Draft Basin Plan released for consultation period

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority today made available the draft Basin Plan for public comment. The Authority Chair, Craig Knowles said the draft Basin Plan was the next step in restoring balance to the basin. "After nine months of talking to people across the Basin and listening to their ideas I am confident we can move toward a sensible and balanced plan."

"This is simply the next step in the ongoing journey of water reform and builds on a lot of good work that has already been done."

"But there is still more to do. Managing a basin of this size which crosses borders; and where there are many different operating rules, landscapes, and climates means there is no easy or quick fix."

"Our plan is flexible and will allow us to monitor and adapt. It's a plan that will achieve important environmental objectives and is a pathway forward that allows us all to continue to learn and build on our knowledge about how to better manage the Murray Darling Basin for all of its values."

"I urge people to take the time to read the draft and get involved in the consultations and have their say."

Download the Draft Basin Plan here.

Foreword by the Authority

This draft Basin Plan represents one more step in the ongoing journey of managing our rivers.

For decades, our governments and Basin communities have invested knowledge and money to maintain or restore the health of the rivers-rivers that are a critical source of drinking water, provide water to important environmental sites and habitats, are recreational playgrounds, and support livelihoods, cultures and contribute to the nation's economy.

We live in the driest inhabited continent in the world and the complexity of balancing a relatively small amount of water against a range of genuinely competing interests for this water should not be underestimated. It has long been recognised that the management of the Murray-Darling Basin is not as good as it might be, and managing a basin and river system as big as the Murray-Darling does not lend itself to instant responses.

We must also accept that human settlement over the past 200 years has altered the landscapes and placed constraints in the system, which make it physically impossible to return to a natural, pristine environment. So, this Plan is not about returning the rivers to their natural state. It's about finding the optimal balance between the environment, economies and communities... not settling for the lowest common denominator but building a framework for change to provide, for the long term, a healthy working basin.

The Plan we have developed allows seven years to 2019 to give everyone time to work together and adjust to the changes required to bring the system into balance.

We are writing this at a time when many of the interest groups are in disagreement about what is proposed. Different state governments have different views. Typically, Victoria and New South Wales argue for minimal change while South Australia strongly argues for a larger volume of water. At times they seem to be almost diametrically opposed.

Situation normal!

The conservation movement want more, farmers and irrigators want less. Scientists want more science. Again, situation normal!

Everyone has "right" on their side. For every claim there is a counter claim.

Very few people are willing to concede anything, believing that in doing so the other side will gain an advantage. We simply can't go on managing the Murray-Darling Basin as if it were a tug-of-war. In the end, everyone pulling in opposite directions gets us all exactly nowhere.

"Situation normal" is no longer good enough.

That's why we propose to build a pathway to 2019. It's a pathway we should all be able to walk along, exploring the opportunities together, learning, adapting and adjusting.

But we have to make a start. We have to agree to do this together.

This Plan is not an end point. It's an opportunity to start the next part of the journey which began years ago.

As former Prime Minister John Howard made clear in 2007 when he announced the $10 billion plan to "improve water efficiency and to address over-allocation of water in rural Australia, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin":

For this plan to work there must be a clear recognition by all-especially by state and territory governments-that the old way of managing the Murray-Darling Basin has reached its use-by-date.

Of course, making the change from the "old way" of managing water to a "new way" involves courage, compromise and is not without risk. But, they are risks worth taking. As Prime Minister Howard also stated, "the tyranny of incrementalism and the lowest common denominator must end".

The pathway to 2019 should be supported by all. It provides an opportunity to bring into play infrastructure and environmental works and measures to make the management of water more efficient, whether the water is being used for production or for environmental purposes.

Seven years allows ample time for the state, territory and Australian governments to review the rule books and management frameworks to make water use more efficient and effective than it currently is.

The Windsor parliamentary inquiry deserves credit for putting a spotlight on this particular issue. Seven years allows local communities, properly empowered and resourced by governments to further develop their abilities to play an active role in the decisions about how their catchment is managed and how water for the environment is used.

Done properly, the pathway to 2019 will take us from the "old way" of managing to the "new way" with the least amount of impact and the best chance for a high degree of community ownership in a healthy working Basin.

Let's talk about the facts.

First, based on the hundreds of conversations and briefings we've had over the past year, there is no single number (additional volume of water required) that will satisfy all the interest groups and governments. More importantly, there is no single number that will magically fix the health of the Murray-Darling system.

What is done with the water, how the rivers are run, how flows are controlled, historical constraints in the system, and how water is recovered all add to the complexity and make a "just add water" solution laughable.

So what do the numbers mean? Numbers, any numbers, can only be an estimate of what the best available information, including science, tells us we need to bring the system into balance. The numbers will vary over time as new information, updates in science, more efficient water management, infrastructure and water buyback are brought into play.

More recent and robust modelling has shown that key environmental objectives can be met with a lower volume than the range suggested in the Guide. The lower volume, based on the modelling, will achieve the objectives of keeping the Murray flowing to the sea nine years out of 10, to flush salt from the system and water important sites in the Basin.

Of course, the pathway is not without risks. To mitigate those risks the destination to 2019 has opportunities to monitor, evaluate and adjust. More than "just a number", the Plan gives a real opportunity to see how the Basin is performing, and to make adjustments along the way.

It's also why we've strengthened the Plan (the draft legislative instrument) to overtly and repeatedly reinforce the need to optimise economic, social and environmental outcomes.

In many ways, the "optimisation equation" requires value decisions and judgement calls that go beyond just science, and to quote the late Professor Peter Cullen:

Scientists commonly hold strong values about desirable outcomes, and should be welcome in the political debates as society grapples with the various issues. However, they should not expect their scientific standing gives them any special right to decide value questions for society. Their science needs to inform the debate, not replace the debate.

In that spirit, I thank the CSIRO for giving the Authority the confidence that the science that underpins the Plan is sufficient to use as a starting point on a journey toward a healthy working basin. By providing a starting point, Basin communities and their governments can adopt an adaptive management approach which both respects and reflects new information as it comes to hand.

The review that CSIRO has conducted over the past several months makes it clear that the work of science and research is never ending. There is always more to be done. In that context the next seven years should be a fertile place for further improvement of the scientific foundation of the Basin Plan. And while there is more to be done, it's also important to acknowledge that much has been achieved already.

Basin governments and communities have put in a great deal of effort over past decades to limit water use and recover water for the environment through caps, programs and water sharing plans. Reflecting on this past effort, we are proposing that a volume of 2,750 GL/y is to be recovered to achieve balance in the system. But this must be viewed in the following context.

Already, almost half of that volume has been recovered through buyback and infrastructure, which means 1,468 GL/y remains to be recovered over the next seven years.

The Plan is a starting point to get us onto the pathway toward an adaptive management approach where we can continue to improve our knowledge and adjust the numbers accordingly over the next seven years. It is likely to change. And how this amount is secured will be critical to the socio-economic impacts of water-dependent communities.

There will be no compulsory acquisition of water.

The Australian Government has committed to bridge the gap through water-saving infrastructure and water purchases from voluntary sellers. Based on the Authority's socio-economic analyses, recovering this volume through water purchases alone could have serious detrimental effects in communities that rely heavily on irrigated agriculture. However, if governments have an investment bias toward infrastructure and environmental works and measures that can deliver efficiency savings, the social and economic impacts can be greatly improved. Further improvements would also be made through a commitment to key projects, such as Menindee Lakes, as well as a better coordinated and more efficient management regime, as proposed by the Windsor parliamentary inquiry.

It is also important that where buybacks are used as a tool for water recovery, it needs to be made very clear where and what type of entitlements (e.g. high or low security) will be purchased. The mix of entitlements will determine which agricultural industries and communities are affected.

Equally, what is done with this recovered water, how the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder behaves in a market context and how it manages its holdings, must also be carefully articulated and managed. The Commonwealth should publish its trading framework and forward business plan on a regular basis to achieve a higher degree of market certainty.

Another key component to achieving success is to actively involve local communities in the decision making and management processes associated with this Plan and the administration of water more generally by the Commonwealth and state water agencies. The Authority fundamentally believes that local communities need to be engaged in managing their part of the river system. That will require the support and funding from government. There are already many good examples of localism operating in the Basin.

Localism can mean different things to different people.

To the Authority, it means people working together in local communities with mutual respect, without labels, to solve common problems. It matters less whether localism occurs through Catchment Management Authorities, Regional Development Bodies, water working groups, natural resource management boards or the many other structures that exist. What matters more is that people and communities are given the chance to have their say.

Communities, when properly resourced, are well placed to make good decisions about river management and land care. People who work the land have a well earned reputation for being excellent stewards. They have a vested interest in maintaining a healthy balance. But, often, they need backup and support. Access to technical support and resources to improve knowledge, efficiency, productivity and resource management have been part of the agricultural policy landscape for generations. Governments have typically tried to be of assistance to those who work the land-so it should be with this Plan.

There needs to be an overt and formal commitment by the Basin governments to encourage local communities to take part in managing the Basin. Providing funds, making technical skills and support available and devolving opportunities for water management decisions should be part of this journey.

Finally, we would like to thank all of those people who have been instrumental in helping with this important work. They are, of course, too numerous to mention, but there have been literally thousands of people who have helped along the way.

In the end, this Plan must become a Plan which can be embraced and accepted by the broader community. That will take time and it will take patience. Most of all it will require people to travel the pathway looking forwards not backwards.

At this stage, the draft Basin Plan is a discussion document.

The proposals it contains are just that - proposals, and its release kicks off the start of a 20-week consultation period. Through this consultation you can help us to develop the Basin Plan, and we encourage you to contribute to the process.

Our 10 key points

1. Our vision is for a healthy working Basin

Our vision is for a healthy, working Murray-Darling Basin that supports strong and vibrant communities, resilient industries, including food and fibre production, and a healthy environment.

This is why we have developed a draft Basin Plan that takes a balanced and adaptive approach to water management and hardwires in the need to optimise social, economic and environmental outcomes. It also includes check points along the way to 2019, when the Plan will be fully implemented.

2. The Basin Plan is the next step of the journey

Communities and governments have been working towards balanced water use for decades. Since the Basin-wide cap on surface water use in 1995, significant work has been done to recover water for the environment through a range of government programs such as The Living Murray, state water sharing plans, Australian and state government water purchases and investment in water-saving infrastructure.

This draft Plan is our current thinking on the next step in the journey to recover water to achieve a healthy working Basin. We are proposing that surface water use in the Basin is limited to 10,873 gigalitres per year (GL/y) on a long-term average. This represents a reduction in water use of 2,750 GL/y (compared to 2009 baseline diversions).

There has already been progress in achieving this total reduction. Accounting for contracted water recovery to date, there is 1,468 GL/y left to be recovered for the environment across the Basin by 2019.

Including all efforts since 2004, by 2019 around 3,573 GL/y of water will have been recovered for environmental use in the Murray-Darling Basin. The Authority is also proposing a Basin-wide long-term average limit of 4,340 GL/y on groundwater use.

Communities and governments have undergone significant water reform to date. Some places have already ‘done their bit' to achieve balance within their catchment. Others still have a way to go. Overall there remains a need to continue the effort toward ‘whole-of-basin' health.

3. We have a robust starting point

We are confident that we have a robust starting point for the journey to 2019. We have used a model that looks at flows at 122 sites throughout the Basin (called a hydrological indicator site approach) to underpin our work. This is a more robust approach than the end-of-system flows method used previously. The hydrological indicator sites approach has been peer-reviewed throughout its development. The most recent review was completed by a group of leading scientists, under CSIRO's national research flagship Water for a Healthy Country.

These reviews give us the confidence that we have a "sufficient basis to begin" an adaptive management process. In the context of "learning by doing", science will play an ongoing and central role in the management of the Murray-Darling Basin. We will be setting up an advisory group under the Water Act to oversee this future work program.

4. It's more than just a volume of water

The science confirms there is no single volume of water or number that will guarantee the health of the Murray-Darling Basin. How water is used, how the rivers are run, and how the Basin's landscapes are managed all contribute to Basin health. There needs to be continued effort in natural resource management activities (such as pest and weed management and revegetating river banks and floodplains), to complement the use of environmental water.

Water use is also limited by constraints and rules. For example, in some parts of the Basin, water delivery needs to be carefully managed to avoid flooding communities. Another example is that water acquired for the environment must mimic the operational rules historically attached to the entitlement. Constraints and rules limit where and how much water can be sent through the system at any one time.

These constraints and rules can change, if governments agree and third party impacts are addressed. However, it is important to point out that under the current system, entitlement and operational constraints make it almost impossible to achieve some environmental outcomes (such as watering all of the extensive floodplain on the lower reaches of the Murray, including Hattah Lakes and the Riverland) no matter what volume of water is delivered. In that sense, what might be desirable must be tempered by reality and common sense to achieve what is possible.

River management is ongoing, and this Plan supports a forward process that is flexible and allows communities, river operators and users, and their governments to continually learn by doing. The processes of monitoring, evaluating and adjusting have been hardwired into the draft Plan.

5. We'll review progress at 2015

There will be a mid-point review at 2015, so we can monitor and evaluate and adjust where necessary on our way to 2019.

We acknowledge that the numbers could and should change, based on new knowledge, including further science and research, community impact, local involvement and the results from environmental watering programs. We will also be setting up an advisory committee to help determine any such changes. This means the numbers are a starting point in a process to monitor, review and revise over the next seven years.

6. Any savings from a ‘rules review' will see the volumes adjusted.

As part of the 2015 review, Basin ministers have agreed to look at how existing river management arrangements (rules and practices) and environmental works and measures could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of water use. Their decision to put in place a work program to undertake this ‘rules review', which was recommended by the Tony Windsor chaired parliamentary inquiry into the Basin Plan, can be regarded as a substantial step in state-based river management. Any savings made as a result of achieving these efficiencies will allow the numbers to change.

7. The northern Basin is different to the southern Basin.

We recognise that the northern Basin is different to the southern Basin.

It has more variable climate and rainfall, it is less regulated and less developed, and water is managed in a different way. This presents both opportunities and challenges. Very little water from the north can reach the mouth of the Murray in the south, unless nature intervenes and brings heavy rainfall and big floods (providing only 18% of flows to the Murray Mouth under natural conditions). Northern catchments, where they are connected, will only be required to make a downstream contribution to the water needs of the Barwon-Darling through to the Menindee Lakes.

Managing water in the northern Basin is quite different from the southern Basin. In particular, because of a different rules framework, fewer public storages (dams), and highly variable connectivity between catchments and tributaries to the Barwon-Darling, there is a need to consider alternative approaches to river management.

For this reason, in collaboration with the New South Wales and Queensland governments, we will initiate a Northern Basin Committee of community representatives to work with the Authority and support local and catchment-based groups to address these matters.

8. One size doesn't fit all.

As the north is different from the south, we also recognise that different catchments have different levels of environmental health and communities are affected differently by change. Therefore, the draft Basin Plan is not a ‘one size fits all' approach. It allows us to be flexible and adapt, and emphasizes the importance of drawing on local knowledge to better manage the different parts of the Basin.

If a catchment has already recovered its required amount of water, on-going monitoring and river management will, of course, need to continue. We see these catchments as opportunities to further develop natural resource management and ‘whole-of-catchment' management opportunities. Where more needs to be done, governments must focus their efforts on support for adjustment and inevitable change.

9. How water is recovered will affect social and economic impacts

The Water Act 2007 specifically states that the Act does not authorise compulsory acquisition of water access rights. The Australian Government has committed to ‘bridge the gap' through water-saving infrastructure and water purchases. No water holder will have their entitlements reduced or compulsorily acquired as a result of the Basin Plan. However, there is likely to be flow on impacts from water recovery in some communities, particularly those with small populations that are highly reliant on irrigation.

Where social and economic impacts are likely, appropriate responses will need to be considered. There needs to be a concentrated effort by governments to enhance the economic capacity of communities (both water and non-water related) as well as a clear demonstration of an investment bias toward water recovery that supports infrastructure, both on and off farm, as well as environmental works and measures. There is 1,468 GL/y of water left to be recovered to meet the proposed limits on surface water use. Of this volume, it is estimated that 400 GL/y could be recovered through future investments in water-saving infrastructure, including changes to the infrastructure and operation of the Menindee Lakes. This leaves a gap of about 1,000 GL/y to be recovered through other measures.

When water purchases are used as a tool for water recovery, the type of water purchased (i.e. the mix of high and low security water entitlements), how that water is used, whether it is traded on the water market and how it is managed and incorporated into the entire system must be clearly articulated by Basin governments through clear business plans and management rules. This applies particularly to water recovery activities by the Australian Government and water management by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder, other environmental water holders and the Authority.

10. Localism is critical

We fundamentally believe that local communities need to be engaged in the management of their part of the river system. That will require support from government. Localism is about using local people to find localised solutions to achieve the objectives of the Basin Plan. Opportunities for local input have been built into the Plan to ensure that communities are given the chance to have their say over the next seven years and beyond in the ongoing development and implementation, including the management of environmental water.

The next opportunity for local input is during the 20-week consultation period of the draft Basin Plan. We look forward to hearing your views.