The Guideto Firstdraft Murraydarlingbasinplan

3/34 LAGOON STREET PO BOX 507 GOONDIWINDI QLD 4390 PHONE 07 46713888 FAX 07 46711039 EMAIL [email protected] WEB WWW.BRFF.COM.AU

CHAIRMAN: DAVID COULTON EXECUTIVE OFFICER: TIM NAPIER

PHONE: 07 4676 2198 MOBILE: 0448 713886

SUBMISSION TO THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY ON THE GUIDE TO THE PROPOSED FIRST DRAFT OF THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN PLAN

SUBMISSION DUE BY 5PM FRIDAY DECEMBER 17TH 2010

Prepared by

TIM NAPIER

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AFFILIATES: BOOMI-GNOURA GNOURA WATER USERS ASSOCIATION; DUMARESQ VALLEY IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION; EASTERN RECHARGE GROUNDWATER USERS ASSOCIATION; LOWER WEIR RIVER WATER USERS ASSOCIATION; MACINTYRE BROOK IRRIGATORS ASSOCIATION; MACINTYRE RIVER BASIN WATER USERS ASSOCIATION; MACINTYRE VALLEY COTTON GROWERS ASSOCIATION; MOLE & SOVEREIGN WATER USERS ASSOCIATION; MUNGINDI WATER USERS & COTTON GROWERS ASSOCIATION; PINDARI WATER USERS ASSOCIATION; UPPER WEIR RIVER & TRIBUTARIES WATER USERS ASSOCIATION

INTRODUCTION

Border Rivers Food and Fibre (BRFF) represents the water users and entitlement-holders of the Border Rivers region of southern Queensland and northern New South Wales. These water-users responsibly utilise the water resources of the Macintyre Brook, the Dumaresq, Macintyre, Severn, Weir and Barwon River systems and the Eastern Recharge Zone of the Great Artesian Basin. Production from irrigated agriculture includes vegetables, herbs, stone-fruit, hay, cereals, coarse grains and cotton. Its contribution to the local economy exceeds $500 million (farm gate) in average years.

This document represents the views of the members of BRFF, though individuals are entitled to their own views relating to their own circumstances. BRFF is also a member of the NSW Irrigators Council and National Irrigators Council. Whilst generally endorsing their views, we maintain the right to hold independent positions. BRFF has consulted widely with our membership in the writing of this submission.

Page 2 of 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BRFF submits that there is no justifiable reason for any further water to be removed from productive extractive use in this valley. The claim for an additional 86 – 111GL is invalid, and the prior environmental benefits of the current State plans are not taken into account.

The Guide portrays the Plan as a ‘blunt instrument’ in that it only has a single factor that it controls that impacts on environmental condition and that is water flows. There appears to be no other measures that it can invoke to influence environmental condition. The Basin Plan must be a socially and environmentally responsible plan that directs how sustainability will be achieved. For a truly sustainable state of the Basin to be achieved, a far more comprehensive and wide-ranging environmental plan is required, and this does not appear to be the intent of the Basin Plan as it is represented in the Guide. Factors such as flow management for improved distribution of flows, works and measures, land management practices, and natural resource management projects should all form part of the Basin Plan and not just simple water volumes. All these measures are fundamental in holistically managing the environment of the Basin and can influence the health outcomes either in place of or in addition to, simple water volumes owned.

A balanced Basin Plan process has far broader requirements and more enduring impacts than a water and environment plan can effectively provide. Communities expect active management of natural resources to be employed and investments made in works to achieve the best possible outcomes for the environment, but they also expect their social and economic considerations to be taken seriously by government and effectively planned-for and resourced.

BRFF will not accept, or be a party to, a Final Basin Plan that we consider to be anything other than a balanced Plan.

This is all about confidence in the process and currently there is precious little of that.

We in the Border Rivers have a long history of prudent and conservative management of our water resources. There is no good reason why our community should be penalised for doing the right thing all the way along. We avoided the extremes of over-allocation seen elsewhere, we have adapted our production systems to suit our variable supply realities, we have been responsible stewards of our natural environmental assets, with our valley adjudged by the Sustainable Rivers Audit as the healthiest working river in the Basin despite the worst drought conditions on record, and have been constructive participants in the water reform process for more than 15 years. We have just experienced a substantial cut to our access to water through the state process and we now are faced with an additional cut despite there being no scientific justification provided for it.

There is no good reason to make cuts for our local environmental requirements as they are already sustainable. There is no reason for us to forgo further water for downstream requirements as there is already more than enough provision for that built into current state plans.

Page 3 of 19

RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION: That the name of the Basin Plan be changed to the Basin Environment Plan, or the Basin Water Redistribution Plan to more accurately reflect its focussed application. Ideally it could become the Basin Sustainability Plan, but it has a long way to go to get anywhere near that goal.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA advise the Commonwealth Water Minister that if a truly holistic Basin Plan cannot be delivered under the current Water Act, then that Act must be amended to enable the balanced results required under the NWI and by environmental, economic and social stakeholders within the basin. BRFF will not support a Basin Plan that is questionable in this regard, as it will only continue the uncertainty.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA separate the planning processes completely to have discreet plans for the southern and northern parts of the Basin. The Draft Basin Plan should contain separate Murray and Darling Plans.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA engages at the local scale to ground-truth their desk-top assessments of remnant environmental assets and harness the local practical knowledge of how best to manage the environmental water to minimise the amount of water removed from productive use and to maximise the environmental benefit that can be derived from the investment in environmental water. This engagement should also extend to including local communities in the planning process by information exchange and genuine understanding of the community’s requirements by government bodies such as MDBA.

RECOMMENDATION: The MDBA must advise the Commonwealth Minister for Water and the Environment that further time is required to complete additional work on basic scientific knowledge and management processes to complete the Basin Plan adequately. A very high standard is expected by the stakeholders whose livelihoods will be directly impacted by it and by the government who is responsible for its implementation and long-term results.

RECOMMENDATION: That a way be found to more equitably spread the burden of reform beyond those honest and productive stakeholders who hold water entitlements.

RECOMMENDATION: That urgent clarification be provided about the details of Risk Assignment provisions and assurance provided that it will not be used as a back-door means of compulsory acquisition.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA take the time required and employ the resources necessary to achieve genuinely meaningful community engagement at the local scale.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA acknowledge all known deficiencies in information, prioritise the requirements for further work and approach the Commonwealth Minister for further time and resources to do the job properly and fill the knowledge gaps. Replace ‘best available science’ with ‘world’s best science’, the Basin deserves it.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA recognises reductions already made and impacts that have already occurred on valleys that have consistently acted responsibly with regard to their water

Page 4 of 19

resource management and not take additional water away simply because they may have capacity to contribute it.

RECOMMENDATION: The MDBA should more closely examine existing state plans and monitor their long-term performance before recommending any further reductions in SDL’s.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA weigh up the potential damaging consequences of removing productive capacity from regional economies least likely to be able to survive it with the environmental benefit likely to result from the removal of that amount of water as well as the cost of buying that water from an area we consider does not need further cuts.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA install automatic gauging stations on all effluent streams and across floodplains to accurately measure ‘actual flows’ for the Border Rivers EOSF figures. The MDBA should also commission a detailed hydrological study to accurately assess Mungindi EOSF figures in historic terms once the actual numbers are determined. The MDBA should acknowledge the issue by inserting annotations in all Basin Plan documentation that the Mungindi gauge figure does not reflect ‘actual flows’ and that the 60.8% figure is not to be used as the EOSF figure for the Border Rivers.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA commission further work on groundwater hydrology to accurately assess capacities of aquifers, connectivity with surface water as well as the environmental value of groundwater, before making judgements on the sustainability or otherwise of the use of those aquifers.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA establish links with local NRM bodies as a matter of urgency and that those groups play a key role in determining environmental watering requirements in the Border Rivers.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA engage with local NRM bodies, engineering consultants and stream operators to canvas opportunities for employing works and measures to efficiently deliver environmental outcomes from CEWH owned water.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA reconsider the SDL figures proposed for the Border Rivers in light of the shortcomings of the Basin Plan process in the valley so far.

Page 5 of 19

GENERAL COMMENTS This submission is in response to the Guide to the Proposed Draft Murray Darling Basin Plan. As that document was general in nature this submission will concentrate on matters of principle and of a strategic nature, rather than attempt to deal in depth with the technical detail behind it, which is more appropriately done in person.

BALANCED OUTCOMES REQUIRED BRFF feels strongly that the intent of the Basin Plan must be to strive for long-term sustainability of not only the environment, but also, and in equal measure, the social and economic elements of the agricultural industries and the regional communities that rely upon them. We hold grave fears that if the Basin Plan is written with a dominant environmental focus, that the result must be a balance shifted to an extremity which severely limits the economic viability of many agricultural industries with potentially catastrophic outcomes for regional communities. The feedback in response to the Authority’s first round of consultation following the release of the Guide should strongly endorse that position as well.

The importance of having a healthy environment is not questioned, but we maintain that for a sustainable result to be attained ultimately, that economic and social factors must be given equal consideration in the formation of the Basin Plan. Indeed, the Objects of the Water Act (2007) described in Section 3 (c) purport to “promote the use and management of the Murray Darling Basin’s water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes.” To design a Basin Plan that is not reflective of the Objects of its parent legislation would be not only inconsistent, but would cause severe economic damage to existing industries and communities. We submit that the Basin Plan must have three equal parts: Environmental Plan, Social Plan and Economic Plan. To continue in the current vein sees the Authority devising an Environmental Plan alone, the success of which can only be measured in terms of environmental health, while regional communities risk serious decline as a result of decisions made to place primacy on the environment. Further, the National Water Initiative (NWI) requires that all three elements be considered in equal priority, without primacy being given to any one element. The Murray Darling Basin Authority is tasked with creating a Basin Plan that purports to strive for triple-bottom-line sustainability, but has only the redistribution of water as a tool to use. BRFF submits that effective planning for this objective involves far more than just the simple management of water. The reductions in productive water use will require planning for social and economic changes within both large and small communities that will need to be addressed and prepared for beforehand. There is significant potential for opportunities to be created and developed to mitigate damage caused by Basin Plan outcomes and these will need to be nurtured, supported and encouraged by governments and their authorities implementing the reforms. There are wider environmental considerations to take into account as well. Water is but one important part of a healthy environment and better planning and resourcing of land-use and natural resource management, particularly in riparian areas adjacent to rivers and streams will be a crucial part of any realistic plan. BRFF submits that the MDBA will find that greater environmental

Page 6 of 19

results will be achieved when applied management of the environment is implemented. This applied management must be planned for, perpetually resourced by government and implemented before any water reductions can be justified. In many cases, further quantities of water will not be required where intelligent management is employed first. None of this broader economic or social planning, that we feel will be required is included in the Guide to the Proposed Basin Plan. To address the whole range of significant implications that will occur as a result of the implementation of the Basin Plan broad-scale planning of regional economies, populations and communities for long-term sustainability must occur. This must go beyond simple assessments of impacts and actively plan for stabilisation and long term promotion of regional communities. None of these elements beyond environment and water management is listed in the Water Act in the Mandatory Requirements for creating the Basin Plan as an equivalent, only a subordinate consideration.

The ‘requirements of international treaties’ as a justification for designing the Basin Plan is also a fundamental problem with this flawed process. While governments commit to various agreements on the international stage for many and varied reasons, it is apparent in the case of the Ramsar Convention and Biodiversity Convention that the Basin Plan was not what was contemplated at the time of these commitments being made. Nor can these international treaties be accepted as justification for potentially impoverishing already stressed regional communities in Australia. The feared outcome is that rural and regional Australia will never have the long-promised certainty it desperately craves, as entering into future international environmental treaties could trigger further requirements to resume more water from productive use. "..the Water Act mentions the environment 266 times, sustainability 68 times, irrigated agriculture 6 times and agriculture once." Mike Taylor, Outgoing MDBA Chair.

Page 7 of 19

SEPARATE PLANS FOR MURRAY AND DARLING SYSTEMS There has long been a great concern amongst stakeholders that the issues that predominate in the southern basin are often assumed to be the case in the northern basin as well. In so many cases this has been proved to be problematic with unintended consequences on the ‘poor cousins’ of the basin when assumptions have been made that the two systems function in the same way. BRFF submits that there are sufficiently divergent natural and human circumstances between the northern (Darling) basin and the southern (Murray and connected streams) that a separate planning process and separate plan document is required in order for these differences to be equitably taken into account. The differences are many and varied:  The Darling contributes less than 15% of flow volume to the Murray system downstream from the confluence at Wentworth.  The Darling is markedly different in hydrology with most contributing streams draining areas of summer dominant rainfall and the flows being episodic and ephemeral in nature, where the southern systems are winter rainfall / snow-melt driven systems.  The northern streams are regulated to a far lesser degree than the southern systems. Northern systems have a fundamental reliance on access to unregulated flows downstream of dams as a critical component of their water access.  Water storage and delivery infrastructure is almost entirely government owned in the southern systems, where far more private ownership occurs in the northern systems.  Land-use is very different between the two. The south is dominated by permanent plantings requiring high levels of supply security where the northern systems are almost entirely annual plantings, which is required to cope with the natural variation in supply of water between seasons. In the north farmers normally only plant an area of crop that they have the water to service that year.  Seasonality of water demand is a crucial difference. The northern systems demand is during summer which mirrors the natural summer flows in these streams, where the southern systems also demand their water during summer, which is different from the natural winter/spring natural flow peaks.  The southern basin is far more closely settled with many large towns and cities, where the northern basin is sparsely populated with many small towns and a few regional centres supporting a much larger geographical area. Even small changes in economic activity can have marked effects on these communities.  The southern system has a much longer history of development, where the northern basin has only been relatively recently developed for irrigation industries. Many lessons learnt in the south have been used in the development of the north as people have moved from the south to develop the north and far more conservative approaches have been taken.

Page 8 of 19

 Generally, the environmental health of the northern systems is better than the southern basin according to the Sustainable Rivers Audit and others. This is due to less disturbance of natural flows due to conservative development and a smaller human population load.  Soils used for irrigation in the northern basin are predominantly heavy clays which are ideal for irrigation due to naturally high fertility and low levels of infiltration through soil profiles. Consequently, there is only minor salinity risks in a small number of areas and these are already being monitored and managed to reduce that risk. There is far less salt in the landscape compared to the southern basin.

LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL REHABILITATION REQUIRED The stated aim of the Basin Plan, as evidenced in the Commonwealth Water Act (2007), notwithstanding its Objects already mentioned above, is to create a set of circumstances where the environment can be made sustainable. We submit that the aims must be to recognise the modern world in which we live and that only small remnant areas of the Basin can be realistically and practically maintained as key environmental assets, not to attempt to return the environment to its pre-European settlement state. The aims of the Basin Plan should be to achieve healthy working river communities, not just a healthy environment. In addition to this, it must be recognised that to get the greatest effectiveness from the water assets owned by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) that the environment be managed not as a pristine asset across the Basin, but as a modified environment that requires active management input to achieve environmental health outcomes. There are misguided expectations in the public arena that the Basin will be conserved as a National Park-like environment, which we submit are totally unrealistic. There is undoubtedly an environmental cost to be paid for human presence in the landscape and existing landholders strive, to the extent they can financially afford, to minimise that cost. Regional communities cannot and should not be expected to be penalised for doing the job of food and fibre production that society has expected them to do.

Page 9 of 19

TIMELINE The time-frame set out for the completion of the Basin Plan (Draft early 2011, Final late 2011) is extremely tight and we submit that it is inadequate. Given the complexity of the Basin and the acknowledged areas of information deficiency which have been openly acknowledged by the MDBA so far, further time must be allowed for additional scientific investigation to be carried out if the Plan is to be scientifically robust. The common refrain from the Authority’s Technical Briefing was all about lack of or incomplete data sets, with modelling and ‘Analytical Tools’ taking the place of hard scientific evidence. Further to this, it must be incumbent on the Authority to include the outcomes of the recently announced Parliamentary and Senate Inquiries in the Draft Basin Plan, when that is produced. The Basin Plan must be produced to a very high standard to capture the confidence of the people who are subject to the results of the reform. Much of what is presented in the Guide does nothing to engender any confidence in the process whatsoever and the explanations of ‘we have no time to do further investigative work’ are unacceptable for a document of such importance, that will have such large and permanent impacts on people living in rural and regional communities.

Thankfully, there has been excellent rainfall right across the Basin in recent months, which have completely alleviated any environmental problems due to lack of flows for several years to come. Now the emergency of the immediate requirements for water has passed for the time being, the opportunity exists for a common-sense delay to the planning process. It is too important a document to be rushed to completion for no good reason other than political expediency. Far better results will be achieved by taking the time to do the extra work in a time not crowded by drought-driven crises. A poor standard Final Basin Plan will only perpetuate the uncertainty being felt and could lead to stakeholders withdrawing from the reform process altogether.

EROSION OF RELIABILITY We accept the use of SDL’s as a figure limiting the maximum amount of water that may be extracted in any year, in a similar manner to the existing CAP. What we will not accept is the erosion of reliability of individual entitlements as a result of SDL’s being modified downwards over time, either by Federal bodies or State Departments. We submit that the Commonwealth has two ‘adjustment mechanisms’ in the ‘Restoring the Balance’ buyback program and the ‘Sustainable Water Use and Infrastructure Program. Should further reduction of SDL figures be required in the future the two Commonwealth programs should be used to achieve the required reduction by improving the efficiency of remaining irrigation enterprises as the first priority and then buying

Page 10 of 19

entitlements from willing sellers secondly. No mechanism in the Basin Plan should be used as a means of reducing individual’s water entitlements involuntarily, either directly or by stealth.

It is apparent that all reductions required to meet the new SDL figures will come from productive irrigation entitlements, because they are the only part of the water use spectrum that is able to be managed and forced to comply as they are licenced. So, while reductions are required no unlicensed use of water will be impacted under this regime, which seems to be targeting those who are performing a most valuable function, producing food and fibre, and are doing it legally, which seems most unfair.

RECOMMENDATION: That a way be found to more equitably spread the burden of reform beyond those honest and productive stakeholders who hold water entitlements.

RISK ASSIGNMENT PROVISIONS UNDER NWI BRFF still considers that there is still a large element of risk to entitlement holders from the Risk Assignment provisions under the NWI. We feel that in our area where the full recovery of water under the buyback and efficiency programs is less likely, we have a high likelihood of ultimately being adjusted by the Risk Assignment provisions. There is a fine line between the compulsory acquisition as outlined and forbidden in S.255 of the Water Act, and Risk Assignment. Irrigators consider that any means used to force them to forgo access or entitlement to water must be classed as compulsory acquisition. Even if the Government follows through on its commitment to be liable for 100% of any cutbacks under Risk Assignment, it is still an involuntary surrender of water.

RECOMMENDATION: That urgent clarification be provided about the details of Risk Assignment provisions and assurance provided that it will not be used as a back-door means of compulsory acquisition.

STAKEHOLDER EXPECTATIONS Rightly or wrongly, there is an expectation from stakeholders and regional communities that the Plan will be done transparently and thoroughly, using the best information and aiming to achieve a better outcome in the long term for the environment, the economy and the community. The MDBA has a considerable way to go before they ‘capture the hearts and minds’ of the people living and working in the Basin and can deliver a Plan in which they can have confidence.

To engender some confidence in the process about environmental water planning, we request that the MDBA visit local communities and explain in detail the following:

1) All environmental assets identified in the catchment to be addressed by the Basin Plan;

2) The detailed management plan proposed for each asset; and

Page 11 of 19

3) The amount of water required to be used for each asset.

In addition, communities must be worked with closely in planning for social and economic measures required to mitigate impacts of the Basin Plan, but also to promote and stimulate future opportunities for economic development in the basin communities.

Only once the detail of the plan has been understood to this level of detail and local stakeholders have a chance to have input to the process and question the justification and proposed management of each one, will there be any progress for stakeholders to start having some confidence in the whole Basin Planning process.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA take the time required and employ the resources necessary to achieve genuinely meaningful community engagement at the local scale.

Page 12 of 19

ISSUES

INACCURACIES IN THE GUIDE There are a disturbing number of massive inaccuracies in the Guide pertaining to the Border Rivers in particular. Firstly, to state in a government authority document that “mining is an important industry in the Border Rivers” is a harbinger of a critically poor understanding of the area, a theme that, disturbingly, recurs throughout the document. Mining is a small contributor to local economies with only one, small, silver mine currently operating in a part-time way, near Texas.

Further, the Guide states, “There is considerable variation in the development of groundwater resources in the Border Rivers region, ranging from very low levels of development in the uplands, to high levels of development in the alluvium and floodplains adjacent to the main river channel. Groundwater is a particularly important resource in dry years.” There is no productive use of groundwater on the floodplain at all as the water quality is not suitable. Areas of aquifers in the Guide’s maps don’t reflect actual irrigation areas on the ground.

Again, “There are a number of factors indicating moderate ecological condition in the Border Rivers region. For example: Vegetation condition is considered poor, with moderate level of remnant cover and poor condition of riparian and aquatic vegetation.” Repeated studies have found that the Border Rivers has excellent riparian condition, resulting largely from extensive work undertaken by local landholders under the ever more poorly resourced Landcare programs. Further to this, these shortcomings will not be rectified by the simplistic ‘add more water’ methodology; far greater integrated management of the riparian landscape will be required.

The risks to already stressed regional communities are too great to allow the use of ‘best available science’ which may prove deficient in a Basin Plan context. We have already seen the results of ‘desktop’ analysis and the use of ‘best available science’ in the CSIRO Sustainable Yield Study (SYS), which has subsequently been found to be misleading and in some cases false, when ‘ground- truthed’ and its value has been greatly diminished as result of these glaring inaccuracies and unrealistic assumptions, many of which were openly acknowledged by the CSIRO after its release. Their response at the time was ‘that this is the best information we have available’, which is the same response the MDBA is now using to answer questions about ‘known unknowns’.

It would be a tragedy if the Basin Plan was to end up the same way and that the same lessons had to be learnt for a second time, given that the Plan will use the CSIRO SYS as an important plank of its scientific basis for setting the SDL’s. We submit that where it is found that information is insufficient, out of date, incomplete, not ‘fit for purpose’ or of an inadequate standard, then inclusion in the Basin Plan must not proceed until the situation has been rectified. This may lead to Water Resource Plan areas that are not included in the initial Basin Plan, but would continue with existing ‘transitional Plans’ until the required work has been done to the required standard. BRFF believes that to attempt to establish enforceable SDL figures using these wildly variable models

Page 13 of 19

must create very low levels of confidence in the numbers. It would seem more appropriate to attach similar levels of variability (+ and – 30% in the Border Rivers) to the SDL figures and the way in which they are enforced, if such information is considered to be the ‘best available science’.

INTERCEPTION FIGURES We find it difficult to accept the number of 174GL as a realistic number for the amount of diversion occurring in the Border Rivers. The Guide says that it only includes farm dams and forestry and does not include overland flow or floodplain harvesting, so it is hard to understand how such a high figure has been arrived at. Stakeholders see this as another example of ‘best-guess’ information being used for the Basin Plan, further reducing its integrity.

KEY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS 166 Key Environmental Assets identified for the Border Rivers but no justification was provided for why they may need more water than they already get. 4 Hydrological Indicator Sites have also been identified as the basis for monitoring and evaluation of the hydrological performance of the Plan, but one of the crucial gauges in the Border Rivers system does not accurately measure EOSF figures – see EOSF Figures, below.

‘HORIZONTAL SLICE’ APPORTIONING OF REDUCTIONS It appears from the Guide that the socio-economic judgement is made at the point of deciding the gross level of cutback required. While the Wentworth Group’s report into the Basin Plan was done without the constraints of Government oversight, it is difficult to understand how they arrived at such different requirements for cuts. The Wentworth Group proposed a 3.5% reduction in the Border Rivers where the MDBA proposes 14 – 18%. The methodologies are obviously different, but we obviously prefer the recognition from the Wentworth Group that we are already at the point of sustainability and not requiring any further reductions. Where the MDBA appears to have applied a ‘close to equal proportional’ level of cuts across all valleys, the Wentworth Group targeted reductions to be made where the water was least economically valuable and that were closest to the point of requirements for environmental use. We feel the Wentworth Group’s report at least recognised the already good health of the Border Rivers and the value of using the water resources of the Border Rivers close to its source and not trying to fill downstream requirements from distant catchments through extremely inefficient delivery systems.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA recognises reductions already made and impacts that have already occurred on valleys that have consistently acted responsibly with regard to their water

Page 14 of 19

resource management and not take additional water away simply because they may have capacity to contribute it.

EXISTING STATE PLANS While most areas of the Basin are covered by their individual state Water Resource Plans we submit that great care should be taken when considering the performance of these plans to date, given the protracted drought conditions that have led to minimal water availability. In the Border Rivers, for example, the water reform process has been ongoing since 1994, a period of 16 years, with a steady and unrelenting reduction of water available for production. It is very easy for the uninitiated to assume that poor environmental performance is the result of poor planning on behalf of the states, where the real culprit is the lack of water caused by drought. Many of the Plans basin-wide and certainly both plans in the Border Rivers (NSW and QLD) have only recently come into force and their entire history of operation has been in the severe drought context. In assessing the State plans, it must also be recognised that large cutbacks have already been suffered by entitlement holders in this process. Individual cases vary, depending on their place in the system, and it cannot be objectively measured because of the nature of the previous management by the States, but the common belief is that most people have lost access to between 20 – 50% of the water they used to get. It is important to note the difference between CAP’s or SDL’s and actual access. Entitlement holders have a volumetric limit on their licence but they also have access rules, particularly with regard to access to un-regulated flows. Some of the losses in the State planning were from lower limits being applied, but a greater amount was lost through the change in access rules, which were made for the benefit of the environment, both within this system and downstream. See Appendix 2: Border Rivers IGA, attached. These cutbacks have been made increasingly hard to bear by the ongoing severe drought conditions and low water availability. An additional planned permanent reduction of water would stress many businesses to the point of being unviable.

On P. 254 of the Technical Background, discussing New Knowledge, it states that, “MDBA also notes that relatively little new information on the watering requirements of aquatic ecosystems has come forward since existing State Plans were made.” We submit that if there is no new environmental science that could justify greater reductions than have already been made, so there is no defendable reason to reduce SDL’s in the Border Rivers. The State plans, even under severe drought conditions, have already increased markedly the end of system flows and guaranteed the ongoing environmental health of the Border Rivers.

RECOMMENDATION: The MDBA should more closely examine existing state plans and monitor their long-term performance before recommending any further reductions in SDL’s.

LOCAL ENVIRONMENT IS ALREADY HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE Our local environment is already healthy and we already contribute more pre-development flow down the river than any other river in the Basin. Irrigation flows in the river mimic summer dominant flows under natural conditions due to the summer-dominant rainfall, causing minimal disruption to natural processes. In reality, the fact that the river is regulated provides enormous benefits to the environment and ecosystem health by virtue of having a constant supply of water in the river especially during summer months when

Page 15 of 19

they are most valuable. This benefit comes from the water flowing, not a separate bulk quantity that needs to be excised for exclusive environmental use. Not all environmental benefit is as a result of consumption. Great benefit can be derived from the intelligent management of regulated supplies, which has occurred in the Border Rivers during the drought when regulated supplies were extremely low. In conjunction with the river operators, State Water, the small regulated quantities were combined into ‘block releases’ that lead to ‘transmission losses’ being proportionally smaller for each participant, rather than each irrigator ordering their own water independently. This provided the ‘pulse-flows’ required for ecosystem functions during summer, but also meant more efficient delivery of the scarce water resource to downstream consumptive users. The results were that irrigators got more water to use than otherwise would be the case and the river was kept in good health at a time, under natural circumstances, where it would have ceased to flow and dried up to be a series of water-holes. The regulation and management of the northern Basin streams, as well as current structures of dams and weirs, provide significant benefit to the natural environment that is not being taken into account in this process. Again, the MDBA appear to have taken the approach that it is easier to ‘just add water’ than to plan and manage a natural system. The 2008 Murray Darling Basin Commission Sustainable Rivers Audit found the Border Rivers to be the healthiest working river in the basin, despite its research period coinciding with the worst drought in living memory. This speaks volumes for the work already done and the sacrifices already made by stakeholders in the Border Rivers. Any further reductions appear nonsensical when this is taken into account.

ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE BASIN PLAN Much has already been made of the laughable claims made in the Guide about the impacts of the Basin Plan only leading to job losses of 800 across the Basin. It has been comical to observe some academics stridently defending these figures from their remote university campuses, when everybody else, the MDBA included, has been distancing themselves from those figures because of their obvious unrealistic and unrepresentative claims. In the Border Rivers we estimate the following impacts:  800 jobs lost  $130 million (farm gate) in lost productivity To reach these figures we have used figures from a Study on the value of the cotton industry alone to the Macintyre valley which was done in the mid 1990’s which put the average employment in the industry in this valley at approx. 3200 people and gross economic value (farm gate) at just over $500 million/yr. Using a simplistic but conservative assumption that the impacts are linear, given a 19 – 27% cut in water, one quarter of the gross numbers in that report are used. We have not adjusted for the relative values between 1995 dollars and 2010 dollars or the likelihood that a substantial permanent cut in economic activity will make some support businesses unviable so that they will close and not just put some staff off. We haven’t tried to take into account the broader economic value to the community of the farm gate production value, but multiplier factors (3X, 4X, 5X ?) can be added to establish those numbers.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA weigh up the potential damaging consequences of removing productive capacity from regional economies least likely to be able to survive it with the

Page 16 of 19

environmental benefit likely to result from the removal of that amount of water as well as the cost of buying that water from an area we consider does not need further cuts.

END OF STREAM FLOWS AS BASIN PLAN PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

See Appendix 1: “Issues Paper on the Mungindi End of System Flow Figure”

At 61%, the Border Rivers has the highest percentage of pre-development end of system flows of any of the developed catchments in the Basin. (Marsden Jacobs Report).

Quote from Appendix 1: “This simple example shows that the Mungindi gauge only accounted for 60.4% of the net flow measured at Mogil Mogil and that, in this series of flows, nearly 40% of the flow is not being measured at Mungindi. Obviously, further hydrological modelling needs to be undertaken on this issue before any EOSF numbers can be confidently put forward as a realistic number, as Mungindi is a Hydrological Indicator Site for the Border Rivers in the Basin Plan.”

Again, the approach taken in the Guide assumes that flow equates to river health. While it can’t be healthy without water, it does not automatically follow, especially in northern basin streams, that more water = better health. Factors equally important are timing of flows, heights attained, management of riparian zones, numbers and management of pest species such as European Carp. There is a point of diminishing return with flows which will be a judgement made by the Authority on how they derive the best outcomes from the flows available. As we have already stated, there is a lot more to this than simple flow figures and the figures the MDBA use need to be accurate in the first place.

GROUNDWATER It is evident from the SDL figures for the Border Rivers alluviums, that if current level of use is not ringing any alarm bells that a determination is made that they must be at their sustainable limit. It completely ignores the very real possibility that current extractions may indeed be below sustainable limits and that greater levels of extraction may well be perfectly acceptable in the long term. To automatically assume that no further extraction should be allowed is to make an assumption and is not defendable scientifically. Where such assumptions have been made, scientific work should be undertaken to prove that a ‘zero-growth’ scenarios are indeed

Page 17 of 19

appropriate for the large number that have been assigned a CDL=SDL label. Further, this is seen by some groundwater users as reduction by stealth due to the significant number and quantity of undeveloped and under-developed groundwater entitlements. These entitlements are still valid under State law and could potentially be developed in the future. For ‘zero-growth’ edicts to be made by the MDBA, making it almost impossible for development, the value of those entitlements is taken away by the government, with no compensation required. Some stakeholders regard this as theft of an asset. Groundwater has long been acknowledged as an area in need of far more work to understand it properly and BRFF submits that such work be made a high priority so that plans can be made with a greater degree of confidence.

LACK OF CO-ORDINATION BETWEEN CEWH AND LOCAL NRM GROUPS The co-ordination between the MDBA, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and the local natural resource management (NRM) groups (Queensland Murray Darling Committee (QLD) and Border Rivers/Gwydir Catchment Management Authority (NSW) will be a key component of a successful outcome for the Basin Plan. As already stated, management of the natural resources of the Basin, not just water flows, is a crucial contributor to overall ecosystem health and currently there appear to be no linkages between NRM bodies and the work that they can do, and the Basin Plan. BRFF submits that these linkages must be made and their expertise in local environmental management utilised before environmental water requirements can be assessed accurately. We submit that there will be environmental outcomes from this partnership that will further negate any need for further water reductions to consumptive users and that SDL’s for the Border Rivers will be set much higher than is the case in the Guide.

WORKS AND MEASURES It is incumbent on the MDBA to accurately assess the many and varied options for the use of works and measures to provide not only water for the environment, but also an integrated management plan that will augment the environmental benefit of the additional water being returned for environmental use. The simplistic paradigm that adding water alone to environmental assets will reach the desired environmental outcomes is unrealistic and misguided. More than that, it is an extremely inefficient way to reach the desired level of sustainable water use across the Basin. While extra water will have some benefits, the combination of extra water with applied local management, strategic works and measures for environmental assets on public land will create a far larger positive

Page 18 of 19

impact. For assets on private land which in the Border Rivers will be most of them, a management plan must be established for each one detailing the watering requirements, frequency of wetting and drying, environmental goals and objectives, integration into the local and regional NRM plans.

SDL FIGURES PROPOSED We question the validity of using hydrologic modelling and desktop assessment alone as the only methods employed to arrive at the SDL figures.

The already good health of the local riverine environment, already documented in the Sustainable Rivers Audit, does not appear to be considered in calculating the proposed SDL requirement. The benefits of applied natural resource management in place of ‘just add water’ principle have been ignored. The Guide mentions endangered/threatened species in the Border Rivers but doesn’t elaborate on what they are or how more water will benefit them.

The requirement for further water is not justified in any way other than citing 4 hydrological indicator sites and 166 key environmental assets in the Border Rivers.

RECOMMENDATION: That the MDBA reconsider the SDL figures proposed for the Border Rivers in light of the shortcomings of the Basin Plan process in the valley so far.

Page 19 of 19

3/34 LAGOON STREET PO BOX 507 GOONDIWINDI QLD 4390 PHONE 07 46713888 FAX 07 46711039 EMAIL [email protected] WEB WWW.BRFF.COM.AU

CHAIRMAN: DAVID COULTON EXECUTIVE OFFICER: TIM NAPIER

PHONE: 07 4676 2198 MOBILE: 0448 713886

ISSUES PAPER ON THE MUNGINDI END OF SYSTEM FLOW FIGURE

Prepared by

TIM NAPIER

EXECUTIVE OFFICER

INTRODUCTION

Background It has long been acknowledged that the MUNGINDI gauge only gave a rough indication of the true flows that flow down the Barwon River from the Macintyre and its connected streams during higher flows. The acknowledged shortcomings with the gauge figures are to do with the gauge only being capable of measuring flows within the banks of the river at the gauging point, at Mungindi Weir (Refer to Fig 1). During periods of high flows (> 4.8m @ Mungindi), significant quantities of water leave the main channel of the river upstream of Mungindi. The main ‘flood-runners’ or effluent streams are the Boomi and Little Boomi Rivers, Whalan Creek, Gravelly Creek and Little Weir River.

A couple of streams enter the main river from the Queensland side as well, namely the Weir River upstream of Mungindi and the Moonie River downstream of Mungindi, but upstream of Mogil Mogil gauge. Most of the effluent streams are on the NSW side.

At full flood levels there are also large quantities that flow over land in the general inundation of what is a very flat floodplain landscape. While all these flows are occurring, only the flows at the gauging point within the banks of the main stream are being gauged accurately. There have been undertakings made by QLD Department of Water that the hydrology figures would be updated and End of System Flow (EOSF) figures corrected for future planning purposes, but this has never been done. While some manual gauges are in place on the effluent streams, when the flows are occurring it is not possible to access those sites to read them. Common sense would suggest that automatic gauging stations be installed, but the frequency of these flood events apparently makes it unviable for that investment to be made.

The Border Rivers IQQM model, as used by both NSW and QLD departments in the course of the State planning process for the Border Rivers, acknowledged that the flow figures for the MUNGINDI gauge were not completely accurate and provided only a ‘point of initialisation’ for the Plans. The figure agreed on by both states for the End of System Flow (EOSF) figure in the IQQM was 60.8% of pre-development flows and both plans were developed using that figure as a starting point.

The point is that, while that 60.8% EOSF figure may have been appropriate as an initialisation point for state plans, it is not an accurate measurement of that figure and as such cannot be used as a legitimate performance indicator in the assessment of the performance of the Basin Plan, or anywhere else where EOSF figures are used as an important indicator of hydrological condition of a stream.

The flows that have occurred in the valley between August and December 2010 provided an excellent opportunity to get a more accurate picture of what the actual flows are in total. This series of events had large flows coming down the main river and breaking out into its effluent streams and overland flow channels, but little in the way of inflows locally, which can introduce misleading figures at the downstream gauging point of MOGIL MOGIL.

Fig. 1 Border Rivers Stream Schematic

As shown in Fig 1, the effluent streams Whalan Creek, Boomi River, Little Boomi River and Gravelly Creek all re-join the main river (Barwon River) above the Mogil Mogil gauge, as does the Gil Gil Creek. The Moonie River also joins above Mogil Mogil, but the gauge at Gundablouie can be used to subtract that figure from this example END OF STREAM FLOW CALCULATIONS Data sourced from NSW Office of Water Real-time Data website

Flow event: 1st August to 14th December 2010

Gauges ML 416002 Boggabilla Weir 1551601 416001 Mungindi Weir 767716

Gil Gil Creek flows in the Barwon just below 416052 Galloway 12048 this gauge Moonie River flows into the Barwon just 417001 Gundablouie 82171 below this gauge

422004 Mogil Mogil 1360212

Mogil Mogil less Galloway and Gundablouie 1265993

Mungindi flow as % of net Mogil Mogil flow 60.4

This simple example shows that the Mungindi gauge only accounted for 60.4% of the net flow measured at Mogil Mogil and that, in this series of flows, nearly 40% of the flow is not being measured at Mungindi. Obviously, further hydrological modelling needs to be undertaken on this issue before any EOSF numbers can be confidently put forward as a realistic number, as Mungindi is a Hydrological Indicator Site for the Border Rivers in the Basin Plan.

While this series of flows was a ‘medium sized flood’, in larger events the proportion of actual flows measured by the Mungindi gauge would obviously be far smaller given the extra amounts bypassing the Mungindi gauge via overland flow channels and general inundation.

This paper is not intended to be a detailed analysis of the Mungindi EOSF problem, but is intended to be an indicator that the accepted figure of 60.8% is not accurate for the purposes that the MDBA seems to be intending to use it, namely as an indicator of stream condition. We submit that the figure should not be used for any other purpose than that for which it was intended, as the initialisation figure for the Border Rivers State Plans. This demonstration should bring to the attention of the MDBA that the true figure for the Border Rivers End of System Flow is not known accurately, but is in fact higher than the 60.8% figure commonly used throughout the Basin Plan Guide.

Local knowledge and a common sense view suggests that it is greater than 70% of pre-development flows, making it far more sustainable than the figures used in the Guide would indicate.