Irrigation development induces considerable environmental change, but the expectation has been in the past that the economic and social benefits would be greater than the environmental costs. However, public attitudes change over time from acceptance of development and exploitation to greater concern regarding environmental issues and sustainability. Recently, the irrigation industry has found it difficult to communicate to the wider populace the regional benefits of irrigation and the current activities and investment undertaken to address the environmental sustainability concerns. To address this, irrigation water supply businesses are investigating using a broader reporting structure that includes financial, environmental, and social and cultural elements. This triple bottom line, holistic approach should provide a more balanced view of water use with socio-economic benefits and environmental consequences demonstrated. It is anticipated that this approach embedded in the newly developed Irrigation Sustainability Assessment Framework will lead to a more transparent and informed debate on the sustainable use of resources between all parties.

The common law concept of a duty of care is being extended into agriculture in some jurisdictions. However, the expression 'duty of care' hides a diversity of competing connotations. This article explains the context within which this environmental duty of care has evolved and outlines some conflicts the principle is intended to resolve and competing expectations this elicits. Statutory versions of the duty of care from natural resources and environment protection legislation are discussed, along with a consideration of the principle's operation in tort to set bounds to legal responsibilities and norms of behaviour. The article concludes that like other attempts to import useful policy concepts into legal relationships, false starts are inevitable before the promise of a duty of care approach becomes a reality.

The ability of an irrigation business to use water depends on having a property right to access water, but exercise of this right also depends on government decisions to allocate water or invest in water infrastructure. While this secure property right may be necessary, it is far from sufficient. A social licence is also needed. It has been suggested that a legal 'duty of care', or triple bottom line reporting will protect that social licence. This article suggests that such rhetoric masks a fundamental management problem of the lack of boundaries to social accountability. Managers face a conflict between their legal duties to manage the enterprise in the (economic) interests of its owners and the vaguely defined expectation that they will meet unspecified social obligations.