 Questions answered1. Do we need a Basin Plan? Yes. The overwhelming response from Basin communities is that we need to change the way the Basin is managed – we need to manage the Basin as a whole system. Healthy rivers, lakes and aquifers underpin many of the values provided by the Basin. They support communities, agriculture and other industries. They provide clean water for drinking and agricultural use, nutrient cycling between the river and floodplain, fish stock for anglers, and an environment that supports tourism, recreation and cultural values. To achieve these multiple benefits, we need to better balance the water available to the environment and the water that is used by communities and industries. The Basin Plan will build on past water reform to achieve this balance and contribute towards the vision of a healthy working Basin. The purpose of the Basin Plan is to achieve a healthy working Basin. To do this, it includes:
3. How did you develop the draft Basin Plan? The draft Basin Plan has been developed using a range of information. The MDBA has drawn on science and data from a range of reputable national sources including CSIRO, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Bureau of Meteorology, Geosciences Australia and the Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Basin state and territory government agencies, universities, and various local groups and catchment management authorities. The underpinning data includes climate and river flow information from the past 114 years. This data has been incorporated into computer models of river flows adapted from those currently used by state governments and the MDBA to manage and plan water in the Basin. The MDBA has considered existing social and economic analyses and has also commissioned a further 20 social and economic studies. This has included work by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics and Sciences, the Centre for International Economics, University of Queensland, Monash University and many other consultants. Analysis has been undertaken at a national, regional, sectoral and local level. The Authority invited CSIRO to lead a review on how the hydrologic indicator site method has been applied to determine the sustainable level of diversion in the Basin. This review looked at the scientific information, models and modelling that the Authority has used in developing the Basin Plan. Further, KPMG EconTech reviewed the economic modelling methods. Based on these reviews, the Authority is confident there is sufficient scientific knowledge and economic and social analysis to make an informed decision, the methods used are fit for purpose and the results provide a sufficient basis for the Basin Plan, given an adaptive management process will be in place. Most importantly, the draft Basin Plan has drawn on input from:
One of the key actions towards achieving a healthy working Basin is balancing the water needs of communities, industries and the environment. The Basin Plan aims to achieve this balance through long term average sustainable diversion limits (SDLs). The SDLs are limits on the volumes of water that can be taken from the system for uses such as town water supplies, domestic, industry and agriculture uses and are set at both a catchment and a Basin-wide scale. The SDLs are not a fixed amount of water use that cannot be exceeded in a given year – instead they must be met as long-term averages. The draft Plan proposes a Basin-wide limit on surface water use of 10,873 gigalitres per year (GL/y), on a long-term average, and a Basin-wide limit on groundwater use of 4,340 GL/y, long-term average. To meet the proposed SDLs, additional water needs to be recovered for the environment from some specific catchments and from the connected systems of the southern and northern Basin. 5. How much water needs to be recovered for the environment? There has been significant effort to date to recover water for the environment. Before 2009, about 959 GL/y was recovered in the Basin through The Living Murray initiative, Water for Rivers program and state water sharing plans. Of this, 823 GL was returned to the Basin and 136 GL to the Snowy River. To meet the Basin-wide limit on surface water use, a further 2,750 GL/y of water needs to be recovered (based on the water recovery at 2009 levels). Importantly, there has already been progress in recovering this volume. As at 30 September 2011, 1,068 GL/y of water has been recovered (or is contracted to be recovered) for the environment, which is not included in the 2009 baseline. This includes water recovered through the Australian Government’s Water for the Future program, the New South Wales RiverBank program and stage one of the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project. The recently announced stage two of the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project (NVIRP 2) is estimated to see another 214 GL/y of environmental water recovered. This leaves 1,468 GL/y to be found across the Basin by 2019. Environmental water recovery at a glance
* 960 GL/y of environmental water recovered in the Basin, of which 136GL/y went to the Snowy River. 6. How did you determine the limits on water use? The limits on water use reflect a balanced judgement by the MDBA. We have taken into account current environmental and hydrological science, socio-economic knowledge and system constraints that limit the flows along river channels. For the limits on surface water use, the underpinning science involved looking at how water flows at 122 sites across the Basin. Environmental objectives were set for many of these sites, which include a variety of flows (such as low flows, in-stream pulses or ‘freshes’, bank-full and overbank flows). The MDBA then looked at both the environmental outcomes and the social and economic impacts as either more or less water was returned to the environment. In modelling these outcomes, the MDBA made sure that any water returned to the environment was used in a way that respected current river operating rules (that is, used in the same way as irrigation water). The modelling results showed: Returning a volume of around 2,400 GL/y to the environment will not achieve key environmental outcomes. This includes flows to the lower Murray (below Euston Weir), particularly in drought conditions, and salinity targets at the Coorong. Returning a volume of around 2,800 GL/y to the environment achieves most of the desirable environmental outcomes throughout the Basin. However, due to river operation rules, such as those in place to prevent flooding private properties, it is not possible to deliver large flows to the lower Murray floodplains - such as Hattah Lakes and Chowilla - below Euston Weir although these will still occur under natural events. Returning a volume of around 3,200 GL/y to the environment achieves only minor environmental improvements as compared to 2,800 GL/y, given the constraints along the river channel that limit large flows to the lower Murray floodplains. Taking into account this analysis, and further detailed modelling in the northern Basin, the MDBA selected a volume of 2,750 GL/y to be returned to the environment relative to the 2009 baseline, noting there has since been significant progress in recovering this volume. 7. What is the difference between local (in-catchment) and downstream environmental water recovery? The draft Basin Plan is designed to achieve sustainable water use in each catchment. Local environmental water needs have been specified for each catchment and are reflected in the catchment’s SDL. Some catchments require no additional environmental water to be recovered to meet local needs. However, the Murray and the Barwon–Darling both rely on inflows from upstream rivers as well as flows into the main rivers. Some of the additional flows required to meet the environmental needs in the Murray and Barwon–Darling systems will need to be sourced from upstream catchments. This is referred to as the ‘shared downstream’ water needs. The MDBA has not dictated the volume of water that upstream catchments must contribute to the Barwon–Darling and the Murray environmental water needs, other than the following exceptions:
By not specifying where environmental water is recovered to meet the shared downstream needs, the MDBA is providing greater flexibility in where environmental water can be recovered, to enable recovery where there is least economic cost, to allow market forces to operate and so that consideration can be given to environmental water needs and system constraints that may limit river flows. 8. What are you going to do with the water that is recovered? Environmental watering has been conducted successfully throughout the Basin for a number of years by state and regional organisations, including partnerships with the Commonwealth. The draft Basin Plan includes an environmental watering plan which provides arrangements to coordinate environmental water use at a whole of Basin scale, aiming to maximise the benefits/efficiency of environmental water. The environmental watering plan does not stipulate when and where specific sites will be watered. Instead, it establishes a framework for planning and coordination, including objectives, standards and priorities. It requires the states to develop environmental watering plans for individual rivers and their catchments. The states will collaborate with holders of environmental water, as well as local communities including Indigenous people, to prioritise environmental watering. The MDBA will prepare watering priorities for the Basin as a whole. The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is responsible for managing the Australian Government’s water holdings and must manage this water in line with the objectives and framework of the environmental watering plan. The environmental watering plan will coordinate water from three sources:
In practice, all three types of environmental water will be managed concurrently, together with water designated for human and agricultural use. This will ensure water is used effectively to ensure the best environmental outcomes possible. 9. What will this water achieve? Broadly, the expected environmental outcomes include:
There are also specific environmental objectives that have been set for sites and rivers throughout the Basin. 10. Why is the Authority recommending less water be returned to the environment than was recommended in the 2010 Guide to the proposed Basin Plan? The 2010 Guide to the proposed Basin Plan (the Guide) can be viewed as an issues paper. The Guide articulated the issues and thinking of the MDBA at the time and was based on a compilation of the knowledge that the MDBA had available at the time. Since then, improved data, further research and the results of intensive public, stakeholder and government consultation has refined the modelling and informed the judgements made by the MDBA in developing the draft Basin Plan. Significantly, the underpinning science methods that have informed the MDBA’s proposed limits on surface water use have changed from the analysis that supported the range of likely reductions set out in the Guide to the draft Basin Plan. The Guide suggested that, based on a 2009 baseline, between 3,000 and 4,000 GL/y of water needed to be returned to the environment. This was based on an assessment of flows at the end of each of the major rivers in the Basin. The estimates did not include specific environmental objectives for individual sites, nor did it model the environmental outcomes that could be achieved. In developing the draft Basin Plan, the Authority has used a more robust methodology to look at environmental water needs in the Basin and the volumes of additional water needed to achieve those environmental outcomes. The method called the “hydrological indicator site” method focuses on sites throughout the Basin (not just at the end of rivers) and has flow targets linked to specific environmental objectives. The method and models also reflect the fact that there are rules in place to manage the Basin’s rivers, such as those to avoid flooding private property, which can limit the use of environmental water. The scientific method used for the draft Basin Plan has been peer reviewed three times through its development, the most recent review completed in November 2011 by a scientific panel led by CSIRO. 11. What are the other main differences between the Guide and the draft Basin Plan? In the twelve months since the Guide, the Authority has taken on board significant amounts on feedback from state governments and communities and have undertaken further scientific, social and economic analysis. In addition to changes made to the surface water sustainable diversion limits (and the underpinning models and information), many other changes have been made to the draft Basin Plan from the suggested approaches presented in the Guide. These include:
12. What did you do with the feedback you got on the Guide? We received more than 3,000 individual pieces of feedback covering many issues after the 2010 release of the Guide. Feedback received to the end of February 2011 was published on the MDBA website (where permission was given) – more than 700 items of feedback were published. Overall, feedback showed overwhelming acceptance of the need for water use in the Basin to be sustainable. However, there were differences as to how to achieve this, in particular on how to balance the needs of the environment with other water uses. The feedback was considered and taken into account during the development of the 2011 draft Basin Plan, along with further scientific modelling and analysis. We also took into account the views of a wide range of stakeholders that we have engaged with since the Guide and leading up to the release of the draft plan, including individuals, local and national interest groups, peak bodies and governments at all levels. 13. How were the recommendations of the Windsor Inquiry taken into account? The parliamentary inquiry into the impacts of the Guide to the proposed Basin Plan led by Tony Windsor (the Windsor Inquiry) had 21 recommendations, which related to both the Basin Plan and broader water reform in the Basin (such as the buyback, infrastructure investment and environmental water use). There are a great many similarities about what the Inquiry concluded and what the MDBA is saying as to the way water should be managed in the Basin. In particular (at Recommendation 1) the Inquiry recommends that the Commonwealth Government commission a study to identify all regulations and agreements in place that inhibit the efficient management of water in the Murray–Darling Basin and, where appropriate, work with the States to remove these regulations. The MDBA is pursuing this recommendation – we are currently working with Basin states to identify the constraints on the efficient management of water and where possible, look at options for changing the rules, ensuring any third party impacts are addressed. The result of this ‘rules review’ will be considered in the 2015 review of sustainable diversion limits. The MDBA has also heard loud and clear the need for improved engagement. Over the past twelve months, we have been meeting and working with an enormous number of stakeholders to develop the draft Basin Plan, particularly with the state governments. The Authority has been regularly briefing and testing ideas with members of the community, including a commitment to a ‘no surprises’ approach. We will be continuing to engage with communities and governments throughout the 20 week consultation period on the draft Basin Plan. Importantly the draft Basin Plan outlines how communities can be involved in the implementation of the Plan as well. 14. How have the social and economic analysis been taken into account? The MDBA has undertaken a comprehensive analysis of the social and economic impacts of the draft Basin Plan. The analysis shows that the changes to water use proposed in the draft Basin Plan will have differing affects across the Basin and will present particular challenges for some Basin communities. The precise location and magnitude of the local effects of the Plan will be influenced by a range of factors. These include how and where water is recovered for the environment, as well as external factors such as commodity prices, exchange rates, climate and a host of other factors, including confidence effects. The results of the social and economic analysis have influenced the development of the draft Basin Plan. For example, in setting the sustainable diversion limits, the Authority has looked at a range of volumes that could be recovered for the environment. As part of this judgement, the Authority weighed up the potential social and economic impacts of different volumes and selected SDLs that are at the lower end of the acceptable range for achieving the environmental objectives of the Plan. In addition, a number of measures have been proposed to minimise social and economic impacts. These include:
15. How does the draft Basin Plan take account of climate change? The Murray–Darling Basin has a highly variable climate, with long droughts followed by widespread flooding. It is predicted that climate change will see extremes in weather becoming more common. Modelling suggests that the Basin will also become hotter and drier overall, particularly in the south. The Basin Plan will manage the consequences of climate change by:
16. What are the next steps of the process? Following the 20 week consultation process, the MDBA will consider submissions received and then prepare a document that:
The Authority then must provide each member of the Legislative and Governance Forum of the Murray–Darling Basin (previously called the MDB Ministerial Council) with a copy of the draft plan incorporating any changes it has made. Subject to the Basin Ministers’ response to the draft Basin Plan, the Authority may submit the revised plan to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities for approval. The Minister may then approve the plan or request further changes and only when satisfied will present the Plan to the Parliament. 17. How do I have my say on the draft Basin Plan? MDBA welcomes public comment about the draft Basin Plan and has established a formal process to accept public submissions during the 20 week consultation period that follows the Plan's release. To do this, visit our web site www.mdba.gov.au and select Have your say then Make a submission and follow the simple instructions. You can also fax or email your submission – more details are available at this site. Alternatively, mail your submission to:
Submissions will be received until 16 April 2012. The MDBA also has informal forums to discuss the draft Basin Plan. These can be found from links on our web site. 18. When will the Basin Plan start? We are proposing that the Basin Plan will be implemented over the seven years to 2019. Different parts of the Plan will start at different times. The environmental watering plan, the water quality and salinity management plan and the monitoring and evaluation program will start being implemented from 2012. Water trading rules will be introduced in 2013 and 2014. The sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) for surface water and groundwater will begin in 2019. It is important to note that water recovery activities to meet the SDLs will occur over the whole seven year period. State water resource plans will be progressively renewed over the seven year period to 2019. Reviews will be carried out in 2015 (of the SDLs) and by 2017 (environmental watering plan, water quality and salinity management plan). These reviews will be coordinated, and could lead to amendments to the Basin Plan by mid 2017. 19. Have you taken into account the differences in climate and hydrology between the Northern and Southern Basin? We know that very little of the rainfall in the north makes it way to the Murray Mouth, except for very large flood events. Therefore, in the northern Basin, most catchments need to focus on their own in-catchment health. Where they are connected, some catchments will also contribute towards the environmental water needs of the Barwon-Darling and through to the Menindee Lakes. The MDBA will collaborate with the New South Wales and Queensland governments to initiate a Northern Basin Advisory Committee. The committee will consist of Queensland and New South Wales community representatives who will work with and support local and catchment based groups in implementing the Basin Plan, and ensuring the unique needs of the northern Basin are addressed. This committee will provide advice to the MDBA on the 2015 SDL review that is relevant to the northern Basin. 20. Will coal seam gas be taken into account when developing the draft Basin Plan? The Basin Plan is focused on setting a sustainable level of water use – not determining how this water is used. The Authority does not have responsibility for determining what Basin water resources are used for, whether for urban, agricultural, mining or other uses. This is the responsibility of the states. In relation to mining activities, state governments are responsible for approval and regulation. Water use by mining, including coal seam gas mining, will need to be within the limits specified by the Basin Plan. This includes any leakage of groundwater resources that is caused by mining activities. To the extent that coal seam gas projects seek to dispose of groundwater in surface water systems, states will be responsible for ensuring this is done consistently with the Basin Plan, including in respect of the Water Quality and Salinity Management Plan, and ensuring flows are consistent with environmental watering plans. The Authority will be responsible for monitoring and ensuring compliance. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
Connect with MDBA |
