Review of Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin Murray-Darling the in Reform Water of Review Review of Water Reform in the Murray-Darling Basin November 2017 | WENTWORTH SCIENTISTS GROUP OF CONCERNED | November 2017 WENTWORTH GROUP OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS wentworthgroup.org ISBN 978-0-9944577-4-5 WENTWORTH GROUP OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS Mr Peter Cosier, Director, Wentworth Group of Assoc Prof Jamie Pittock, environmental scientist, Concerned Scientists. Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian Prof Tim Flannery FAA, palaeontologist and writer, Chief National University. Councillor, Australian Climate Council, 2007 Australian of Prof Hugh Possingham FNAS FAA, Professor of Ecology the Year. at The University of Queensland, Australia. Dr Ronnie Harding FEIANZ, zoologist, former Director, Mr Rob Purves AM, businessman, Director, Purves Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW. Environmental Fund, President, WWF Australia. Dr Terry Hillman AM, ecologist, former Member, Dr Denis Saunders AM, ecologist, Chair, Sara Halvedene Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Rivers Audit. Foundation, Editor, Pacific Conservation Biology, former Prof Lesley Hughes, ecologist, Macquarie University, Chief Research Scientist, CSIRO. Councillor, Australian Climate Council, Lead Author, Ms Anna Skarbek, investment banker and lawyer, CEO Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working ClimateWorks Australia, Director Clean Energy Finance Group II. Corporation, former Director, Carbon Market Institute. Prof David Karoly, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Prof Bruce Thom AM, FIAG, FTSE, geographer, Chair, University of Melbourne, former Member, Australian 2001 Australian State of the Environment Report. Climate Change Authority. Mr Martijn Wilder AM, Partner, Baker McKenzie, Prof David Lindenmayer AO, landscape ecologist, Chairman, Low Carbon Australia, Director, Clean Energy Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian Finance Corporation, WWF Australia, and The Climate National University. Council. IN ASSOCIATION WITH Dr Emma Carmody, Policy and Law Reform Solicitor, Dr Celine Steinfeld, geographer, policy analyst, New South Wales Environmental Defenders Office. Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists. Dr Richard Davis, water scientist, former Chief Science Mr Bradley Tucker, environmental scientist, associate, Advisor, Australian National Water Commission, former Wolfpeak. Wentworth Group Member. Dr Penny Whetton, climatologist, former Senior Ms Ilona Millar, environmental lawyer, Special Counsel, Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO, honorary fellow, Baker and McKenzie, Global Environmental Markets. University of Melbourne. Dr Hang To, economist, post-doctoral fellow, Australian National University. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Wentworth Group acknowledges State and Commonwealth government agencies who contributed data for this report, however this should not be taken as endorsement of the findings. We are grateful for the support of Ms Paula Steyer in the Wentworth Group Secretariat. We thank the Purves Environmental Fund for its ongoing financial support. www.wentworthgroup.org Contents Summary ..................................................................................................................................................................1 Key findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Recommendations: Five actions necessary to deliver the Basin Plan “on time and in full” ............................... 5 Water reform is crucial to the future of the Basin ...................................................................................................7 Benefits of a healthy and productive Murray-Darling Basin............................................................................... 7 History of a century of water reform in Australia............................................................................................... 8 The Murray-Darling Basin Plan ......................................................................................................................... 11 Objectives and outcomes of the Basin Plan ..................................................................................................... 12 Aim of the review ............................................................................................................................................. 15 Progress towards Basin Plan outcomes .................................................................................................................16 Progress towards 3,200 GL water recovery or ‘equivalent’ ............................................................................. 16 Expenditure on water reform ........................................................................................................................... 18 Progress towards Basin Plan objectives ........................................................................................................... 19 Progress towards social, economic and environmental outcomes .................................................................. 22 Actions needed to deliver the Basin Plan ‘on time and in full’ ..............................................................................46 1. Rebuild trust with greater transparency ...................................................................................................... 46 2. Guarantee recovery of the full 3,200 GL or genuinely equivalent outcomes ............................................... 50 3. Ensure that water recovered achieves measurable improvements to the river system .............................. 60 4. A regional development package that puts communities at the centre of reform ...................................... 67 5. Prepare for the prospect of a future with less water. .................................................................................. 68 Glossary ..................................................................................................................................................................75 References .............................................................................................................................................................77 Appendices………………………….…………………………………………………………….………………………………….……………………………. Progress on water recovery………………………….…………………………………………………………….…………………Appendix 1 Progress towards environmental outcomes…………………………….………………………………….…………………Appendix 2 Socio-economic changes in the Basin………………………………….…………………………………………………………Appendix 3 Climate change in the Murray-Darling Basin………………………….………………………………………………………Appendix 4 Summary It has been thirteen years since the historic National Water Initiative was signed, and five years since the Australian Parliament agreed to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Since then, nearly $8 billion of taxpayers’ money has been spent largely to address the chronic over-allocation of water in the river systems of the Murray-Darling Basin. This report is the first independent and comprehensive review of the Basin Plan. Its purpose is to evaluate progress towards the social, environmental and economic objectives of the reforms, with the view to setting out steps necessary to deliver the Basin Plan in full by 2026. This report also looks further into the future and sets out a suite of long-term reforms that are necessary if the nation is to achieve its ultimate goal of restoring the health of river systems in the Murray-Darling Basin. Overall, the review finds there has been significant progress since 2004, but this progress has slowed to a trickle since the Basin Plan was adopted in 2012. Without major changes in implementation, it is almost certain that the Basin Plan will fail. A healthy working Murray-Darling Basin is vital for the wellbeing and livelihoods of more than three million people who live in the Basin or rely on its water resources. It is also of great importance to Australia. A healthy working Basin means communities with reliable fresh water for growing food and fibre, an open Murray mouth with sufficient water to export salt, and healthy populations of water-dependent species and ecosystems, including 16 wetlands of international conservation significance. Since Federation, successive governments have grappled with the challenge of managing water resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. More than a century of growth in water use has resulted in significant environmental degradation, where 21 of the 23 catchments in the Basin are now in poor or very poor health. In 2004, a major intergovernmental agreement - the National Water Initiative - was signed by all governments of Australia. It represented a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the health of river systems in a way that promotes economic prosperity while using less water. In 2007, the National Plan for Water Security provided a legislative framework (the Commonwealth Water Act 2007) and what amounted to a $13 billion public investment to deliver these reforms. The 2007 Water Act required the newly created Murray-Darling Basin Authority to produce a Basin Plan to “ensure the return to environmentally sustainable levels of extraction for water resources that are over-allocated or overused”.1 The Basin Plan was established by the Australian Parliament in 2012 to recover 3,200 GL of water for the environment from an annual consumptive use of 13,623 GL, or implement projects which deliver ‘equivalent’