Published by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority
© Copyright Commonwealth of Australia (Murray–Darling Basin Authority) 2012
MDBA publication no: 59/12
ISBN (print Volume 1): 978-1-922068-74-3
ISBN (print set): 978-1-922068-78-1
ISBN (online Volume 1): 978-1-922068-75-0
ISBN (online set): 978-1-922068-79-8
This work is copyright. Apart from any use permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rightsshould be addressed to the MDBA Copyright Administration, GPO Box 1801, Canberra ACT2601, or made by phone to 1800 230 067, or faxed to (02) 6230 7579, or emailed to or made via
You may download, display, print and reproduce this material in unaltered form only (retaining this notice) for your personal, non-commercial use or use within your organisation.
Proposed Basin Plan consultation report
Contents
Contents
Foreword
The journey to a Basin Plan – an overview
Key points
Recommendations
Introduction
Issues relating to proposed Basin Plan chapters and schedules
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Basin water resources and the context for their use
Chapter 3: Water resource plan areas and water accounting periods
Chapter 4: The Identification and management of risks to Basin water resources
Chapter 5: Management objectives and outcomes to be achieved by the Basin Plan
Chapter 6: Water that can be taken
Surface water Sustainable Diversion Limits
Shared reductions
Groundwater Sustainable Diversion Limits
2015 review and process for adjusting Sustainable Diversion Limits
Basin Plan compliance
Risk allocation
Chapter 7: Environmental Watering Plan
Chapter 8: Water quality and salinity management plan
Chapter 9: Water resource plan requirements
Chapter 10: Critical Human Water Needs
Chapter 11: Water trading rules
Chapter 12: Program for monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the Basin Plan
Issues relating to broader proposed Basin Plan content
Aboriginal values and uses and other related matters
The underpinning science – Environmentally Sustainable Level of Take
The underpinning science – Hydrologic modelling
Social and economic analysis
Climate change
Coal-seam gas and other mining activities
Basin Plan implementation
2012-2019 timeline
Knowledge and information
Localism
Engagement
Compliance with the Water Act and other legal matters
Issues relating to broader water reform
River operations review
Constraints
Environmental works and measures
Augmenting water supplies
Water buyback program
More efficient irrigation infrastructure
Community adjustment
Land management
Abbreviations and acronyms
Glossary
Appendix A: Process for considering submissions on the proposed Basin Plan
Appendix B: Presented in the separate document ‘Proposed Basin Plan consultation report-Appendix B’
1
Proposed Basin Plan consultation report
Foreword
The formal launch of the proposed Basin Plan for public consultation last November was a key step in the journey to better manage our rivers and groundwater.
This report addresses what we have heard and what we propose to change as a result of the consultation process. It also adopts and develops many of the good ideas and opportunities for improved water management we have gathered over the past 12 months.
The work of building the draft plan has been a collaborative effort involving many individuals, local groups, interest groups and governments. We would like to express our thanks to all who have contributed and our appreciation of the time and effort of so many to help us improve our work.
This report demonstrates a clear and genuine willingness by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) to take on board what we have heard in this year-long process and to make changes based on this feedback. While we acknowledge that there is strong opposition to various aspects of the draft plan from a variety of stakeholder, lobby and interest groups, as well as widely varying views among the Basin states, there is a clear recognition that a plan must exist.
In many of our meetings we have heard that people “want to get on with it”. We have been regularly urged to “make a start”. Equally, people express the view that they are “fed up” with the water debate and want to be left alone to “get on with their lives”.
Of course, the many and varied views are important and reflect valid points of view. People can be assured that they have been taken very seriously and we have endeavoured to reflect in this report the myriad of sentiments. In truth though, it is highly unlikely that there will ever be common ground among the parties on all issues.
Sadly, the history of water management in the Murray–Darling Basin has seen the desire for common ground regularly devolve into compromise and lowest common denominator results. As a nation we can, and must, do better.
In 2007, then Prime Minister John Howard reminded us “that for this plan to work there must be a clear recognition by all—especially the State and Territory governments—that the old way of managing the Murray–Darling Basin has reached its use-by-date”.
The MDBA is the single, Basin-wide institution responsible for planning the Basin’s water resources. The national interest is in having a healthy, working river system and strong and resilient industry and communities in the Basin. This cannot be achieved by trying to satisfy separate, often diametrically opposed, interests.
The MDBA has proposed a way forward, giving time for change, a chance for communities to take charge and a willingness to adapt the plan as new knowledge comes into play.
We believe the draft plan provides a commonsense framework for greater certainty and a way towards a more effective balance in the use of water in the Murray–Darling Basin.
Our observations and recommendations for further amendment are now legitimately the focus of the Basin states and, ultimately, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
While we understand the need of governments and other representative groups to advocate the interests of their constituents, we need to secure the future of the Basin as a whole; to act in the national interest.
John Howard’s 2007 remarks were delivered at the depth of the devastating millennium drought. Communities right across the Basin were confronting the possibility of running out of water. Five years later and the Basin is full and overflowing. Without doubt, Australia is a land of droughts and flooding rains.
But drought will come again. It is not a question of if, but when. We can and we must be better prepared for the next drought. We need a plan that will strengthen the resilience of the environment and the resilience of Basin communities and industries over the long term. This means we must act now to restore the environment and equip Basin communities and industries with the tools for a sustainable and secure future.
Making a start now, when the Basin has been refreshed, makes sense. In fact, we’re fortunate to have a reprieve which lets us focus on reform, rather than simply coping.
The Basin Plan is a significant step forward from the way water is currently managed across the Basin. Communities will need time to adjust to the change, and will need the support of all levels of government during the transition.
Taking action and making this plan work will require both courage and leadership: courage to stand up to those who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo; leadership to address the failures of the past and make a start toward a better way of managing water in the Basin for all of its uses and the nation.
Murray–Darling Basin Authority
Hon. Craig Knowles
Chair
Dr Rhondda Dickson
Chief Executive
Ms Dianne Davidson
Authority member
Ms Diana Gibbs
Authority member
Mr David Green
Authority Member
Prof. Barry Hart
Authority member
The journey to a Basin Plan – an overview
This report is the culmination of more than 12 months of gathering feedback, seeking out views and exploring ideas to develop a draft plan for the Murray–Darling Basin. This overview provides a summary of the key issues and ideas we have heard, what we have drawn on to develop the draft plan and the changes we have made since then.
Responses to early feedback
Early last year, we received many valuable suggestions and ideas about how the draft plan should look and what it should include. This feedback was instrumental in helping us to develop the draft plan, in terms of how we gathered people’s views and input, shaped our policies and framework and designed the plan’s implementation.
Engaging with stakeholders
We received many suggestions about how we should consult with stakeholders and consequently, responded to requests to engage early; draw on local knowledge; hold smaller and more targeted meetings in more places; and ensure our engagement activities were designed to give all stakeholders the opportunity to have a say. These were also recommendations made by the Tony Windsor-led Parliamentary Inquiry[1]. Starting in March 2011, we held meetings in a range of styles and places, from large community meetings in town halls, and round tables and workshops in community centres and offices, to conversations with individuals on verandas, at kitchen tables and on river banks.
Importantly, our “no surprises” approach of exposing our thinking at each step of the way gave us the opportunity to seek out improvements, road test ideas and identify gaps as we worked to develop the draft plan. By November 2011, when we released the draft plan for formal consultation, we had held more than 110 round table and technical meetings with community, industry, Indigenous and environment groups, and met with thousands of people living along different stretches of the Basin’s rivers. The value of these meetings was immeasurable. In fact, the ideas and knowledge brought forward by local people reinforced to us that localism must be a critical component of the plan.
Equally important was our consultation with Basin governments. We held more than 200 multilateral and bilateral meetings and working group sessions with state and territory government officials, giving them the opportunity to closely examine, review and provide input into each chapter of the draft plan before its release. We believe the plan was much improved as a result of their input.
Our approach to the science and social and economic analysis
Since early last year, and in response to much feedback, we have considerably improved the robustness of the science and socio-economic analyses used to determine the sustainable water limits in the draft plan. We also responded to strong calls to have our modelling incorporate the physical and operational constraints in the system, as well as testing alternative water recovery scenarios. Our analysis reflected feedback from communities that how water is recovered is as important to communities as the volume of water recovered. This is why we recommended a bias towards investment in infrastructure to recover water for the environment.
Setting a new framework - adaptive management
We created an adaptive management framework in response to requests for a plan that was flexible and could be applied to a system as variable as the Basin. We also built in the 2015 review to give communities and governments the opportunity to bring forward new information and ideas about where and how water could be used more effectively and efficiently. We addressed concerns about the inequities in the starting dates for each Basin states’ water resource plan by recommending they be aligned to start in 2019. Basin ministers agreed to this last year.
Reviewing the rules
The Windsor Inquiry and many stakeholders in the Basin highlighted that the different operational rules across the Basin were impeding the efficient delivery of environmental water. We therefore called on the Basin state governments to review those rules, which they committed to last year. That review is underway.
The ideas we heard and feedback we received during the informal consultation period were instrumental in allowing us to formally release a draft plan in November 2011 that addressed many major issues raised by stakeholders and governments in the Basin.
Changes to the draft plan
Over the course of 20 weeks’ formal consultation, we continued to meet with stakeholders, holding a total of 24 public meetings, 56 round table and technical meetings, 18 social and economic briefings for representatives from rural financial organisations, five regional briefings on water trading issues, 31 bilateral and working group meetings with Basin states, and a tailored Indigenous consultation process in more than 30 towns in the Basin.
By the end of the 20 weeks, we had received nearly 12,000 submissions from individuals, organisations and governments across Australia, as well as some from overseas. As a result of this further feedback, we have made more than 300 further changes to the draft plan. These range from adding new provisions to the draft plan to redrafting it to improve clarity.
We have provided a summary below of the most common themes raised in submissions during the formal consultation process and how we have responded. A more detailed explanation of the issues raised in submissions, and our responses and changes to each of these, can be found in the chapter-by-chapter section of this report. Appendix B provides a complete list of all changes made to the draft plan following the formal consultation period.
Common themes from submissions
Support for a Basin Plan
Most submissions supported our vision for a healthy, working Basin, supported the need for a Basin Plan, and accepted that the history of disagreement needs to be resolved. Submissions also highlighted that there remain many divergent views across the Basin as to how this should be done. It is also clear from the submissions that there are still some common misconceptions about the purpose of the Basin Plan and the role of the MDBA. In particular, many submissions suggested the plan should address matters that sit outside the remit of the MDBA or the plan, or that remain the responsibility of Basin governments.
The purpose of the Basin Plan is to provide a high level framework that sets Basin-wide standards for the Australian Government, Basin states and the MDBA to manage the Basin’s water resources in a coordinated and sustainable way. It is essentially a strategy for managing water in the national interest rather than on jurisdictional or sectoral based views. The plan builds on the past milestone agreements made by the Basin states that remain current today, such as the 1992 Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, the 2004 National Water Initiative and the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray-Darling Basin Reform. These agreements clearly set out the obligations of the MDBA, the Australian Government and the Basin states, and define their roles.
Water buybacks, river operating rules, new infrastructure such as water storages, river regulators, salt schemes, water saving infrastructure, structural adjustment and natural resource management activities are matters for the Australian Government and Basin states and are outside the remit of the MDBA and the Basin Plan. But we recognise that the way governments manage many of these issues will be critical to the plan’s objectives, in particular to ensure we maintain balance between the environmental, social and economic outcomes. This is why we have not refrained from making comments and recommendations on these matters.
We have closely considered the matters raised in submissions, as well as the Windsor Inquiry, relating to these broader government activities and have included in this report a number of recommendations that highlight and reinforce the importance of action in these areas.
This means that the Basin Plan fits into the broader history of effort and the historic agreements that form the foundation of water management across the Basin. How the governments respond will be critical to the successful ongoing implementation of the plan.
Science and socioeconomic analysis
Many submissions challenged the science that underpins the draft plan, including our modelling methodology and our social and economic analysis. Some submissions also questioned whether our work had undergone adequate peer review.
All scientific methodologies we have used to determine the sustainable water limits in the draft plan have been peer reviewed and the peer reviews have been published. The most recent review of the science, completed by a CSIRO-led expert panel, determined that our work:
“...represents a sufficient basis to begin an adaptive process of managing the level of take in the future and that the methods of modelling and analysis used by the MDBA were generally robust and defensible.”[2]