Levy hikes spark farmer fury

Water Minister Ian Hunter has directed the state's NRM Boards to levy beneficiaries on an 'impactor pays' basis, based on the National Water Initiative.

In 2015-16, the partial cost recovery was $3.5 million of the $40m incurred by the Department of Environment, Water & Natural Resources.

But hidden in the 2015-16 state budget were moves for this to grow to $6.8m in 2016-17.

A government spokesperson said these DEWNR costs were associated with water licensing, compliance activities, science to support the development and management of water resources, reviewing and amending water allocation plans and debt recovery.

The NRM boards are responsible for determining how these costs will be shared across their regions and ratepayers going forward.

The SE NRM Board - the first to consult with stakeholders - is seeking an additional $3.6m on its previously proposed 2016-17 budget, including $2.2m towards water planning and management costs, and $1.4m to cover corporate costs and projects deferred from previous years.

The real cost of the budgeted $3.6m increase will be greater as there will be an additional 3.1 per cent added to this for consumer price index rises.

Each of the options being explored will lead to significant cost increases for producers, but if a capital value-based model is adopted, levies could rise from $42 a year to as much as $1000/yr based on a $3m property.

Primary Producers SA and Livestock SA have voiced their concerns at such a large levy increase, after participating in five stakeholder meetings held by the NRM board earlier this month.

They have written to SE NRM Board presiding member Frank Brennan, but also forwarded Mr Hunter a letter this week.

The issue is expected to be raised again when Country Cabinet meets in Mount Gambier late next month.

PPSA Natural Resources Management committee chair Fiona Rasheed, Kingston, said the goodwill of SE residents towards the government on water policy had been seriously eroded with the controversial Community Panel on the SE drains.

"There is a strong sentiment among these communities that efficiencies should be found to deliver the services required within the existing levies and charges, minimising remote bureaucracy," she said.

"The likely impact of the proposed levy increases would be further exacerbated by the tough seasonal conditions being experienced by many SE producers."

Mrs Rasheed said all costs needed to be justified, efficient and effective, especially in the case of "central costs" imposed on regions.

"We are really looking for some transparency," she said.

Livestock SA vice-president Jack England said producers felt they were unfairly carrying the burden of the state government's move to full cost recovery.

"To increase (water planning) levies in the order of 4000-4800pc in these dry times, when the government is cutting spending on research and development, is pretty appalling and it comes at the first time in living memory that Mosquito Creek in the SE has run dry," he said.

Mr England's main concern was not with the SE NRM Board, which was suffering severe funding cuts, but the government's 'financial mismanagement'.

"The government is required to allocate water management, planning and corporate costs on an 'impactor pays' model. Either Mother Nature is up for a massive bill or the state government should trim its environmental agenda to suit," he said.