Environmental Flows for the River Murray Report on The

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN MINISTERIAL COUNCIL

ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS FOR THE RIVER MURRAY

… a healthy River Murray System, sustaining communities and preserving unique values

REPORT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS

Prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council from Murray-Darling Basin Commission Meeting 31 – 12 April 2002

Page 1 © Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 2002

This material is copyright. Any portion may be reproduced by any process with due acknowledgment.

Murray-Darling Basin Commission GPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601 Tel: 02 6279 0100 Fax: 02 6248 8053 E-mail: [email protected] Web Site: www.mdbc.gov.au

ISBN XXXX XXXX XX

Page 2 1. INTRODUCTION 4

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS FOR THE RIVER MURRAY SYSTEM 4 1.2 VISION AND OBJECTIVES 5 1.3 STAKEHOLDER SURVEY 6 1.4 IMPACTS OF REGULATION ON THE RIVER MURRAY SYSTEM 6 1.4 WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES 11

2. DEVELOPING FLOW SCENARIOS 12

2.1 PROCESS OF DEVELOPING FLOW SCENARIOS 12 2.2 MODELLED COMPONENTS 15 2.3 OTHER COMPONENTS 16 2.4 FURTHER PROPOSALS 17

3. FLOW SCENARIOS 19

3.1 FLOW SCENARIOS EN ROUTE TO OPTIONS 19 3.2 THE SELECTED STRUCTURAL AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES 20 3.3 ERP ASSESSMENT OF FLOW SCENARIOS 23

4. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 26

4.1 BASIN-WIDE ACCOUNTING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS 26 4.2 RECOVERY OF WATER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL FLOWS 26 4.3 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE RECOVERY OF WATER 28 4.4 COST SHARING – “WHO IS GOING TO PAY?” 29 4.5 RELATED ISSUES 29

5. THE NEXT STEPS 32

5.1 AN OVERVIEW OF THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THIS REPORT 32 5.2 THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED BY THIS REPORT 32 5.3 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY 32 5.4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 38

6. CRP ADVICE 39

6.1 CRP RECOMMENDATIONS 39 6.2 DIVERSITY OF VIEWS 42

REFERENCES: 44

APPENDIX A: WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR THE RIVER MURRAY 46 APPENDIX B: NGARRINDJERI CULTURE AND THE CLOSURE OF THE MURRAY MOUTH 56

Page 3 1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Environmental Flows for the River Murray System

This report provides the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council with a summary of the work of the Project Board on Environmental Flows and Water Quality Objectives in developing options for improving environmental flows in the River Murray System.

The Project Board, as requested by the Ministerial Council in March 2001, has developed five flow scenarios as a first step to providing fully costed options. These flow scenarios cover a range of levels of increase in environmental flows and include methods for providing the water and undertaking necessary works and a description of the relative environmental benefits. Community consultation requirements are also addressed. A Project Implementation Plan has been prepared, which outlines a proposed budget and schedule to develop the scenarios into full options.

To inform the process, the Project Board on behalf of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission established four separate reference panels: • Community Reference Panel (CRP); • Expert Reference Panel (ERP); • Jurisdictional Reference Panel (JRP); and • Socio-economic Reference Panel.

The ERP has independently prepared a report for the consideration of the Ministerial Council (Jones et al., 2002). Key conclusions of the ERP are:

• The future condition of the River Murray system is clearly dependent on our actions now and over the coming years. Ecological condition continues to degrade under the present Cap and current river operations. Returning the River Murray System to a healthy condition will require major improvements to river management – significant environmental flow allocations, improved habitat condition, improved catchment & floodplain management, and better water quality.

• It is the considered opinion of the ERP that there is a substantial risk a working river will not be in a healthy state when key system level attributes of the flow regime are reduced below two/thirds of their natural level.

It is now universally recognised that the river system has been significantly altered and that it will be impossible to return it to an entirely natural state. Therefore what is required is identification of the future state that we want the river system to be in. The flow scenarios developed by the Project Board represent a range of likelihood (from low to high) of achieving what the ERP have described as a healthy working river system.

Page 4 1.2 Vision and Objectives

The vision and objectives for River Murray environmental flows adopted by Ministerial Council in March 2001, which have guided the work of the Project Board, are as follows:

Vision: … a healthy River Murray System, sustaining communities and preserving unique values.

Objectives:

River health objectives 1. Protect and restore key habitat features in the river, riparian zone, floodplain and estuary to enhance ecological processes. 2. Protect and restore healthy riverine and estuarine environments and high value floodplain and wetlands of national and international importance. 3. Prevent the extinction of native species from the riverine system. 4. Overcome barriers to the migration of native fish species.

Environmental flow objectives 5. Reinstate ecologically significant elements of the natural flow regime. 6. Keep the Murray Mouth open to maintain navigation and fish passage and to enhance estuarine conditions in the Coorong. 7. Significantly improve connectivity between and within riverine, wetland, floodplain and estuarine environments.

Water quality objectives 8. Substantially improve water quality in the Murray system to a level that sustains ecological processes, environmental values and productive capacity. 9. Manage salinity to minimise impacts on ecological processes and productivity levels. 10. Manage nutrient levels to reduce the occurrence of blue-green algal blooms. 11. Minimise the impact of potential pollutants such as sediment and pesticides within riverine environments.

Human dimension objectives 12. Implement an adaptive approach to the management of the River Murray consistent with the Integrated Catchment Management Policy Statement, monitoring ecological outcomes and reviewing operations in the light of new information. 13. Gather, evaluate and disseminate the community's living, scientific and intuitive knowledge to optimise environmental flow strategies. 14. Ensure participation of the entire community by recognising the cultural and historical relationship to the river, its landscape and its people and acknowledging the past to effect the future.

Page 5 15. Recognise the importance of a healthy River Murray to the economic, social and cultural prosperity of communities along the length of the River.

1.3 Stakeholder Survey

The Project Board commissioned a stakeholder survey with the main aim to: ‘identify the range and geographic spread of stakeholders, their prevailing attitudes and diversity of views on matters relevant to addressing environmental health of the River Murray.’

The survey (Nancarrow and Syme, 2001) has shown a high level of support for the principle of having an environmental allocation for the River Murray, with 95% of respondents indicating that the River Murray should have water especially provided for the environment. However, this level of support dropped to less than 40% if the decision making process did not involve users and local people. There was also a high level of agreement with the need to do something now without exact knowledge, and general agreement with the need to accept decisions from a fair process.

Responses also indicated where the greatest disagreement would be likely to occur when discussing specific water allocation issues. The issues where split opinion could be identified were associated with arguments of economics, prior rights and priority preferences between environmental and human uses of water. Respondents also generally disagreed with the environmental allocations being set by experts alone, allocation decision making through dollar cost analyses, and the priority of people’s needs over those of the environment.

1.4 Impacts of Regulation on the River Murray System

A comparison of natural and regulated flow regimes enables quantification of the impact of regulation. A computer-based monthly simulation model (MSM) was used to predict both diversions and river flow.

It is useful to consider the impact of regulation on the River Murray System. The scale of our intervention in the Murray-Darling Basin which can be summarised by the following statistics: • The Murray-Darling Basin has 6% of Australia’s run-off upon which around half of Australia’s water use is based; • The average annual run-off in the Basin is around 24,000 GL/year and the average annual total diversion (“the Cap”) is around half this amount (approximately 12,000 GL/year) of which an average of around 4,100 GL/year is diverted directly from the River Murray System; • The average flow to the sea under natural conditions was around 12,900 GL/year and is now 5,200 GL/year (40% of natural) (NB. Diversions do not exactly match reduction in flow to the sea, as a component of the water that is now diverted would not have made it as far as the sea under natural conditions); and • The median annual flow to the sea from the Murray Mouth has reduced to 27% of that under natural conditions.

Page 6 Although most of the water in the River Murray comes from the upper Murray catchment area, incoming flows from the lower tributaries have a significant impact on flows in the lower part of the River. These tributaries, principally the Goulburn, Murrumbidgee and Darling Rivers, are currently under various degrees of regulation. Some of the tributaries are delivering much less water to the River Murray than if they were not regulated. Figure 1 illustrates the proportion of the natural median annual flow that reaches the end of the major rivers in the River Murray System under current conditions. Recent research has indicated that these changes to river flows, in conjunction with the effects of regulatory structures, have had a detrimental effect on native riverine plant, waterbird and fish communities.

The spatial location of irrigation districts, storages and regulatory structures has resulted in the flow regime of the River Murray System being affected differently in different parts of the System. Three important types of changes to the flow regime are:

• Unseasonal high flows in the river channel The storage of water in large dams and its subsequent release during the irrigation season has the effect of reversing the natural pattern of flows in the channel, which were usually low in summer before regulation. The impact of unseasonal flows is most severe close to the main regulating structures such as in the River Murray below Hume Dam. High summer flows also result in a more constant flow regime and the permanent inundation of sections of the floodplain. This has contributed to: - the death of River Red Gums and a change in riverine plant communities that are important habitat for native birds and fish; - an increase in river bank erosion and the formation of new river channels; - the removal of appropriate lifecycle cues for a number of species of fish, birds, plants and macroinvertebrates.

• Reduced inundation of important wetlands The River Murray System has five listed Ramsar wetland sites, and a further three have been nominated for listing in New South Wales. At these and other important wetlands along the river system, river regulation has reduced the frequency and duration of small to medium-sized spring floods that are critical to the breeding cycles of native riverine flora and fauna. For example, many species of waterbirds have their main breeding colonies within these wetlands and they require relatively long floods (3-5 months) for successful fledging of young. The five Ramsar wetlands of the River Murray System are the: - Barmah Forest (part of the larger Barmah-Millewa Forest); - Gunbower Forest (part of a Gunbower/Koondrook-Perricoota Forest); - Hattah Lakes; - South Australian Riverland (including the Chowilla Floodplain); and - Lower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth.

• Reduced flows to the Murray Mouth The Ramsar listed Lower Lakes, Coorong and Murray Mouth area now receives much less water than under natural conditions. This reduction in flow has the potential to cause the Murray Mouth to close on a more regular basis, which will have major environmental, economic and social implications (Jensen et al., 2000). Recent studies indicate that under the current management regime the estuarine

Page 7 habitats are declining in area and quality, particularly as habitat for migratory waders. To allow the estuarine habitat to deteriorate contravenes Australia’s obligations under a series of international agreements (Paton in press). As many fish species depend on movement between the ocean and the freshwater of the Lower Lakes for reproduction and recruitment, closure of the Murray Mouth will restrict the migratory requirements and could reduce fish numbers. In addition, the resultant changes in nutrient and salinity concentrations in the Lower Lakes and Coorong following the closure of the Mouth may also affect fish survival.

Other environmental problems caused by river regulation are discussed in Gippel and Blackham (2001), and include impacts on:

• Fish Recruitment In the Murray-Darling Basin, six native fish species are considered threatened or rare, with the Trout Cod considered to be critically endangered. The natural range of a number of other species is also in decline. Many of our native fish use water temperature and changes in flow rates as cues for migrations and spawning, while larval fish require appropriate temperatures and flow for growth and survival. It is likely that the recruitment of native fish has been restricted due to coldwater releases from dams, the inability to migrate due to the numerous regulatory structures and the lack of suitable food resources for larvae.

• Floodplain Salinity Prior to river regulation, the Murray River was a major outlet for the regions saline groundwater. However, using weir pools to maintain permanent unnaturally high river levels, prevents this groundwater from entering the river system. This has caused the saline groundwater to rise in many areas, which is threatening the survival of floodplain vegetation and the productivity of farming systems.

Page 8 QUEENSLAND

Brisbane

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Darling River

NEW SOUTH GL/a Flow Upper Darling WALES to SA

Sydney Murrumbidgee R. River Murray Adelaide Canberra Albury Yarrawonga Goulburn R. R. Murray Kiewa R. Outflow Ovens R. Snowy below Jindabyne

VICTORIA Snowy Outflow Melbourne

Legend Flow (GL/year) Natural Benchmark 1. The size of each pie chart provides an Median Median % Natural indication of the median annual flow at Murray @ Albury 4324 4832 112% Kiewa 566 560 99% each site under natural conditions. Ovens 1399 1395 100% 2. Green indicates the median annual flow Murray @ Yarrawonga 5590 3904 70% current at each site under the Goulburn 3208 1035 32% conditions. Broken 90 159 176% 3. Brown illustrates the loss of the Campaspe 242 77 32% natural median annual flow under Loddon 188 50 27% current conditions. Murrumbidgee 2454 764 31% 4. Yellow indicates the volume that the Upper Darling 1780 1164 65% current median annual flow is in excess Murray - Flow to SA 12385 4827 39% of the natural flow under current Murray - Outflow to the Sea 11084 2857 26% conditions. Snowy - below Jindabyne 1104 9 1% Snowy - Outflow to the Sea 1960 1160 59%

Figure 1 Comparison of end of system median annual flows relative to the River Murray System Page 10 1.4 Water Quality Objectives

The development of water quality objectives (WQOs) is a statutory duty of the Commission under the provisions of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement Clause 44 that has not yet been fulfilled. The development of clear and agreed WQOs by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission will assist in identifying broad community aspirations for water quality in relation to human use and ecological function. These will provide focus and guidance for establishing appropriate environmental flows and other actions contributing to improved river health. The Commission is committed to developing WQOs in consultation with its stakeholders, and the provisional WQOs presented in Appendix A aim to initiate discussion prior to broad community engagement. Appendix A also contains a plan to progress this work.

River flow is the single most important determinant of water quality, with key water quality parameters such as salinity, turbidity, nutrients, algal blooms and temperature being influenced by river regulation (Thoms et al., 2000). Accordingly, water quality has been one of the five system level ecological attributes used by the Expert Reference Panel to evaluate the environmental flow options presented in this report. Generally speaking, increased flows should improve water quality. However, where options call for reducing river flows (e.g. for drying wetlands), this may diminish water quality temporarily and WQOs are essential to enabling such trade-offs to be evaluated.

In the development of the flow scenarios, the Project Board considered the following water quality indicators: • salinity; • turbidity; • risk of algal blooms; and • thermal effects.

These reflect the major water quality issues for the River Murray, as identified by the River Murray Scientific Panel on Environmental Flows (Thoms et al., 2000). In regard to thermal effects, Council agreed in March 2001 to an investigation of thermal mitigation options at Hume Dam, which is now under way.

Page 11 2. DEVELOPING FLOW SCENARIOS

2.1 Process of Developing Flow Scenarios

The development of flow scenarios by the Project Board has been framed against the three environmental flow objectives for this project, adopted by the Ministerial Council in March 2001:

A structural and operational review was undertaken of river infrastructure including major dams, locks and weirs of the River Murray System (SMEC, 2002). The objectives of this investigation were to determine feasible ways for enhancing the ecology of the riverine environment through operational or structural changes to the existing infrastructure along the River Murray System. Order of cost (pre-feasibility accuracy) was determined for the refined list of structural measures.

Most of the changes considered involved some alteration to the current flow regime in the River Murray System. However structural measures that do not involve modification of the flow regime, but which achieve specific environmental outcomes, have also been considered. Examples of this approach, to which Council have already agreed, include providing for fish passage through regulating structures in the river system, and mitigating the impact of cold water releases from large dams, which interfere with the breeding patterns of native fauna.

Where possible, the proposed structural and operational measures were modelled to assess the likely costs and benefits. Further operational changes, suggested by the Project’s reference panels, were also modelled to assess likely impacts.

The most promising structural and operational measures were selected to provide a basic package of works, designed to achieve the greatest environmental outcomes from the water currently available to the environment. This package has been included in all five of the flow scenarios, in some cases with the recovery of water from existing users.

The various components of the flow scenarios are outlined in the following sections, and illustrated in Figure 2.

Page 12 Modelled Option Components: Fig 2 Environmental flow option components 1. Boosting releases from Hume Dam 2. Altered operation of the Barmah-Millewa Forest Account 3. Boosting flows in the Lower Murray 4. Raising Weir pools (Locks 4, 5, 6 & 7) 5. Provision of a minimum flow through the Barrages 3 6. Cap reductions - River Murray System only 7. Cap reductions - Basin-wide. Other Option Components: 8. Improved management of rain rejections at Yarrawonga Weir Darling 9. Seasonal lowering of all weir pools Anabranch 10. Pipelining the water supply to the Great Darling Anabranch. Lake 10 11. Provide improved connectivity of floodplain with the river

Chowilla 4 9 7 Lindsay- Werai Forest Kerang 6, 11 Hattah 8 Koondrook & Barmah-Millewa 5 Pericoota Forest

Gunbowe Lake Alexandrina 2 r Dartmourt & Lake Albert h The 1 Wetland status • Ramsar listed • Proposed Page 14 2.2 Modelled Components

A number of potential flow scenario components were modelled to assess the likely costs and benefits that can be achieved through broad scale changes to the current operation of the River Murray System. The modelled components are:

• Boosting Releases from Hume Dam The objective of this component is to enhance flooding in the River Murray, particularly in the reach from Hume Dam to the Barmah-Millewa Forest. Water is released from Hume Dam during the period July to November for environmental purposes. This is a significant departure from the current operational rules, whereby Hume Dam is specifically operated to conserve resources for irrigation and minimise downstream flooding.

• Altered Operation of the Barmah-Millewa Account The objective of altering the operation of the Barmah-Millewa allocation is to improve its effectiveness in inundating the Barmah-Millewa Forest. In March 2001, the Ministerial Council approved a series of ‘operating rules’ for a three year trial period, to improve the management of the Barmah-Millewa environmental allocation. The annual entitlement was also increased from 100 GL/year to a maximum of 150 GL/year, supplied equally by NSW and Victoria. Some changes to the agreed operating rules have been proposed, which significantly improve the frequency of medium sized, long duration floods which are essential for waterbird breeding and health of the Forest.

• Boosting Flows in the Lower River Murray The objective of this component is to enhance flooding in the River Murray below the junction with the Darling River. It utilises the lower storages of the River Murray System (ie. the Menindee Lakes and Lake Victoria) to increase the peak flow magnitude and duration of floods in the lower River Murray, and to increase the frequency of occurrence of certain flood events.

• Raising Weir Pools The objective of temporarily raising the water level in weir pools is to increase the extent of inundation of the adjacent riverine floodplain. The existing weir structures can be managed to provide an apparent flood to the floodplain of greater size than would otherwise have been provided. The temporary raising of weir pools involves some structural changes to the existing infrastructure, and a change in operating procedures. It does not impact on consumptive use although it may have an adverse impact on downstream flows due to increased flows onto the floodplain.

• Provision of a Minimum Flow through the River Murray Barrages The objective of this component is to reduce the risk of closure of the Murray Mouth. Initial modelling showed that the maintenance of a minimum flow through the Barrages at all times reduces the risk of Mouth closure. It has been suggested that the risk would be tolerable with a flow level not less than 2,000 ML/day. The water resource required to provide a minimum flow could, in

Page 15 many instances, be supplied from drawing on the storage provided by the Lower Lakes (Lakes Alexandrina and Albert). Structural works to allow more flexible operation of the Barrages would also be required. At the direction of Commission Meeting 61 – 19 October 2001, a refined methodology of predicting the risk of closure to the Murray Mouth was developed (Walker, 2002). This improved method indicates that if the current flow through the Mouth is increased by 2,000 ML/day, the risk of Mouth closure is reduced even further.

• Cap Reductions - River Murray System Only The objective of this component is to enhance flooding along the entire length of the River Murray, and to keep the Murray Mouth open. Various levels of Cap reduction on the River Murray System (only) were simulated to provide a guide to the scale of changes that can be made in this way. In comparison with other modelled scenarios, reduction of the Cap is the only scenario that provides positive ecological benefits along the full length of the River Murray System. In general, more extensive and wide reaching ecological benefits are obtained by greater reductions in the Cap.

• Cap Reductions – Basin-wide This is an extension of the above component. It has been investigated in line with the Commission decision in June 2001 that Basin-wide options should be considered for sourcing water for environmental flows in the River Murray System. A reduction in the Cap across the Basin was simulated by factoring the volume of water currently available from the key tributaries back towards the amount that was contributed to the River Murray under natural conditions. The benefits achieved are similar to those achieved by Cap reductions on the River Murray System only, although at a larger scale as a function of the volume of water recovered.

2.3 Other Components

Some of the changes that were considered have been separated from the others because they cannot, at this stage, be effectively modelled to fully assess the likely effects. Further information is required before this can be resolved. Nonetheless, these proposals are important to the project and require consideration using the current state of knowledge.

• Fish Management Council have already agreed to provide for fish passage through regulating structures from Hume Dam to the Sea. The aim of this proposal is to overcome barriers to the migration of native fish species by expanding the approved fish passage program to include structures on auxiliary river channels and Lake Victoria. A program of eradicating carp is also included.

• Improved Management of Rain Rejections at Yarrawonga Weir The aim of this proposal is to reduce the degree of unseasonal flooding of the Barmah-Millewa Forest from "rain rejection events" in the irrigation season.

Page 16 • Seasonal Lowering of Weir Pools Lowering of the pool level upstream of a weir structure, particularly over summer and autumn, would return a more natural drying cycle to the river. Lowering of the pool could be achieved through adjusting weir release rates. This operation would permit seasonal drying out of adjacent floodplain areas and river banks, to deliver ecological benefits including reducing the risk of cyanobacterial blooms.

• Pipelining the Water Supply to the Great Darling Anabranch A new pipeline/pump system would efficiently deliver stock and domestic water to properties along the Anabranch. Pipelining of Anabranch supplies provides opportunities for improved management of water resources and significant water savings, benefiting the Anabranch and downstream environments. For example, it would provide the Anabranch with a more natural flooding and drying cycle that would provide ecological benefits.

• Provide Improved Connectivity of Floodplain with the River Improvements to connectivity between the river and the floodplain increase the hydraulic and ecological interactions between these areas, facilitating the exchange of nutrients, organic material and biota. There is a requirement to construct regulators at some locations to allow management of the interactions, as well as to minimise possible adverse effects.

2.4 Further Proposals

Some of the proposals that were considered as part of this study, whilst aimed at achieving the desired environmental outcomes, were deemed to be more questionable in relation to their feasibility and practicability. Nonetheless, these proposals are regarded by some as representing realistic solutions to particular environmental problems.

• Decommissioning structures The structural and operational review has examined the opportunity for decommissioning works along the River Murray System, and found that the most likely opportunities exist at Locks 6 and 8. Lock 6 is adjacent to the Chowilla floodplain area. There are pros and cons associated with this proposal and further work is required to resolve them.

• Wellington Weir Proposal A strong perception exists that the construction of a new weir at Wellington would save very large volumes (hundreds of GL) of fresh water that would otherwise evaporate from the Lower Lakes system. There are significant costs and disbenefits but modelling to date indicates that the actual potential savings are only approximately 60 GL per annum. Further investigation of the requirements in the Lower Lakes/Coorong/Murray Mouth area is continuing within South Australia with Commission involvement.

Page 17 • Barmah-Millewa Forest Bypass Channel This channel could be used to pass high flows beyond the “choke” to assist with boosting floods in the Murray further downstream; and to assist in the reduction of unseasonal flooding of the Barmah-Millewa Forest. This type of proposal is currently not considered to be practical due to the large scale of the channel works required to pass significant flows downstream, the local environmental impacts associated with any such work and the high costs. There are likely to be cheaper alternatives available.

Page 18 3. FLOW SCENARIOS

3.1 Flow Scenarios en route to Options

Through careful consideration, the Project Board has developed five flow scenarios, as a first step to providing fully costed options. The scenarios have combined various option components and will form the basis of full options once additional data, including social and economic impacts, has been developed. They are summarised as follows:

• Flow Scenario A provides localised environmental benefits with relatively small impacts on consumptive uses, but with the potential for minor reductions in flow at the Murray Mouth; • Flow Scenario B provides the ability to offset the potential disbenefits of Scenario A and significantly increases the water available for localised environmental benefits; and • Flow Scenarios C to E represent a continuum towards meeting system-wide environmental benefits identified by the ERP which involve progressively increasing social and economic trade-offs, and can be adopted over time through an adaptive management process.

The following provides further details regarding each of the scenarios:

• Flow Scenario A – Making the Most of What We Have Structural and operational measures to improve environmental outcomes through better use of the water currently available to the environment. This results in a relatively small reduction in water available for consumptive use, and may also reduce the overall flow through the Barrages due to greater watering of the upper River floodplain areas. This scenario could be implemented over a seven year period at a total cost of $216 million.

• Flow Scenario B – 10% River Murray System Cap Reduction (343 GL recovery) Structural and operational measures ($216 million over 7 years) to improve environmental outcomes combined with an increase in water available for this purpose equivalent to a reduction in diversions in the River Murray System only of 10% from the 1993/94 Cap level. Under this scenario, water could be recovered over a ten year period.

• Flow Scenario C – 10% Basin-wide Cap Reduction (914 GL recovery) Structural and operational measures ($216 million over 7 years) to improve environmental outcomes combined with an increase in water available for this purpose equivalent to a reduction in diversions Basin-wide of 10% from the 1993/94 Cap level. Under this scenario, water could be recovered over a ten year period.

• Flow Scenario D – 20% Basin-wide Cap Reduction (1,959 GL recovery) Structural and operational measures ($216 million over 7 years) combined with an increase in water available for the environment equivalent to a reduction in

Page 19 diversions Basin-wide of 20% from the 1993/94 Cap level. Under this scenario, water could be recovered over a fifteen year period.

• Flow Scenario E – 40% Basin-wide Cap Reduction (4,013 GL recovery) Structural and operational measures ($216 million over 7 years) combined with an increase in water available for the environment equivalent to a reduction in diversions Basin-wide of 40% from the 1993/94 Cap level. Under this scenario, water could be recovered over a twenty year period.

The main characteristics of the five flow scenarios and the do nothing scenario are presented in Figure 3.

3.2 The Selected Structural and Operational Measures

All flow scenarios include the following structural and operational measures:

• Boosting releases from Hume Dam; • Improved management of rain rejections at Yarrawonga Weir; • Altered operation of the Barmah-Millewa Account; • Boosting flows in the Lower River Murray; • Raising weir pools; • Seasonal lowering of weir pools; • Pipelining the water supply to the Great Darling Anabranch; • Provision of a minimum flow through the River Murray Barrages; and • Improved connectivity of the floodplain with the River.

The estimated total cost (pre-feasibility accuracy) of the structural and operational measures is $216 million. These works have been included in a Project Implementation Plan developed for the consideration of Council Meeting 31 – 12 April 2002, on the basis that all appropriate investigations are completed and approved prior to implementation.

Page 20 DRAFT FOR MDBC MEETING 63 - 12 MARCH 2002 River Murray System Level Attributes – Likelihood of healthy condition Figure 3 - Main characteristics of the five Flow Scenarios and the "Do Nothing" scenario LOW LOW-MOD MODERATE MOD-HIGH HIGH

MURRAY MOUTH ECOLOGICAL OUTCOMES TIMEFRAME FLOW SCENARIO COSTS MEDIAN ANNUAL FLOW ERP advice (refer to Jones et al, 2001)

RECOVERY OF WATER COST OF BUYING WATER STRUCTURAL/OPERATIONAL Flow volume Flow distribution Flow variability Connectivity Water Quality Based on a value of $850/ML from Basin-wide (GL/yr) FLOW AT MURRAY LOW LOW-MOD LOW LOW-MOD LOW MOUTH UNDER REFERENCE CONDITIONS ERP advice: Low likelihood of a healthy river DO NOTHING Not yet determined Not yet determined 0 GL system REDUCTION DUE TO DIVERSION ERP predict continuing decline in ecological condition under the "do nothing" scenario

RECOVERY OF WATER COST OF BUYING WATER STRUCTURAL/OPERATIONAL Flow volume Flow distribution Flow variability Connectivity Water Quality Flow Scenario Timeframe from Basin-wide (GL/yr) Based on a value of $850/ML LOW LOW-MOD LOW MODERATE LOW Major Structural and Not applicable due to Operational changes - Not applicable due to changes ERP advice: Low likelihood of a healthy river small amount of changes since 1993/94 (see 7 years since 1993/94 (see text) A water recovery text) $ 216 m system

Refer to 7 year Project LOCATION OF ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS Barmah-Millewa Forest; Implementation Plan Gunbower and Koondrook-Perricoota Forests; Lindsay/Walpolla floodplain; Chowilla Floodplain; Lower Lakes (Lakes Alexandrina and Albert); Benefit to be determined: Great Darling Anabranch and Lower Darling Floodplain River Murray Floodplain; Potential disbenefit: River Murray estuary (Murray Mouth) and Coorong

RECOVERY OF WATER COST OF BUYING WATER STRUCTURAL/OPERATIONAL Flow volume Flow distribution Flow variability Connectivity Water Quality Flow Scenario Flow Scenario A Timeframe from River Murray System (GL/yr) Based on a value of $850/ML LOW LOW-MOD LOW-MOD MODERATE LOW + 10% Reduction in the Cap (River ERP advice: Low likelihood of a healthy river 10 years Not yet determined RECOVERY B Murray System 343 GL $ 216 m system only) 343 GL available to River Murray System LOCATION OF ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS AS FOR Flow Scenario A plus River Murray estuary (Murray Mouth) and Coorong

RECOVERY OF WATER COST OF BUYING WATER STRUCTURAL/OPERATIONAL Flow volume Flow distribution Flow variability Connectivity Water Quality Flow Scenario Timeframe from Basin-wide (GL/yr) Based on a value of $850/ML MODERATE MODERATE LOW-MOD MOD-HIGH LOW-MOD Flow Scenario A + 20% Reduction ERP advice: Moderate likelihood of a healthy in the Cap (Basin- 15 years Not yet determined D wide) 1959 GL $ 216 m river system 1628 GL available to River Murray System Plus further structural options recommended by ERP Return of key indicators to half of their natural level

RECOVERY OF WATER COST OF BUYING WATER STRUCTURAL/OPERATIONAL Flow volume Flow distribution Flow variability Connectivity Water Quality Flow Scenario Timeframe from Basin-wide (GL/yr) Based on a value of $850/ML MODERATE MOD-HIGH LOW-MOD HIGH HIGH Flow Scenario A + 40% Reduction ERP advice: High likelihood of a healthy river in the Cap (Basin- 20 years Not yet determined E wide) 4013 GL $ 216 m system 3349 GL available to River Murray System Plus further structural options recommended by ERP Return of key indicators to two-thirds of their natural level Recovery costs could be cheaper if water is Assuming further operational gains and weighting to connectivity as a high priority sourced in the best available way (focusing on the southern Basin)

Fig 3 Summary Table (Feb 2002).xls SUMMARY FIGURE MDBC63 15/07/02 13:44 Page 22 3.3 ERP Assessment of Flow Scenarios

The nature of a ‘healthy working river’ has been discussed within the Sustainable Rivers Audit, and the Snapshot Assessment of River Health (Norris et al., 2001). A definition, based on the Vision and Objectives adopted by Ministerial Council in March 2001, is also included in the ERP report (Jones et al., 2002).

The ERP assessed the probability of each of the five flow scenarios in achieving a healthy, working River Murray System. This was based on a risk-based assessment framework, which is described by the ERP below (Jones et al., 2002):

Because of the lack of precise knowledge linking river flows to ecological condition it is extremely difficult to develop quantitative performance targets for improved management of river health. But, the river health concept does lend itself to a risk-based assessment framework, and it is this approach that the ERP has adopted in setting specific targets for river management actions.

The key outcome that the ERPs risk-based assessment has considered is: “Having a healthy, working River Murray System”. In this context, the key risk assessment is centred on the question: “If we do x, what is the likelihood or probability of having a healthy working River Murray System?”.

It is the considered opinion of the ERP that there is a substantial risk a working river will not be in a healthy state when key system level attributes of the flow regime are reduced below two/thirds of their natural level.

Based on this ‘guidance value’ the ERP derived probability categories for successful environmental flows restoration. When key flow attributes are greater than two/thirds of their natural level, there is a high probability or likelihood of achieving a healthy river. When the same flow attributes are greater than half of their natural level, there is a moderate probability of achieving a healthy river. Below half natural, the probability of having a healthy river is low.

Key system level hydrological attributes Probability of having a healthy working (% of natural) river

≥ two-thirds HIGH

≥ half MODERATE

< half LOW

The ERP assessed the five flow scenarios by comparing the performance of each of the flow scenarios against the probability of having a healthy working river for five environmental attributes. This assessment of the flow scenarios is summarised in the following table (Jones et al., 2002).

Page 23 River Murray System Level Attributes – Likelihood of healthy condition Management Flow Flow Water Scenarios Flow volume Connectivity distribution variability Quality Do Nothing LOW LOW-MOD LOW LOW-MOD LOW More Scenario A LOW LOW-MOD LOW MODERATE LOW Scenario B LOW LOW-MOD LOW-MOD2 MODERATE LOW Scenario C LOW LOW-MOD LOW-MOD2 MODERATE LOW Scenario D MODERATE MODERATE LOW-MOD2 MOD-HIGH LOW-MOD Scenario E MODERATE MOD-HIGH1 MOD2 HIGH HIGH 1 Lower benefit at Barrages 2 Variability in flow (river height) is only weakly addressed by the operations modelled herein – other operational gains should be achievable by improved weir and storage operations (see Jones et al., 2002)

In their final summary assessment of flow scenarios the ERP rated the probability of success of the five flow scenarios in achieving a healthy working River Murray System (see Jones et al., 2002).

Management Scenario Probability of having a healthy working River Murray System

Do Nothing More LOW Scenario A LOW1 Scenario B LOW1 Scenario C LOW-MODERATE Scenario D MODERATE Scenario E HIGH2 1 Some localised ecological benefits are delivered by these scenarios i.e for specific wetlands, floodplain forests or river reaches, but the overall system level impact was insufficient to improve the probability category. 2 Assuming further operational gains can be made.

A picture book, which forms a companion to the ERP report, has also been prepared (Jones and Cartwright, 2002). The picture book simply demonstrates how the health of the River Murray System is likely to respond to the five flow scenarios at key sites along the river, and from a system-wide perspective.

The ERP also made recommendations of a structural and operational nature, which have been considered in the development of Option A.

Victoria have initiated a debate about the meaning of a ‘healthy working river’ as compared to a ‘healthy river’, and this includes whether the Project: • adopts the current conditions as a baseline and takes actions to progressively improve environmental outcomes; or • assesses outcomes as a divergence from natural conditions, and works back from there.

Page 24 This is a matter of approach that can be resolved by obtaining agreement through the Project’s Reference Panels. This will have implications in relation to the indicators that have been adopted by the Project.

Page 25 4. IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES

4.1 Basin-wide Accounting for Environmental Flows

The Commission has been developing a policy for Basin-wide accounting for environmental water, as directed by Ministerial Council in March 2001. Some broad principles have been developed. These broad principles state that environmental watering should be addressed in the context of: • the need to make the best possible use of all water available for environmental purposes across the Basin; and • the need to share water between local environmental consumptive needs and the downstream flow needs of the river including the Murray Mouth.

Given the focus on restoring the natural links between the River Murray and its wetlands and floodplain, it is essential that there is a common understanding about how the extra water that is used in wetland watering and any water savings will be treated in relation to the Cap on diversions.

This issue is being progressed through the Jurisdictional Reference Panel and the Water Policy Committee.

4.2 Recovery of Water for Environmental Flows

The recovery of water from consumptive use for environmental flows has been a central feature of the flow scenarios presented to Council in this Report.

The Project Board has recognised, building upon advice from the CRP, the need to address a number of issues prior to embarking upon the recovery of water. These include: • completion of the implementation of the Cap, notably Queensland and the ACT; • resolution of water property rights; and • development of robust water trading arrangements that can accommodate water recovery without undue market distortion and arbitrage.

The Commission has considered the issue of the spatial extent to which the responsibility is shared for addressing the issue of environmental flows in the River Murray System. Whilst a basis or method for sharing the burden for the recovery of water is a decision for the Ministerial Council, the Commission agreed in June 2001 that the information in this Report would be based upon Basin-wide options for sourcing water for environmental flows. This decision of the Commission is reflected in the flow scenarios developed by the Project Board.

The Project Board has acknowledged a number of methods by which water could be recovered and their social and economic implications. If water does need to be retrieved from consumptive use to establish environmental flows, several possible mechanisms will be available to Council: • reduction of entitlements over a specified period (eg. a ‘sinking cap’) without compensation;

Page 26 • reduction of entitlements over a specified period (eg. a ‘sinking cap’) with compensation (compulsory acquisition of property rights); • targeted structural adjustment (closure of uneconomic irrigation areas); • water efficiency savings; and • entering the water market.

The establishment of environmental flows in the Snowy River has set a precedent whereby acquiring water without compensation will now be more difficult.

For each of the methods of recovery of water, Ministerial Council will have a choice between obtaining water from: • the River Murray System Only; • the southern part of the Basin only (the River Murray and significant tributaries flowing directly into the Murray particularly the Goulburn and Murrumbidgee Rivers); and • across the Basin as a whole.

In considering where to source recovery of water for environmental flows in the River Murray System, it is relevant to take into account the distribution of diversions throughout the Murray-Darling Basin under the Cap, illustrated in Figure 1.

Of the water diverted from the river system of the Murray-Darling Basin, 39% is diverted directly from the River Murray System.

The southern part of the Basin is much wetter than the north, and this is reflected in the level of diversions. Diversions in the Murrumbidgee and the Goulburn Rivers account for around 20% and 18% respectively of total Basin diversions (NB. only 1% of Murrumbidgee diversions are attributable to the ACT). Combined with diversions directly from the River Murray System, these three river systems in the southern part of the Basin accounts for some 77% of the water diverted Basin-wide (excluding the Lachlan and Wimmera-Mallee systems), around half of which is from the River Murray System itself.

In the north of the Basin, diversions above the Menindee Lakes account for 23% of total Basin diversions.

It is clear from this information that the current flow regime in the River Murray System is, in significant part, a result of the level of diversions in tributary systems. Accordingly, restoring the health of the River Murray through the recovery of water from River Murray consumptive use alone may be considered both inequitable and impracticable.

The physical constraints of river system also have important implications in considering where to recover water for environmental flows. The ‘Choke’, near Barmah, restricts the capacity of the River Murray to approximately 10,000 ML/d, and therefore limits the degree of flooding that can be created in the Lower Murray alone, by releasing water from the Upper Murray. The ‘Choke’ effectively divides the System into “two rivers”. The Murrumbidgee and Goulburn Rivers both join the Murray downstream of the ‘Choke’, and therefore provide additional opportunities for

Page 27 boosting flows in the Lower Murray. Accessing water for environmental flows from the tributaries also potentially provides additional locations to store this water prior to its release for environmental flow purposes downstream.

Effective integration of State-based hydrologic models with that of the River Murray System will be required in order to trial and optimise such opportunities. The Commission noted this in October 2001, when it acknowledged the requirement for ‘smarter’ modelling of the sources of water, including modelling of the Goulburn and Murrumbidgee Rivers, together with the Murray.

In terms of developing integrated model runs, NSW and Victoria have voiced their concerns about conducting further modelling until environmental flows on the tributaries are addressed in their own right.

Depending on the decision taken by Council, resolution of how Governments propose to obtain water will be critical to community acceptance of packages.

4.3 Legal Implications of the Recovery of Water

The legal implications of retrieving and managing water for meeting environmental flow and water quality objectives is a critical issue. These matters must be addressed for the effective implementation of the proposed changes involving significant retrieval of water from existing users in the Basin.

Legal advice has therefore been sought. Advice on existing legislation has been provided by a team comprising Megan Dyson, John Scanlon and Katherine Wells, while ongoing work on legislative options for the future is being undertaken by Megan Dyson with assistance from Professor Sandford Clark. The advice includes a detailed analysis of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreements and Acts, Commonwealth legislation and constitutional power generally, and relevant legislation of each State and the ACT.

The key findings to date are that: • jurisdictions' legislative provisions are so disparate as to prevent the effective implementation of a single, Basin-wide scheme or package for protecting environmental flows, including retrieving environmental flows by reducing consumptive use; and • new legislation specific to the task therefore needs to be considered if the program is to be advanced as a consistent package across the Basin.

Further work is currently being undertaken in relation to specific advice on possible legislative models to provide for acquisition and management of flows. This work has been split into two parts: • the first part is in relation to possible legislative models. The focus will be on establishing the single most realistic option, whilst drawing out the issues that would need to be resolved in developing the model. The work will recommend that if the proposal were to be taken further, more detailed work would need to be carried out on these aspects. The main models described are State-based,

Page 28 Commonwealth-based, and complementary or parallel Commonwealth/State models; and • the second part is a research report analysing the particularities of each jurisdiction's existing legislative arrangements. The research report would effectively be a 'due diligence' report detailing why satisfactory recovery and management of environmental flows under existing legislation is not feasible. The first part includes establishing the advantages and disadvantages (both legal and practical) inherent in each of the main legislative models. Preliminary findings seem to distil the choices to one main option - the use of complementary State and Commonwealth legislation to implement the preferred scheme by arranging for the retirement of existing entitlements for consumptive use and empowering a third party to manage the resulting flows for environmental purposes. Included in this group of models is the option of amending the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement and Acts to empower the Commission to manage the resulting flows.

The final reports will be prepared for the Board's consideration with a view to having them completed for including in Commission and Council papers as part of the 'fully costed' options for environmental flows in September 2002.

4.4 Cost Sharing – “Who is Going to Pay?”

The question of “who is going to pay?” requires the specific attention of the Ministerial Council.

The Ministerial Council has several choices in regard to funding the implementation of environmental flows in the River Murray System. Cost sharing within and between partner Governments to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, and the extent to which the cost of implementation is covered by Government funds, is of central importance to the implementation of environmental flows.

Decisions on the location of this recovery (between States and between the River Murray System and Basin-wide) will also be relevant to, cost sharing considerations. Legal issues will also be relevant.

Further work is required to engage the States to determine satisfactory cost-sharing arrangements. This will help guide the Council in the choices to be made and any policies that may need to be established.

4.5 Related Issues

Options available for the improved operation of the River Murray System for environmental purposes that do not involve the recovery of any water, any trade-off between locations, or changes to structures on the system, are limited. Improved management will result from creation of the position of River Murray Environmental Manager, a position that has been created in the Office of the Commission.

Page 29 The Ministerial Council has also approved a $10 million five-year program to provide passage from the sea to Lake Hume. A Basin-wide program for fish passage is being progressed by the Commission.

Cold water released to the river from low levels in large impoundments like Hume Reservoir is sometimes significantly colder than the natural river temperature. The impacted area of river downstream of the impoundment suffers reduced breeding success for those native fish populations that require threshold temperatures to be reached before they will spawn. In March 2001, Council agreed to an investigation of thermal mitigation options at Hume Dam. This is now underway.

River Murray Water has undertaken opportunistically a series of environmental flow initiatives in the 2000/01 and 2001/02 seasons. The initiatives were determined in collaboration with the Environment Flows and Water Quality Objectives Project Team and the partner governments, and have generally been welcomed, and recognised as providing identifiable environmental benefits.

Lake Victoria is a key operating storage of the River Murray System. It is used to re- regulate surplus flow in the River Murray, and ensure that South Australia is supplied with its entitlement flow. A Plan of Management is under development so that the conditions of the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 Section 90 Consent can continue to be met. The project is being managed by the Commission through a Project Board with comprehensive inter-agency arrangements and strong community engagement being a feature of the process.

Climate change is expected to result in decreased rainfall and increased potential evaporation, leading to decreased surface water resources being available for consumptive use and/or the riverine environment. This situation could be exacerbated by natural climate variability and by revegetation of catchments (Jones R. et al., 2001).

The scenario of a low change in relative streamflow (which will have an impact on resources comparable to a 10% reduction in the Cap across the Basin) has a mid-case likelihood of occurring by the year 2030. If this change occurred at the same time as implementation of a 10% reduction in Cap across the Basin, there would be an overall impact on consumers approximately equivalent to a 20% reduction in Cap with no net change to the environment from the Benchmark (current) conditions. While the moderate and large streamflow change scenarios are less likely to occur (they are considered at least “possible” over a longer time-scale), their consequences are greater. All of the artificial climate change scenarios simulated showed a significant increase in the longest period between floods (i.e. the length of droughts).

Ecological and flow thresholds have been identified that, if not met, will likely result in serious environmental degradation. There is a need then to protect the outcomes gained from investing in environmental flows and water use schemes from the effects of possible future reductions in run-off.

Jones R. et al. (2001) includes a draft program of further research to produce options for the sustainable (long-term) management of environmental flows in a climate of uncertainty. It includes investigation of a broad range of uncertainties for key

Page 30 catchments contributing to environmental flows in the Murray-Darling Basin and conducting a risk assessment of environmental flow futures.

Page 31 5. THE NEXT STEPS

5.1 An Overview of the Information Presented in this Report

For the first time, this Report presents a clear picture of what can be done to improve the environmental values of the River Murray System and what the associated costs are likely to be. It recognises past achievements and current measures such as the Cap on diversions and the Sustainable Rivers Audit. The Report identifies various flow scenarios for improving environmental outcomes for the Murray to particular levels.

In this phase of the project, flow scenarios have been developed primarily for scoping purposes. More detailed consideration is required in the next phase to optimise outcomes, especially smarter modelling of the tributaries with the River Murray, and to identify the likely implications to each jurisdiction and region. Past experience has shown (eg. development of the Barmah-Millewa Forest watering rules) that this takes time and considerable effort before agreement can be reached.

Legal advice highlights the disparities that currently exist in the legislation regarding the retrieval of water from consumptive users, as well as the importance of a staged approach to implementation.

An adaptive management framework is essential to the effective implementation of decisions. This approach recognises that environmental systems are dynamic, and are therefore challenging to manage in terms of realising the desired environmental outcomes.

Finally, it will be important to consider the future work of this project within the context of the Commission’s Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) strategy for the Basin. This acknowledges that only a certain range of improvements to the environmental values of the River Murray System can be achieved through the management of flow in the Murray and key tributaries, as some aspects are more reliant on catchment processes.

5.2 The Opportunity provided by this Report

Never before has there been such consensus of view between the scientific community and the wider community on the need to make changes to improve the environmental health of the River Murray System. Overall community opinion is currently strongly in favour of change and members are poised ready to accept and implement change. The community is looking towards the decision-makers to demonstrate leadership in addressing difficult issues relating to environmental flows. The significant body of work that has been compiled in this phase of the project provides a sufficient base for proceeding, with overall support from the community.

5.3 Community Engagement Strategy

This project has the potential to significantly affect a wide range of stakeholders, therefore the effectiveness of a communication and community engagement strategy can influence the overall success or otherwise of the project (refer Section 1.3). A

Page 32 well-designed program can provide outcomes that will offer confidence to decision- makers in their chosen options, as well as assurance to the community that their views and needs have been taken into account and can potentially have significant influence on the successful adoption and implementation of decisions. It also provides the opportunity to incorporate local community knowledge with the extensive scientific and strategic knowledge that has informed the environmental flows project to date.

Developing meaningful dialogue with communities requires sufficient time to build constructive relationships, appropriate resources and expertise to design and implement processes and adequate funding to see the program through to a logical conclusion.

It is proposed that the Commission develop and implement, as soon as possible after Ministerial Council Meeting 31 — 12 April 2002, a Staged Community Engagement Strategy. A workshop was held on 7-8 April 2002 to build on the existing work and further develop the Strategy. The Strategy will comprise the following three stages, all three of which will include an Indigenous component:

1. “Expose” - April 2002 to approximately Jan 2003

This phase will involve the dissemination of the existing information to the public together with providing opportunity for communities to debate some of the principles involved in the recovery of water and provide feedback to the project.. Where possible, this stage would utilise existing community structures in regional areas, such as catchment management organisations, water authorities, industry groups and other NGO’s.

The information will be made available via the following mechanisms: • a communique after the Council meeting on 12 April; and • a document prepared by the Commission on the basis of the five flow scenarios presented in an adaptive management framework, with a view to having it available for public release on 1 July 2002; • Commission responses to questions and information requests raised by the community, following the release of the July document; • a package of communications products; • incorporation of the advice of the CRP in the ongoing option development.

Further work on refining the flow scenarios will occur in parallel with this stage.

2. “Propose” – approximately January 2003 to October 2003

Engage the community in the development of the fully costed options, as requested by Council in March 2001. As well as engaging River Murray communities this stage may include a deliberative poll to gain an understanding of the attitudes of a representative sample of Australians to changes in water flows in the River Murray. Where possible, this stage would utilise existing community structures in regional areas, such as catchment management organisations, water authorities, industry groups and other NGO’s.

Page 33 3. “Negotiate” - After the Ministerial Council makes a final decision on the recovery of water for the first stage of the environmental flows Project in October 2003 Negotiations with the community on the implementation aspects of the Project. This may take three years.

The entire Community Engagement Strategy would be conducted along the lines of the Community Engagement and Negotiation Process outlined below. Further details are also provided in relation to the Indigenous Engagement and Negotiation Process, the Deliberative Poll and the package of communication products.

All components of the Community Engagement Strategy will be carefully integrated with each other, with the consultation on Water Quality Objectives and with the role of the Community Reference Panel. They will be timed to provide support to the next phase of work of the project, and to give direction and guidance to decision-makers on ways to progress the project. A Project Implementation Plan has been prepared for the consideration of Council Meeting 31 – 12 April 2002. This plan contains a budget for implementation of the Staged Community Engagement Strategy over the next five years.

Community Engagement and Negotiation Process

A plan for a full Community Engagement and Negotiation Process has been designed as the major activity for engaging 'affected' communities in the next phase of the project. It is described in detail in Syme and Nancarrow (2002).

The process will build on the knowledge obtained through the Stakeholder Profiling Study, and insights gained from water-related social investigations. It will also be cognisant of other related engagement activities, in particular those of the Commission.

It is proposed that the community engagement component of the Project be closely integrated with the wider planning activities of the entire Environmental Flows Project, according to the framework shown at Figure 4.

The first step of the process is to “document the biophysical, social and economic conditions of the catchment …”. The biophysical condition of the catchment has been addressed through the ERP report (Jones et al., 2002) and the Pictorial Companion to the ERP Report (Jones and Cartwright, 2002). However, further work is required to address the social and economic state of the catchment. Ideally this work will describe historical changes, as well as details of projected developments given a no change scenario, on a reach by reach basis. Some of this information will be readily available from, for example, catchment management plans.

The process proposes that four phases of public involvement are included in its eleven steps (see Syme and Nancarrow, 2002). However this may need modification as a result of community scoping and feedback. This public involvement will be carefully planned with the other components such as the Deliberative Poll and the Indigenous Engagement and Negotiation Process.

Page 34 Syme and Nancarrow (2002) have identified several properties that will be essential to an adequate process: • commitment to the Community Engagement Strategy from the Ministerial Council; • the plan needs to be agreed with the participating community(s); • the plan should be inclusive of all relevant communities; and • there should be ongoing evaluation of the engagement and negotiation process.

Page 35 gyp

1. Understand the Catchment: Document 2. Confirm the planning role of the biophysical, social & economic SIA process in the overall conditions of the catchment & identify environmental flows project communities’ issues as they relate to with the Project Board, the CRP and the allocation of water. other key decision makers.

3. Establish the community involvement plan and its associated process including feedback opportunities for the CRP, stakeholders, local community and general public.

4. Generate environmental flow options based on an understanding of the goals, issues and the catchment.

5. Identify positive and negative effects of environmental flow options on the local community and general public.

6. Evaluate the flow options by assessing social and economic effects of the changes in water regimes on the community. Directly examine fairness solutions.

7. Determine the preferred options based on an understanding of goals and the relative benefits of each option and their distribution through the community.

8. Develop impact management strategies which enhance positive impacts and minimise negative impacts.

9. Report and make recommendations to both the community and government.

10. Monitor the socio-economic effects of the implementation of the management strategies.

11. Evaluate the process and whether the agreed objectives have been met, and adjust the management strategies as required.

Figure 4. Framework for Managing the Project (Figure 1 of Syme and Nancarrow, 2002) Note: Although illustrated in a sequential manner, it is expected that this process will inevitably iterate through a number of the steps shown.

Indigenous Engagement and Negotiation Process

The Projects’ Reference Panels have recognised that Indigenous communities have unique requirements and that strategies for engaging and negotiating with Indigenous communities need to be designed using appropriate skills, respectful of the cultural

Page 36 differences. Legal obligations for consultation and negotiation may also be issues in some areas.

The Indigenous engagement and negotiation process should:

• recognise traditional ownership; • fit within existing frameworks, eg. the Memorandum of Understanding recently signed between NSW and the Murray Lower Darling Indigenous Nations (MLDIN) and currently the subject of consideration by Victoria, SA and the Commission, and the Ngarrindjeri involvement in the development of the Coorong, Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert Ramsar Management Plan (Ngarrindjeri/Ramsar Working Group, 1999); • recognise Indigenous protocols regarding representation - for Nations, families and groups of Nations – and provide capacity to respond at and across these levels. This capacity will relate to time, finances and access to technical resources; • be based firmly within the context of engagement and negotiation; • include a commitment to accord value and respect to Indigenous knowledge; and • acknowledge the range of values and interests that Indigenous people have in the river and its surrounds, including cultural, economic, social and environmental.

The Community Engagement Strategy includes a dedicated Indigenous Liaison Officer to assist in the development of the Indigenous engagement and negotiation process. It will also be necessary to more fully incorporate Indigenous nations in the decision-making processes of the Project.

Appendix B contains a report prepared by the Ngarrindjeri Nation on issues associated with Ngarrindjeri Culture and the Closure of the Murray Mouth. This provides an example of the range of issues that impact on Indigenous people and their connection with the River.

Deliberative Polling

Citizens are often not well informed about key public issues, such as how management of flow in the River Murray impacts them, the wider community and the nation as a whole. Deliberative Polling is an attempt to facilitate informed public opinion. A randomly selected representative sample is polled for their views. Members of the sample are then invited to gather at a central place and discuss the issues, with the television and print media involved in broadcasting this balanced debate to the wider public. The participants are then polled again, with the original questions. This process provides the general public and policy makers with information about public opinion, when people are given the opportunity to become more informed and more engaged.

It is proposed to hold six Regional Polls across the Basin, including specific Polls for Indigenous nations, and a nationwide deliberative poll that will incorporate representation of the broader Australian community. The National Deliberative Poll will be held at Old Parliament House. The Deliberative Poll will create an army of educated ambassadors, who return to the community to disseminate information, as well as receiving national coverage on television and in the major newspapers.

Page 37 The Polls will be designed to address a specific set of questions focused on the adequacy of water currently available to the environment and possible options for change. These questions will need to be carefully framed. The CRP has suggested possible questions in their advice to the Project Board (refer Section 6.1).

The timing of the Deliberative Polls will be designed to fit within the framework of the broader Community and Indigenous engagement and negotiation processes.

The Deliberative Polling approach has been used nineteen times internationally, which includes two cases in Australia, one on Reconciliation and one on the Republic issue. Each time there were dramatic and statistically significant changes in views. The result is a poll with a human face.

Package of Communication Products

A package of communication products has been drafted to communicate key project outcomes and processes to the community. These would be designed to suit the identified needs of various target audiences. It will include the following:

• a media plan and prepared releases/communiques/backgrounders; • website information; • interview opportunities; • 1800 telephone number; • visual displays; and • fact sheets.

5.4 Project Implementation Plan

Due to the limited time available for this phase of the project, the body of work contained in this Report is of a preliminary nature in many areas. It was aimed at obtaining for the first time an overall sense, in terms of scale, of what can be achieved at what cost. Consequently, further analysis is required for the development of fully costed options.

The Project Board has developed a Project Implementation Plan for the consideration of Council Meeting 31 – 12 April 2002. This Plan specifically addresses the following items:

• Project Work, including the Community Engagement Strategy, Socio-Economic Investigations, Water Quality Objectives, and Legal and Technical Issues; • Structural and Operational Measures for improved environmental outcomes; and • the financial implications associated with the recovery of water for environmental flows.

The Plan contains a budget for implementation of project work over the next five years, structural and operational measures over the next seven years, and the recovery of water over the next ten years. It also contains a schedule for implementation over the next three years.

Page 38 6. CRP ADVICE

6.1 CRP Recommendations

The CRP agreed to make the following recommendations to the Project Board:

With Regard to the Community Engagement and Negotiation Process

• That a set of overarching principles be adopted to guide the development of a process to involve community stakeholders in the Project (see Figure 5).

• That the process of community engagement and negotiation will be critical to the success of this project and to ensuring a healthy Murray System. The attitudinal survey conducted by Dr Geoff Syme clearly showed that the ‘Do Nothing’ option is unacceptable but doing anything without ‘fair’ process is equally unacceptable. It will be difficult to design this process but serious effort must go into its planning rather than considering it as an optional extra.

• That the framework proposed by Dr Geoff Syme should be adopted to drive the project forward as it offers a unique opportunity to allow social process to integrate the biophysical, social, cultural and economic issues. The CRP believes that this framework should be called The Community Engagement and Negotiation Framework and that the negotiable and non-negotiable issues must be clearly articulated by the Ministerial Council.

• That a separate Indigenous Engagement and Negotiation process be developed. The Panel noted that this process needs to understand the true nature of Indigenous communities and that its needs must be fully understood and reflected in the plans. The involvement must be over a long period of time taking into account local, regional and national perspectives and should be through an appropriate framework such as the Memorandum of Understanding between Murray Lower Darling Indigenous Nations and New South Wales. The Panel noted the need to assist in the resourcing and supply of technical assistance to facilitate Indigenous community’s involvement in the Project. Any process that is developed needs to be built around the requirement of each Indigenous nation as well as the Murray Lower Darling Indigenous Nations Group.

• That the proposed Community Engagement and Negotiation Process must be carried out properly. The commitment of the appropriate levels of resourcing and sufficient time to the complete process is critical to its success. The Panel noted that the proposed cost of activities within the process is a small investment in comparison to that made in agriculture and the value of environmental benefits. The Panel noted that irrespective of the form of the Ministerial Council decision in April it is likely to take some three years to resolve outstanding issues such as Cap management, property rights, water markets and trade rules, smart modelling, and compensation. These issues must be resolved for community to have confidence that ‘fairness’ and due process are being applied at the reach level.

Page 39 Transparent The process should be clearly understood by all participants This principle recognises that it is important to clarify and make explicit all objectives and expectations or limitations of a process.

Inclusive All community stakeholders with an interest in the issues should have the opportunity to be involved. The principle recognises that effort should be made to identify all community stakeholders with an interest in the outcome. The value of any outcome may be compromised if all community stakeholders are not given appropriate opportunity to be involved in the process. Similarly, the methods used to involve community stakeholders need to be appropriate.

Commitment Community stakeholders must be satisfied that there is commitment to acknowledge and reflect their input in any decision. This principle recognises that acknowledging and addressing community stakeholder’s values and interests provides the basis for accepted and enduring outcomes.

Purposeful All parties should understand why they are being invited to contribute to the program and understand how their input will effect the outcome. This principle recognises that people need a reason to become involved in a process. If community stakeholders understand the limitations and opportunities of their involvement there is likely to be greater commitment to the process and the outcomes it generates.

Accountable Participants and decision-makers are accountable to the process that they have adopted. This principle recognises that mechanisms and resources for keeping the community informed in a timely way are crucial and need to be established. Similarly, that the decision-makers can identify the range of views and interests that have been accounted for in any outcome.

Responsive Community Stakeholders need to know that their efforts will generate a response This principle recognises that meaningful community involvement should inform and be able to influence an outcome.

Equal Opportunity All parties should have equal access to relevant information and the opportunity to participate effectively throughout the process This principle recognises that not everyone starts from the same point – particularly in terms of experience, knowledge, and access to resources.

Flexible The process should be sufficiently flexible so as to anticipate and better handle changing community needs. This principle recognises that the initial design of a community involvement program will evolve, as stakeholders become more familiar with the issues, the process and the views of others.

Timely The process should follow a logical sequence, with identifiable milestones, in a realistic timeframe This principle recognises that there need to be clear and reasonable time limits for working towards outcomes. Milestones bring focus to the process and mark progress that can be identified and measured. Community stakeholder can build reasonable expectations around the process Figure 5. Guiding Principles of Process for involving Communities in the Environmental Flows and Water Quality Project

Page 40 With Regard to the Deliberative Poll

• A Deliberative Poll conducted at the right time with the right focus will give much more certainty about the views of the wider community than we currently have from anecdotal evidence. It will also demonstrate how much people’s views are likely to change when they become more informed about an issue which will be useful for designing community engagement processes.

• That the major focus for the Deliberative Poll should be to debate the adequacy of a 10% reduction in the Cap (or recovery of 914 GL). This would allow a free ranging debate either side of the specified volume. Supporting questions could be as follows: - a. What values and services do you expect a healthy working river to provide society? b. Is there enough evidence to demonstrate the need to recover water for the environment? c. Will a 10% reduction in Cap (recovery of 914 GL) result in a healthy working river? d. How should the costs be shared by users and beneficiaries? e. What management arrangements would give you confidence that environmental flow was being used appropriately? f. Over what period of time should this take?

• That the CRP has a role to stay involved during the development stages of the Deliberative Poll.

• It is too early to start the Deliberative Polling process. The Panel noted that there needed to be a thorough planning process before the Deliberative Polling process went ahead. The Panel suggested that the Poll could go ahead in the next 12-15 months.

With Regard to Technical Issues

• That there is a need for considerably more socio-economic modelling before there would be any confidence in the results. The ABARE modelling should be reviewed in relation to the Commission’s modelling as it has significant implications to the Project. Account must be taken of issues such as the fact that NSW has already recovered water from irrigators without compensation. It is unclear whether this water would count towards a Cap reduction or whether Cap reduction would be from the current situation. This has serious implications socially and economically.

• As a principle, Basin-wide recovery of water is considered to be essential. It is equally important to ensure that the most effective and efficient ways of retrieving water across the Basin are considered. Tributary inflows will be critical to achieving the outcomes required and the impacts of farm dams and other developments on tributaries must be accounted for.

• That the Cap is fully implemented and adhered to.

Page 41 • That property rights and the existing water trading rules are reviewed to ensure that recovery of water for the environment does not cause the market to operate in a way that negates any potential benefits. CRP stresses that it is important to take the time to develop this properly.

• That retrieval of water should be achieved through a range of mechanisms, one of which is through water trade. Care is needed to ensure that the water trading market is robust and functional and that it is not unduly distorted.

• That the announcement effect on the price of water may be significant and the manner in which the goal (eg 10% over 10 years) is expressed will also be a factor in this regard. This effect also has implications on the cost of recovering water. The irrigation industry is aware, to varying degrees, of the implications of the Project and is suffering a “crisis of confidence”. This underlines the need to commence a comprehensive community engagement process as soon as possible.

• That the various States' ‘access’ rights to water needs to be defined so that a consistent and equitable way of managing these differences can be agreed.

• That the Ministerial Council should be explicit in its advice on compensatory mechanisms for water retrieval.

6.2 Diversity of Views

A range of views exists among CRP members. In response to a number of questions members responded as follows:

• All members believed that it is highly likely that the achievement of the Ministerial Council objectives would achieve a healthy working river.

• On the basis of the information we have been provided the majority members are convinced that the river needs more water to achieve the Council objectives.

• A majority of members do not believe that structural and operational changes will provide sufficient water for the environment. Others are unsure or believe that it will provide significant improvement without any reduction in the Cap.

• A majority of members believe that the modelling for the Murray is adequate but a similar majority believe that the Murrumbidgee and Goulburn modelling is inadequate for the task. However it was proposed that to deliver and efficient environmental flow regime a daily model for the River Murray is essential.

• On the amount of water required to achieve a healthy working river – the majority of members believe that at least 10% and perhaps greater than 50% reductions in Cap may be necessary. Views are fairly evenly spread from 10% up to about 40%. Some members believe that no reduction in the Cap is necessary.

• The majority of members believe that no water can or should be recovered without compensation.

• Fully funded WUE gains of around 5-10% may be achievable.

Page 42 • With compensation most members believe that between 10 and 30% Cap reductions are possible with most favouring 15-20% as an optimal number.

• In response to the question – what should the level of Cap reduction be and over what time? – members responses varied from 10 to 20% (with a cluster at 10%) over 5-20 years. Three members felt that they could not answer the question or did not support a Cap reduction.

• Members were equally split on whether or not a strategic target or an incremental approach to the recovery of water would be most acceptable.

• There is strong support for a Community Engagement and Negotiation Process to start as soon as possible.

• The major barriers to recovering water for the Murray are identified as follows:

Cost of water recovery (sharing the pain)/compensation 8 Government/jurisdictional issues 7 Resistance to reduction by some user groups 7 Property rights 5 Political will 4 Lack of/cost of funding 3 Provision of adequate information 3 Reasonable timeframe 1 Legislative bounds 1 Perceived cost of production losses 1 Lack of ability to trade water to an “Environmental Water Bank” 1 Lack of a “Champion” for the cause 1 Lack of credible knowledge/data 1

Page 43 References:

Dyson M., Scanlon J. and Wells K., 2001. Using Legislation to Recover and Protect Environmental Flows in the River Murray. Draft 2. Report to the Project Board, Environmental Flows and Water Quality Objectives in the River Murray, Murray- Darling Basin Commission. December 2001.

Gippel C.J. and Blackham D., 2001. Review of the Environmental Impacts of Flow Regulation and Other Water Resource Developments in the River Murray and Lower Darling River System. Report by Fluvial Systems Pty Ltd, Melbourne, to the Murray- Darling Basin Commission. March 2001.

Jensen A., Good M., Tucker P. and Long M., 2000. River Murray Barrages Environmental Flows. Report to Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra, ACT. Wetlands Management Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide, South Australia, June 2000.

Jones G., Hillman T., Kingsford R., McMahon T., Walker K., Arthington A., Whittington J. and Cartwright S., 2002. Independent Report of the Expert Reference Panel on Environmental Flows and Water Quality Requirements for the River Murray System. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology. Report to the Murray- Darling Basin Ministerial Council, February 2002.

Jones G. and Cartwright S., 2002. Future Visions for the River Murray: A Pictorial Companion to the Independent Report of the Expert Reference Panel on Environmental Flows and Water Quality Requirements for the River Murray System. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology. Report to the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, February 2002.

Jones R., Whetton P., Walsh K. and Page C., 2001. Future Impact of Climate Variability, Climate Change and Land Use Change on Water Resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. Overview and Draft Program of Research. CSIRO Atmospheric Research, September 2001.

Nancarrow B.E., and Syme G.J., 2001. River Murray Environmental Flows and Water Quality Project Stakeholder Profiling Study. Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, CSIRO Land and Water, August 2001.

Ngarrindjeri/Ramsar Working Group 1999. Ngarrindjeri Perspective on Ramsar Issues. Volume 2, Appendices 7 and 8 of the Coorong, Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert Ramsar Management Plan, Draft for Public Consultation. Department of Environment Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, Government of South Australia. Published June 1999.

Norris R.H., Liston P., Davies N., Dyer F., Linke S., Prosser I., Young B., 2001. Snapshot of the Murray-Darling Basin River Condition. Report to the Murray- Darling Basin Commission, September 2001.

Page 44 Ryan P., 2002. Deliberative Polling. Executive Summary. Draft Work–In-Progress. Prepared for CRP meeting 10, 14 February 2002.

SMEC 2002. Review of Structures and Operation of Flow Regulating Infrastructure of the River Murray System. Project E-10 Environmental Flows and Water Quality Objectives for the River Murray Project. Final Report to Murray-Darling Basin Commission, January 2002.

Syme G. and Nancarrow B., 2002. A Plan for Assessing Social Impacts of Introducing Environmental Flows for the Murray River. Australian Research Centre for Water in Society, CSIRO Land and Water, January 2002.

Thoms M. C., Suter P., Roberts J., Koehn J., Jones G., Hillman T. and Close A., 2000. Report of the River Murray Scientific Panel on Environmental Flows: River Murray - Dartmouth to Wellington and the Lower Darling River, River Murray. Scientific Panel on Environmental Flows, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Canberra, June 2000.

Walker D.J., 2002. The Behaviour and Future of the River Murray Mouth. Centre for Applied Modelling in Water Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Adelaide. February 2002.

Page 45 Appendix A: Water Quality Objectives for the River Murray

Development of Water Quality Objectives for the River Murray

Circulated to States and the Commonwealth for comment by 15 February 2002 February 2002

Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) are being established as part of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission’s Project entitled Environmental Flows and Water Quality Objectives for the River Murray (the Project). In addition to meeting a statutory requirement of the Commission to formulate WQOs under the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, they will also ensure that water quality considerations are incorporated in the environmental flow scenario development process of the Project. This will allow the identification of detrimental or beneficial impacts on water quality, or specific flow patterns necessary to improve water quality.

Draft provisional WQOs were presented to Commission Meeting 60 - 2 October 2001, based on the National Water Quality Management Strategy process (ANZECC, 1992; ARMCANZ & ANZECC, 1994, 1995) as refined by the NSW EPA (1997).

Following the publication of a new version of the National Water Quality Management Strategy’s “Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality” (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000, referred to as ANZECC and ARMCANZ (2000)), and the need to integrate partner government objective- setting processes, the Commission recently convened an intergovernmental workshop to further progress the establishment of WQOs for the River Murray.

Whilst the purpose of this document is to provide a basic framework for progressing WQOs to Commission Meeting 61, comments received after this workshop have highlighted the need for a stand-alone document outlining the agreed process for developing WQOs. This would provide sufficient information on the WQOs for community consultation purposes and would include:

• background in regard to the NWQMS process; • achievements to date for individual state objective-setting processes; • established links between WQOs and relevant state processes; • clear definitions and terminology, consistent with the ANZECC and ARMCANZ guidelines (2000); and • a comparison table to enable translation between terminology used in State processes.

The outcome of this would be a public released document based on NSW EPA process, incorporating views from other states and the Commonwealth, and updated to reflect ANZECC & ARMCANZ guidelines (2000).

Page 46 Draft Provisional WQO

The draft provisional WQOs presented to the Commission Meeting 60 consist of the following three components:

• Environmental values; • Indicators; and • Numerical criteria.

Each WQO was based on providing water quality for the environment to meet the different uses people have for water. They were based on the beneficial uses/ environmental values that the community wishes to protect chosen from the following:

• protection of aquatic ecosystems (including protection of edible fish, crustacea and shellfish, and water associated wildlife); • recreational water quality and aesthetics; • raw water for drinking water supply; • agricultural water supply; and • industrial water supply.

For example, if the aim is to protect irrigation water supply (the environmental value), salinity (the indicator) needs to be below a certain level (the criterion).

Initial environmental values for the River Murray were previously recommended by the NSW EPA (1995) and these were adopted for the development of draft provisional WQOs. The resulting WQOs addressed basic requirements or uses only. In addition to these, it was acknowledged that there would be additional environmental values that the community wishes to protect on a local or site-specific basis including for example, primary contact recreation. The environmental values identified as a component of the draft provisional WQOs are listed in Table A1. The indicators and criteria that correspond with these environmental values, to form the draft provisional WQOs were also presented to Commission, based on the 1992 guideline levels (ANZECC, 1992).

Community consultation is an integral component of developing WQOs with the community identifying environmental values to be ascribed to particular sections of the river. Prior to consultation occurring as part of the broader Project, draft provisional WQOs were established to ensure that water quality considerations were incorporated into the initial environmental flow scenario development.

As the draft provisional WQOs were developed without community or agency consultation, and were based on a NSW process based on ANZECC (1992) guidelines, they were considered as a starting point only.

Refining the Draft Provisional WQOs

On 31 January 2002, staff of the Project convened a meeting with representatives from the Commonwealth, NSW, Victorian and South Australian government agencies to identify an agreed process for developing WQOs consistent with the National

Page 47 Water Quality Management Strategy and integrating the approaches of these partner governments.

At this meeting, there was agreement on the basic process required for refining the draft provisional WQOs, as summarised below:

• Beneficial uses/ environmental values established for each reach of the River Murray, based on ANZECC 2000 guidelines: – State and Commonwealth agencies update existing beneficial uses/environmental values including an initial classification for river reaches. – Consultation with regional bodies and the broader community, consistent with other consultation needs of the Project to refine the beneficial uses/environmental values. Outcome: Agreed beneficial uses/ environmental values, proposed by State and Commonwealth and modified/endorsed by community.

• WQOs established to protect beneficial uses/ environmental values: – Trigger levels established from ANZECC (2000) guidelines. – The Project’s Expert Reference Panel (ERP) to establish appropriate trigger values (numerical criteria) for protection of aquatic ecosystems. – Review by water quality specialists. Outcome: Reach specific WQOs based on scientific knowledge, existing data and agreed beneficial uses/ environmental values.

Beneficial Uses/ Environmental Values

An agreed set of beneficial uses/ environmental values was identified for the River Murray at the workshop, largely based on work completed in NSW and Victoria as part of state natural resource planning processes. The following environmental values/beneficial uses have been identified as potentially relevant for the River Murray and associated wetlands and billabongs:

• Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems • Primary Contact Recreation • Secondary Contact Recreation • Irrigation Water Supplies • Drinking Water Supplies • Agriculture – Farmstead Drinking Supply • Aesthetic Uses/ Visual Amenity • Cultural and Spiritual Values • Aquaculture • Industrial and Commercial Use • Groundwater

Whilst these beneficial uses/environmental values have been identified for the River Murray as a whole, they need to be ascribed to river reaches as the first step toward reach specific WQOs. It is anticipated that agencies would provide this initial

Page 48 classification of the above beneficial uses/environment values to river reaches (reaches for the project are defined in Table A1).

These initial recommendations for reach specific beneficial uses/environmental values will need to be modified or endorsed by the community. It is anticipated that this consultation will take several forms. Initially, environmental values/beneficial uses will be circulated to relevant regional bodies such as NSW Catchment Management Boards, Victorian Catchment Management Authorities and SA Catchment Water Management Boards. Broad community consultation on the beneficial uses/environmental values is expected to be conducted in conjunction with broad consultation planned for the Project.

Establishing WQOs

Once beneficial uses/environmental values are endorsed by the community, the second stage of developing WQOs is to select indicators and assign trigger values, or numerical criteria to each. These are sourced from the 2000 guidelines (ANZECC and ARMCANZ 2000). The resulting beneficial use/environmental values, indicators and corresponding trigger levels will form the reach specific WQOs for the River Murray.

In contrast with the previous edition, the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000) recommend a new approach in terms of assigning numerical criteria to beneficial uses. The numerical criteria are termed “trigger values” referring to the level at which a particular substance may impair water quality, and that any exceedance should trigger further investigation or a management response (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000). The new guidelines emphasise a site-specific approach, advocating the tailoring of trigger values to suit local conditions. Although trigger values may be absolute numerical criteria for the short term, reach specific “trigger” values would be developed over the long term.

It is anticipated that the Project’s Expert Reference Panel (ERP) will be responsible for establishing site-specific numerical values in the form of trigger values for each river reach. Consultation with on-ground agency staff will form an important component of this process to ensure that realistic trigger values are established. The process for determining appropriate trigger values will rely heavily on an analysis of existing water quality data and an understanding of ecological processes occurring within various sections of the River Murray. In addition to the work of the ERP, other water quality specialists will review the reach specific trigger values, and the resulting WQOs.

A draft framework integrating WQOs, State planning and target setting activities, and environmental management of the River Murray by the Commission has been developed (refer to Figure A1). This ensures that WQOs established for the River Murray will be compatible with State planning and target setting activities as well as those occurring on the River Murray.

This process outlines the scientific base and approach for developing reach specific “trigger values” required for healthy river systems as outlined in the ANZECC &

Page 49 ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines. This is compatible with state target setting based on community requirements and incorporating ecological, social and economic considerations. It is expected that targets will also be developed for the River Murray. These targets will need to be compared against the “trigger values” established by the ERP, which allow for the identification of any trade-offs required for environmental, social and economic values.

Notes:

1. Trigger values for each of the beneficial uses/ environmental values are contained within the National Water Quality Management Strategy’s “Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality” (ANZECC and ARMCANZ, 2000). These are available from Environment Australia’s website: http://www.ea.gov.au/water/quality/nwqms/index.html

2. The term “beneficial use” has been adopted in the Victorian objective setting process, while NSW used the term “environmental value”.

References:

ANZECC (1992) National Water Quality Management Strategy – Australian Water Quality Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Waters (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand)

ANZECC AND ARMCANZ (2000) National Water Quality Management Strategy – Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council)

ARMCANZ and ANZECC (1994) National Water Quality Management Strategy – Policies and Principles (Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, and Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council)

ARMCANZ and ANZECC (1998) National Water Quality Management Strategy – Implementation Guidelines (Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, and Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council)

EPA (1995) Potential Water Quality Objectives for the Murray River System (New South Wales Environment Protection Authority: Sydney)

EPA (1997) Proposed Interim Environmental Objectives for NSW Waters – Western Rivers (New South Wales Environment Protection Authority: Sydney)

Page 50 Page 51 Appendix A Table A1. Draft PROVISIONAL WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES: August 2001

REACH ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES/ BENEFICIAL USES PROVISIONAL WQO Description as defined as identified by EPA (1995) by EPB* 1 Dartmouth Dam to Hume Reservoir. a) Snowy Mountains NP 1. Conservation area streams Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems • near pristine ecosystems • ecosystem protection Secondary Contact Recreation • recreation and aesthetics b) Outside NP boundaries 2. swimming, fishing, water-life and agricultural water supply Irrigation Water Supplies - Medium Salinity streams • modified ecosystems for Hume Dam: • recreation and aesthetics • agricultural water supply Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems 3. Hume Reservoir pooled waters • modified ecosystems Primary Contact Recreation • recreation and aesthetics

2 Hume Dam to Yarrawonga Weir 1. Swimming, fishing, water-life and agricultural streams • modified ecosystems Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems • recreation and aesthetics • agricultural water supply Secondary Contact Recreation 2. Major Town Water Supplies • drinking water Irrigation Water Supplies - Medium Salinity

3. Yarrawonga pooled waters for Yarrawonga Weir: • modified ecosystems • recreation and aesthetics Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems • agricultural water supply Primary Contact Recreation

Page 52 REACH DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES/ BENEFICIAL USES PROVISIONAL WQO as defined as identified by EPA (1995) by EPB 3 Yarrawonga to Torrumbarry a) Yarrawonga to Torrumbarry 1. Conservation area streams Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems • near pristine ecosystems • recreation and aesthetics Secondary Contact Recreation b) Edward/ Wakool Anabranch 2. Swimming, fishing, water-life and agricultural water supply streams Irrigation Water Supplies - Medium Salinity • modified ecosystems • recreation and aesthetics • agricultural water supply

4 Torrumbarry to Lock 11 1. Conservation area streams (NSW: Perricoota and Koondrook SF Hattah-Kulkyne NP and Ki, Mallee Cliffs and Manie SF; Vic: Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems Gunbower Island SF) • near pristine ecosystems Secondary Contact Recreation • recreation and aesthetics 2. Swimming, fishing, water-life and agricultural water supply streams Irrigation Water Supplies - Medium Salinity • modified ecosystems • recreation and aesthetics • agricultural water supply

5 Lock 11 to Lock 3 1. Conservation area streams (Wallpolla and Lindsay Islands: Vic and Moorna, Wangumma and Lake Victoria SF) Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems • near pristine ecosystems • recreation and aesthetics Secondary Contact Recreation 2. Swimming, fishing, water-life and agricultural water supply streams • modified ecosystems Irrigation Water Supplies - Medium Salinity • recreation and aesthetics • agricultural water supply

Page 53 REACH DESCRIPTION ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES/ BENEFICIAL USES PROVISIONAL WQO as defined as identified by EPA (1995) by EPB 6 Lock 3 to Wellington 1. Major town water supply, recreation and agricultural stream • modified ecosystems Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems • drinking water • recreation and aesthetics Secondary Contact Recreation • agricultural water supply Irrigation Water Supplies - Medium Salinity

Drinking Water Supply (clarification and disinfection) 7 Wellington to the Murray Mouth/ 1. Lake Alexandrina and salt water estuary Coorong • modified ecosystems Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems • recreation and aesthetics Primary Contact Recreation

Consumption of aquatic foods (cooked)

8 Menindee Lakes to Lock 10 1. Swimming, fishing, water-life and agricultural streams • modified ecosystems Protection of Aquatic Ecosystems • recreation and aesthetics • agricultural water supply Secondary Contact Recreation

Irrigation Water Supplies - Medium Salinity

Note: Drinking Water Supply (clarification and disinfection) will be included as a Provisional WQO for all major towns extracting from the River Murray eg Albury, Swan Hill, etc. * EPB is the Environmental Flows and Water Quality Objectives for the River Murray Project Board

Page 54 Figure A1. Draft Process and Actions (from WQO Meeting 31 January 2002)

Murray-Darling Basin Commission State Actions for Tributaries Establishment of Draft Water Quality Objectives River Murray River Murray Environmental Manager For each reach: Regional Catchment Strategy Goals for the River Murray (Goals) Environmental Values: • River health objectives • Environmental Flow Objectives • List Environmental Values (with Stakeholder • Water Quality Objectives Agreement) and • Human Dimension Objectives • List Uses

Water Quality Objectives:

• Identify indicators and numerical trigger values based on ANZECC 2000 guidelines.

Plans/Program Plan / Programs Compatibility

Process to develop risk-based reach trigger values

Comparable Flows ERP Targets Targets

these are linked Management Response and Review Evaluation and Reporting

Page 55 Appendix B: Ngarrindjeri Culture and the Closure of the Murray Mouth

Ngarrindjeri culture and the closure of the Murray Mouth

Steve Hemming, Australian Studies, Flinders University Tom Trevorrow, Chair, Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee and Ngarrindjeri Land and Progress Association and Matt Rigney, Chair, Ngarrindjeri Native Title Management Committee

February 2002

The land and waters is a living body. We the Ngarrindjeri people are a part of its existence. The land and waters must be healthy for the Ngarrindjeri people to be healthy. We are hurting for our country. The Land is dying, the River is dying, the Kurangk (Coorong) is dying and the Murray Mouth is closing. What does the future hold for us? (Tom Trevorrow, Ngarrindjeri elder, Camp Coorong, 2002)

Introduction

This report provides a preliminary Ngarrindjeri perspective on the effect that the closure of the Murray Mouth will have on the Ngarrindjeri people of the Lower Murray, Coorong and Lower Lakes area of South Australia. It is not a community perspective, but provides the views of two senior Ngarrindjeri men and includes relevant material that illustrates broader Ngarrindjeri community perspectives. In particular, it calls for a new, negotiated partnership to steer the management of this invaluable part of Ngarrindjeri country into the future and to ensure Ngarrindjeri survival on their lands. The Ngarrindjeri authors of this report strongly believe that a formal partnership should be established between the Ngarrindjeri people and the Murray Darling Basin Commission (MDBC). This would be a major step on the path towards a future in which the Murray Mouth area remains healthy and the Lower Murray, Lakes and Coorong continue to sustain and nurture the Ngarrindjeri people and their culture. As Tom Trevorrow points out at the beginning of this report the closure of the Murray Mouth is an indicator that Ngarrindjeri survival is at stake.

Methodology

Due to the restricted timeframe available for the development of this report Tom Trevorrow and Matt Rigney, as senior Ngarrindjeri people and experienced leaders in their community, have made the decision to work with Steve Hemming (non- Indigenous researcher) to produce a preliminary discussion of the implications of the closure of the Murray Mouth for the Ngarrindjeri. They believe that it is vital that a statement introducing Ngarrindjeri perspectives be submitted to the next Murray Darling Basin Commission Ministerial Council meeting. Along with the views of Tom Trevorrow and Matt Rigney, this report also includes some reference to several key reports and publications providing Ngarrindjeri knowledge and perspectives

Page 56 relevant to this issue. In particular, the Ngarrindjeri Ramsar Working Group’s (NRWG) paper ‘Ngarrindjeri perspective on Ramsar Issues’, developed for the Coorong, Lake Alexandrina and Lake Albert Ramsar Management Plan, is considered of central importance (NRWG 1999). Importantly, this extended discussion of issues relevant to the closure of the Murray Mouth has Ngarrindjeri community endorsement.

The Ngarrindjeri authors of this report consider that their expertise in Ngarrindjeri cultural and political affairs, combined with the positions that they presently occupy, provide them with the responsibility to take this opportunity to identify a set of preliminary recommendations for the consideration of the MDBC Ministerial Council. They do not wish to discuss in any detail what are often defined as the ‘cultural heritage’ implications (often misunderstood by non-Indigenous people as relating only to the past) for the Ngarrindjeri. For example this would include impacts on Dreaming sites and middens, or the spiritual significance of damage to the land and waters (see for example: Fergie 1994; and Bell 1998). Such a report would take considerable time and broad Ngarrindjeri community discussion. After their experiences with the Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) issue the Ngarrindjeri authors believe that these issues are Ngarrindjeri business and should not be the starting point and basis of a public discussion of the implication of the closure of the Murray Mouth for Ngarrindjeri people.

Of course Ngarrindjeri people support the sharing of their knowledge with non- Indigenous people, but this must be on Indigenous terms. Camp Coorong, Race Relations and Cultural Education Centre, near Meningie on the shores of Lake Albert, was established in the 1980s by the Ngarrindjeri Land and Progress Association (NLPA) to help perform this function (see Hemming 1993).

The recommendations provided in this report contain a request for sufficient resources to enable the Ngarrindjeri to stage appropriate community meetings to discuss the implications of the closure of the Murray Mouth and develop a detailed and thoughtful position. This is a complex problem for the Ngarrindjeri and it has a range of inter-related implications relating to political, economic, cultural and social issues. Ngarrindjeri interests in an area such as the Murray Mouth cannot be reduced to what is often called ‘heritage’. The importance of the Ngarrindjeri relationship to the land and waters is made very clear by Tom Trevorrow at the beginning of this paper.

Finally, it should be recognised that this is by no means an exhaustive report, it seeks predominantly to draw the attention of the relevant government ministers to the urgent need for a new negotiated, partnership between the Ngarrindjeri and the MDBC in the development of a long-term approach to the sustainable management of the Murray Darling Basin.

Background

It has only been since the 1980s that the views and participation of Ngarrindjeri people have been considered important by state government agencies in the planning and management of places such as national parks. The passing of the South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 was a turning point in the involvement of South Australian Indigenous people in issues associated with development, natural

Page 57 resource management and regional planning. Ngarrindjeri organisations such as the Lower Murray and Ngarrindjeri Heritage Associations, the Lower Murray Nungas Club, the Raukkan Council and the Ngarrindjeri Land and Progress Association (NLPA) have worked with government and private interests on a broad range of issues and projects. Unfortunately the serious conflict over the building of a bridge to Kumarangk (Hindmarsh Island) has in many ways adversely effected the positive relations that were built up between the Ngarrindjeri and the non-Indigenous community. The two Ngarrindjeri authors of this paper opposed the building of the bridge and continue to advocate the establishment of a ferry service to Kumarangk to provide alternative access to the Island for Ngarrindjeri people.

The Ngarrindjeri manage their country and its ‘natural resources’ in the ways taught to them by their old people. For example, fishing, hunting, the gathering of medicine plants and the harvesting of sedges for basketmaking are all governed by Ngarrindjeri tradition (Hemming et al 1989; Bell 1998). Ngarrindjeri people also engage in burning and clearing practices and re-vegetation of dunes to protect and manage their country. Often families have particular rights and responsibilities for certain areas. There are also gender restrictions associated with places, practices and knowledge. Prior to the 1980s the Ngarrindjeri managed their country without significant government recognition of their rights to engage in this process.

Since the 1980s the Ngarrindjeri have accepted the challenge of working with government organisations to educate the non-Indigenous public about their culture and traditions. The establishment of Camp Coorong has provided a major impetus in the teaching of Ngarrindjeri culture and history. One of the key themes that Camp Coorong staff have focussed on in their teaching has been the degradation of the environment of the area and the cultural consequences of this for Ngarrindjeri and non-Indigenous people. The new Ngarrindjeri ecotourism venture at Warnung (Hack’s Point), whilst operating as an ecotourism venture, continues to have as its main messages the Ngarrindjeri connection with the land and waters and the impact of the continuing degradation of the environment on Ngarrindjeri culture. As pointed out in the NRWG’s submission (NRWG 1999):

Too much water has been diverted from the river system and not enough water now reaches the Lakes and Coorong. The quality of the water has also fallen. The water is cloudy, polluted and not fit for drinking. The Murray, the Lakes and the Coorong are no longer environmentally healthy and this is partly why the Ngarrindjeri people are not healthy. The Ngarrindjeri know that the Coorong, Lakes and River are dying.

It should also be remember that the Ngarrindjeri people’s native title claim, which includes the Murray Mouth area, has been registered in the Federal Court. This provides certain legal obligations to consult with the Ngarrindjeri through their Ngarrindjeri native title management committee. Damage to Ngarrindjeri native title rights and interests is potentially a subject for compensation.

The South Australian Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 is also relevant to the implications of Murray Mouth closure. An important Ngarrindjeri site is being damaged through a complex series of actions that continue to lead to increasing environmental degradation. The authors of this paper recognise that the only real

Page 58 solution to this problem is through long-term planning. This planning must be done in partnership with the Ngarrindjeri.

Ngarrindjeri Perspectives On Ramsar Issues

A significant part of the Ngarrindjeri lands and waters is designated as a wetland of international significance under the Ramsar Agreement. The Indigenous owners of these wetlands, which include the Murray Mouth area, have a fundamental role to play in their sustainable management. In their submission to the Ramsar management plan the NRWG supported the principles of ‘wise’ and ‘sustainable’ use of the wetlands (NRWG 1998). This is what Ngarrindjeri have been doing since the creation of their land and waters.

One of the six objectives identidfied in the Ramsar management plan highlights the need for ‘increased opportunities for participation by the Ngarrindjeri people in the planning and management of the Coorong and Lower Lakes Ramsar Wetlands subject to South Australian Government policy relating to the resolution of native title claims’ (Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Ramsar Management Plan 2000). The Ngarrindjeri people have, in numerous forums, expressed their desire for a central role in the management of their land and waters - not the least through the lodgement of their native title claim which includes the Murray Mouth area. The Ngarrindjeri authors of this report would like to see a hand-back of the Coorong National Park, with a lease-back agreement and joint management with National Parks. They believe that the Ngarrindjeri native title claim should not be an impediment to the development of formal agreements regarding joint managment.

The consultative process developed for Ngarrindjeri input into the Ramsar management plan has been identified by Ngarrindjeri people, and more broadly, as an example of appropriate consultation (see Thomsen 2001). The Ngarrindjeri authors of this report believe that the NRWG’s submission should be treated as a starting point for discussions with the Ngarrindjeri concerning the implications of Murray Mouth closure (NRWG 1998). The following are some of the relevant statements and recommendations contained in the submission:

• Ngarrindjeri people strongly support the Ramsar principles and objectives. • The production and implementation of a Ramsar Plan provides an opportunity for reconciliation. • Ngarrindjeri seek a more valuable role in the future management of the natural and cultural resources contained within the Ramsar planning area. Ngarrindjeri believe such a role would be beneficial to all members of the community, not just the Ngarrindjeri. • Ngarrindjeri support moves aimed at increasing water flows and water quality for environmental purposes. • More water should be made available to reach the Lakes and Coorong. That more water will help to support all life and nourish Ngarrindjeri country, Ngarrindjeri culture and Ngarrindjeri people. • The quality of the water should be improved. • The Upper Southeast Drainage Scheme’s waters should be added to the Coorong at Salt Creek. Many Ngarrindjeri Elders can remember freshwater flows into the

Page 59 Coorong during the late 1950s and believe these flows brought new life to the southern lagoon. • The manipulation of the barrages, and the manipulation of Lake levels to improve natural environmental processes is supported by Ngarrindjeri, particularly if this is in association with increased water flows and an improvement in water quality.

It was very disappointing to the Ngarrindjeri that the NRWG submission was not included in the final report or even its appendices - as initially expected.

Discussion

The Murray Mouth is an important cultural and spiritual place for the Ngarrindjeri people (see for example: Bell 1998). It is part of an area that is fundamentally important to the health of Ngarrindjeri people. There are Dreaming stories such as Thukabi, Ngurunderi and the Seven Sisters associated with the Murray Mouth area that inform Ngarrindjeri people’s understanding of its significance. The relationship of the Dreaming ancestor Ngurunderi to the area has for example been the subject of publications, museum exhibitions and films (see Hemming et al 1989; Bell 1998). The Murray Mouth area is a part of the ‘meeting of the waters’, a place where the mixing of the waters is spiritually very important to the Ngarrindjeri (Bell 1998: 563). The NRWG (1998) make the following point about the area’s cultural and spiritual significance:

The waters flowing down the Murray Darling System bring life to the river, the Lakes and Coorong. The waters bring life to the Ngarrindjeri too. This is both a practical and a spiritual statement There are extensive culturally significant teachings explaining how the Ngarrindjeri world was created. Ngurunderi and the Seven Sisters are two of many teachings which describe how the land and water, animals and people came to be what and who they are.

The threat to Ngarrindjeri Ngartjis connected with the closure of the Murray Mouth is of particular concern to the Ngarrinderi. As stated by the NRWG (1998):

Many Ngarrindjeri people still retain a special relationship with specific wildlife species occurring within the planning area. This totemic relationship is deeply embedded in Ngarrindjeri culture and spirituality. Many Ngarrindjeri people have their own Ngartji or special friend. This association with wildlife provides a special perspective on Ramsar values and the maintenance of habitats.

Importantly for this report, it is often not understood that the Ngarrindjeri have few resources and little infrastructure to respond to the growing pressures on them from a wide range of government departments and agencies. To properly engage in the process of ‘natural resource’ management the Ngarrindjeri need substantial resources and infrastructure. A considerable portion of what the Ngarrindjeri do as part of their ‘responsibilities’ as a result of heritage and native title legislation is still largely voluntary. This creates enormous pressures on individuals, families and communities and significantly adds to community stress and general poor health. The decision to take part in the development of this report has posed serious difficulties and created considerable stress for its Ngarrindjeri authors. The short time-frame and lack of

Page 60 resources has not enabled broad community consultation, placing the authors in the difficult position of having to explain and justify their decisions and involvement in the report process to the broader Ngarrindjeri community.

This highlights the urgent need for governments to recognise the funding needs of the Ngarrindjeri to further develop relevant expertise and appropriate infrastructure to assist their effective contribution to the long-term management of their lands and waters. The growing environmental degradation of the MDB and the threatened, continuing closure of the Murray Mouth, has already, and will continue to place enormous pressure on the Ngarrindjeri community. Along with the impact of the loss of lands, waters, Ngartjis and other ‘environmental’ features comes an imposed, inappropriate approach to involving Ngarrindjeri people in the management of their lands and waters. All of these factors cause considerable cultural trauma for the Ngarrindjeri.

Conclusion

The MDB Sustainability Plan states that ‘natural resources management in the Basin requires’, along with several other key points, the ‘recognition of the rights and aspirations of Indigenous Australians’ (MDB Sustainability Plan 1999). Along with the broader issues raised by this report, this also requires careful consideration of the implications of the Ngarrindjeri native title claim and Ngarrindjeri heritage interests over the Lower Murray, Lakes and Coorong for the management of the area. A number of recently developed plans have recognised the importance of Ngarrindjeri people’s role in the management and planning process (see for example: Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Ramsar Management Plan 2000; Coorong National Park Tourism and Recreation Plan 1999; Hindmarsh Island Management Plan 2001). For example, the Hindmarsh Island Management Plan raises the need for ‘protocols to involve the Aboriginal Community in management decisions’ (Hindmarsh Island Management Plan 2001).

The urgent need for government bodies such as the MDBC to negotiate an appropriate process enabling Ngarrindjeri to have a central role in the management their land and waters is highlighted in the following passage by the NRWG (1998):

The sense of feeling, sense of belonging, sense of responsibility for the river, Lakes and Coorong experienced by Ngarrindjeri people has survived occupation, dispersal and attempted assimilation. It continues to exist irrespective of where Ngarrindjeri people currently live. The link with the land lies at the heart and soul of Ngarrindjeri culture. A proper relationship and role in management of the land is a fundamental platform in building and maintaining Ngarrindjeri culture and Ngarrindjeri self respect. Ngarrindjeri believe that their future involvement in the management of the land would be positive and beneficial to all members of the community, not just Ngarrindjeri. It would represent a significant step in the process of reconciliation and co- existence. The strengthening of Ngarrindjeri people and their culture requires a serious involvement in the managing of their traditional lands.

Page 61 To begin to address the implications of the closure of the Murray Mouth for the Ngarrindjeri the following recommendations need to be seriously considered by the MDBC Ministerial Council.

Recommendations

• The Ngarrindjeri are culturally and spiritually part of the Murray Mouth area and the Lower Murray, Lakes and Coorong region. The value and uniqueness of Ngarrindjeri knowledge, beliefs and culture must be valued, recognised and respected by the MDBC and the wider community for the well-being and health of the Ngarrindjeri people and their land and waters to be assured.

• The value of Ngarrindjeri cultural and spiritual knowledge to the MDB planning and management process must be recognised and where culturally appropriate, respectfully utilized.

• Funds are required to enable Ngarrrindjeri communities to meet, discuss and develop a long-term strategy for maintaining the health of their lands and waters - including the Murray Mouth area.

• A formal agreement and long-term process should be developed between the Ngarrindjeri and the MDBC to secure a healthy future for Ngarrindjeri people, their lands and waters.

• Dredging of the Murray Mouth and surrounding areas is considered culturally inappropriate. The Ngarrindjeri authors of this report believe any short-term fix will have dire consequences for the Murray Mouth area. Proper and appropriate planning must take place. This sentiment has been expressed widely by Ngarrindjeri people. Recommendations were made during Ramsar consultations that broad Ngarrindjeri community negotiations and discussions should be undertaken to determine the issues associated with any dredging in the area. The problem lies not at the mouth it exists at many other places throughout the river stystem.

• We recommend the NRWG’s submission to the Coorong, Lake Albert and Lake Alexandrina Ramsar Management Plan (NRWG 1998) as a valuable extended discussion of issues relevant to the impact of the closure of the Murray Mouth on the Ngarrindjeri. This submission was endorsed by the Ngarrindjeri community.

• We believe that it is in the best interests of all Australians to work closely with the Ngarrindjeri and other Indigenous groups to plan and secure a healthy future for the Murray Darling Basin.

References:

(1999) Murray Darling Basin Commission Sustainability Plan, Murray Darling Basin Commission, Canberra.

(2000) Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Ramsar Management Plan. South Australian Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, Adelaide.

Page 62 (2000) Coroong National Park Tourism and Recreation Plan. South Australian Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, Adelaide.

(2001) Hindmarsh Island Management Plan. Alexandrina Council, Goolwa.

Bell, D (1998) Ngarrindjeri Wurruwarrin: A world that is, was, and will be. Spinifex, North Melbourne.

Fergie, D (1994) To all the mothers that were, to all the mothers that are, and to all the mothers that will be: An anthropological assessment of the threat of injury and desecration to Aboriginal tradition by the proposed Hindmarsh Island Bridge construction. A Report to the Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement (SA), Adelaide.

Hemming, S (1993) ‘Camp Coorong - Combining Race Relations and Cultural Education’. In Social Alternatives 12(1): 37-40.

Hemming, S et al (1989) Ngurunderi: An Aboriginal Dreaming. South Australian Museum, Adelaide.

Ngarrindjeri Ramsar Working Group (1999) ‘Ngarrindjeri perspectives on Ramsar Issues’ in Draft Coorong and Lakes Alexandrina and Albert Ramsar Management Plan, Appendix 8 South Australian Department for Environment, Heritage and Aboriginal Affairs, Adelaide.

Thomsen, DA (2001) Care or Control? Ngarrindjeri participation in natural resource planning. Honours Thesis, Department of Agronomy and Farming Systems, University of Adelaide.

Page 63