertables.

Question: A B C D

Costs incurred (Y/N)

Total costs incurred ($)

High watertable/saline water

expenditure (%)

High watertable/saline water

expenditure ($)

Higher use of soaps & detergents

Increased cost of water cooling

Increased cost of water heating

Pumping costs

Water supply costs

Maintaining tree plantations

Maintaining gardens, lawns.

Other (specify)

Comments:

21 In the past 3 years, have you paved or concreted any external areas of your property to cover bare patches of ground that may have been caused by salinity/high watertables?

Y N

If yes, please estimate the cost of this paving or concreting.

Materials and any paid labour $

Unpaid labour hours

2-B


22 Do you believe that your household has foregone any other income, or incurred any other costs because of the salinity/high watertables during the last 12 months? (e.g. reduced vegetable yields)

Y N


If you have any further comments on any matter please write them below:


Attachment CExample local government questionnaire

Salinity in the <Insert Name> RegionQUESTIONNAIRE FOR SHIRE & CITY COUNCILS

Council Area Name:

Postal Address:

Contact Person:

E-mail address:

Contact Telephone no.

Facsimile Number:

Terms used in the survey

Salinity/high watertables refers to any one of the following problems:



• Saline town water supplies & saline surface water.


Local government area (LGA) and Council area both refer to the area

administered by your Local Government Council.

If you have any questions or queries regarding this questionnaire please contact

<INSERT NAME> on <INSERT TEL No> or <INSERT EMAIL>

Please return the completed form to <INSERT NAME> by

<INSERT DATE> <INSERT POSTAL ADDRESS AND/OR FAX No.

2-C


For question 1, please use the following scale to indicate how serious you think the salinity/high watertable problem is in your LGA.


1 2 3 4 5

1 How do you rate the problems of salinity in the portion of your LGA that falls within the boundaries of the Region (see attached map)?

Rural areasUrban areas

Code

2 Please identify which of your Council assets, if any, are currently affected by salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region.

Affected by salinity? Yes/No

Roads (incl. kerbs & gutters) & bridges

Street lighting

Footpaths and bicycle paths

Aerodromes

Water pipes and supply systems

Sewerage pipes & disposal systems (excluding septic systems)

Septic systems

Public fencing and stockyards

Houses (incl. sheds and garages)

House gardens

Other buildings (shops, schools etc)

Sportsgrounds and showgrounds

Municipal parks & gardens

Cemeteries

New housing estates infrastructure

Other


3 Is salinity/high watertables causing your Council to spend more repairing and maintaining affected infrastructure (such as roads, gardens and buildings) within the boundaries of the Region?

If Yes, please complete columns A. and B. OR column B. for the relevant sections of the following table.

Total R&M expenditure on

each affected item

Your best estimate of R&M expenditure

on item due to salinity

Your best estimate of R&M expenditure

on item due to salinity

A. ($/yr) B. (%) C. ($/yr)

Bridges & culverts

Roads

Municipal parks, gardens, sports & show grounds and playing fields

Public buildings

Street lighting

Footpaths and bicycle paths

Aerodromes

Cemeteries

Public fencing and stockyards

Other (specify)

4 In the past 3 years, has your Council paved or concreted any external areas within the boundaries of the Region to cover bare patches of ground that may have been caused by salinity/high watertables?

Y N

• If Yes, please estimate the cost of this paving.

Materials & paid labour $

Unpaid labour Hrs

5 What, if any, new infrastructure has your Council built in the last 3 years which has incurred greater costs because of salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region?

Examples of increased construction costs may include:

• use of high grade materials • raising the height of a road• extra drainage systems • extra damp coursing• marine grade concrete • PVC or other piping material• relocation to a better site

StructureTotal cost of the

structure ($) Expected lifespan (yrs)


watertables (%)

Please specify:

2-C


Comments:

6 In the past 3 years, what preventative works has your Council carried out to minimise the current and future impacts of salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region?

Preventative WorksTotal cost of preventative

works over the past 3 years ($)Estimated part of total cost due to salinity/high watertables (%)

Sub surface drainage %

Tree plantings %

Bore sinking %

Erosion controls %

Groundwater pumping %

Damp proofing existing building %

Other (specify %

%

Comments:

7 Do you believe that the lifespan of any major capital infrastructure managed by your Council has been shortened due to salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region?

If Yes, please provide details below:

Y N

Features

Amount of infrastructure affected (unit)

Total cost to replace

infrastructure ($)

Current expected lifespan of capital

infrastructure (years)

Expected lifespan given no salinity or

high watertables (years)

Bridges & culverts No.

Street lighting No.

Footpaths & bicycle paths m

Aerodromes No.

Public fencing m

Public buildings No.

Municipal parks & gardens No.

Sportsgrounds & showgrounds No.

Cemeteries No.

Other (specify)


8 Has your Council had to reduce rate levies on some properties as a result of lower land values due to salinity/high watertable damage within the boundaries of the Region?

Y N

If yes, please provide an estimate of the lost revenue (both urban and rural rates) during the last completed accounting period.

$ Rural/Urban

9 During the last accounting year did your Council need to attract additional funds to meet extra costs due to salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region?

Y N

If No go to Question 11

10 From what sources did the Council raise the revenue required to meet the costs due to salinity/high watertables?

Yes/No

Re-allocation of existing resources

Increase in rate levies

Special Commonwealth/State Government grants

General Purpose Commonwealth/State Government grants

Community/private funding

Borrowed funds

Unable to raise all revenue required

Other (specify)

11 How much does your Council spend each year, if any, on salinity related community education, research or extension programs within the boundaries of the Region?

$

12 Are the Council’s services and infrastructure being reduced as a result of spending on salinity/high watertables within the boundaries of the Region?

Y N

If Yes, please provide details. For example:

• Reverting bitumen roads to gravel surfaces.• Increased frequency of road closures or service disruption.

If you have any further comments on any matter please write them below:

2-C


Attachment DExample state government and utility questionnaire

Salinity/high Watertable QuestionnaireGas and electricity suppliers in the

<Insert Name>Name of Company:

Postal Address:

Contact Person:

E-mail:

Phone Number:

Facsimile Number:

Terms used in the surveySalinity/high watertables refers to any one of the following problems:



• Saline surface water such as rivers, creeks and dams.


If you have any questions or queries regarding this questionnaire please contact <INSERT NAME, TEL

No., AND E-MAIL ADDRESS>


For question 1 below, please use the following scale to indicate how serious you think the salinity/high watertable problem is in your area of responsibility.


1 2 3 4 5

1 Do you believe that salinity or high watertables are a problem in the <INSERT NAME> Region? (see attached map)

Y N Unsure

If Yes how would you rate the seriousness of the salinity/high watertable problem in non-irrigated rural land and in urban town centres (using the above code)?

Dryland areas Urban areas

For question 2 below, please use the following scale.

Large extent Moderate extent Slight extent No Problem Don’t know

1 2 3 4 5

2 To your knowledge, to what extent have the following symptoms been observed on or around infrastructure or facilities managed by your Company in the Region?

Code

Bare patches of ground often with white crusts on the surface

Boggy or waterlogged ground

Higher than normal rates of corrosion of steel/iron fences, tanks, water & sewerage infrastructure, etc.

Cracked pavements or driveways

Potholes and other damage to roads

Rising damp in buildings

Soil structural decline and the resulting breakdown of building foundations

Higher than normal rates of deterioration of concrete posts/poles

Unhealthy or dead grass, shrubs and trees

3 Please indicate which infrastructure and facilities your Company manages in the Region and then which, if any, you believe are being adversely affected by salinity or high watertables.

Managed by your Authority (Y/N)

Affected by salinity/high watertables (Y/N/?)

Gas pipes

Electricity transmission towers

Concrete or steel power poles

Underground cables

Corporate buildings & surrounding gardens

Corporate plant and equipment

Fences

Access tracks and roads

Other (specify)2-D


If you have any further comments on this matter, please write them below:

4 If you reported in Question 3 that salinity or high watertables are adversely affecting infrastructure in the Region, please indicate whether your Company has spent money to repair or maintain the affected infrastructure in non-irrigated rural land or urban centres during the last 3 years.

Please also specify your best estimate of the average annual amount that your Company has spent repairing and maintaining this affected infrastructure.

Spending money to repair or maintain affected infrastructure

due to salinity? Y/N

Your best of estimate of R&M expenditure on asset

due to salinity $/yr

Gas pipes

Electricity transmission towers

Concrete or steel power poles

Underground cables

Corporate buildings & surrounding gardens

Corporate plant and equipment

Fences

Access tracks and roads

Other (specify)


5 Has your Company built any new infrastructure in the Region during the last 3 years (or plans to build in the next 2 years) that has incurred greater construction costs to minimise any current (or potential) damage from salinity/high watertables?

Y N

Examples of increased construction costs may arise from:

• use of higher grade materials • raising the height of a pipeline • extra drainage systems, • extra damp coursing on buildings• marine grade concrete, • use of corrosion resistant materials• relocation to a better site.


StructureTotal cost of the new

infrastructure ($)Expected

lifespan (yrs)

Estimated percentage of total cost attributable to salinity/

high watertable problems (%)

Please specify:



6 Has your Company undertaken any preventative works in the Region during the last 3 years to minimise the current or future impacts of salinity/high watertables in non-irrigated rural areas or urban centres?

Y N

Examples of preventative works may include:

• revegetation

• installing sub-surface drainage around infrastructure

• installing extra damp coursing in existing buildings

• installing groundwater pumps


Preventative WorksTotal cost of preventative works

over the past 3 years ($)Estimated part of total cost due to salinity/high watertables (%)

Sub surface drainage

Revegetation

Damp proofing existing building

Other (specify):


7 Do you expect that the lifespan of any of your Company’s infrastructure or facilities in the Region are being shortened due to salinity/high watertables in non-irrigation rural areas or urban centres?

Y N


Infrastructure or facility affected

Cost to replace infrastructure ($)

Current expected lifespan of capital

infrastructure (years)

Expected lifespan given no salinity or high

watertables (years)


2-D


8 In the last year, did your Company spend any money on the following salinity-related education, research, extension or environmental conservation activities in the Region? If YES, please specify.

Total Expenditure ($)Part of total expenditure due to

salinity/high watertables (%)

Staff education programs

Community education programs

Research activities

Environmental conservation activities

Other


9 Has salinity/high watertables led to a reduction in quantity or quality of the goods and services provided by your Company?

Y N

If Yes, please provide details. For example:

• Increased frequency of service disruption.

If you have any final comments on how salinity or high watertables are affecting your Company, please write them below:


Attachment EExample state governments and utilities to be considered for survey

NSWAustralian Gas Light (AGL) CompanyBoral EnergyAdvance EnergyGreat Southern EnergyAustralian Inland EnergyNorth PowerTransgridEnergy AustraliaEnergy Corporation of NSWPacific PowerDepartment of Mineral Resources

Head OfficeVarious regional offices

Department of HousingEnvironment Protection AuthorityDepartment of Conservation and Land Management

Various regional officesTelstraDepartment of Public Works and Services

Parramatta Land Management BranchVarious regional offices

Environmental TrustsNational Parks and Wildlife ServicesVarious district and area officesNSW Agriculture

Head OfficeVarious district offices

NSW Department of TransportNSW Heritage OfficeHistoric Houses Trust of NSWRoad and Traffic Authority

Various regional officesNSW Aboriginal Land Council

Dubbo officeParramatta office

State Rail Authority of NSWRail Access CorporationRail Services AustraliaBroken Hill Water BoardCobar Water BoardHunter Water CorporationGoldenfields Water County CouncilRiverina Water County Council

VictoriaEnvironment Protection AgencyVictorian Roads Corporation

Various regional officesTelstraOrigin EnergyBoral EnergyStratus (Gas Company)Integral EnergyEnertekVencorpTXU Australia Pty LtdEnergy 21Powercor AustraliaUnited EnergyAES Transpower HoldingsGPU GasnetGPU PowernetUE Com TelecommunicationsGas and Fuel Corporation of VictoriaGASCORWestarHazelwood PowerAgriculture Victoria (Head Office)Department of Energy and MineralsDepartment of Natural Resources and Environment

Various regional officesDepartment of Infrastructure

Various regional officesParks VictoriaHeritage Council VictoriaVictorian Rail Track (Vic Track Access)V/LineCentral Highlands WaterColiban WaterGoulburn-Murray Rural Water AuthorityGoulburn Valley WaterLower Murray Region Water AuthorityNorth East Region Water AuthorityGrampians Region Water Authority

ACTDepartment of Planning and Land ManagementACT Housing TrustEnvironment ACTACTEW Corporation LtdAustralian Gas Light (AGL) Pipelines

2-E

Cost of dryland and urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin

MDBC Publication 37/04ISBN 1 876830 89 1

Cost of dryland and urban salinity in the Murray-Darling Basin CD

What is on this CD?

The primary purpose of this CD is to answer the following questions about dryland

and urban salinity in each of the 26 surface water catchments located in the Murray-Darling Basin:

• What are the current impacts of dryland and urban salinity?

• Who are affected?

• What are the costs?

Author: Dr. Suzanne M. Wilson

Published by: Murray-Darling Basin Commission

Postal Address: GPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601

Office location: Level 5, 15 Moore Street, Canberra City

Australian Capital Territory

Telephone: (02) 6279 0100


Facsimile: (02) 6248 8053


E-mail: [email protected]

Internet: http://www.mdbc.gov.au

For further information contact the Murray-Darling Basin Commission office on (02) 6279 0100.

This report may be cited as:

Wilson, S.M. 2004 Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. An overview & guidelines

for identifying and valuing the impacts, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

ISBN 1 876830 883

© Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Commission 2004

This work is copyright. Graphical and textual information in the work (with the exception of photographs and the

MDBC logo) may be stored, retrieved and reproduced in whole or in part, provided the information is not sold or used

for commercial benefit and its source Dryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin. An overview

& guidelines for identifying and valuing the impacts, is acknowledged. Such reproduction includes fair dealing for the

purpose of private study, research, criticism or review as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968. Reproduction for other

purposes is prohibited without prior permission of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission or the individual photographers

and artists with whom copyright applies.

To the extent permitted by law, the copyright holders (including its employees and consultants) exclude all liability

to any person for any consequences, including but not limited to all losses, damages, costs, expenses and any other

compensation, arising directly or indirectly from using this report (in part or in whole) and any information or material

contained in it.

The contents of this publication do not purport to represent the position of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

They are presented to inform discussion for improvement of the Basin’s natural resources.

Cover photo: Arthur Mostead, Dryland Salinity reclamation, Galong NSW.

MDBC Publication 34/04

Integrated catchment management in the Murray-Darling BasinA process through which people can develop a vision, agree on shared values and behaviours, make informed decisions and act together to manage the natural resources of their catchment: their decisions on the use of land, water and other environmental resources are made by considering the effect of that use on all those resources and on all people within the catchment.

Our valuesWe agree to work together, and ensure that our behaviour reflects the following values.

Courage• We will take a visionary approach, provide

leadership and be prepared to make difficult decisions.

Inclusiveness• We will build relationships based on trust

and sharing, considering the needs of future generations, and working together in a true partnership.

• We will engage all partners, including Indigenous communities, and ensure that partners have the capacity to be fully engaged.

Commitment• We will act with passion and decisiveness, taking

the long-term view and aiming for stability in decision-making.

• We will take a Basin perspective and a non-partisan approach to Basin management.

Respect and honesty• We will respect different views, respect each

other and acknowledge the reality of each other’s situation.

• We will act with integrity, openness and honesty, be fair and credible, and share knowledge and information.

• We will use resources equitably and respect the environment.

Flexibility• We will accept reform where it is needed, be

willing to change, and continuously improve our actions through a learning approach.

Practicability• We will choose practicable, long-term

outcomes and select viable solutions to achieve these outcomes.

Mutual obligation• We will share responsibility and accountability, and

act responsibly with fairness and justice.

• We will support each other through the necessary change.

Our principlesWe agree, in a spirit of partnership, to use the following principles to guide our actions.

Integration• We will manage catchments holistically; that is,

decisions on the use of land, water and other environmental resources are made by considering the effect of that use on all those resources and on all people within the catchment.

Accountability• We will assign responsibilities and accountabilities.

• We will manage resources wisely, being accountable and reporting to our partners.

Transparency • We will clarify the outcomes sought.

• We will be open about how to achieve outcomes and what is expected from each partner.

Effectiveness• We will act to achieve agreed outcomes.

• We will learn from our successes and failures and continuously improve our actions.

Efficiency • We will maximise the benefits and minimise the

costs of actions.

Full accounting • We will take account of the full range of costs and

benefits, including economic, environmental, social and off-site costs and benefits.

Informed decision-making• We will make decisions at the most

appropriate scale.

• We will make decisions on the best available information, and continuously improve knowledge.

• We will support the involvement of Indigenous people in decision-making, understanding the value of this involvement and respecting the living knowledge of Indigenous people.

Learning approach• We will learn from our failures and successes.

• We will learn from each other.

KN

OW

LE

DG

E

Land

scap

es &

Indu

strie

sDryland and urban salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin

Dr Suzanne M. Wilson

AN OVERVIEW & GUIDELINES FOR IDENTIFYING AND VALUING THE IMPACTS

Dry

land

and

urb

an s

alin

ity c

osts

acr

oss

the

Mur

ray-

Dar

ling

Basi

n AN

OVE

RVIE

W &

GU

IDEL

INES

FO

R ID

ENTI

FYIN

G A

ND

VAL

UIN

G T

HE

IMPA

CTS

Documents

Dryland and urba salinity costs across the Murray-Darling Basin AN