Murray Irrigation shareholders have expressed concern with the company’s new pricing and water strategy, and have called for greater transparency, improved engagement and a formal review process.
Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content
A shareholder only meeting was called and held in Deniliquin on Tuesday, chaired by Bunnaloo irrigator Antony Vagg, and brought together farmers, industry representatives and advisors to discuss changes that were to come into effect the following day.
It followed on from concerns raised through a letter to the Pastoral Times, co-signed by multiple shareholders, in May.
The meeting was framed as an opportunity to share information and “have a robust discussion,” amid growing unease from shareholders about the direction of the company.
Central to the discussions was the new fee structure adopted by the board in early May, under which fixed fees linked to delivery entitlements (DEs) will be removed, while variable water delivery fees will increase based on actual usage.
Outlet fees will also be recalibrated to align with cost recovery.
According to MIL, the revised model is expected to reduce or maintain average costs for around 80 per cent of customers.
The new structure will also be subject to annual indexation in line with the CPI.
Shareholders also expressed concern with what they describe as a shift in the approach to managing efficiency water.
Critics argue the changes will reduce water access for active users while increasing costs for irrigators who rely heavily on allocations.
While the MIL board acknowledged in May that the changes introduce a higher level of financial risk - particularly due to increased reliance on variable revenue - it determined that these risks are manageable and outweighed by the need to address inequities in the current system.
Consultant John McKinstry, engaged by landholders, presented analysis on the company’s financial position which suggested MIL had consistently generated positive cash flow over more than a decade, challenging claims that large-scale monetisation of water was necessary to secure long-term viability.
From there, many attendees expressed frustration with the lack of access to detailed modelling and the repeated classification of key information as “commercial-in-confidence” - which MIL has refuted.
A recurring theme throughout the meeting was trust, or the perceived lack of it.
Several speakers described engagement with the board and management as “inadequate”, with one irrigator stating the process felt “opaque and cloak-and-dagger.”
Others warned that poor communication risked escalating tensions further.
Younger farmers were among those most vocal about the long-term implications.
Blighty dairy farmer Christian Steenholdt described the proposed changes as a “breach of trust,” arguing they undermine the original intent of modernisation, which was to increase water use and lower costs.
“It’s putting an extra tax on water users that compounds negatively over time,” he said.
Succession and future leadership also emerged as concerns, with participants noting declining willingness among younger irrigators to take on governance roles in what was described as an increasingly adversarial environment.
Several speakers emphasised the economic importance of efficiency water and estimates suggesting its removal could impose significant costs on farm businesses.
Others pointed out that the original modernisation investment, funded by shareholders, was intended to deliver these benefits back to irrigators.
The meeting agreed that a letter be spent to MIL proposing the establishment of a joint review committee comprising shareholders, MIL board representatives and an independent chair.
The group would aim to examine the MIL strategy over the next 12 months, ahead of transitional arrangements expiring, including a temporary moratorium on changes to DEs and the current fee structure.
There was also consensus that this joint review committee is the next step to test the board’s willingness to engage with shareholders.
Despite strong criticism, many attendees stressed their preference for a collaborative rather than confrontational approach, urging the board to provide clearer communication and justification for its strategy.
As one irrigator summarised: “If it’s a good deal, do a better job of selling it. Right now, a lot of people aren’t convinced”.
MIL Board Chair, Phil Snowden said MIL was yet to receive any formal correspondence from shareholders based on the meeting.
He rejected claims about a perceived lack of consultation and information on the new fee structure, saying the company had thorough interactions with shareholders before the new fee structure was approved.
"We have been through an extensive engagement process prior to deciding to implement this change.
“A temporary moratorium on the transfer and termination of DEs has been put in place until June 30, 2027.
“The board is committed to engaging with shareholders during this moratorium period to consider the management of DEs moving forward.”
Mr Snowden said there is a wealth of information on the structure online which can be accessed at any time.
Shareholders are also welcome to contact the company for further information.
“The company put together a detailed landing page, presentation, frequently asked questions and fact sheet outlining what this change means for the company and the customers,” Mr Snowden said.
“I encourage shareholders to view that information, which is all available on the company’s website."
For full details on the structure, and MIL’s consultation processes, go to https://www.murrayirrigation.com.au/fee-structure-review-2026.
At the bottom of the page are links to a fact sheet, frequently asked questions page and the ‘Irrigation outlet fee review’ report.