Chapter 4
Issues relating to water for the environment
4.1
Issues relating to water for the environment include:
- the need for better knowledge of environmental needs;
- the need to use water for the environment efficiently; and
- concerns that the goals and outcomes of Commonwealth water
buybacks are unclear.
Need for better knowledge of environmental needs
4.2
Submitters and witnesses commented on the need for better scientific
knowledge of the needs of the environment and the effects of water use. This
was mostly raised in context of current Commonwealth water buybacks, though it
is also relevant to calculation of sustainable diversion limits. For example:
The Nature Conservation Council is concerned that the
ecological impact of changes following the Commonwealth Water Act and National
Water Initiative on licensing, extraction and water transfers has not been
adequately considered. NCC would like to see more research and consideration
into Biodiversity and river health outcomes when market rules and water
licensing are changed.[1]
There is a need for considerably more scientific investment
into understanding the outcomes of environmental flows and predicting scenarios
based on different management options.[2]
4.3
The Productivity Commission recently commented that 'determining
environmental allocations and water recovery targets that maximise community
benefits is hampered by incomplete information on ecological responses to
environmental watering'. [3]
4.4
An environmental watering plan will be part of the Basin Plan. This will
coordinate the management of environmental water across the Basin, and identify
key environmental features and ecosystems that must be protected. When the
proposed Basin plan is released for public comment it will include an outline of
the scientific knowledge and socioeconomic analysis on which it is based.[4]
4.5
A particular need is for better knowledge of the connection between
surface water and groundwater. The MDBA advised that it has commissioned a
range of work on this issue.[5]
The MDBA commented generally, in relation to concerns that the science is
incomplete, that the Basin Plan must be developed on the 'best available'
science, and the precautionary principle should apply:
There is a provision in the [Water] Act that requires us to
develop the Basin Plan on the best available science... There are also other
provisions in the earlier parts of the act which go to the application of the
precautionary principle, which is not to let the absence of perfect knowledge
hinder you from making decisions.[6]
4.6
There were concerns raised in evidence that water-intercepting
activities such as mining and plantation forestry need to be better accounted
for. For example the National Water Commission (NWC) submitted that:
Miners, plantation forests and a range of other large
industrial water users now need to be better integrated into the water access
entitlements framework... The Commission considers that ultimately all surface
and groundwater extractions, including for stock and domestic purposes, should
be licensed and metered or otherwise measured.[7]
4.7
The National Water Initiative requires that by 2011 states should have
taken into account significant interception activities in water systems that
are fully allocated, overallocated or approaching full allocation. The NWC
noted that only limited progress has been made by most jurisdictions in
addressing NWI water interception commitments.[8]
A June 2010 report for the NWC estimated that Australia-wide, unaccounted water
use as a result of interception activities (including floodplain harvesting,
but not including mining) is about a quarter of all entitled water on issue.[9]
4.8
The Basin Plan will not control land use, which is regulated by the
states; however it must include consideration of the risks to the availability
of water arising from interception activities:[10]
The Basin Plan cannot influence in any way land planning
decisions made by the states. For instance... The Basin Plan cannot mandate or
prevent any mining activity. It can require that for a mining activity with a
significant impact on the surface waters, for instance, there would have to be
possession of a licence, which would require them to trade to offset the impact
they are having on surface water availability—or groundwater, for that matter.[11]
4.9
DEWHA noted that a mining project could be subject to Commonwealth
control under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act
1999 if it is likely to have a significant impact on a matter of national
environmental significance.[12]
Need to use environmental water most efficiently
4.10
Environmental flows may be either 'rules-based' – that is, reserved for
the environment by the rules in a water resource plan controlling consumptive
use; or entitlements held by an environmental water holder with the same rights
as privately held entitlements; or seasonal allocations bought by an
environmental water manager on the market. Where water is recovered for the
environment through entitlements, environmental water managers must manage the
seasonal allocations that arise from the entitlements.[13]
4.11
Environmental water must be used efficiently and effectively to achieve
the best possible result for river system health. This depends on both
scientific knowledge of the environment's needs as noted above, and efficient
management of environmental water. The Productivity Commission in a March 2010
report argued that there is no 'one size fits all' choice of water products; rather,
different products (entitlements, allocations, leases on entitlements) may be
suitable in different circumstances.[14]
4.12
Professor Young suggested that environmental entitlements should be
managed by regional trusts, which would be likely to have better local
knowledge than 'a centralised Commonwealth environmental water holder sitting
in Canberra'.[15]
He argued for more sophisticated management with a focus on the environmental
outcome rather than merely delivering water:
Sometimes the smartest thing to do—for example, in a
forest—would be to pay somebody who has a grazing right for that forest not to
graze it. Therefore, you only have to put a third of the amount of water on the
forest.[16]
4.13
Several submitters noted that in times of drought rules-based water has
suffered disproportionately compared with entitlement water, because of the
states' allocation methods. Similarly, modelling by CSIRO indicates that under
current settings a reduction of run-off in the southern Murray-Darling Basin
because of the expected effects of climate change will have greater effect on
the environment's share.[17]
The National Water Commission 'is concerned about the robustness and
transparency of allocation systems during periods of critical water shortage,
which are expected to become more frequent as a result of climate change.'[18]
Professor Young suggested that it would be better to specify all environmental
water as entitlements with the same rights as other entitlements.[19]
4.14
Submitters and witnesses noted that where water rights are based on
'threshold to pump' rules relating to the river height, changes will be needed
to protect environmental flows from being extracted further downstream
('shepherding').[20]
Concerns about unclear goals of water buybacks
4.15
Some submitters were concerned that current buybacks appear to be taking
place without clear knowledge of their environmental goals. For example:
The current buyback program appears to have no overall
strategic plan, nor due consideration to the differing catchments throughout
the Basin, in terms of the environment, agriculture and communities...there
continues to be no indication from government as to the target quantity of
water which is proposed to be acquired for environmental purposes.[21]
The government must specify how water for the environment
will be utilised, how the additional flows will be accounted for, the river
health benefits that can be expected and how these benefits will be measured...[22]
Governments are charging ahead purchasing water and even
properties to take water out of production to flush down rivers to address
problems that have not been identified.[23]
4.16
The Productivity Commission in a recent report noted that buybacks are
occurring before sustainable diversion limits are set under the Basin Plan, and
before the liability for policy-induced changes to water availability has been
resolved; and 'this is creating uncertainty in the minds of irrigators and
affecting the efficiency of the buyback.'[24]
4.17
The government has previously said that, given the pressing
environmental needs in the Murray-Darling Basin, water purchases to date are
justified on a 'no regrets' basis.[25]
4.18
The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder's report for 2008–09, which
was released in March 2010, reported on environmental watering of ten sites on
the lower Murray. It found that 'although the program is at a very early stage,
monitoring programs have already detected encouraging changes such as improving
tree health, decreasing salinity and benefit to populations of rare and
endangered species'.[26]
4.19
An environmental watering plan will be part of the Basin Plan. It will
coordinate the management of environmental water across the Basin, and identify
key environmental features and ecosystems that must be protected. When the
proposed Basin Plan is released for public comment it will include an outline
of the scientific knowledge and socio-economic analysis on which it is based.[27]
Committee comment
4.20
The committee acknowledges the concerns of stakeholders who believe that
buybacks have occurred without adequate knowledge of the environmental
outcomes, or who fear that the forthcoming sustainable diversion limits may
reduce water available for irrigation without sufficient scientific basis.
4.21
However the committee agrees with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority
that the Basin Plan must be based on the best available science, and a precautionary
approach is needed. To wait for ideal scientific knowledge before setting
sustainable diversion limits would be likely to cause serious delays in
remediating the environmental problems of the basin.
4.22
The committee hopes that the proposed Environmental Watering Plan, which
will be released as part of the Basin Plan, will provide greater clarity to all
stakeholders about the MDBA's environmental objectives. The committee trusts
this plan will guide future water purchases, and urges the MDBA to heed local
knowledge and expertise in the finalisation and implementation of these plans
wherever possible.
Senator Mary Jo
Fisher
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page