Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies (2017) 77–78 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejrh Peer Review Report Peer review report on “Using mental-modelling to explore how irrigators in the Murray-Darling Basin make water-use decisions” Original Submission 1.1 Recommendation Major Revision Comments to Author: The authors apply fuzzy logic mental models through discussions with irrigators in two regional areas to determine the drivers behind water use decision-making The manuscript leaves me with a few questions that I think the authors need to consider in order to improve the overall thrust and logic presented: * The introduction is very long and needs to get to the point of the manuscript far sooner The research questions, while obvious at the end of this section, remain difficult to reconcile within that rambling text There is also much reference made to drought; but that line doesn’t seem to then feature in the remainder of the results or discussion The manuscript thus reads as if it is not well-connected front to back, if that makes sense? * The motivations for the research are also not clear to me There is lots of discussion already about why farmers decide to use water, and irrigators in particular should provide little mystery now on that front How then does this paper specifically add to that literature on water planning or management? * There is a deliberate disconnect in Australia between users and managers under the COAG agreement, yet the contention here seems to be that the results could provide connection benefits for water managers if they understood irrigator decisionmaking more clearly At the margin around regional environmental flow prioritization setting and application decisions I would agree, but not at the irrigation storage or delivery system management level as appears to be argued here The manuscript seems to touch on this as an issue in several places (e.g lines 74–75, 259, 290, 298–299, and 484–485) An opportunity then to discuss this idea within a current strategic issue has thus been overlooked in my mind, while the arguments for linking mental modelling and water management (and the appropriate level for that connection) are not strong and/or clear; at least on the provided citation evidence * The mental model literature is provided well into the manuscript, and until that point I am left to wonder why it hasn’t appeared When it does I am still unclear about what the contribution of this manuscript is to the broader literature It might be helpful to tighten this up and deliver much earlier in the logic such that the value-proposition from the research is made more obvious * There are also a few ‘throw-away’ comments in the paper, which read as if they are made without sufficient referencing to validate their inclusion or conclusions For example: • Line 318–319: major changes to farm practices as a consequence of the Basin Plan Such as? I can understand if they have adopted different irrigation practices as a consequence of on-farm water use efficiency subsidy programs but this is not the DOI of the original article:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2016.01.035 2214-5818/$ – see front matter http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2016.12.003 78 • • • • Peer Review Report / Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies (2017) 77–78 Basin Plan And if they sold water (to the buyback program – again not Basin Plan) then presumably they did so willingly and thought through the ramifications well before taking that decision So to be still coming to terms seems unlikely Can this be clarified more at all? Line 298: factors not considered by the MDBA Such as? I would hazard that their process has been reasonably well focused and considerate, and continues to be so going forward Current issues include how best to develop and progress environmental flow priorities on an annual basis, which I allude to above, that again this research could have informed usefully That is dependent, of course, on irrigator interest in providing input to that process, of course Line 350: added uncertainty in MDB policy? What uncertainty? The policy is now very clear and very well set in the Basin Plan The CEWH and MDBA and other agencies are very upfront and transparent about their strategies and options for future development within that framework Policy uncertainty is at far, far lower levels than future long- and/or short-term climate, commodity price or input cost issues Line 454–455 and 460: government decisions that affect water security? How does this happen? Security is set as a probability of supply, as specified earlier in the manuscript How does government decision-making affect this? If security was changed/compromised farm financial bases would be irreparably damaged, and governments know this Line 474: continued call for co-management? By whom? Where in the literature does this appear? And if it is predominantly called for by irrigators then it is endogenous and should be pursued with appropriate caution General comments: Line 60: successful implementation of this policy does not depend on some extent on the cooperation of the states; they are critical to the process I would delete that text Line 63: Citation for Mooney et al., 2012 not included This is a pity, as it provided the core justification for much of the manuscript’s subsequent logic Line 68: ABARES citation not included Lines 74–75: water management by whom and/or at what level? Catchment or basin-level planning are very different to regional or water-supply system levels Which are you referring to, as there are very real limits (as outlined above) to realistic irrigator roles in water management? Lines 79–80: what if they are farmers that span both types? Lines 101–112: you talk about high and low security rights, and then horticulture and broadacre users It was not immediately clear to me that these were then related, with (I assume) horticulture users needing high security; although that would be logical It might be more sensible to use a term in this section consistently to avoid confusion Line 132: large-diameter? Line 140: I seem to recall somewhere that irrigators in South Australia were established to get by on allocations of between 70 to 80%, and hence a lot of their water used to flow down the river in good years Here I read that their development was based on full allocations at all times? If this is true it would be helpful for this to be evidenced one way or the other Line 150: I would delete ‘here as elsewhere in the Basin.’ Line 187: summarizes Line 259: this is the crux of my earlier thinking: that the value of this research could have been on adding to the ecological decision-making process for MDB environmental flows Line 310: irrigation water-use is not a decision-making priority for the MDBA/CEWH More for the irrigation suppliers perhaps, but again a personal risk issue I would have thought? Line 361: cotton mentioned for the first time; I thought it was solely rice? Line 379: receiving variable of decision interest? What does this mean – very confusing term? Line 415–418: I can accept the higher salinity level in the Murray River water but some evidence to support this would be useful too please Line 442: vocation? Line 463: what is the advantage of real-time here? It was when you recorded it, but after that? Line 472: research and has been left to future research”?? Consider rewriting this please Line 474: continued call? By whom? Line 477: Irrigators needs to have a small i Line 519–521: this claim depends on how well you justify the need for this in the first place So if cannot be evidenced in the literature then calls by irrigators for more local management from this study are not sufficient reason to conduct more future research as they could be endogenous Table 1: Autumn or fall? Just one will please Anonymous ... been on adding to the ecological decision-making process for MDB environmental flows Line 310 : irrigation water- use is not a decision-making priority for the MDBA/CEWH More for the irrigation suppliers... – very confusing term? Line 415 – 418 : I can accept the higher salinity level in the Murray River water but some evidence to support this would be useful too please Line 442: vocation? Line 463:... for this to be evidenced one way or the other Line 15 0: I would delete ‘here as elsewhere in the Basin. ’ Line 18 7: summarizes Line 259: this is the crux of my earlier thinking: that the value