Farmers ignore benefits while lamenting losses

NOISY special interest groups must not be allowed to derail essential and long-overdue reform of how Australia manages its water assets.

It is unfortunate, but not surprising, that the national water plan is being wrongly cast as a contest between the health of farm communities and the environment.

There is much, much more to the $10 billion initiative kicked off by John Howard and expanded to $13 billion under Labor.

Running in tandem with the work of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is a co-ordinated strategy to transform the way water is managed and agriculture practised over the next two decades as generational change sweeps the farm sector.

Industry adjustment in any area is inevitably traumatic for those affected, and difficult for the politicians who must drive it.

Much of this week's angst might have been avoided with better communication, or maybe not. More work has been called for on the economic effect, including a cost-benefit analysis of bigger or smaller cuts.

But leading water economists say the impact of setting a sustainable river flow is clearly not as great as some of the farm groups claim.

Losses in one area are usually offset by gains elsewhere.

Water buybacks are voluntary, not forced, and very profitable.

Proper management means more water can be made available to farmers in the drought years, not less. Ultimately, as with the Button car plan and Paul Keating's national competition policy reforms, the benefits of taking the hard decisions will speak for themselves.