Rural Water Use Efficiency Phase 4
2010 - 2013
Program Report and Evaluation
April 2016
This publication has been compiled by Department of Natural Resources and Mines.
© State of Queensland, 2015
The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The copyright in
this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence.
Under this licence you are free, without having to seek our permission, to use this publication in accordance with the licence
terms.
You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland as the source of the publication.
Note: Some content in this publication may have different licence terms as indicated.
For more information on this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en
The information contained herein is subject to change without notice. The Queensland Government shall not be liable for
technical or other errors or omissions contained herein. The reader/user accepts all risks and responsibility for losses,
damages, costs and other consequences resulting directly or indirectly from using this information.
Summary
The Rural Water Use Efficiency (RWUE) program is an industry delivered, government funded
program designed to promote water use efficiency (WUE) on farms. This evaluation covers phase 4 of
the program (RWUE4) which commenced in early 2010 following an extended period of drought. The
program targeted irrigators who operated within Queensland, excluding the south east regional area
where a similar program already operated.
RWUE4 continued to promote WUE on farms, however the program also supported the uptake of
energy efficient pumping equipment and irrigation practices intended to reduce electricity use and
consequently reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Participants in RWUE4 included the rural commodity groups representing cane, cotton, dairy, fruit and
vegetables and the production elements of flowers, nursery and turf. The Queensland Dairyfarmers’
Organisation also engaged with fodder growers involved in irrigation.
The participants were supported by Irrigation Australia Ltd and the National Centre for Engineering in
Agriculture through the provision of technical expertise delivered through the South East Queensland
Irrigation Futures program.
Targets negotiated and agreed with the industry groups included:
•
10% improvement in WUE
•
20% energy efficiency gains
•
a focus on irrigation system assessments.
WUE gains were measured as high as 70% in individual enterprises, however, across the program it
is estimated that approximately 20 000 megalitres (ML) per year of water savings were gained. This
average equates to approximately 1.9% of the estimated total irrigation water use in the program
area.
Summary of achievements against targets
Industry
System
assessment
T
R
Workshop
attendance
T
R
WUE gains
%
T
R
Energy
gains %
T
R
T
R
Financial
Incentives
T
R
500
680
60
Canegrowers
100
120
600
20
30
20
35
QDO
40
65
792
8
10
18
41
Growcom
150
82
NGIQ
45
89
157
10
Turf
40
55
170
10
Flowers
40
40
35
10
22
20
Cotton
25
25
42
10
10
20
10
35
20
6
20
20
20
30
Communication
393
63
44
277
-
-
311
-
-
63
-
-
63
-
-
82
-
-
T = Agreed target; R = Result
Participation rates by irrigators in the program were ranked high, medium and low depending on their
level of engagement. For the medium-high categories most of the irrigators in the areas RWUE4
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
3
operated were engaged in the program. These figures exceeded initial expectations of industries at
the beginning of the program with the exception of fruit and vegetable growers.
Limited financial incentives were provided to irrigators (through Canegrowers and the Qld
Dairyfarmers’ Organisation) to support changes in equipment though the key program driver for
irrigators was security of water supply linked to productivity.
The evaluation of the RWUE4 program was conducted using information contained in milestone and
final reports submitted via industry bodies. The report also contains valuable data and insights from
reports on specific projects funded by the program and the methodology adopted by Coutts (2005) in
the first phase of the RWUE Initiative.
A suite of web based tools, calculators, databases and information systems that were developed in
the South East Queensland Irrigation Futures (SEQ-IF, a rural WUE program for south east
Queensland) program were utilised in RWUE4. The use of these tools contributed to the efficiency
and productivity gains reported by the industry groups. These tools, developed for both industry
operatives and irrigators, will continue to support the objectives of a water use efficiency program.
The program and its unique framework have produced valuable outcomes, including lessons from this
phase to improve the outcomes of subsequent WUE programs. A key learning is that closer linkages
need to be established with programs that impact irrigators water entitlements such as Water
Planning and in areas where the condition of land or water resources has become or is under threat
of becoming degraded through irrigation development. Greater engagement with the retail sector and
providers of financial incentives to assist irrigators to make change should also be considered.
RWUE4 has been a successful intervention program. The participation rate was high and in many
cases all known irrigators were contacted about taking part in the program. Whilst the data is not
exhaustive, there is evidence that the industry has made ground in achieving more efficient irrigation
systems.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
4
Table of contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 1
Irrigation statistics ................................................................................................................................. 1
Number of irrigators .............................................................................................................................. 3
Industry programs ................................................................................................................................. 3
Canegrowers .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Program Overview ............................................................................................................................... 3
Delivery methodology .......................................................................................................................... 4
Key achievements and highlights ........................................................................................................ 5
Targets ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Achievements against targets .............................................................................................................. 5
Queensland Dairyfarmers’ Organisation ................................................................................................ 6
Program overview ................................................................................................................................ 6
Delivery methodology .......................................................................................................................... 6
Key achievements and highlights ........................................................................................................ 7
Targets ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Achievements against targets .............................................................................................................. 8
Water efficiency gains ........................................................................................................................ 8
Energy efficiency gains ...................................................................................................................... 8
Irrigation system assessments .......................................................................................................... 8
Growcom ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Program Overview ............................................................................................................................... 9
Delivery methodology .......................................................................................................................... 9
Key achievements and highlights ........................................................................................................ 9
Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 10
Achievements against targets ............................................................................................................ 10
Nursery & Garden Industry Qld ............................................................................................................ 10
Program Overview ............................................................................................................................. 10
Delivery methodology ........................................................................................................................ 10
Key features ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Key Project Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 11
Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 12
Achievements against targets ............................................................................................................ 12
Turf Queensland .................................................................................................................................. 12
Program overview .............................................................................................................................. 12
Delivery methodology ........................................................................................................................ 12
Key Project Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 13
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
5
Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 13
Achievements against targets ............................................................................................................ 13
Flower Association of Queensland (FAQl) ........................................................................................... 13
Program overview .............................................................................................................................. 13
Delivery methodology ........................................................................................................................ 13
Key Project Outcomes ....................................................................................................................... 14
Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 15
Achievements against targets ............................................................................................................ 15
Cotton ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Program overview .............................................................................................................................. 15
Delivery methodology ........................................................................................................................ 15
Key project outcomes ........................................................................................................................ 16
Targets ............................................................................................................................................... 16
Achievements against targets ............................................................................................................ 16
Evaluation of RWUE4........................................................................................................................... 16
Measures of success ........................................................................................................................... 17
Evaluation logic .................................................................................................................................... 18
Irrigators engaged in RWUE4: ............................................................................................................. 18
Types of engagement .......................................................................................................................... 20
Types of activity by industry ................................................................................................................. 20
Achievements against agreed targets.................................................................................................. 21
Water use efficiency gains ................................................................................................................... 21
Level of engagement data ................................................................................................................... 22
Water savings by industry .................................................................................................................... 24
Improved Productivity and Sustainability ............................................................................................. 24
System evaluation statistics ................................................................................................................. 24
Hydraulic/energy efficiency .................................................................................................................. 26
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Case study: Central Queensland irrigation systems audited ............................................................... 29
References ............................................................................................................................................ 34
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
6
Introduction
RWUE4 operated from 2010 - 2013 throughout most of Queensland, excluding South-East
Queensland and with little emphasis on the Murray-Darling. The program funded initially through the
Office of Climate Change, followed three other iterations of the rural WUE initiative which were
financed mostly as Treasury special funding.
Seven rural industry groups participated in the program for the initial three years. The Cotton CRC
however, had to cease participation in RWUE4 in June 2012, when the cotton industry secured
Commonwealth funding to deliver a WUE program in Central Qld.
The participating industry groups were supported by the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture
through the provision of technical support; and by Irrigation Australia Limited providing technical
support to Industry Development Officers (IDOs).
In order for the IDOs to provide creditable services, training and support was leveraged through SEQIF who engaged Irrigation Australia Ltd & the National Centre for Engineering in Agriculture. Energy
aspects and pumping systems assessments were the main focus.
Overall guidance to the program was provided through a steering committee comprising of all
stakeholders and chaired by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM). This
committee met bi-annually to discuss the progress of each participant’s delivery of the program and
their achievement of milestones and targets.
Toward the end of the previous iteration of RWUE, it became evident that energy costs in relation to
pumping water were becoming an issue for many irrigators. As a consequence, an energy component
was built into RWUE4.
Experience gained from previous RWUE programs demonstrated that saving water is no longer a
motivator for irrigators to engage in the program. High engagement occurs when irrigators realise that
they can improve productivity and/or profits arising out of any change to their management regime or
irrigation hardware.
The tools/decision support systems developed in SEQ-IF were adopted by RWUE4 state-wide. The
irrigation performance audit and reporting tool (IPART) and irrigation pump evaluation and reporting
tool (IPERT) in particular, were web-based software tools that were used extensively by industry
extension officers in delivering services to irrigators.
Irrigation statistics
It is evident that irrigation water use statistics published by the ABS are not a suitable means of
measuring the success or otherwise of a water use efficiency program. The data below show water
use across the commodity groups at the beginning of RWUE4 (2008-09 ABS data) and the most
recent data available (2011-12 ABS data). Whilst the total volume used has decreased the application
rate has not moved. Climatic conditions and commodity prices weigh more heavily on water use at
this scale as is evidenced by the shift to irrigated cotton away from pastures/grain. See figure 1 for
locations of the irrigation water supply schemes.
As a general rule, any water saved is likely to be used to increase productivity, resulting in farm water
not necessarily decreasing overall.
Qld 2008/9
2 058 471ML
@ 3.8 ML/ha
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
1
Qld MDB
665 290 ML
@ 3.9 ML/ha
SEQ
178 000 ML
@ 3.9 ML/ha
Commodity
Area irrigated (ha)
Volume used (ML)
Rate (ML/ha)
Cane
191 865
761 086
4.0
Pastures/grain
184 970
558 124
3.0
Cotton
71 595
414 170
5.8
Fruit & veg
64 332
212 500
3.3
Lifestyle hort
3906
15 808
4.0
Table 1 Irrigation statistics (ABS Water use on Australian farms 2008/09)
Qld 2011/12
1 884 062 ML
@ 3.8 ML/ha
Qld 2010/11
1 693 994 ML
@ 3.6 ML/ha
Qld MDB
756 919 ML
@ 4.5 ML/ha
SEQ
158 900 ML
@ 4.15 ML/ha
Commodity
Area irrigated (ha)
Volume used (ML)
Rate (ML/ha)
Cane
166 143
668 195
4.0
Pastures/grain
82 757
187 974
2.27
Cotton
160 762
780 650
4.9
Fruit & veg
62 918
188 454
3.0
Lifestyle hort
3 804
17 776
4.7
Table 2 Irrigation statistics (Source: ABS Water use on Australian farms 2011-2012)
The shift from pastures/grain to cotton over the statistical periods is the standout variant across the
lifetime of the program. As cotton is one of the higher water use crops, this change has made no
difference to the overall rate of use. Another significant variant is the reduction in water use from
SunWater supplied irrigation schemes. In the 2010/11 year the volume of water supplied to SunWater
irrigation customers was approximately 25% of the water that was available. Over the program, period
water deliveries fluctuated between 25% and 63% of the water that was available.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
2
Water use 2005/6 - 2011/12
2,500,000
ML
Ha & ML
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
Ha
500,000
0
2005
Chart 1:
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Qld water use & area irrigated. Source Australian Bureau of Statistics
Number of irrigators
At the commencement of the program there were approximately 8800 businesses irrigating in Qld
(ABS 2009-10). Of these, there were approximately 2000 irrigating in South-East Qld, leaving
approximately 6800 irrigators in the area potentially exposed to RWUE4.
Industry programs
The following section describes each industry program as reported by the industry groups. The
findings are supported by a description of the methodology adopted in delivering the program. Please
note that the assessment of targets met, is the industry groups account of their program’s
performance.
Canegrowers
Program Overview
The Canegrowers RWUE4 program was designed to promote improved water and energy efficiencies
through the uptake of contemporary best practices in water management and the use of more energy
efficient irrigation systems, including those that can adapt to changing evaporation and transpiration
requirements of crops.
A primary priority was to improve energy and WUE in the Burdekin, the Queensland sugar industry’s
largest irrigation area. In addition to this objective, the RWUE4 project was designed to address the
key environmental issue facing the sugar industry in north Queensland, being rising groundwater in
the Burdekin-Haughton water supply scheme area.
The second priority for the project was to improve energy and water efficiency by encouraging change
in on-farm irrigation systems in the state’s other sugarcane irrigated areas. In this part of the project
incentives were provided to save energy and improve WUE by encouraging a switch from high
pressure, high energy water winches to low pressure overhead systems.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
3
Delivery methodology
The program employed a full time Extension Officer to undertake on-farm irrigation assessments
using the surface irrigation simulation model (SIRMOD) of furrow irrigated cane in the Burdekin area.
Each furrow irrigation project was vetted by the Extension Officer and reviewed by the Burdekin River
Irrigation Area (BRIA) committee before funding approval was provided by Canegrowers.
Applications for financial incentives to enable the switching to less energy intensive and more efficient
water application in other focus areas was vetted by a sub-committee of the Canegrowers’ Irrigation
committee prior to funding approval.
Shed meetings were also held by Canegrowers throughout the project, introducing more than 600
people to the project. These meetings were complemented by field days, workshops, one on one
meetings and information contained in the Australian Canegrower, local Canegrowers’ and BRIA
newsletters in the Burdekin and across the overhead irrigation areas.
In the Burdekin the program targeted three areas to improve irrigation efficiency, including:
•
irrigation infrastructure on farms
•
sensors and telemetry
•
automation equipment.
For other cane growing areas there were three areas targeted for financial assistance relating to low
pressure overhead systems, including:
1. overhead system replacement and/or farm irrigation system upgrades
2. pumping system replacement and/or existing farm pumping system upgrades
3. irrigation management.
Low Pressure Overhead System in Cane
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
4
Key achievements and highlights
Over 120 assessments were completed in the Burdekin. These assessments resulted in 35 incentive
applications. The Burdekin project delivered amongst other things:
•
installation of an automated furrow irrigated site on a farm in the Upper Haughton area which was
then used as a demonstration site
•
a similar system was set up on a farm in the Mulgrave / Clare area and was also used as a
demonstration site for field walks, as well as a model for improving irrigation efficiency on hard to
manage soils
•
installation of pipelines, risers or T-pieces gaining them a 10 – 50% improvement in efficiency.
The overhead irrigation incentive scheme attracted 86 applications, of which 28 were successful.
Successful applicants included the Bundaberg weather station which is part of a network of soil
moisture and weather monitoring and information systems. As a result growers now have access to
more timely information on which to base their irrigation decisions.
The energy savings made by growers switching from high pressure to low pressure irrigation systems
and also installing variable speed pumping systems was also significant, with one grower reporting a
24% reduction in annual energy use.
Targets
•
100 Burdekin farm assessments completed
•
30 Burdekin incentive scheme packages distributed
•
30 overhead incentive scheme packages distributed
•
500 growers attending RWUE4 activities
•
20% WUE improvement for growers receiving incentive funding
•
20% reduction in energy use for growers receiving incentive funding
Achievements against targets
•
Over 120 farm SIRMOD furrow irrigation assessments were completed
•
35 incentive packages were distributed in the Burdekin
•
28 overhead incentive packages were distributed
•
Over 600 growers attended RWUE4 activities
•
WUE improvements of between 20% and 50% were achieved with water use savings of between
0.09 and 0.85 ML/ha of land irrigated being achieved on blocks where reforms have been
implemented.
•
Energy savings of between 20% and 68% were recorded through the use of more efficient pumps
and/or more efficient application techniques that have enabled irrigated water to be applied in
shorter periods using existing pumps.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
5
Queensland Dairyfarmers’ Organisation
Program overview
A contract service agreement between the Queensland Dairyfarmers’ Organisation Ltd (QDO) and
Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) was executed in 2009 for AgriScience Qld, a division of DAFF, to deliver part of the extension and adoption section of the program.
The Dairy and Fodder Water for Profit (DFWP) program was overseen by a steering committee made
up of representatives of stakeholder organisations, including DNRM, DAFF, Irrigation Australia Ltd
(IAL), and QDO, including a farmer representative.
The DFWP steering committee provided strategic direction to the design and management of the
program. The committee approved the design, format and operational policy of the program.
Throughout the program, the committee continually sought ways to improve the program and service
delivery, achieve further efficiencies and returns on the investment from the Queensland Government
and other key stakeholders. A continuous improvement approach was adopted and a number of
program refinements were made.
A management committee was also formed to manage, assess, review and approve Financial
Assistance Scheme (FAS) applications.
Public and private sector service providers were also engaged for aspects of the program including
professional advice and to carry out on-farm system assessments.
Delivery methodology
A rigorous and widely distributed program of events insured that all regions had access to extension,
training or adoption activities. Through various mediums, including three rounds of direct mail-outs,
100% of the region’s dairy producers received information about the program.
The extension program focussed on practical demonstrations as opposed to classroom theory, which
created an environment suitable for adult and peer learning. The knowledge and skills acquired
through the extension program enabled producers to make informed decisions about management
actions to improve their water efficiency and reuse.
The RWUE4 project, DWFP consisted of:
•
ongoing development, refinement and implementation of the dairy industry’s Farm Management
System, Dairying Better ‘n’ Better for Tomorrow, including the Soil and Nutrient Management
Planning module and climate change adaptation projects
•
a series of water, nutrient management and reuse, and climate change mitigation extension /
training / adoption services. This specifically involved the further development and continuation of
the SEQ-IF / RWUE3 series of dedicated workshops and on-farm field days
•
an on-farm system assessment incentive scheme to assist farmers in engaging professional skills
to assess on-farm irrigation and or water reuse management systems, and to make
improvements to their systems
•
a FAS to assist farmers with the implementation of on-farm system change to derive improved
WUE and productivity gains
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
6
•
ongoing development, refinement and delivery of industry decision support tools for sustainable
natural resource management within the dairy industry
•
supporting research projects targeted at deriving improvements in water and nutrient use
efficiency
•
technical advisory services to provide specific system advice in relation to planned on farm
irrigation and/or effluent projects
•
flood assistance measures including technical advisory services and the Flood Damage Irrigation
Repair Grant to assist farmers to return to productive capacity while maintaining the objectives of
the RWUE4 program.
Key achievements and highlights
Some highlights of the RWUE4 DWWP program included:
•
publishing 15 articles, alongside regular advertisements to impart knowledge, increase awareness
and encourage producers to participate in the program via the mediums of industry publications
and newspapers
•
the delivery of 85 workshops and field days (20 through the DFWP program and 65 through
Dairying Better ‘n Better programs) with a combined attendance of over 790 producers
•
establishing on-farm trial and demonstration sites on two sites across the region at Rockhampton
and the Atherton Tablelands
•
delivering a service provider forum to ensure consistency in program delivery across all service
providers
•
conducting 65 on-farm system assessments on irrigation or water reuse systems
•
supporting on-farm systems work on 44 farm enterprises across the region, 11 for water reuse
and 33 for WUE through the FAS
•
perpetuating an Efficiency Achievement Grant as an additional incentive associated with the FAS
to encourage producers to implement a system change which results in a high level of
improvement in WUE and/or water reuse. Thirty Efficiency Achievement Grants were approved
and paid
•
undertaking on-farm evaluations of 34 systems commissioned through the FAS to collect, analyse
and verify accurate WUE data and to ensure operational performance of systems
•
partnering with the Dairying Better ‘n Better for Tomorrow program to deliver the Soil and Nutrient
Management Planning module and Climate Change Adaptation projects to accelerate improved
resource use efficiency;
•
providing one-on-one advice through the Technical Advisory Service to a range of farmers in
relation to planned on-farm projects and ways to improve WUE and effluent management;
•
developing a commissioning package to accompany the on-farm system assessment report
and/or FAS application that includes fact sheets, as well as an example supply agreement with a
withholding clause that farmers can use with equipment suppliers;
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
7
•
responding to the floods of early 2011 and 2013 by immediately deploying technical advisory
services to flood affected producers and subsequently instigating Flood Damage Irrigation Repair
Grants after 2011 to assist farmers to return to productive capacity whilst maintaining the
objectives of the RWUE4 program;
•
presenting DFWP information to farmers and stakeholders at regional forums and conferences;
and
•
technical advice provided via 32 farm visits.
Through the FAS, on-farm systems work was supported on 44 farm enterprises, and of these, 30
enterprises also received additional support through the Efficiency Achievement Grant. Approximately
$2 925 300 was spent on projects that demonstrated an improved WUE or water reuse outcome. Of
this amount, $498 700 of financial incentives was distributed through the FAS. Therefore, the funding
of on-ground works associated with this project leveraged more than $2 426 500 (or 83%) from dairy
and fodder producers as cash contributions.
Targets
•
8% WUE gains for those who have engaged with the program
•
8% energy savings for farms receiving financial assistance through RWUE4
•
40 systems assessments or evaluations on irrigation and/or water reuse systems
Achievements against targets
Water efficiency gains
The calculations from measured data and inferred gains made through particular participation in the
program indicate that the DFWP program has delivered WUE/productivity gains of 2,160 ML per year,
plus water reuse of 165 ML per year. When this is applied to the 3.5 years that the program has been
running, a WUE gain of approximately 10.35% of the dairy industry’s existing water use has been
achieved. In addition, efficiency gains of 903 ML per year for fodder have also been attained, resulting
in an overall program efficiency gain of 11 297 ML.
Energy efficiency gains
Evaluation results from 19 irrigation systems approved through the FAS were interpreted, yielding
average energy savings per farm of 41%.
Irrigation system assessments
Sixty-five system assessments and 34 evaluations were conducted.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
8
Growcom
Program Overview
Growcom’s RWUE4 program was provided under their Water for Profit banner. The Water for Profit
team has a broad skillset and operates in conjunction with industry bodies such as USQ Toowoomba,
NCEA, Irrigation Australia Limited, QDAFF, irrigation manufacturers and suppliers, various regional
NRM catchment groups and consultants to enhance the delivery of the program and provide growers
with further technical knowledge and assistance.
Utilising existing grower contacts, referrals from other deliverables such as Freshcare Food Safety
training and Reef Rescue incentives, and management practice data derived from Growcom Farm
Management Systems Water Quality module, assisted the project to directly target grower need and
enable effective practice change.
Inability to retain staff and adverse climatic conditions across much of the fruit and vegetable growing
areas hindered Growcom in meeting agreed targets.
Delivery methodology
During the course of the program Growcom delivered a promotion program, irrigation system
assessments, packing shed energy audits, certified training and general extension activities. Through
these processes Growcom developed collateral, delivered information, and partnered with media to
improve the knowledge of the industry.
Key achievements and highlights
Communications
•
Provided a direct conduit between growers, supply chain, research and development, and
government
•
Raised awareness of access to irrigation related information
•
Increased access to the most relevant information from industry research and other sources
across the supply chain
•
Developed consistently branded information to enhance program recognition
Information
•
Provided information in various formats, with practical assistance
•
Assisted growers make positive farm management changes for the future success of their
businesses
•
Acted as a reference point for various industry wide initiatives
Media
•
Created a library of high‐resolution images for media enquiries
•
Engaged regional media to encourage increase participation in and promotion of the program
Knowledge
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
9
•
Identified suitable training opportunities to improve skills and capacity
•
Assisted the adoption of better practices in the industry
To assist growers in improving productivity and reducing energy inputs, Growcom delivered
accredited training across fruit and vegetable growing regions. Participating growers received
statements of attainment for each subject completed, which could contribute toward a certificate or
diploma in horticulture / agriculture. At completion of the RWUE program, 34 growers completed the
following skill sets: fertigation; soil management; plant nutrition; irrigation scheduling.
Targets
•
10% gain in WUE
•
20% reduction in energy use
•
150 irrigation system assessments completed and entered into IPART/IPERT
Achievements against targets
Based on the changes being made in the region by Banana and Pawpaw growers, Growcom provided
an estimated, that the savings being made across 1000 ha were at a conservative figure of 3ML/ha –
3000 ML.
Anecdotally, growers indicated significant savings converted from overhead to micro irrigation,
especially in Bananas. These changes are potentially saving growers 30% of their energy usage,
primarily due to a decreased head pressure requirement. This type of change has occurred across 40
farms covering approximately 2500 ha.
82 irrigation system / pump assessments were completed (50 irrigation systems and 32 pumping
units).
Nursery & Garden Industry Qld
Program Overview
The primary focus of the project in regional Queensland was on regular site visits by the Farm
Management Systems Officer for the region. These visits were used to provide growers with specific
information and assistance in changing their water use practices in a way that was tailored to their
farm.
Delivery methodology
The range of services most often provided during site visits were system assessments, irrigation
layouts, improvements in irrigation scheduling, assessment of energy use and, to a lesser degree,
pump assessments, water disinfestation, filtration, water storage and drainage.
Field days and workshops were provided covering topics such as:
•
water use
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
10
•
energy consumption
•
environmental performance
•
irrigation scheduling
•
water treatment
•
variable speed pumping
•
information sources for growers
•
irrigation system design
•
water quality management
•
waste water management
•
recycling
•
site drainage
•
water storage.
Key features
Electronic and web-based tools were used in field work to demonstrate to growers the efficiency of
their current systems, as well as providing information on how improvements to their irrigation
systems could be made.
Emails were used to deliver targeted information to growers. Comments from growers during the
project indicated that they appreciated and valued this information via email.
The response to workshops that were delivered varied, with some areas embracing the events and
gaining useful information, however, the involvement in some regional areas was quite poor.
Education was provided to industry trainees and TAFE students. The aim was to give students an
insight into the particular requirements of nursery irrigation, and give them practical grounding on how
nursery irrigation systems are assessed.
Key Project Outcomes
•
Engagement with 100% of identified production nurseries in regional Queensland
•
1759 on-farm extension and engagement visits
•
157 growers participated in workshops, field days and events
•
214 action plans developed and supplied to growers
•
89 irrigation system assessments completed
•
32 businesses completed energy audits on pumping systems
•
8.57% water saving achieved
•
$9.6 million in water savings, productivity and cost savings realised
•
Benefit/cost of 22:1 on the 3.25 year investment
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
11
Targets
•
10% gain in WUE
•
20% reduction in energy use
•
45 irrigation system/pump assessments completed and entered into IPART/IPERT
Achievements against targets
•
8.57% WUE achieved – 7.08% in south/central and 1.49% in north Qld
•
Estimated 20.3% reduction in energy use achieved
•
93 irrigation system/pump assessments completed, along with 26 assessments using Farm
Management System tools
Turf Queensland
Program overview
This program commenced in January 2010 with the aim of promoting water use and energy
efficiencies within the industry. There were 68 growers in regional Queensland. The need to maintain
information flow on WUE and innovation, and provide updates on various energy saving programs
being utilised to achieve the targeted outcomes, were vital in engaging and securing commitment
from the turf producers in regional Queensland.
Delivery methodology
The targets were to be achieved through a relatively limited range of services and extension
opportunities including:
•
on-farm irrigation system assessments
•
technical support and information
•
field days, training workshops and awareness programs
•
promotion of web based technologies for irrigation scheduling
•
leverage through the Turf Accreditation Process (TAP) under the Farm Management System
guidelines.
Turf Qld engaged with regional turf businesses to coordinate their involvement in the program. This
also included the provision of workshops and dissemination of information materials. For the more
technical work and on-farm irrigation system assessment work Daley Water Services were engaged
on a fee for service basis to undertake the on farm irrigation system assessments, technical advice
and recommendations required to improve the water and energy efficiencies on farm.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
12
Key Project Outcomes
It is estimated more than 80% of regional turf growers were involved in natural resource management
issues (principally water quality and runoff) through assessments, on farm workshops, field days and
seminars.
The TAP program, which was third-party audited, was taken up by four regional producers at RWUE4
completion.
Targets
•
Achieve 10% improvement of ‘WUE’ from assessments undertaken
•
Achieve 20% reduction in ‘energy saving’ from assessments undertaken
•
40 turf production farms assessed/reviewed and entered into IPART/IPERT
•
12 regional workshops undertaken
Achievements against targets
•
Estimated 200 ML saved
•
55 farms had irrigation system/pump assessments completed and entered into IPART/IPERT.
•
17 regional workshops held with an average of 10.6 attendees per workshop.
Flower Association of Queensland (FAQl)
Program overview
The RWUE4 project focussed on:
•
improving on-farm resource management by identifying and implementing potential water/energy
use improvements for individual systems
•
reducing power consumption by benchmarking current energy use.
It was established that in the majority of cases in the flower industry, on-farm pumps were not
matched to the application system or to the required duty. The effects were high pumping costs, high
water use and lower yields due to low distribution uniformity.
The activities promoted through the program focused on adoption and extension, on-farm trials and
demonstrations, as well as irrigation and pumping system assessments.
Delivery methodology
FAQI engaged Daley Water Services on a fee for service basis to engage with irrigators to provide
expert technical advice and to conduct irrigation and pumping systems evaluations.
The major activities conducted as part of the RWUE program were:
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
13
•
providing information through workshops, field days, fact sheets and web tools on ways to
improve water and energy efficiency
•
conducting assessments on irrigation and pumping systems to determine their efficiency and to
identify where water and energy savings can be made
•
offering incentives to irrigators to encourage them to make system and practice changes
•
providing advice on managing agricultural wastewater, including the management of nutrients
applied through irrigation
•
trialling on-farm equipment
•
compiling information from associated research trials.
Key Project Outcomes
55 site visits were conducted on 35 properties. Of the 35 properties visited, 21 had an IPART and/or
IPERT assessment conducted.
Six workshops were conducted, one of which was jointly facilitated with SEQ-IF. A further ‘project
wrap-up’ workshop was held in Bundaberg. The items addressed in presentations and informal
discussions at shed meetings pertaining to water and energy use efficiency were:
•
variable speed drives for pump systems
•
reading and understanding a pump curve
•
pipe sizes and friction losses
•
matching pump size to the duty point required of the irrigation system
•
sources of inefficiencies observed through pump and irrigation assessments
•
low cost solutions to the problems observed during pump and irrigation assessments
•
fertigation and nutrient management
•
irrigation scheduling.
The average water use in the flower industry reduced from 5 to 3.9 ML per hectare per year
(ML/Ha/yr) with total water consumption dropping from approximately 369.4 to 289.5 ML/yr.
Region
Atherton/NQ
Bundaberg/Childers
Darling Downs
Gympie
Mackay/Sarina
Maryborough/Hervey Bay
Rockhampton/Yeppoon
Number
16
4
5
3
4
2
1
Table 3 Grower visits
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
14
Targets
•
40 growers have had their irrigation systems evaluated
•
40 growers have had their pumping systems evaluated
•
35 growers involved in training and workshops
•
Protected cropping: 12 growers achieving water savings of 2ML/ha/yr/grower
•
Native cropping: 8 growers achieving savings of 0.5ML/ha/yr/grower
•
10% WUE achieved
•
20% energy efficiency achieved
Achievements against targets
•
15 properties had IPART assessments
•
20 properties had IPERT assessments
•
35 growers attended workshops
•
63 growers undertook activities to improve water & energy efficiency
•
22% water efficiency gains
•
30% energy efficiency gains
Cotton
Program overview
The cotton RWUE program was contracted to the CRC Cotton Catchment Communities for a period
of 3 years to June 2012. The term of the CRC was to end then with no certainty that it would be
funded beyond that time. The cotton program did not proceed beyond this date as the cotton industry
in Central Queensland received Federal funding to run a water efficiency program.
Cotton RWUE4 was an extension project focussed on the irrigation sector in the Central Highlands
and Dawson-Callide Valleys of Central Queensland. An extension officer within DAFF was engaged
to deliver the program on behalf of the CRC.
Extensive flooding in central Qld hampered the delivery of the program.
Delivery methodology
An extension officer based in Emerald provided technical advice to irrigators and carried out irrigation
system assessments in collaboration with Irrigation Australia Ltd. The program also leveraged off the
cotton BMP initiative and DAFF programs that promoted agriculture in the region.
The project was to focus on:
•
assessing the irrigation and energy performance of irrigation systems in Central Queensland
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
15
•
developing information products on improving irrigation and energy performance of irrigation
systems
•
providing targeted training to encourage the assessment of irrigation system performance
•
providing advice on techniques to improve irrigation performance.
Key project outcomes
•
•
Establishment of a RWUE4 advisory panel in Emerald
Collaboration with Irrigation Australia Ltd’s project officer, Merv Jessen to conduct irrigation
system audits and future grower workshops/field days
•
Links established with irrigation equipment service providers
•
Establishment and successful conduct of Schools Gateway project at Emerald High School
promoting awareness of water use /agriculture amongst students and science teachers
•
Compilation and editing of video interviews with growers and suppliers to support development of
centre pivot lateral move
•
4 case studies developed and published. See Appendix 1 for case study concerning centre
pivot/lateral move evaluations
Targets
•
80% of irrigators in Central Highlands and Dawson-Callide aware of RWUE4 program
•
30% of Central Highlands and Dawson-Callide irrigators have had their system performance
assessed
•
30% of Central Highlands and Dawson-Callide irrigators to exceed best practice energy efficiency
of 5 kilowatt hours/ML/metre head
•
30% of Central Highlands and Dawson-Callide irrigators participating in the program to achieve
10% improvement in WUE
•
30% of Central Highlands and Dawson-Callide irrigators participating in the program to achieve
20% reduction in irrigation energy use
Achievements against targets
•
34 irrigation system and pump evaluations completed
•
6 workshops and field days held
Evaluation of RWUE4
The effectiveness of RWUE4 could be measured in terms of whether the targets each of the
proponents were set were made. These related to how each industry performed and delivered on
their contracted responsibilities. On another level, effectiveness of the program could be determined
on a number of criteria such as the uptake of technologies, improved productivity, system changes
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
16
and more, however, the availability of suitable data in these cases restricted the evaluation to a
measure of improvements made to hardware performance and what this translated to.
At an industry group level, intervention by an industry WUE officer may have resulted in more water
being applied rather than less, or an outcome may have been reduced costs to the irrigator. This
would likely be in response to improving productivity. Measuring the outcome from those activities that
irrigators have engaged in may have provided a better basis for extrapolating results across an
industry. However, even if it were possible to measure water saved from a particular action, it may
have been extrapolated across commodity groups as an indicative efficiency gain, but may not have
been reflected in overall water use statistics.
RWUE4 offered a variety of services and incentives to irrigators to generate a range of outcomes from
water saving measures to a management change. Any change/s made could either be immediate or
may occur sometime in the future following engagement in the program. There will be those where
the response could be measured in terms of water saved.
Measures of success
Indicators used to measure success included:
•
water savings
•
improved productivity (not generally available)
•
energy savings
•
changed practices
•
engagement in program
•
adopting particular practices
•
irrigation system evaluated
•
input cost reduction.
Those measures for which data was readily available limited evaluation to:
•
number engaged and level of engagement
•
individual measured water savings
•
irrigation system efficiency.
This evaluation was based on:
•
level of engagement in the program
•
estimated water savings
•
irrigation system efficiency.
On another level, evaluation has taken into account:
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
17
•
industry proponents meeting agreed targets
•
the difference the program made in terms of improved productivity.
To determine what difference the program has made to the sector a number of outcomes have been
examined. It is recognised that other influences including other government funded programs have
contributed to the results. In addition some statistical data is not entirely reliable.
Evaluation logic
The processes that an irrigator may go through towards possibly making a change include:
•
awareness
•
need or relevance
•
interest & may seek further information
•
evaluation in terms of effect on business/environment
•
trial to gauge benefits and costs
•
adoption or rejection (Chamala 1987).
Extension officers or those who delivered services needed to have credibility with irrigators and were
required to have technical competence in order for irrigators to have confidence or even interest in
making a change (Guerin & Guerin 1994). Participation in the program, the types of services provided
and preferred by irrigators, and the level of engagement were used to evaluate outcomes.
The economic situation and other factors within a commodity group and/or the economic position of
an irrigator is in may have also determined whether or not that irrigator would have made a change.
Similarly, where an irrigation asset had not reached the end of its productive period, an irrigator would
have had an incentive to delay making a new investment (Abares 2014).
This evaluation considered the engagement by irrigators in the program, evaluation of irrigation
hardware and measured outcomes on individual farms.
Irrigators engaged in RWUE4:
The total number of irrigators estimated to be engaged in the program was 1869. This accounted for
27% of the 6800 irrigators in Queensland outside South East Queensland.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
18
Cane
QDO
Growcom
NGIQ
Turf
Flowers
Cotton
Not engaged
Chart 2:
Percentage of irrigators engaged in RWUE4 by industry group
120
100
80
60
% of growers
40
20
0
Chart 3:
Percentage of irrigators engaged within industry groups
Based on these figures, all the industry groups, excluding Growcom met or exceeded the agreed
targets in providing services to growers. As anticipated, the smaller industry groups had a high level
of engagement with a large percentage of their growers. QDO provided services to both the dairy
industry as well as fodder growers. The number of fodder growers was difficult to delineate as the
industry group did not have a database of growers, therefore numbers and locations were not readily
available. Therefore, whilst statistics about the dairy industry are well known, the number and location
of fodder growers irrigating was not. Irrigation of fodder also tends to be seasonal depending on
commodity prices and water availability. Over 50% of dairy producers were involved in the program.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
19
Types of engagement
RWUE4 incorporate a range of services and promotional activities. These have been categorised
under four main groupings:
•
Extension activity – information about particular topics (e.g. scheduling, water quality, soils etc)
provided to irrigator/s. These activities generally were not property or system specific.
•
Technical advice – on-farm advice about a specific issue.
•
System evaluation – detailed assessment of operations, identifying shortfalls and providing
recommendations.
•
Financial incentive – impetus provided to irrigator/s to implement change and provide
measurable outcomes.
Types of activity by industry
Industry
Cane
Cotton
Flowers
Growcom
NGIQ
QDO
Turf
Irrigators
engaged
680
82
63
277
311
393
63
% of
growers
Engagement
Target
50
500
100
50
100
50
14
-
100
-
20
-
100
Table 4: Engagement activities by industry.
-
Types of engagement
Extension activity
Technical advice
System evaluation
Financial incentive
Extension activity
Technical advice
System evaluation
Extension activity
Technical advice
System evaluation
Extension activity
Technical advice
System evaluation
Extension activity
Technical advice
System evaluation
Extension activity
Technical advice
System evaluation
Financial incentives
Extension activity
Technical advice
System evaluation
Total
450
50
120
60
28
20
34
8
20
35
118
77
82
50
120
141
220
32
97
44
8
55
680
82
63
277
311
393
63
These figures have been estimated from
industry group milestone reports and ABS data.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
20
500
450
400
350
300
250
Extension activity
200
Technical advice
System evaluation
150
Financial incentive
100
50
0
Chart 4:
Service provided by industry
Achievements against agreed targets
The following table is a summary of data taken from industry group milestone reports showing the
achievements against targets.
Industry
CANEGR
OWERS
QDO
Growcom
NGIQ
Turf
Flowers
Cotton
Table 5:
System
assessment
T
R
100 120
40
150
45
40
40
25
65
82
89
55
40
25
Workshop
attendance
T
R
600
792
35
157
170
35
42
WUE
gains %
T
R
20
30
Energy
gains %
T
R
20 35
8
10
10
10
10
10
18
20
20
20
20
20
10
6
22
10
41
20
30
Communication
T
500
R
680
Financial
Incentives
T
R
60
63
393
277
311
63
63
82
-
44
-
Achievements against targets
T = Agreed target; R = Result
The above figures from industry reports use a number of methods to determine WUE and energy
gains.
Water use efficiency gains
WUE gains generated through the program are best presented as a range, as the ‘true value’ is not
definitive. Several of the improvements that yielded gains were measured, however, they accounted
for a small percentage of the overall gains achieved.
The majority of efficiency gains have been accounted for as a ‘one-off’ saving at the end of the
program. Gains made at the commencement of the program usually accumulated over the life of the
program making the total savings greater than those simply calculated at the end. Therefore, these
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
21
savings made in year one would carry through each year of the program. However, in this situation
these savings would be discounted as a result of poor to nil maintenance being undertaken.
In the dairy industry where comparisons were made between past irrigation system efficiencies and
current systems operations, there was actually a turnaround in performance to less efficient
operations (personal communication). This was attributed to little attention being paid to irrigation
system maintenance – an observation that should be taken into consideration for future water
efficiency efforts by government or industry.
Data and information provided in industry group milestone reports was integrated with data on the
number of irrigators engaged and the level of engagement. These figures enabled the measurement
of an average saving per grower, which was then applied to other growers engaged in the program.
The types of engagement were evaluated as follows:
•
Financial incentive: a measureable change was made.
•
System assessment: a high probability that a change was made.
•
Technical advice: where this related to one on one advice there is an expectation that a change
would be the outcome.
•
Extension activity: some of the attendees would be expected to make a change.
In terms of water savings likely to have been made, the engagement categories translate to:
•
Direct: An outcome in terms of gains or savings has been measured. (Financial incentive or
actual measured gain)
•
High level of engagement: 75% to 90% of these irrigators would make changes that resulted in
water savings of 50% to 90% of that achieved by those measured savings. (Irrigation system
evaluation)
•
Medium level of engagement: 30% to 50% would make changes that result in water savings of
50% to 90% of that achieved by measured savings. (Technical advice)
•
Low level of engagement: 10% to 20% of those engaged in the program made changes that
resulted in 50% to 90% of that achieved by measured savings. (Extension activity)
Level of engagement data
Industry
Canegrowers
Dairy
Growcom
Nursery
Turf
Flowers
Cotton
Total
Direct
60
44
1
20
13
24
1
163
High
120
97
81
121
42
11
33
505
Medium
50
32
77
120
8
20
20
327
Low
450
220
118
50
8
28
874
Table 6: Engagement categories by industry group
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
22
Information gathered from milestone and final reports was used to populate this table and entered into
the Gains Table (below) to evaluate the savings likely to have been made.
Some services provided to irrigators led to an immediate change, where the resulting savings were
able to be measured. However, there were many services provided which may or may not have led to
a change. The evidence was that a high proportion of those receiving a service would do something
that resulted in savings being made. These savings were not measured and the Gains Table is an
attempt to quantify those savings.
The Gains Table is essentially a spreadsheet that uses actual measured water savings as the basis
for estimating the savings that may have been made by other irrigators engaged in the program,
where the results of changes made were not measured. The assumptions are that a percentage of
irrigators will have made a change and that change will have resulted in some water savings. The
level of engagement described above underpins the calculations.
Each type of service provided to irrigators was ranked direct contact through to low contact to
describe how engaged the recipient might have been. Each level of engagement was assigned a
percentage that gives a range for the number of irrigators who may have made a change, eg for low
the range is 10% - 20% and for high it is 75% - 90%. The saving that each of these irrigators could
have made is then estimated depending on the service to be in the range of 50% - 90% of the
average measured savings.
WATER SAVING, ML Saved – Total Growers Engaged
Calculated using the Number of Growers for each contact level.
Contact
Regional Data *
level #
Saving, by Number for Region
Number
Error
Level
of Growers
Savings
ML /
grower
+/- %
a
b
c
d
refer #
below
from your records
Direct
ML
Low
2
% Making
Savings
Savings % of direct
157
75
90
50
Medium
17
30
50
Low
62
10
20
Total
240
Dollar Equivalent @
High
e
f
g
f-d
bxc
f+d
refer # bottom
11.1
High
Nominal
4
44
44
45
90
654
1033
1412
50
90
28
57
85
50
90
34
79
124
760
1213
1666
0
0
0
per ML
&
The Gains Table
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
23
Water savings by industry
The nominal value of water savings from the Gains Table was used for the lower range and this value
divided by 4 to give an annual saving by industry. To determine the upper end of savings this value
was multiplied by 7 to estimate the volume of efficiency gains over the 4 year period of the program.
This multiple assumes that little or no savings were made in the first year, and savings made after this
were carried forward annually. Therefore, year two savings would be made up of savings from year
one plus some from year 2 (assume 1/3) and so on. This accounting methodology gives a lower
overall value which could be adopted to account for loss of savings that could be attributed to low
maintenance or other factors.
Industry
Water savings ML
% water saving
Cane
Dairy
Growcom
Nursery
Turf
Flowers
Cotton
5600 – 9800
3800 – 6600
2100 – 3700
500 - 900
200 - 350
125 - 220
2500 – 4400
0.8 – 1.5
4.8 – 8.4
1.4 – 2.4
10 - 18
4.7 – 8.3
36 - 63
3.1 – 5.4
Table 7:
As a % of those
engaged
1.7 – 3.0
4.8 – 8.4
12 - 21
3.3 – 6.0
8 - 14
36 - 63
3.1 – 5.4
Water saving by industry
Improved Productivity and Sustainability
Most irrigators made a change because it would improve their bottom line or improve their
environmental performance. Data was not available to evaluate the effect of the program on their
productivity or sustainability, however, a rough measure of the potential improvement of productivity
was the value of water in terms of the overall value of the commodity. This of course attributed the
value of the commodity to water used without accounting for other inputs.
Industry
ML used
Gross value $m of
commodity
645.63
97.75
1101.67
64.1
9.27
11
112.81
Cane
Dairy
Growcom
Nursery
Turf
Flowers
Cotton
668 110
78 612
151 483
5000
4218
300
81 127
Table 8:
Productivity improvement
$/ML
ML saved
966
1243
7273
12820
2198
36,667
1200
5,600
3,800
2100
500
200
125
2500
Gross value $
improvement
5.41m
4.73 m
15.27 m
6.41m
440 000
4.58 m
3.0 m
System evaluation statistics
Data was entered into 1 of 2 databases, i.e. Irrigation Performance Audit Report Tool (IPART) or
Irrigation Pump Evaluation and Reporting Tool (IPERT) to evaluate the systems. The former database
contained statistics relating to how well or otherwise the system applied water uniformly across a field,
whilst the latter contained statistics relating to hydraulic and energy performance.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
24
These tools were a product of the SEQ-IF program with IPART being the more mature. The database
contained sufficient data to draw conclusions about the performance of the various systems around
Queensland. At a program level, an attempt was made to determine the progress made in improving
irrigation system performance during the course of RWUE4.
The graphs below showed median values for all system types for 1998- 2009 and 2009 – 2013 by
catchment, industry grouping and irrigation system type. The majority of catchments (See Figure 2 for
catchment locations) showed improvement, however, geographically there were no trends evident in
these statistics.
From the data contained in IPART prior to the start of RWUE4 (excluding South East Queensland),
the median value of the coefficient of uniformity of all irrigation systems combined was 72.9%. Over
the course of the program this value rose to 75.8% indicating that the overall performance of irrigation
systems tested during this period has improved. It would be hasty to credit the program on its own for
this result as there would have been other factors that would have contributed to these outcomes.
Across the state the average of these values prior to RWUE4 & SEQIF was 81% and at the
conclusion of the programs had improved to 84%.
100
90
80
70
60
50
1998 - 2009
40
2009 - 2013
30
20
10
0
Chart 5:
Coefficient of uniformity – Comparison of performance by catchments
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
25
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
1998 - 2009
30
2009 - 2013
20
10
0
Chart 6:
Coefficient of uniformity – comparison across industry groups
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
1998 - 2009
30
2009 - 2013
20
10
0
Chart 7:
Coefficient of uniformity – comparison by irrigation type
Hydraulic/energy efficiency
Data on the hydraulic and energy performance of irrigation systems was available through the
Irrigation Pump Evaluation and Reporting Tool. A measure of the performance of an irrigation system
was the energy required to pump a ML of water against a metre head. The graph below shows that at
the commencement of the program, for all systems, a median value of 6 kWh/ML/m was being
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
26
measured. At the end of the program a value of about 5.75 was being recorded. A value of
5kWh/ML/m or less is considered ‘efficient’.
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
2008
Chart 8:
Pumping efficiency (kWh/ML/m)
Median
Average
Linear (Median)
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Energy efficiency of pumping systems
Conclusion
RWUE4 was a successful intervention program, with program effectiveness prevalent in some
industry groups over others. Participation in the program was high, and in some cases all known
irrigators were contacted about taking part in the program. Whilst the data for this program was not
exhaustive, there was sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion that the industry made ground in
achieving more efficient irrigation systems.
This program included for the first time, a new element of energy efficiency in irrigation pumping
systems. Energy costs are now a rising concern for many irrigators and as rural industries look for
ways to engage with irrigators, energy efficiency proved to be an inducement for engagement.
Anecdotal information suggests that there are large gains to be made in this area and this was
evidenced in the findings of a number of industries.
The majority of industry groups, excluding Growcom reported that they achieved their targets. The
assessment of water efficiency gains as a percentage of their industry water consumption indicates
that savings of up to 5% were achieved across the board. Energy savings were not quantified;
however, gains in excess of 20% were reported. Irrigation system assessments conducted generally
exceeded targets.
Data available from IPART and IPERT indicated that the industry as a whole made gains in terms of
energy efficiency and irrigation distribution uniformity. Chart 5, which shows distribution uniformity by
catchment, is evidence of an improving trend.
Another feature of the program was the promotion and implementation of web based decision support
tools that were developed in the SEQ-IF program. These tools introduced irrigators to modern
technologies in precision irrigation and better on-farm water management and record keeping. In
addition they assisted IDOs in recording and analysing field data relating to the assessment of
irrigation systems.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
27
Selling the water efficiency message has become increasingly difficult, with IDOs needing to find new
ways to engage with irrigators. Irrigation and pumping system assessments were well received as
these are tangible on-farm assets that can be evaluated. These assessments show how irrigation and
energy management can be improved, as opposed to other aspects of irrigation which relate to
changing habits or technology adoption. Improved productivity and profitability are the mantra for an
irrigator and any service that delivers on this without challenging existing practices or large investment
will be well received.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
28
Appendix 1
Case study: Central Queensland irrigation systems audited
CENTRE PIVOTS NOT UP TO SCRATCH
Recent audits of centre pivot and lateral move (CPLM) irrigation systems in the Dawson/Callide and
Emerald regions of Central Queensland have demonstrated that whilst they might look like they are
operating efficiently, appearances can be deceptive. According to, Lance Pendergast and Merv
Jessen, the results of similar evaluations conducted over the last few years show that many systems
are operating below their design specifications.
Auditing program
Lance and Merv audited 11 systems between September and December 2008 as part of the
Queensland Government’s Rural WUE program. “The auditing process involves a careful measure of
the system’s operating pressure and flow rate, and a catch can test is conducted to determine the
uniformity of water application under the system,” Merv said. “The machine is observed during
operation, and any problems or issues are noted and recorded.”
Main issues
While there were a couple of instances where it was obvious that there were problems with the
machine, for most underperforming systems it was only when an audit was done and results
evaluated that issues were uncovered. The underlying key issues were:
•
•
•
•
ensuring that systems are designed, installed and commissioned correctly
making good decisions when it comes to choice of sprinklers
understanding system capacity issues and
ensuring that machines are regularly maintained.
Operational issues
Knowing what a machine is delivering is essential for making informed decisions about managing
crops. Five of the audits revealed that the application rate quoted on the control panel was overstating
the rate actually delivered (by 12 to 18%, with one extreme of 48%). Panel calibration needs to be
done correctly at commissioning; otherwise the output is misleading and compromises performance
and operator decision making. According to Merv, one extreme example of this problem was the
machine that over quoted by up to 48%. The operator and his consultant, perplexed why the crop had
been underperforming, had been trying to unravel the cause and have since been able to adjust their
scheduling.
Audits help improve performance
The audits provided information that can often enable much improved system performance and
facilitate better irrigation management practices. Growers who may be happy with the performance of
their machines are often surprised to find that their machines are not operating to their full potential
and significantly improved performance has in many instances been achieved relatively
inexpensively.
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
29
Atherton Tableland
Burdekin
Mackay-Whitsundays
Emerald
Callide
Theodore
Burnett
Sunshine Coast
Lockyer
Condamine - Balonne
Logan & Albert
Border Rivers
Figure 1
Irrigation water supply scheme areas
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
30
Figure 2
IPART catchments
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
31
Cairns SA (Tablelands)
Commodit No Water
y
.
use ML
Pastures
16
13113
4
Cane
Fruit & veg
Nurseries
34
20
8
20
Fitzroy SA
Commodity
No.
Pasture
276
Fruit & veg
Cotton
Cane
Nurseries
115
129
2
10
Wide Bay SA
Commodit No
y
.
Participatio
n
Activity
S(15),
W(189), A(7)
I(5)
17266
16993
S(18)
196
S(44), W(94)
Water
use
ML
18387
Participation
Activity
S(6),
W(40),
A(1)
I(6)
4228
85193
2106
255
Water
use
ML
22836
Participatio
n
2422
-
62
19
9270
917
-
Pastures
50
3696
Mackay SA
Commodity
No.
Cane
Fruit & veg
Pasture
360
125
12
Water
use
ML
34968
16545
1320
Cotton
Nurseries
2
6
10462
77
Activit
y
I(35),S(
120),A7
5,
W(600)
S(5)
S(11),
W(80)
S(3)
Participation
55
2664
33
5
57
4
75
35857
I(14)
42264
S(8)
1072
S(61),
W(128)
S(17),
W(32)
S(64),
W(192)
, A(15)
I(24)
Darling Downs – Maranoa SA
Commodity No. Water
Participation
use
ML
Pastures
596 32498
Cotton
Grain
Nurseries
244
238
32
683580
20184
645
Fruit & veg
344
12535
Activity
S(44),
W(219),
A(2
I(16))
S(23),
W(15)
S(26)
RWUE activities in ABS statistical areas
I = Financial incentive; A = Extension advice; S = System assessment; W = Workshop/field
day
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
Activity
I(14)
S(6)
S(4),
W(15)
Activit
y
Cotton/grai
ns
Cane
Figure 3
6
S(16),
W(51)
59
3
Nurseries
Cotton/grai
n
Fruit & veg
Nurseries
S(23)
Pasture
Fruit & veg
Townsville SA (Burdekin, Townsville)
Commodit
No Water
Participatio
y
.
use ML
n
Cane
49
341445
300
0
32
Industry funding RWUE4
Industry
$ 200910
%
$ 201011
%
$ 201112
%
$ 201213
%
$ Totals
% of
total
Dairy
70,000
14
185,000
18.5
230,000
15.3
230,000
15.3
715,000
15.9
Cotton
70,000
14
90,000
9
162,500
10.8
162,500
10.8
*485,000
10.8
Turf
30,000
6
80,000
8
90,000
6
90,000
6
290,000
6.4
Cane
180,000
36
305,000
30.5
637,500
42.5
637,500
42.5
1,760,000
39.1
Growcom
80,0000
16
130,000
13
160,000
10.7
160,000
10.7
530,000
11.8
Nursery
40,000
8
130,000
13
130,000
8.7
130,000
8.7
430,000
9.6
Flowers
30,000
6
80,000
8
90,000
6
90,000
6
290,000
6.4
Total
500,000
100
1,000,000
100
1,500,000
100
1,500,000
100
4,500,000
100
*Cotton secured federal funding in the final year of RWUE4 and was therefore not funded in
that year.
Total funding for Cotton over the duration of RWUE4 was $322,500
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
33
References
Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Sciences, Irrigation technology and water
use on farms in the Murray-Darling Basin 2006-07 to 2011-12, 2014.
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Water use on Australian farms, various
Chamala,S (1987), ‘Adoption processes and extension strategies for conservation farming’. In P.S.
Cornish & J.E. Pratley (Eds), Tillage: New directions in Australian agriculture (pp400-419).
Guerin L.J. & Guerin T.F. (1994) ‘Constraints to the adoption of innovation in agricultural research and
environmental management; a review. In Agricultural Journal of experimental agriculture, 1994.
Knowledge Management System for Irrigation, http://kmsi.nceaprd.usq.edu.au/
CANEGROWERS RWUE4 Final report, May 2013
RWUE4: Responding to Climate in the CQ Irrigation Sector, Milestone 5 Report – May 2012
Dairy and Fodder, “Water for Profit” Milestone 7 Draft Final Report, May 2013
Flower Association of Queensland Inc, Final report, Rural Water Use Efficiency 4, May 2013
Growcom Australia, Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative Stage 4, Final milestone May 2013
Nursery & Garden Industry Queensland, Rural Water Use Efficiency Initiative 4, Final report, 2013
Turf Queensland (QTPA) Ltd, Milestone report, Final report
Sunwater annual reports, various
Rural Water Use Efficiency Program, Department of Natural Resources and Mines, 2016
34