Gordon Ball and Laurie Beer both farm rice, livestock and dry crops and live close to irrigation channels.
“My farm is on a large distribution channel so I don’t anticipate it will ever go dry,” Mr Ball said.
“I’ve got about 400 megs that go past me each day, but not everyone can say the same.”
Mr Beer’s property is situated on several branch channels and said his farm was also safe.
“But for the entire irrigation system, as people drop out, we’ve got to pay more to keep the system running,” Mr Beer said.
“Some farmers are reaching retirement age, and they think: ‘well, I can sell my water and live on the proceeds’.
“It’s not that we’re not going to get the water, it’s what it’s going to cost us to get the water that is the problem.”
Mr Ball said there was a prevalent view that irrigation systems with reduced water would have a shrunken footprint.
“That was the view 20 years ago, but some people still think that way,” Mr Ball said.
“What we see is that a farm that might have sold water pretty soon goes broke anyway, and the person who comes in brings water with them.
“So, if you take that away, you really have devalued the district.”
Both men said there was no evidence of demonising or ostracising farmers who choose to sell water.
“There was more anxiety around the district when someone threatened to put in a solar farm a few years ago,” Mr Ball said.
“Neighbours were more concerned about that, rather than taking the irrigation out of a farm.”
12°C