Farming

Pros & cons

The current path vs the MMA plan.

Cons: the existing system and current trajectory. Pros: the integrated MMA corridor programme.

Cons of the current system & plan

Murray-Darling rainfall in long-term decline

CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology data document a 10-20% decline in cool-season rainfall across south-eastern Australia. Murray-Darling inflows are on a downward trend. Approximately $22 billion of annual agricultural GDP is exposed to a worsening climate trend.

Water allocations contested every year

The Murray-Darling Basin Plan has been the most politically contested water reform in Australian history. Every drought year deepens the conflict between irrigators, environmental flows, and downstream communities.

Northern monsoon water still flowing to the ocean

Every wet season, more than 200,000 GL of high-quality freshwater flows from northern rivers to the ocean while southern farmers face restrictions. The resource sits unused while political conflict over the existing supply intensifies.

Food processing offshoring continues

Australian raw agricultural produce is increasingly exported as ingredients to be processed and packaged offshore. High electricity costs, expensive refrigeration, and uncompetitive freight make domestic food processing structurally disadvantaged.

Rural depopulation accelerating

Inland populations shrink as services consolidate to coastal capitals. Schools close, hospitals contract, and the agricultural workforce ages. The structural decline of regional Australia is well-documented.

No national agrivoltaic policy

Australia has world-class solar resource and vast suitable land but no national programme to combine solar generation with agricultural production. Other jurisdictions are advancing; Australia is not.

Pros of the MMA plan

Drought-proofs the Murray-Darling permanently

Gravity-fed aqueduct water from Alice Hub, delivered year-round regardless of local rainfall, secures approximately $22 billion of annual agricultural GDP. Food production capacity grows in step with global demand.

Agrivoltaic productive country at continental scale

13.4 million hectares along the corridor solar zones double as agrivoltaic country - livestock grazing, horticulture, and protected cropping under and between solar arrays. Climate-marginal land becomes simultaneously productive in food and electricity.

New supply, not reallocation

The aqueduct adds 30,000+ GL/year of new continental water supply by capturing what currently flows to the ocean. Australian irrigation expands without depleting any existing user. The political dynamic of zero-sum allocation reform is bypassed entirely.

Cheap power for processing and refrigeration

Sub-10c/kWh electricity makes abattoirs, dairies, cold storage, and packaging competitive against imported product. More value-add retained onshore, more jobs in regional Australia.

Electrified freight to every port

Export agriculture reaches every major port at lower cost on electrified rail. Beef, dairy, grain, fruit, and horticulture move faster and cheaper with lower emissions.

New regional populations sustain farming communities

Agrivoltaic zones, corridor towns, and intersection cities create sustainable regional populations that support local agriculture, services, and skilled workforce.

Cost and Return Summary

The dollar case for Farming

CapexFarming receives the benefits of water and energy infrastructure rather than carrying separate capex. The agrivoltaic productive country (13.4 million hectares of dual-use PV + agriculture) and the continental water transfer are delivered by the integrated corridor and Alice Hub. See Memo 19 and Memo 5.

Tier 1 — Direct SBC revenueCaptured via the water pillar at the SBC level — the SBC sells water; farmers buy water. Farming itself is not an SBC revenue stream; it is the largest enabled outcome at industry level.

Tier 2 — Enabled outcomes and cascading upliftAgricultural production uplift industry revenue $39–77 B/yr at maturity: Murray-Darling drought-proofing on the existing $30 B/yr basin (+$6–9 B/yr at 20-30% reliability uplift), new inland agricultural land brought into production ($10–20 B/yr), agrivoltaic productive country ($20–40 B/yr across 13.4M ha), northern catchment co-benefits ($3–8 B/yr). Commonwealth share via tax flowback approximately $10–19 B/yr. See Memo 20 §3.2.

Without SBC — what Australia spends insteadWithout SBC, continuing Murray-Darling buybacks and drought relief commits $40–114 B over 20 years to manage rather than solve the basin water deficit. Inland agriculture remains rainfall-dependent. No agrivoltaic productive country. Memo 21 §2.2.

Programme-wide ROI summary → · Memo 19 (cost) · Memo 20 (returns) · Memo 21 (counterfactual)