HUME AND DARTMOUTH OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Hume and Dartmouth Dams Operations Review Final Report MAY 1999 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Hume and Dartmouth Dams Operations Review Reference Panel

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SUBMITTED TO THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION MAY 1999

i HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Published by Hume and Dartmouth Dams Operations Review Reference Panel

Postal Address: c/- MDBC, GPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601

Office location: c/- Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 2nd Floor, 7 Moore Street, Canberra City, Australian Capital Territory.

Telephone: (02) 6279 0100; international + 61 2 6279 0100

Facsimile: (02) 6248 8053; international + 61 2 6248 8053

E-mail [email protected]

Website http://www.mdbc.gov.au

Map on cover: © Commonwealth of 1985 Series R754, 8225-1 ALBURY, AND NEW SOUTH WALES, Edition 1-AAS, Royal Australian Survey Corps 1985, reproduced with the kind permission of the Director of Strategic Military and Geographic Information.

Remainder of Publication © Copyright Murray-Darling Basin Commission 1999.

This document may be reproduced in whole or in part, provided that the information in it is not sold for commercial purposes and its source is acknowledged. Dissemination and discussion of the document is encouraged. For further copies and assistance contact the Reference Panel at the above address.

ISBN 1 875209 77 8

DISCLAIMER

This document is the work of a fully independent Panel, reporting to the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. The report has not been influenced or directed by the Commission, nor at the time of printing has the Commission considered or adopted its recommendations.

ii HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW FOREWORD

This report represents a significant achievement Environmental Sustainability. The Panel listened in the development of a consensus between to all views and spent time visiting areas of parties advocating what are, on the surface, concern, with itineraries and presentations irreconcilable objectives for the management of arranged entirely by the local interests. The a precious and finite resource – the waters of Reference Panel, in fact, drove and shaped the the Upper Murray system. entire review and, I think it fair to say, has in In early 1997, in response to the concerns of the process created an ownership of the issues. floodplain landholders below its two major The Panel firmly believes that any process of headworks, the Murray-Darling Basin natural resource management that involves Commission began a review of the operations of tradeoffs will never succeed properly unless the Hume and Dartmouth Dams. At that time, few powers-that-be recognise and support such were confident that a consensus would be community ownership. In this case, the achieved within the Reference Panel that had Commission commendably adopted a hands-off been created as part of the review process. stance, provided adequate resources, and Two vital factors however were at play – allowed the Panel the time it needed to feel Information and Inclusion. comfortable with the developing outcomes. Information – The Panel attempted wherever So, what were these outcomes? possible to describe situations by means of factual First, a word of warning. The operations of and, preferably, quantified information. This Hume and Dartmouth are complex and required the time-consuming creation of a daily sophisticated. Also, intuition is not always a time-step river flows model, the quantification of reliable indicator of operational outcomes. What economic outcomes, and the development of follows is a greatly simplified set of the Panel’s indicators to attempt to predict the major findings. To read this in isolation would be environmental outcomes. The largely successful potentially misleading. The reader is encouraged aim was to minimise argument about how ‘good’ to read the full Final Report and its companion or ‘bad’ a particular scenario was, by having Options Paper to understand the many factors at numerical measurements of the outcomes. play and their complex inter-actions. Because no reliable formulas yet exist which In the reach of the below describe ecosystem response to river flow Dartmouth , it was found that the present changes, the Panel found it necessary to develop harmony and pre-release rules are generally a comprehensive set of flow parameters which appropriate. The Panel’s work has shown could be viewed as surrogates for environmental however that there is scope to reduce the outcomes. In general it was agreed that flow environmental and economic impacts of patterns which more nearly represented natural Dartmouth Dam by a modified and more patterns were the most desirable. variable flow regime with no discernible impacts The Commission also helped by being entirely on consumptive users. open and thus created a growing trust in the As elsewhere along the rivers, the Panel process. The Panel was given access to all relevant found that a more comprehensive approach to documents and information, including some not whole-of-system management would produce yet formally considered by the Commission. improved outcomes. It therefore strongly Inclusion – The spread of representation on believes that an integrated program of waterway the Panel, and its determination to ensure that and floodplain management is required for the the Valley community could participate in the Mitta Mitta. It also proposes that the costs and debate, slowly but surely created a growing benefits of a variable level offtake at Dartmouth understanding and mutual respect between the be investigated. parties at the corners of a triangle of tensions – In considering the River Murray below Hume Water Use, Floodplain Land-use and Dam, an early conclusion of the Panel was that

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW iii HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

flood easements should be negotiated with addressing waterway and floodplain management landholders as a principal means of addressing requires funding and immediate initiation. adverse effects of flooding at the peak regulated A common issue raised along the whole river flow level of 25 000 megalitres/day. was a perception of inadequate communications Reinstating some of the natural variability of from the Commission about water management, flow is an important objective in the Hume to with a particular emphasis on flood seasons. Yarrawonga reach and may be possible with few Interestingly, it was found that floodplain trade-offs during the majority of the year. community concerns and perceptions did not Currently there is little room for movement always reflect the reality of actual dam operations during the peak irrigation season when the which were generally near optimum. What existing nominal channel capacity already seemed to be missing was information and restricts operational flexibility. The Panel consultation. The Panel therefore believes that however found that there is scope for increased structured and regular liaison is required between rates of pre-releases and environmental releases River Murray Water and interested community through negotiation with landholders for groups. This should be accompanied by ongoing, purchase of limited, special purpose easements. real-time liaison and consultation with Mitta After comprehensive modelling of multiple Mitta landholders, Hume to Yarrawonga scenarios, an appropriate environmental flow landholders, and with peak irrigator groups. regime below (a managed form of Finally, in keeping with its strongly held translucency of around 30% is shown to have views on the need for community involvement considerable promise) has been recommended to and ownership of natural resource management, improve river health and to minimise the the Panel is firmly of the view that development adverse economic impacts of regulated flows, of environmental flow options for the whole particularly to floodplain landholders. river should include a community-based steering Also important are the operational scenarios or reference committee. for which the Panel recommends no further All Panel members have shown dedication, consideration. For instance, the popular notion tolerance and commitment throughout. I thank of ‘air-space’ operations is shown to be very them for this and congratulate them on a real costly in water terms, whereas other options are contribution to the future of the Murray Valley. shown to have a better mix of outcomes. In this I have pleasure in commending this report to case, an environmental flow regime modelled the Murray-Darling Basin Commission. was shown to produce equivalent benefits for floodplain owners, but with a lower cost to consumptive water users, plus of course a regime more favourable to river health. The existence of the State border has mitigated against the much needed BRIAN HAISMAN whole-of-system approach between Hume and Chair, Yarrawonga. The Panel believes that a Operations Review Reference Panel ‘no-borders’ integrated River Management Plan May 1999

iv HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW Contents

1 Background 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Responses to Options Paper 1 1.3 Finalisation of issues raised in Options Paper 1 1.4 Issues not covered in Options Paper 1 1.4.1 Economic modelling 1 1.4.2 Effects on flows to South Australia 2 1.5 Corrections to Options paper 2 1.6 Cost Sharing 2 2 Conclusions and Recommendations 3 2.1 Dartmouth – Hume reach of Mitta Mitta River 3 2.1.1 Effect of Dartmouth Dam on pasture productivity 3 2.1.2 Effects of flooding duration on the Mitta Mitta Valley 3 2.1.3 Adverse effects on small areas of land at peak regulated flow 3 2.1.4 Impact of Dartmouth on river health 3 2.1.4.1 Waterway management 3 2.1.4.2 Water temperature and quality 4 2.1.4.3 Flow variability 4 2.1.5 Recommendations – Dartmouth to Hume reach of Mitta Mitta River 4 2.2 Hume to Yarrawonga reach of River Murray 5 2.2.1 Adverse effects on agricultural land at peak regulated flow of 25 000 ML/d 5 2.2.2 The need for a comprehensive river management plan between Hume and Yarrawonga 5 2.2.3 Increased environmental and pre-release rates from Hume Dam 5 2.2.4 Flow Variability 6 2.2.5 Recommendations – Hume to Yarrawonga reach of River Murray 6 2.3 Issues that are not reach-specific 7 2.3.1 The need for improved communication 7 2.3.2 Effects of regulated flow and rain rejections on natural drying cycles in 8 2.3.3 The need to better manage minimum flows downstream of Mildura 8 2.3.4 Recommendations – Issues that are not reach-specific 8 2.4 Flow Policy Development 9 2.4.1 Recommendations – Flow policy development 10 3 What Next? 11 Appendix A: Responses to Options Paper 13

Appendix B: Development of Panel Recommendations 33

Appendix C: Issues not covered in Options Paper 47

Appendix D: Corrections to Options Paper 49

Appendix E: Reference Panel Members 50

v 1. Background

1.1 Introduction groups that attended these follow-up sessions During 1997 and 1998, the Hume and displayed a high level of understanding of the Dartmouth Dams Operations Review Reference issues, and their input has been valuable in Panel has undertaken a broadly based review of formulating the Panel’s recommendations. Fifty-six formal responses to the Options the way in which these two major water Paper were received, and they are summarised storages are operated. The Panel’s terms of in appendix A. The responses showed that in reference were essentially to consider how the most cases the groups or individuals concerned operating rules might be amended to better had put considerable thought and effort into address the competing objectives of water them. They were very valuable as a ‘reality supply, environmental enhancement and flood check’ on the Panel’s thinking, and in some mitigation. A broad perspective was required, cases raised new issues to be dealt with. including consideration of a wide range of economic, social and environmental factors. 1.3 Finalisation of issues raised in This Final Report is the end product of the Options Paper Reference Panel’s deliberations. Much of the background and discussion of issues is set out in Appendix B shows for each issue raised in the an Options Paper, which has been widely Options Paper: circulated among interested stakeholders. Public • the preliminary Panel views from the comment on the paper was sought, and the Options Paper, response was very helpful. • a summary of comment received on the issue, The report needs to be read in conjunction • conclusions reached by the Panel, and with the Options Paper, as it does not repeat the • the resultant Panel recommendations. details of the background material. To help readers link the two documents, references are 1.4 Issues not covered in Options Paper provided to corresponding sections of the A number of comments raised issues that were Options Paper where possible. not directly considered, or not clearly enough The Final Report concentrates on responses expressed, in the Options Paper. These are to the Options Paper and the Panel’s formal shown and discussed in appendix C. While some recommendations to the Commission. of them require clarification of the Panel’s thinking in response, none result in additional 1.2 Responses to Options Paper specific recommendations to the Commission. The Options Paper was produced in early Two significant issues are briefly discussed below. November 1998, and approximately 1800 copies were distributed to individuals and organisations 1.4.1 Economic modelling that had registered an interest in the review. A A significant point raised by several respondents series of seven public meetings was held in late concerned the economic modelling of options. The November to introduce the paper, explain the ‘dollar’ rows in tables 3,5,7 and 8 of the Options rationale of the review, ask for comment by Paper carried labels such as ‘flood costs’, ‘production 10 February 1999, and offer to hold follow-up value’, ‘value of power generated’ and so on. The seminar/workshop sessions if required. absolute values quoted in the benchmark run could The meetings were held at Eskdale, Albury, therefore be easily interpreted as referring to the Howlong, Cobram, Deniliquin, Kerang and total value of an industry, and irrigator Mildura. Attendance varied from six (at Kerang) representatives pointed out that the values quoted to about 300 (at Deniliquin). for irrigation looked much too low. Three interest groups requested follow-up seminar/ In fact the figures used represent gross workshop sessions, and these were held at Eskdale, margin at the farm gate, caravan park gate etc. Howlong and Deniliquin in late January 1999. The Thus for irrigation, the value placed on a megalitre

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 1 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

of water is the extra income the farmer can 1.6 Cost Sharing generate from it; ie the gross income less the direct When formulating its recommendations, the costs of gaining that income. The model now Panel was often confronted with the question of considers different irrigation enterprises separately, ‘who should pay?’ It believes that a guiding and uses different gross margins for each. principle is that cost sharing should be on an The gross margin is, of course, much less equitable basis having regard to the beneficiaries than the total value of production sold on the of both the current and the altered situation. market to consumers, or the contribution of the This principle can be applied, for example to industry to the regional economy. It also ignores the acquisition of easements over land adversely the social effects of any significant reduction of affected by current patterns of regulated flow. In availability of irrigation water. this case it is fairly clear that the beneficiaries This methodology is well established, and allows ‘fair’ comparisons to be made between are the consumptive users of water so they, at different commercial uses of water when least, should contribute. Irrigator members of comparing one scenario with another. It makes the Panel generally accepted that argument. no attempt to put a price on environmental In other cases, particularly of environmental water use, though the Panel acknowledges that improvement, the principle leads to a less clear result. the riverine environment has an economic value. For example, the Panel could not reach The methodology was documented in the support consensus about cost sharing for a multi-level papers, but not explained in the Options Paper. outlet at Dartmouth, or for easements over land above regulated flow (25 000 ML/d) to allow 1.4.2 Effects on flows to South Australia flooding of lagoons and depressions for environmental reasons. Some argue that costs Flows to South Australia were identified as an issue are incurred largely because of the existence of in Appendix E of the Options Paper, both with respect to quantity (entitlement flows) and quality water supply infrastructure for which the major (salinity, and environmental need for Murray flows beneficiaries are consumptive water users. The rather than Darling flows at least one year in counter argument is that these expenditures are three). These issues were not discussed in the needed only because of changing community Options Paper, largely because there did not seem attitudes and standards, so the whole to be scope to affect them by changing operation of community should pay. the upstream storages. The security of supply to SA Irrigators in particular expressed strong views was virtually unchanged in all the scenarios that inter-generational equity principles required modelled; though the maximum shortfall and peak that current water users should not pay the salinity does marginally increase for the ‘packaged’ whole cost of changing major infrastructure built scenarios modelled. On the other hand, the same to community standards of the past. scenarios give a benefit in terms of average salinity, The Panel did however identify other which is to SA’s advantage. measures such as development of river management plans, which should be principally 1.5 Corrections to Options paper funded from government. A number of individuals pointed out Because of these disparate views and the fact typographical or interpretive errors in the that the wider community is engaged in this Options Paper that need correcting. These are vexed question of cost-sharing, the Panel detailed in appendix D. The Panel appreciates believes that the Commission should advice of these errors. The fact that they were immediately address the development of picked up is evidence of the interest with which appropriate principles to apply to the people read the Options Paper. implementation of the various measures recommended by the Panel in this report.

2 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 2. Conclusions and Recommendations

2.1 Dartmouth – Hume reach of Mitta levels and decreases it at other levels; Mitta River • However, at all levels the dam increases the

2.1.1 Effect of Dartmouth Dam on pasture duration of some individual floods and productivity decreases the duration of others; (Options Paper sec 5.1.1, Appendix B sec 1.1) • There may be scope to decrease the duration of some floods by careful use of the power As a result of fewer floods and lower water station during the flood event, but there tables post Dartmouth, pasture growth in the would be an associated risk of making some valley has been reduced to the extent that individual floods worse in some locations. irrigation has become a necessity. It is now recognised that even after allocation of 2.1.3 Adverse effects on small areas of irrigation licences there are residual economic land at peak regulated flow effects. Independently of the Hume-Dartmouth (Options Paper sec 5.1.3, Appendix B sec 1.3) review, a process is now under way to address that problem. The Panel therefore concentrated A few properties have small areas of land that are on looking at ways in which operating rules flooded or waterlogged by peak regulated flows. could be modified to lessen the adverse effects. The area affected is very sensitive to the flow selected as the nominal channel capacity of the Conclusions river. In some cases attempts have been made to • Current Hume/Dartmouth harmony rules solve the problem by building regulators on provide for releases as soon as practicable lagoons and anabranches but with mixed success. following Hume ceasing to spill; Conclusion • When Dartmouth releases are needed for supply purposes, there may be some scope for • As a matter of equity, any adverse effects on earlier releases at lower rates; however, this private property of regulated flows should be reduced where possible by flow management could marginally decrease supply security. changes, or remedied by physical works or by negotiating flood easements. 2.1.2 Effects of flooding duration on the Mitta Mitta Valley 2.1.4 Impact of Dartmouth on river health (Options Paper sec 5.1.2, and 6.2.7, Appendix B sec 1.2) (Options Paper sec 5.1.4, and 5.3.1, Appendix B sec The Panel put considerable time and effort into 1.4 and 1.5) understanding the effects of Dartmouth on 2.1.4.1 Waterway management duration of flooding, as well as its effects on flood frequency and peaks. Modelling indicated The Mitta Mitta River is prone to bank erosion, that it would be possible to use the power and traditional management has relied heavily station and/or irrigation valves during periods of on willows and selective rock beaching. This has spill at Dartmouth to reduce the duration of led to expensive willow control measures and flooding at some levels. However the duration lowered environmental values. Funding at other levels would be increased. arrangements and management responsibilities Conclusions also need resolving. A fully integrated program for waterway management is desirable. • Dartmouth has a powerful effect on flood frequency in the Mitta Mitta valley, Conclusion removing about half the low-level floods and • An integrated program of waterway and three-quarters of higher level floods. It also floodplain management for the Mitta Mitta markedly reduces flood peaks; River should be supported and funded in • Of the remaining floods, Dartmouth consultation with local interests. increases average flood duration at some

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 3 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

2.1.4.2 Water temperature and quality 2.1.5 Recommendations – Dartmouth to Hume reach of Mitta Mitta River The temperature of water released from Dartmouth high-level outlet is lower than Effect of Dartmouth Dam on pasture productivity natural, particularly in summer and autumn. • The present harmony and pre-release rules This may be responsible for declining in-stream are generally appropriate and should be habitat, and also affects growth of irrigated retained unless modified in the future as part pasture. Water quality also suffers because of of a broader policy to increase the degree or the depth from which the water is drawn. variability of those releases. Any The Murray Scientific Panel on modification should not degrade the flood Environmental Flows identified the low water mitigation benefits of these rules; temperature in spring and summer as the • The scope to provide earlier releases for overriding issue for this river zone, and saw it as consumptive purposes at lower rates, and to compromising the integrity of the river system. increase the minimum passing flow at A multi-level offtake on the high-level outlet Dartmouth above 200 ML/d, should be would remedy these problems in part, but not investigated in detail, in the context that any completely. However the problems would package of changes should minimise impact remain when the low-level outlet is used, which on security of supply. is predicted to be about 15% of the time.

Conclusion Flooding duration • Given the environmental significance of • The possibility of operating the Dartmouth temperature suppression in the Mitta Mitta, the during floods to decrease flood costs and benefits of a multi-level offtake on the duration without increasing peak flood flows high-level outlet should be investigated in detail. should be investigated in detail, in consultation with stakeholders. The 2.1.4.3 Flow variability investigation should include: The Murray Scientific Panel on Environmental * technical and operational feasibility, Flows commented that improvements such as * benefits to generation, more variable releases are ‘unlikely to result in * effects on agricultural land, the reintroduction of native fish species and * environmental impacts, and more natural macroinvertebrate communities * any legal implications. unless the water temperature issue is adequately addressed. ...However, introduction of variability Adverse effects at peak regulated flow would have some value even if the water • Adverse effects on agricultural land at peak temperature issue was not addressed regulated flow on the Mitta Mitta River immediately. It will reduce the current level of should be addressed as follows: bed and bank erosion and should create more * In the first instance, the possibility of bank habitat for bank vegetation to re-establish.’ reducing the nominal channel capacity Conclusion below 10 000 ML/d should be investigated, • Operational improvements other than * Once channel capacity is set, the temperature restoration in the Mitta Mitta, possibility of effective regulators to solve such as increasing the variability of in-stream any residual problem on each affected flows, may not stimulate biological property should be assessed, improvements to the in-stream habitat until * If regulators are impractical or uneconomic, the water temperature problem is addressed. flood easements should be acquired and However, they may improve bank habitat appropriate compensation negotiated. and alleviate river erosion.

4 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Impacts on river health 2.2.2 The need for a comprehensive river • The Commission should contribute to the management plan between Hume funding for a geomorphic study of the Mitta and Yarrawonga Mitta River, similar to that already (Options Paper sec 5.2.2, Appendix B sec 2.2) undertaken for the Hume to Yarrawonga Regulation of the waters of the Murray reach of the Murray. downstream of Hume has progressively • An integrated program of waterway and increased since the 1920s. The reach between floodplain management for the Mitta Mitta Hume and Yarrawonga is also unusual because River should be supported based on the it carries some 6% greater than natural flows above study, along the lines already under because of Snowy diversions. It also contains development by the North East Catchment many anabranches, and at nominal channel Management Authority and in consultation capacity of 25 000 ML/d they carry more than with local interests. half the flow in some locations. The river • Implementation of the program should channel is progressively widening through receive support from water users (both for erosion, and some anabranches through private consumption and power generation) based property are developing to the extent that they on the extent to which their activities threaten to become the main course of the river. contribute to river management problems. This process threatens both agricultural pursuits • Detailed investigations into the cost, benefit and the environmental values of the floodplain. and optimum way to achieve a multi-level Geomorphic studies have confirmed that offtake on the Dartmouth High Level Outlet flow regulation has had a major effect on should be undertaken. In particular, the channel stability in the reach. likely benefits should be quantified as far as Conclusion possible, in terms of the overall potential to improve the riverine environment. • Waterway management of the Hume to • Strategies to increase the variability of Yarrawonga reach of the Murray can only be in-stream flows below Dartmouth should be fully addressed by developing a developed, and should not await solution of comprehensive and properly funded the water temperature problem. program. Planning should be on a ‘no borders’ basis and the planning process

2.2 Hume to Yarrawonga reach of River Murray should initially be led by the Commission and include full consultation with relevant 2.2.2 Adverse effects on agricultural land at state agencies and local stakeholders. peak regulated flow of 25 000 ML/d (Options Paper sec 5.2.1, Appendix B sec 2.1) 2.2.3 Increased environmental and pre- Nominal channel capacity of this reach of river has release rates from Hume Dam been regarded as 25 000 ML/d for many years. (Options Paper sec 6.2.9, Appendix B sec 2.3) This has led to anabranches cutting off access to The River Murray Action Group, which productive land, and the Commission has represents floodplain landholders between therefore contributed to access works. However, Hume and Yarrawonga, has indicated that its with regulated flows, especially with increased members will consider selling flood easements duration in recent years, freehold land on some over private low-lying flood-prone land, as part properties is being inundated or waterlogged. of a total package for managing flows in this Conclusion river reach. This would allow operating rules to • As a matter of equity, adverse effects on private be changed to allow the low-lying land to be property of regulated flows should be remedied, flooded a little more often, and higher land a principally by negotiating flood easements. little less often. Several scenarios were modelled

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 5 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

to assess the effects of the proposal. The most The Panel believes that the pattern of releases promising appeared to be to allow from Hume Dam can be changed to lessen the environmental and pre-releases including frequency of constant flows, but that the change releases for forest watering (but not regulated should be driven by the environmental flows to releases in the summer or autumn) to be be negotiated during the interstate flows process. increased to about 31 500 ML/d or 3.5 metres Flow variability is further discussed in on the Albury gauge. sec 2.2.3 above, and in the discussion of The benefits of the proposal appear to be: modelled scenarios in sec 2.4 • a modest decrease (modelled average of Conclusions $16 000/year) in the costs of flooding land • Constant releases from Lake Hume should be above the 31 500 ML/d level; avoided where possible; • environmental benefits to low level wetlands • There appear to be opportunities to improve and the floodplain – mainly between Hume variability within current operating and Yarrawonga, but also below Yarrawonga; arrangements and without affecting • an enhanced ability to vary pre-releases – irrigation supply; whether by translucency or other more • However, significant environmental managed means – which would also improve improvement will require changes that may within-channel variability; and impact on irrigation supply. Any such • a small enhancement in ability to provide a changes should be negotiated within the suitable watering regime for the Barmah- environmental flows process. Millewa forest.

2.2.5 Recommendations – Hume to Potential costs and risks of the proposal are: Yarrawonga reach of River Murray • significant capital cost – possibly in the order of $3 million to $6 million; and Adverse effects at peak regulated flow (25 000 ML/d) • local agreement would be needed to the • Adverse effects of flooding or waterlogging of changed operating arrangements. Even if private land at peak regulated flow level most of the affected landholders agree with between Hume and Yarrawonga should be the proposal, there is a possibility that a remedied, principally by negotiating flood minority may feel aggrieved. easements over affected land; • In general terms, it is reasonable for the cost to Conclusion be met by the beneficiaries of regulated flows; • The proposal merits detailed development • In addition, the ongoing program of and evaluation. It may well form a useful contributing to works to provide access to land part of a scenario package, but its cut off by regulated flows should continue. justification depends on clear identification of the environmental benefits. Comprehensive river management plan • A comprehensive and properly funded 2.2.4 Flow Variability program should be developed, as a matter of (Options Paper sec 5.2.2, 6.2.6 to 6.2.9 and 6.4, high priority, for management of the Hume- Appendix B sec 2.4) Yarrawonga reach of the Murray. The Murray Scientific Panel on Environmental • The management program will initially need Flows identified negative impacts that can arise a strategic approach to articulate a vision for from making dam releases at a constant rate. the future desirable state of the river. The The resulting constant river heights can diminish strategic framework will require: habitat, aggravate bank erosion and contribute to * developing criteria for acceptable and significant changes in channel morphology. unacceptable erosion rates;

6 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

* setting limits to acceptable rates of Increased environmental and pre-release rates from channel widening and bed degradation, Hume Dam (31 500 ML/d) * a decision on the extent to which • The proposal to increase allowable anabranch development needs to be environmental and pre-release rates from contained; Hume to approximately 31 500 ML/d (3.5 m at * setting desired levels of protection for Albury) through acquisition of flood easements aquatic and riparian habitat including should be developed in more detail, subject to protection of snags, specific billabongs acceptance in principle by those affected. etc.; and * documenting desired aesthetic and Flow variability recreational values. • In the short term, variability in Hume • Based on the strategic framework, a releases should be trialled, to the extent that comprehensive river management program it is possible within the current nominal should be developed. This program would: channel capacity and without reducing * establish an agreed management irrigation supply; arrangement, working across State • In the longer term, flow variability should be boundaries and with appropriate proper further investigated via the interstate flows process. local input; * establish links with associated land 2.3 Issues that are not reach-specific management programs; 2.3.1 The need for improved communication * establish agreed funding arrangements – (Options Paper sec 5.5, Appendix B sec 3.3) with consideration of funding from such This emerged as the most important issue to many sources as the Commission in recognition stakeholders. In the initial scoping study for the of the effects of regulated flow, catchment review, the CSIRO found dissatisfaction with management authorities, local government communication along the whole river. The and input (cash or kind) from landholders; Commission was perceived as unwilling to consult, * set a works program – including both an remote, and dismissive of local knowledge and annual program of necessary patch up experience. The Panel found ample evidence of works and a coordinated strategy of activities these views as the review progressed. designed to achieve the long term goals; and It is fair to say that in many cases these views * monitor progress and the extent to which were partly because people did not understand the the strategic framework might need to be detail of how the river is operated and the changed or refined. geographic and hydrologic constraints of the • The Commission should lead preparation of system. This indicates the need for continual the initial river management plan in close explanation of these constraints. Nevertheless there consultation with: is a very strong demand for more and better liaison * local stakeholders; between the actual river operators and interest * the responsible NSW agency (DLWC groups. Some groups had quite specific ideas about supported and advised by community groups); what they wanted, and suggestions included: * the Victorian North-East Catchment • early flow advice for farmers, campers, Management Authority. townspeople etc., • The Commission should provide funding • a special liaison group formed as a assistance for initial plan preparation; subcommittee of the MDBC’s Community • One aim of the initial plan should be to set Advisory Committee, up a responsible ‘no borders’ river • a formal relationship or partnership between management agency (or joint venture MDBC and interest groups (this was between agencies) as soon as possible. suggested by several respondents),

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 7 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

• interest from catchment management system with little re-regulating capacity. On authorities in being involved, occasions the flow at Mildura is less than planned, • a formal operations advisory committee to which increases salinity levels and can promote the MDBC, the growth of algae in Mildura Weir Pool. • from the Mitta Mitta landholders, a proposal Conclusions for a formal ‘Dartmouth Dam Operations • Because of the position of Mildura on the Impact Committee’ on which landholders and Murray, immediately upstream of Darling all interested agencies would be represented. inflows and well downstream of significant Conclusion re-regulating storage, the management of • Well-structured, formal and regular liaison minimum flows is a real issue; should be set up between the Commission • Improvements are a matter of refining river (or River Murray Water) and interested operation rather than operation of Hume community groups as a matter of urgency. and Dartmouth as such.

2.3.2 Effects of regulated flow and rain 2.3.4 Recommendations – Issues that are rejections on natural drying cycles in not reach-specific wetlands Improved Communication (Options Paper sec 5.3.2, Appendix B sec 3.1) • Well-structured, formal and regular liaison Many plants need a wetting and drying cycle for should be set up, as a matter of urgency, their seeds to germinate and their roots to be between River Murray Water (and its aerated. Drying also permits oxygenation of operational agents) and interested sediments which in turn supports aquatic food webs, community groups. This liaison should be: leading to more productive and diverse wetlands. * of a frequency and form negotiated with Some wetlands along the Murray are particular interest groups to suit their needs; inundated at peak summer regulated flow. * regarded as a real commitment – not just Others are not, but can be affected when something to be fitted in when time is available; summer rain causes rejection of irrigation water * supported by a formal resource allocation which is returned to, or left in, the river. and budget, including support to community Conclusion groups to cover administrative costs. • This issue will require considerably more work • In particular, ongoing liaison is needed with and should be integrated into river flow Mitta Mitta landholders, Hume to Yarrawonga management plans. Solutions are likely to involve landholders and peak irrigator groups. more accurate river operation, better management of rain rejections, and physical works. Natural drying cycles in wetlands • The Interstate Working Group on River 2.3.3 The need to better manage minimum Murray Flows should consider the issue of flows downstream of Mildura improved natural drying cycles in wetlands, (Options Paper sec 5.4, Appendix B sec 3.2) in particular the scope for: Current operating procedure is to pass a * Improved and more accurate river minimum flow at Euston Weir of 2450 ML/d operation, which may become possible as plus expected diversion from the main weather forecasting, data collection Sunraysia irrigation districts. This suggests that methods and flow modelling improve, 2450 ML/d covers private diversions, river losses * Retention of rain rejection water on farm, in the reach and the flow past Mildura Weir. within distribution systems or in weir There are operational difficulties in pools by allowing more level variation, maintaining a small flow at the end of a long river * Physical works in some wetlands.

8 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Minimum flows downstream of Mildura cost. It provided larger flood events when • The Interstate Working Group on River storages filled, but removed flow variability Murray Flows should be asked to consider the during the pre-spill period, and did not appear sufficiency and more accurate management of to produce a net environmental benefit. minimum flows in the stretch of the Murray The Murray Scientific Panel on between Euston and Wentworth. The Working Environmental Flows had suggested both the Group will need to consider this issue in a above scenarios, but without the benefit of daily whole-of-river context, and be prepared to models to guide their deliberations. consult with local and regional stakeholders. Conceptually, the adverse effects of Possible avenues of improvement may translucent or variable flow operation can be include, but not be limited to: managed by setting storage targets. As with * Obtaining more precise orders from diverters, current pre-release rules, a defined risk of or improving methods of estimation; failing to spill can be built into monthly targets. * Utilising more storage volume in weir The storage could then be operated from day to pools, especially Euston; day on a translucent rather than fixed release * Improving measurement. basis, with the degree of translucency selected to take the defined risk of failing to fill. These 2.4 Flow Policy Development operating rules are likely to be complex. (Options Paper sec 6, Appendix B sec 3.4 and 3.5) The modelling clearly demonstrated the constraints within which the system is operated, Extensive use was made of simulation models and helped to make each interest group aware to explore possible improvements to storage of the effects of its suggested changes on other operation. These ranged from simple ‘fill and interest groups. The modelling tools developed spill’ and ‘airspace’ policies to variations on as part of the Hume-Dartmouth review should existing pre-release and harmony rules, a range be very useful in future work on environmental of scenarios which increased instream flow by flow policies. various means, changes in rules for power station operation, policies to enhance forest Broad Conclusions from modelling watering and a range of combined scenarios. In • A simple fill and spill arrangement has a net all, some forty different scenarios were economic cost. It has environmental benefits modelled and analysed. at some times and locations and disbenefits The simulated scenarios brought into focus at others, and appears on balance not to the trade-offs between the different management have net benefits in economic or objectives. Inevitably, scenarios aimed at environmental terms; increased in-stream flows had adverse impacts on • Airspace scenarios do not present adequate consumptive use. These impacts were easily benefits in return for costs; quantifiable in dollar terms, but it was very • Translucent flow scenarios in the order of difficult to assess environmental benefits even 30% show considerable promise. However, a qualitatively. It appeared that significant ‘managed’ flow regime aimed at restoring a reductions in consumptive use were necessary to degree of variability while minimising produce some of the desired environmental impacts on resource security warrants benefits, while others could be gained with little further examination; or no reduction in consumptive use. • Allowing pre-releases and Barmah watering At times the model runs produced useful but releases to be made up to an increased negative results. For example they indicated nominal channel capacity (eg. 31 500 ML/day that the ‘10% translucent flows’ scenario did between Hume and Yarrawonga) has a small not deliver useful net environmental benefits. benefit to forest watering. The increased The ‘fill and spill’ scenario had a net economic channel capacity would allow more freedom

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 9 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

for introducing variability to pre-releases and environmental benefits, allow some parts of the floodplain between * development of well-defined property Hume and Yarrawonga to receive more rights to water use in NSW; regular watering; • The Panel believes that the Murray • Using Dartmouth power station during floods Environmental Flows process will fail without would have significant net economic benefits community ownership. The IWGRMF should and marginal environmental benefits. A be strengthened by the addition of a modified version of this scenario may have community-based steering/reference potential to reduce flood duration without increasing peak level, but with a risk of committee with community members from occasionally making an individual event NSW, Victoria and SA as well as members worse at some locations (refer to sec 2.1.5 from the various State agencies. for recommendation); • The scenario that models the Victorian 2.4.1 Recommendations – Flow policy proposal to water the Barmah-Millewa forest development provides good increases in low level flooding • Between Hume and Yarrawonga, flow but has less effect at higher levels. Variations management options should be further to the proposal produce very little difference explored that improve both river health and in either benefits or penalties. However it does flood mitigation, but minimise impacts on not take account of NSW allocation policies. The Panel, while not endorsing any particular security of supply. forest watering strategy, does see merit in • The Interstate Working Group for River strategies that aim to build on natural flood Murray Flows should be asked to further events. It is important that these are further develop a package of operational policies on developed jointly by Victoria and NSW. the basis of the review’s modelling results. • A package of operational policies can be The package could include: developed on the basis of the modelling * a mechanism for watering the Barmah- results. This package could include: Millewa forest, * a mechanism for watering the Barmah- * elements of varied flow release, Millewa forest, * an increase in nominal channel capacity * elements of translucent or otherwise between Hume and Yarrawonga for pre- managed varied release with a defined releases and forest watering releases, risk of spilling, and * careful attention to the detailed rules to * an increase in nominal channel capacity minimise impacts on consumptive water use; between Hume and Yarrawonga for pre- • As part of package evaluation, the releases and environmental (including environmental benefits should be assessed as forest watering) releases; thoroughly as possible; • The key issue is the balancing of • The IWGRMF should be strengthened by the environmental benefit against economic cost; addition of a community-based • Combined scenarios of the sort described steering/reference committee with above hold considerable promise for producing worthwhile environmental community members from NSW, Victoria improvements at tolerable economic cost. and SA as well as members from the various However the detailed rules to achieve this State agencies; are likely to be complex; • Concurrently, development of well-defined • Elements needed to clarify this issue are: property rights to water use in NSW should * more thorough assessment of expected be pursued.

10 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 3. What Next?

The Reference Panel has now completed its task. It looks forward to: • production of this Final Report as a public document; • favourable responses from the Commission to the detailed recommendations. In this respect, the Panel is encouraged by the knowledge that provision has already been made for some recommendations in Commission budgets for 1999/2000; • on-going dialogue through various consultative mechanisms as recommendations are implemented or further developed.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 11 Appendix A: Responses to Options Paper

No Author Summary of main points 1 Murray Bridge • General support for addressing and better understanding of many of & Districts the issues raised. Association • High priority: flood mitigation, environmental flows,channel stability. • Medium priority: limits imposed by channel capacities, river management plans, restoration of wetlands, communication. • Lower priority: hydropower generation. • Major South Australian concern is levels of salt and contaminants • General agreement with all specific tentative panel views, with emphasis on communication issues. 2 Snowy • Concerned that some of the alternatives canvassed would reduce the Mountains long-term yield from Hume and Dartmouth, and in turn increase Hydro-electric pressure for irrigation releases from the scheme, reducing its value Authority and flexibility for electricity generation. • Considers options paper has omitted this significant cost to the Scheme. • Concerned that initiatives external to Snowy corporatisation are continuing to erode the value of the Scheme. 3 Community • Options need investigation and consultation with those affected. Advisory • Supports commitment to better communication. Committee • Security of supply to SA was identified as an issue of high relevance, but does not seem to have been addressed. 4 A B Savidge, • Concerned that issue of ‘disaster planning’ was not addressed, and Wodonga that Albury has no ‘viable flood threat warning system’. • Concerned that issue of ‘dam structural safety’ was not addressed, and believes Hume is still at risk of failure. • Puts forward proposals for major dams within the existing Hume storage and a large capacity tunnel (50,000 – 100,000 ML/d) from one of them to pass irrigation and flood flows to the vicinity of Howlong. 5 C Jones, JP Hume-Dartmouth reach Strathalbyn SA • Investigate timing of releases further. • Consult with Mitta Mitta community on all aspects of Mitta river management. • Property specific solutions to regulated flow effects. • Support integrated program of river management. • Multi level offtake should be subject to cost-benefit analysis. Hume-Yarrawonga reach • Agree with flood easements to cover peak regulated flow. • Strongly agree with need for comprehensive river management plan. • Agree with increased pre-releases aimed at environmental improvement. General • Support better flow control at Mildura. • Wholehearted support for improved communication. • Support continued development of combined scenarios.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 13 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 6 Anonymous • Low level land is always subject to flooding and landholders should accept this. • Agree with need for comprehensive river management. • Accept increased pre-releases from Hume. • Communication – need flow advice early for farmers, campers and townspeople. • Environment should take precedence over economics in decision making. • In general, modelling results not accepted. 7 Anonymous • Strongly support easements over land that has been destroyed by regulated flows. • Support Hume-Yarrawonga river management plan only if it is properly funded, has landholder agreement, and is acted upon. • Support increased pre-releases from Hume only if affected landholders are adequately compensated. • Better communication is vital. • Pre-releases should be based on 50% risk of failing to fill – same risk to all. • Translucent flows should continue through October and November to achieve a natural pattern. 8 Western • Cost-benefit analysis is the correct tool to evaluate different scenarios, Murray in conjunction with modelling. Difficult to comment in detail. Irrigation • Regulation of a river will inevitably affect the flood regime. • Case by case basis preferred for land flooded at regulated flow – no compensation if it is ‘floodplain land’. • Support comprehensive river management programs. • No commitment to Dartmouth multi-level offtake without cost-benefit analysis. • No commitment to increased Hume pre-releases until effects are fully analysed. • Support improvements to wetlands – physical works seem the best option. • Better management of Mildura flows will help, but the magnitude of flow needs to increase. • Doubts about ongoing liaison with interest groups – communication could be better done by newsletters etc. 9 Murray • Flood mitigation does not appear to have been a major issue for the Darling review. Association • Consideration should be given to Mitta Mitta farmers having unlimited Region 2 pumping rights. • Hume should be maintained as near as possible to at least 50% capacity until the end of February (for recreation) • Hume should be filled earlier in the season with flows from Dartmouth. • Consideration should be given to ‘Savidge’ dam and pipeline proposal. • There should be greater flexibility in operating Dartmouth when it is above 50% full. • Concerned about management of the water cap in NSW.

14 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 10 Jerilderie • Volumes passed to South Australia have been 6100 GL in 95/6, Shire 10 300 GL in 96/7, and 2435 GL in 97/8. Council • These figures compare with an entitlement including environmental flows (dilution and losses) of 1850 GL and extraction of about 800 GL. • SA entitlements were sold on a temporary basis to Riverina farmers in 97/8. This is double dipping by SA. • Water trading is a legalised black market and is damaging the irrigation industry. • Dartmouth and Eucumbene are the critical components of the water system. Use of Dartmouth should not be restricted while it holds more than 50% capacity. • Overriding need is to allow water users to take advantage of water when it is available. • MDBC cap should be removed following implementation of NSW environmental flow policy. 11 Southern • Beneficiaries. Irrigators are not the only beneficiaries of a regulated river. Riverina Towns, recreational users of the river, tourism and floodplain landholders Irrigation also benefit. All beneficiaries should contribute to the costs of managing Districts the regulated river, in proportion to benefit. Council • Property Rights. Irrigators have a right to water they have been allocated and have traditionally used, as they have paid for it in their property values. Compensation is needed if water is to be removed from irrigators, and property rights to water are necessary to ensure irrigators are treated fairly. An ‘in perpetuity’ property right is proposed. •Translucency is totally rejected in any form suggested. It is an easy to manage environmental release but its benefits have not been well identified. A ‘managed flows’ approach may well be superior; however evaluation SRIDC understands that more research and is needed to determine details. • Barmah – Millewa Watering. The ‘Victorian’ Barmah-Millewa proposal depends on using NSW airspace in some years to store Victoria’s contribution. The concept of ‘borrowing’ the water in severe droughts is supported, but NSW irrigators reject the model as it leaves irrigation worse off in 40% of years. Other ways of using the 100 GL were not considered. • Financial Impact. Tables 7 and 8 demonstrate that there is an economic cost in providing translucent flows. Irrigation is the biggest loser, and irrigators will not support losses of the magnitude shown. The loss figures are based on average farm gross margins, and so understate the economic costs. • Other inquiries (Snowy etc) may have a compounding effect. At the worst, if all proposals are implemented, irrigation could be reduced by as much as 42%, which is clearly unacceptable. • Environment. The packages show little environmental improvement between Hume and Yarrawonga. Even below Yarrawonga, there are often environmental tradeoffs. A more rigorous environmental approach is needed. • Community Consultation. The Review is commended on its consultation. However in general the community is not kept well enough informed. SRIDC should have a mechanism for direct communication with the MDBC.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 15 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 12 Murray • Represents municipalities, chambers of commerce and development Valley associations and agri-business groups in the mid-Murray region. Voice • Concerned at the flow-on effects to rural communities if water is removed from irrigation. Less water means fewer farmers, reduction in services and community decline. • Property rights to water provide financial certainty, an asset that can be borrowed against and security for rating agencies. • The rural community remains an uninformed and hence disadvantaged player in the game of reform. Consultation during the Review was good, but needs to be continued. 13 State Forests • Bird and fish breeding indicators. Run B46950 (Barmah watering) of NSW – used thresholds for bird and fish breeding that have been updated Riverine following peer review. A presentation based on the final draft can be Region given to the panel if required. • Fill and Spill seems to have little impact on flooding at Albury and Tocumwal. So why are pre-releases undertaken? Early low level forest flooding is not supported. Despite modelling results, fill and spill is strongly supported. • Translucent flows should not be restricted to June-Sept. As modelled, they appear to be little more than pre-releases under another name. A more managed approach targeting actual ecological requirements is supported. • Flood easements to 31 500 ML/d are strongly supported for environmental releases, but not for flood mitigation or regulated releases. • Panel membership – concerned that specialists in floodplain ecology etc were not panel members or routinely involved in panel discussions. 14 N J • How is value of irrigated agriculture arrived at? It overlaps with McKinnon, dryland production. $700 million looks too low. Jerilderie • Mitta Mitta farmers should be allowed to use water on very favourable terms. • If Dartmouth is more than half full, Hume should be kept more than half full. Dartmouth should not be allowed to spill. • No-one knows the minimum flows for acceptable environmental conditions. • Keen on Savidge proposals. • Hume release of 1996 should not be allowed to occur again.

16 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 15 Moira Private • Effects on farmland at peak regulated flow. Not convinced, and Irrigation concerned that landholders may be over-compensated for something District Board that was apparent when they bought the property. of • Comprehensive river management plan. Strongly support such a plan Management for the entire length of the Murray. • Increased pre-release. MPID requires a minimum of 5100 ML/d at Picnic Point for full operation. Would oppose variability that takes flow below this level. • Natural drying cycles in wetlands. Agree with improving distribution efficiency – water savings should be used for environmental flows. •Property rights to water are a pre-requisite for agreeing to re-sharing of resources. • Improved communication is important. A group formed as a sub-set of the CAC is proposed. • Conclusions from modelling. Believe modelling was more narrowly based than Snowy modelling and results should therefore be treated with caution. 16 Murray • A clearly defined process to introduce property rights is urgently Irrigation needed in NSW to achieve constructive community input to the Limited water resource sharing debate. • Support the purchase of easements over land affected at peak regulated flow provided appropriate agreements are entered into. Initial valuations appear high. • Support easements to cover pre-releases up to 31 500 ML/d. Land value is enhanced because of flood protection. Government should pay most of the cost. • Support the development of waterway and floodplain management plans. Cost sharing should be based on the ‘beneficiary pays’ principle. • Aware that this work will increase River Murray Water’s operating costs. It is essential that costs are transparent and that cost sharing for waterway and floodplain management costs is equitable. • Support formal and continuous liaison between River Murray Water and the community. Present institutional arrangements are a barrier to this – there should be more customer involvement with River Murray Water. • Do not support translucent dam operation – significant impacts on water availability and uncertain environmental benefits. Averages are misleading – impacts each year are needed for full analysis. • Not opposed to introducing variability in pre-releases. • Do not support ‘Victorian’ Barmah – Millewa proposal. Should make it explicit that the proposal has not been endorsed by NSW. The proposal would involve a change to the interstate water sharing arrangements. • Final report should make specific reference to the economic importance of irrigation to the regional community. • Loss of resource from lower and earlier releases from Dartmouth should be quantified before deciding on this issue.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 17 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points • Multi-level offtake at Dartmouth supported on condition that it is fully Government funded, because the environment is the beneficiary. • Agree with flow management to enhance wetlands, and would seek to be actively involved. • Support improved management of flows downstream of Mildura. • Support a fill and spill policy because it increases water security and has environmental benefits once the dams spill. • Do not support combined scenarios – impacts on water availability. • Economics – should explicitly describe the economic values as net values and acknowledge the major regional impact of irrigation. 17 Murray General Darling • Operation has greatly improved in the last four years. Association • Disappointing that tourism and recreation interests, and dam safety, Inc were not given greater prominence. • Report was difficult to understand – Plain English summary needed. Mitta Mitta • Support generous pumping rights for Mitta Mitta landholders. • Support earlier release of Dartmouth water at lower rates. • Support integrated program of waterway and floodplain strategies. • Strongly support investigation of costs and benefits of multi-level offtake at Dartmouth. Hume – Yarrawonga • Should aim to keep Hume at least 50% full until the end of Feb. • Support flood easements below Hume. • Strongly support comprehensive river management plan. • Sees increased pre-releases as acceptable provided it is not to the detriment of maximising dam storage. • Strongly supports improved liaison and communication. Should include local government and tourism interests. • Effective warning systems are needed if there should be a dam wall stability problem. 18 ?? Corowa • Land affected by regulated or pre-release flows goes beyond that directly flooded – access problems. • Strongly support need for comprehensive river management planning. • Support increased pre-releases from Hume. • Support improved management. • Support better communication. • Not keen on ‘fill and spill’ alone. Airspace is a component of a pre-release strategy. Translucent flows are a sound guideline.

18 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 19 Murray • Operation has greatly improved in the last four years. Darling • Disappointing that tourism and recreation interests, and dam safety, Association were not given greater prominence. – Region 1 • Flood mitigation does not appear to have been a major issue. • Support generous pumping rights for Mitta Mitta landholders. • Minimum flow needed for Mitta Mitta. • Support integrated waterway and floodplain strategies. • Strongly support multi-level offtake at Dartmouth. • Maintain Hume 50% full to the end of February. • Consider ‘Savidge’ proposals • Support flood easements below Lake Hume. Also need warning of above channel flows. • Strongly support comprehensive river management plan between Hume and Yarrawonga. • Strongly support better communication – need a formal relationship/partnership between MDBC and interest groups. Should also include tourism and recreation interests. • Effective warning systems are needed if there should be a dam wall stability problem. Community perception is that this does not exist. • Operational management of dams should be based in Albury-Wodonga. • Safety and management of Bethanga Bridge needs further investigation. 20 City of Albury Priority Issues • Provision of viable plan for reliable and effective flood warning system. • Sufficient river depth to allow PS Cumberoona to operate for a minimum of 8 months each year. • Practical, achievable and integrated river management plans for all reaches of river, not just Hume to Yarrawonga. Other comments • Support earlier releases at lower rates from Dartmouth. • Support proposed process for dealing with effects of regulated Dartmouth flows. • Support any measures to fix water quality problems. • Support easements over land affected by regulated Hume flows. • Strongly support integrated river management plan. • Support increased pre-releases from Hume. Also suggest increased post (spill?) releases. • Support measures to improve wetland cycles. • Strongly support better communication. • Agree generally with modelling conclusions.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 19 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 21 Field and Comments Game • Strongly support translucent flow scenarios – environmental benefits Australia Inc would outweigh economic costs. • Support flood easements to allow increased pre-releases. Concerns • Information regarding the lower Murray is limited. • Adverse effects if no environmental flows are provided will be severe. • What of 27 000 ML allocation to Victorian Murray wetlands – still current? 22 NSW TCM • Fully support concept of an interstate working group on River Murray Riverine flows, in preference to each State working separately. Subcommittee • Accept limited role of review, but concerned to ensure that action is only taken in full consideration of the implications of the catchment as a whole. 23 John Terrill, • 12 months of records of bore levels on his property now complete. Rutherglen Comments on Options Paper • Present regulated flow level (2.96m Albury gauge) is not sustainable because of erosion, rising watertables and possible salting. Level should not exceed 2.5m. • Amount of water entering anabranches should be controlled by some form of barrier. • Higher pre-release prior to anticipated flood would be acceptable. • Idea of more regular pre-releases has drawbacks – difficult to identify land indirectly affected. May also have environmental disadvantages. • Barmah releases should be in conjunction with downstream increases – eg Ovens. 24 Bill Norman, • Effect of a flood depends heavily on prior catchment wetness. Rutherglen • Official flood level at Albury appears to have risen over the years. However a decision to use floodplain land must take account of the probability of floods. • Use of storages to mitigate floods will always be a balancing act between competing interests. • Suggest max level of Hume increasing from 70% at end of June to 95% at mid October, allowing storage to fill after mid October. 25 Murray Valley • Support investigation of multi-level outlet at Dartmouth. Water • Support proposals for land affected by regulated flows (both river reaches). Diverters • Difficult to separate natural erosion from that caused by regulation. Advisory • Barmah-Millewa Watering Strategy several years ago considered that only Association 50 GL/annum of stored water was needed for a complete watering strategy. This has been ignored and no management plan is yet in place. • Victorian proposal of an extra 50 GL is unacceptable – need only a third of the 150 now being proposed. • Need clear guidelines for the use of the 100 GL already allocated to Barmah-Millewa. • Even a large level of translucency has a small environmental benefit but a large economic cost. • Present pre-release rules are tried and tested, and may need only slight modification to produce better environmental outcomes.

20 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 26 Victorian • Economic benefits of river regulation have come at a cost, and the North-East beneficiaries should meet that cost. Catchment • Options Paper fails to assure that its recommendations will be acted on. Management • Environmental effects of the changed flood regime in the Mitta Mitta Authority valley have not been highlighted. MDBC should fund a study to assess these effects and recommend works to fix the problem, including costs and cost sharing. • Erosion on the Mitta Mitta has not been given the same attention as below Hume. Geomorphic studies should be undertaken, comparable to the IDA studies below Hume. • Panel report should make similar recommendations for a Mitta Mitta river management plan as for below Hume, giving it similar weight. • Not convinced that the benefits of a multi-level outlet at Dartmouth are worth the cost. May be better to accept the temperature deficit and ask the dam owner (MDBC) to undertake compensatory work to the same value (eg rehabilitation of other streams in the catchment) with greater environmental benefit (like carbon or salinity credits). • Support improved communication, and would like to be part of it. • Above also true for issues that affect the Victorian floodplain of the Murray below Hume. 27 Victorian • The Options Paper does not adequately take into account the Association significance of the red gum timber industry. of Forest • Hence support need for better communication with the industry, Industries particularly to give it opportunity to contribute to the work of the Interstate Working Group on River Murray Flows. • Support view that packages should provide for effective forest watering, but that may require more water than already allocated to forests. ‘Sharing the Murray’ proposal does not adequately water SQ2 production forests. • Support increased pre-release rates between Hume and Yarrawonga. Believe this will help forest watering, and question statement (P 32) that it won’t help much.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 21 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 28 Gordon Ball, • Harmony rules need to minimise likely resource loss. Deniliquin • Adverse effects on farm land at peak regulated flow are offset by benefits (reduced pump heads, irrigation from aquifer). However if necessary, land should be purchased and leased back. • Support need for comprehensive river management plan. • Could improve river regulation by remodelling Vic Yarrawonga channel to operate at a lower level. • Tentatively support flow/level manipulations to improve environmental aspects of river flow management. • Modelling – status quo is a good place to start. • Translucency has a credibility it does not deserve. Benefits are not quantified, so no benefit-cost analysis is possible. • Victorian forest watering proposal should not have been modelled as it has not been agreed and does not share the contribution equitably. Its capacity sharing arrangements are outside the current MDB Agreement. • Managed small-scale works (as proposed by Barmah-Millewa Forum) are the way to improve forest watering. • Usefulness of supplementing natural flood events can be gauged from the 1998 exercise. 29 Ricegrowers’ • Irrigators must have property rights specifying share of resource, Association of mechanism for sharing and security. In the absence of such a right, it Australia is difficult to participate in meaningful negotiation, but any reduction in security of existing rights must be compensated for. • Support taking of easements over land affected by regulated flows. • Support increased pre-releases from Hume as part of a larger management plan. • While recreational use of water is important, it does not pay its way and should be secondary to the needs of the environment and irrigation. • Translucency is unacceptable as a stand-alone option. • Present science is unable to quantify environmental effects or benefits of different strategies. Until this is possible, it is unreasonable to expect those who have allocations reduced to bear the cost. • Managed approach to flow variation may be more effective and fair. • Engineering solutions (banks and pumping to wetlands, fish ladders, multi-level offtakes) are part of the solution. • Timing of Barmah-Millewa flooding depends on benefits desired – to fish, birds or timber? More research is needed. • Support the additional low security water and the borrow-back provisions of the ‘Sharing the Murray’ document. 30 V I P Eddy, • Land affected by regulated flow – support purchase of land and Mildura leaseback, rather than easements. Payment must be once only. • Comprehensive river management program may be only delaying the inevitable. May be better to allow the river to reach a new stability naturally. • Similarly, wetlands have been destabilised, but will reach a new, and not necessarily worse, stability naturally. Change is not always bad. • Strongly support the concept of the IWGRMF.

22 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 31 Albury- • More frequent flooding is needed – the 1998 release of 100 GL was not Wodonga adequate. A four-month flood should occur every two to three years. Environment • Support concept of flow variability. Centre • Drying of wetlands, such as Barmah-Millewa, is needed. • Support concept of translucent flows, but 30% is probably not enough. • Agree that operation of the river is not well understood by the public – would support an education program. • A continued focus on economic rather than environmental criteria may well lead to a dead environment and a dead economy. 32 River Murray • Commend Panel for producing a clear and easily read document. Action Group • Much of the unease of NSW irrigators is because of the lack of clear Inc property rights to water. Panel should recommend that it be addressed. • Support taking of easements over land affected by regulated flow, and continuation of MDBC bridge access program. • Strongly support proposed river management program, with addition of a continuous program for monitoring the streambed and study of the effect of boating on erosion. • Strongly support improved communication. Continual communication will be needed if increased pre-release and translucent flow policies are adopted. • Opposed to ‘fill and spill’ operation. • Support some sort of airspace option, but would accept the increased pre-release and translucent flow option. Reserve right to again raise the issue if outcomes of other policies prove unsatisfactory. • Support the proposal for enhanced forest watering. • Support pre-release increase to 31 500 ML/d provided easements are taken over affected land. Span should be June–October inclusive. Length of pre-release would need consultation for each event. • Also need to consider damage to fences, loss of access and weed problems. • Question of large floods with storage near full requires further study. 33 Allhill P/L • Do not accept any proposal that would allow the to (Quat Quatta exceed channel capacity that is a maximum of 25 000 ML/d. Station, • May support flood mitigation only to the point of not exceeding Corowa) channel capacity. • Flows above 25 000 ML/d inundate the majority of Quat Quatta’s river flats and would make the property unviable. • Purchasing easements is not an option of Allhill P/L.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 23 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 34 Southern • Generally support findings and conclusions of paper. Hydro • Operating power station during Dartmouth spill should be further investigated, and Southern Hyrdro is keen to be a party to discussion. • Support increased riparian flows and translucency, both of which would enhance Southern Hyrdro operation. • Support relaxed pre-release rules and a reduced need to run at channel capacity. • Any change in target levels for airspace options would need discussion as it would require a change to the formal operating agreement between Southern Hydro and Goulburn-Murray Water. However the change could well be supported. • Installation of multilevel outlet is of concern, as the power station would need to be out of service for a considerable period, which would impose a cost on Southern Hyrdro. • The power station has regional benefits in improved local reliability of supply, system restart capability etc. It also reduces CO2 emissions. 35 NSW Dairy • Query dollar figures in tables. Irrigation losses look low, and true Farmers’ figure could be 3 or 4 times this amount. Association • Translucency is opposed, and fill & fill supported because it better Ltd. reflects natural flow patterns. • Support multi-level offtake at Dartmouth. • Support management plans for forests, particularly to provide an opportunity to dry out. • Paper highlights erosion of water entitlements. Dairy farmers will only accept property rights based on history of use. • River Murray diversions account for only 36% of flow, with the share of that for irrigation decreasing. • Concerned that half the panel members are from the one area, which decreases local knowledge and different perspectives.

24 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 36 Murray Valley • Any change causing a reduction in water availability or reliability to Water Services the irrigation industry should give rise to compensation. Committee • Support measures to compensate for land affected by peak regulated Victoria flows. Measures to increase channel capacity (not needed for irrigation) should be funded from the general community. Any move to reduce capacities would be opposed. • Support development of comprehensive program for river management. • Support investigation of multi-level offtake at Dartmouth, at community’s cost • Improved river operation is supported. Schemes for drainage recycling, more drainage diversion and use of wetlands to strip nutrients, are all part of current nutrient management strategies. Any measures to expedite them and educate the community about them would be welcomed. • Competition for resources is acknowledged, as are the tradeoffs needed. • The concept of translucent or pre-releases is supported provided water availability is not significantly reduced, and storages are at least 60% full. • Changes must be critically assessed to demonstrate that environmental gains are delivered. They should be clearly identified and measured. 37 NSW Farmers’ • Murray landholders have been pro-active in natural resource Association management, implementing land and water management plans. • They are being forced to deal with multiple reforms, which does not augur well for negotiations. • Support necessary environmental flows to Barmah-Millewa provided: - water users who lose allocation are compensated, - it is proved that the flows are actually needed. • Accept multi-level offtake at Dartmouth if at community cost. • Translucent releases not supported because environmental outcomes can be achieved other ways. Fill and spill appears to do better for bird and fish breeding than the 30% translucency option. • Support flood easements for increased Hume –Yarrawonga pre-releases. • Economic figures are disputed. NSW Agstats figure for irrigation value (without flow-on effects) was about $335 million in 1995/96 compared with options paper figure of $222 million. • Understand that modelling was based on Victorian restrictions, which would result in inaccuracies in NSW. • Prior to further negotiations, water users require tradeable, secure water property rights set in perpetuity.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 25 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 38 N R Schmidt, • If water is released early enough from Dartmouth (for power Rutherglen generation) it would never need to spill. • Spring releases from Hume for environmental purposes can be stored in and then released when needed. • Running the Murray below Hume at a constant 2.6 m would solve erosion problems. • Water skiing does more damage to the river than any other activity. • Fully support increased pre-releases from Hume for environmental reasons. • Support improved communication. • A ‘fill and spill’ policy wastes resources. • Support 30% translucency. Flooding can only be controlled by starting early. 39 Hume Shire • Support flood easements and compensation for land affected by regulated flow. • Support comprehensive river management plan. Must accept that some erosion and channel widening is inevitable. • Increasing pre-releases from Hume has potential benefits to floodprone land and the environment. However it may, with translucent releases, increase erosion through greater variability in river levels. Need an acceptable balance. 40 Torrumbarry • Dams already provide substantial flood mitigation, and will continue to do so. Water Services • Easements for flows up to 25 000 ML/d below Hume should be Committee acquired, and funded by existing irrigation customers. Victoria • Additional easements to 31 500 ML/d should be funded from other sources, as they are for environmental reasons. • The same principles should be applied to the Mitta Mitta. • Property rights for water should be pursued both in Victoria (in progress) and in NSW to ensure that interstate trade and investment in irrigation efficiencies are not inhibited. • Translucency is not supported if storages are below 60% full. A ‘managed’ translucency is preferred, to take account of specific issues. • Where a significant disadvantage is demonstrated, compensation should be considered. • The perceived advantages to the environment must be clearly identified. • Modifying pre-release rules is preferable to ‘airspace’ options. More definitive modelling should be undertaken to better identify impacts prior to implementing any actual change. • Erosion control improves water quality, and could be managed by the CMA. • Detailed investigations into multi-level offtake at Dartmouth should be undertaken. Costs to be borne by the general community. • The principle of reducing transmission and distribution losses to support the security of the resource to irrigators, funded by the community, should be adopted (because there is a community benefit). • Issue of rain rejections needs further thought – may be improved through improved technology and demand forecasting. • Support more direct lines of communication between MDBC and impacted groups. Could be done by establishing a permanent advisory committee.

26 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 41 Anonymous • Support compensation for land affected by regulated flow. (Carlyle) • Bank erosion is aggravated by water skiing, which should be banned on the river. • Support increased pre-release from Hume and acquisition of easements. 42 J Dunn, • Over 100 acres on farm is inaccessible, cut off by a Murray tributary Gooramadda (anabranch?) • Do not support easements over land affected by regulated flow. • Support comprehensive river management. • Support increased pre-releases from Hume. • Support airspace, translucent flows, and Barmah watering strategy. 43 Mitta Mitta • There is opportunity for fine tuning of release management to change landholders the local impact of a flood. Flood events need to be closely monitored (meeting of to achieve this. 28/1/99) • It is clear that use of the power station has the potential to change flood impacts. Its possibilities should be pursued further in a detailed study. There should be local input into decisions as to whether the power station is used in a particular event. • Costs and benefits of a multi-level offtake at Dartmouth should be investigated in detail. • Support the development of an integrated river management program, which is presently being developed by NECMA in consultation with the Mitta Mitta Catchment Coordination Committee. • Improved communication is the most important issue identified. A ‘Dartmouth Dam Operations Impact Committee’ is proposed, initially as part of the G-MW Water Services Committee, and including G-MW, MDBC and other relevant agencies as members. This group would - provide a general communication focus in the valley, and be responsible for methods of communicating with the rest of the members of the valley; - provide the basis for community involvement in flood event management, and for this purpose could be triggered to action by dam levels or by a specified chance of spilling; and - set up an accountability mechanism to monitor the success of authorities in meeting their communication obligations. • Existing minimum flow levels (particularly when they drop to 200 ML/d) are inadequate and should be increased, if necessary at the expense of some other form of release (eg slightly more conservative pre-release rules).

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 27 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 44 Sustainable • Agree with all the preliminary panel views for the Mitta Mitta. Development • Agree with flood easements over land affected by regulated flow. group, CEC • Strongly support comprehensive river management program between Wodonga Hume and Yarrawonga. (tutor Harold • Generally support concept of increased pre-releases from Hume. Craig) What would happen if unanimous support from affected landholders is not achievable? • Support proposals to improve flow regulation downstream of Mildura. • Strongly support (especially farmer members of group) proposals for better communication. • Generally believe dams should not be operated for zero or minimum flooding (not unanimous). • Translucent flow proposals sound promising. • Modelling of combined scenarios not fully understood. 45 K Goyne, • Has property with riverbank erosion aggravated by speedboats. Wodonga Cumberoona and fishing boats seem to cause minimal damage. • Has tried to repair bank by dumping loads of bricks but has been told he can be fined for doing so. 46 Anonymous • Support flood easements over land affected by regulated flow. • Support comprehensive river management program for Hume – Yarrawonga reach. • Support increased pre-releases from Hume as not affected by them. • Support improved communication. • Support 30% translucency provided sufficient water remains to reach the cap. 47 NSW • Support comprehensive river management plan for Hume – Agriculture Yarrawonga, but who would coordinate? Given that this is a major role of River Management Committees in NSW, what would be the role of the Murray – Lower Darling Community Reference Committee? • Support development of increased pre-release proposal provided the principle is accepted. • Combined scenarios could improve management of the river system. However better analysis of dollar impacts on irrigation is needed, including distribution of the impact between regions and between agricultural enterprises.

28 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 48 Murray • Support integrated waterway and floodplain management in Mitta Mitta. Catchment • Support flood easements in Hume – Yarrawonga reach. Management • Support the development of a comprehensive river management plan Committee between Hume and Yarrawonga. It must complement any similar NSW plans for downstream of Yarrawonga. • NSW Murray CMC and Victorian North East CMA are the responsible State agencies for river management, and should be represented in developing the plan. This would forge cross-border links, enhance cooperative management and help communication. • Improved communication must be complemented by harnessing local skills and knowledge. A partnership approach is needed. • Institutional arrangements are a major cause of communication breakdown between MDBC and interest groups. • Committee members found the options paper difficult to read and understand. A short summary would have helped. • Committee sees the NSW Murray – Lower Darling Community Reference Committee as the best forum in the NSW Murray to resolve the more difficult competing claims for resources. 49 Mallee • Support investigation of multi-level offtake at Dartmouth. Catchment • Better accounting of diversions between Euston and Mildura is Management needed, but do not support an ordering system for private diverters. Authority Agree with need for better flow measurement – flow meters above Victoria and below Mildura pool? • MDBC must ensure that contracted authorities such as G-MW provide adequate information to recreational users and irrigators. • Support easements over land affected by peak regulated flow. • Of combined scenarios, tentatively endorse package A. • Better management of Euston and Mildura weir pools (fluctuations) is imperative to better environmental outcomes. • Current management means that flow stops at the Mildura Weir, which is unsatisfactory for water quality.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 29 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 50 Goulburn- • Support proposals to address the impacts of peak regulated releases. Murray Water • Support integrated waterway management plans for both the Mitta Mitta and the Murray rivers. They should include proposals for cost sharing and a logical basis for any water user funding inputs. • Support detailed investigation of Dartmouth multi-level offtake. • Changes to Hume releases to improve variability, environmental outcomes and flood mitigation should be further investigated. Reductions to long-term water availability will be very difficult to negotiate, so options need to be refined to minimise these impacts. Refining pre-release rules and introducing variable daily release patterns appears to offer potential. • Easements to allow environmental releases above present channel capacity appear not to be cost-effective. G-MW questions their value and sees little justification for irrigator input to funding. • G-MW is keen to be involved in further investigation of options to reduce Mitta Mitta flood duration by using the power station during floods. • Support moves to improve communication between MDBC and stakeholder groups. Keen to assist in any way possible. 51 SunRISE 21 • Do not support any change that would affect security of supply to Sunraysia horticulture. • Low flows between Euston and Wentworth are of great concern because of the potential for algal blooms and increased salinity. • Issue of minimum flows should be referred to IWGRMF. • Appreciate need to balance competing interests, but must be mindful of the risks associated with irrigation in a fragile desert environment. 52 I Lobban, • Water temperature issue also impacts on people below Hume. Rutherglen • Support compensation for effects of regulated flows. • Strongly support integrated river management plans – should seek NHT funding. Must include anabranches. Should ban speedboats. • Support increased pre-releases from Hume – environmental and flood mitigation benefits. • Support better management of minimum Mildura flows. • Support improved communication – need a formal group established to liaise on flows and management between Dartmouth and Mulwala. • Do not support ‘fill and spill’. • Should be some airspace for disaster situations – 96% – 97% should be regarded as full. • Support 30% translucent flows up to a maximum of 31 500 ML/d. • Support general thrust of combined scenario modelling.

30 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

No Author Summary of main points 53 N Howard, • Goulburn – Murray Water has not dealt adequately with possible Tallangatta compensation for effects of Dartmouth on pasture productivity. • Summer releases from Dartmouth are needed to help restore summer water tables. Late releases are detrimental to Mitta valley. • Flood duration when Dartmouth overflows is a major problem. Committee has abrogated responsibility on this issue – power station should be used early to reduce flood duration and avoid pasture loss. • Communication, and a Mitta Valley Consultative Committee on flood releases, are vital. • Air space is necessary for Mitta farmers below Tallandoon. Review made no attempt to quantify the total individual impacts of prolonged floods. • Support measures to deal with effects of peak regulated flow on agricultural land. • Support integrated program of waterway and floodplain management. • Must include lagoons and anabranch flows. • Support detailed investigation of Dartmouth multi-level offtake. 54 River Murray • Concerned that influence of Hume and Dartmouth operation on Catchment water quality in SA does not appear to have been an issue. Water • Concerned at implications that SA’s requirements are satisfied by Management minimum entitlement volumes and that any subsequent problems Board, are for SA to address as best it can. Berry, SA • Agree that the problem needs to be solved in the context of flow management for the whole river. A description of water quality and ecological issues in the lower Murray would have been helpful. • Options paper was not sent until a number of requests for it had been made. 55 NSW Fisheries • Cold water pollution is an issue below Hume as well as below Dartmouth – a multi-level offtake at Hume might well have a better benefit-cost ratio than one at Dartmouth. 56 Sunraysia • Management of minimum flows at Mildura is a real issue. Rural Water • Can predict diversion requirements better by modelling. Authority • Off-peak pumping is only part of the problem. It will grow as further development occurs and water is traded into the area. • River health as a result of low flows is a matter of real local concern.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 31 Appendix B: Development of Panel Recommendations

This appendix shows: landholders commented that if necessary an • the preliminary panel views from the increase could be at the expense of some other Options Paper; release (eg slightly more conservative • a summary of comment received on the issue; pre-release rules). • resultant conclusions; One response commented that the Goulburn – • final panel recommendations to the Murray process for dealing with possible Commission. compensation measures was not satisfactory. arranged in the following order: Conclusions 1. Dartmouth – Hume reach of river; • Current Hume/Dartmouth harmony rules 2. Hume – Yarrawonga reach of river; provide for releases as soon as practicable 3. Issues that are not reach-specific. following Hume ceasing to spill. • When Dartmouth releases are needed for 1 Dartmouth – Hume reach of river supply purposes, there may be some scope for 1.1 Effect of Dartmouth Dam on pasture earlier releases at lower rates; however, this productivity could marginally decrease supply security. Recommendations Preliminary view • The present harmony and pre-release rules are The panel noted that possible increased water generally appropriate and should be retained allocations and pricing concessions are currently unless modified in the future as part of a being assessed by Goulburn-Murray Water; they broader policy to increase the degree or cannot now be influenced directly by the variability of those releases. Any modification Operations Review. The following additional should not degrade the flood mitigation options were identified: benefits of these rules; • investigate earlier pre-releases in years when • The scope to provide earlier releases for Dartmouth Dam has spilled, to avoid periods consumptive purposes at lower rates, and to of low flow between spring spills and increase the minimum passing flow at autumn harmony releases; Dartmouth above 200 ML/d, should be • investigate lower and earlier releases in years investigated in detail, in the context that any when resources must be transferred from package of changes should minimise impact Dartmouth to Hume for supply. on security of supply. The panel’s preliminary views were that: • current harmony rules provide for releases as 1.2 Effects of flooding duration on the soon as practicable following Hume ceasing Mitta Mitta Valley to spill; • when Dartmouth releases are needed for Preliminary view supply purposes, there may be some scope for The panel considered that decisions on adoption of earlier releases at lower rates; however, this this scenario were a matter for the Mitta Mitta could involve increased resource loss risk. community to reach an agreed position on, as it Comment received affects no-one else except the Dartmouth power Several responses referred to this issue, and all station owner and perhaps the environment to a were in favour of making improvements where minor extent. The power station owner is tied to possible, with the reservation (from an irrigator present operation under agreements with the group) that rules needed to minimise resource Commission or its agents. However, the power loss. Three responses also referred to a need for station operator may be open to negotiation on this increased minimum flows – in particular the issue. For example, the operator may be prepared absolute minimum of 200 ML/d from to increase contributions to river management Dartmouth was seen as inadequate. Mitta Mitta funding in exchange for revised operating rules.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 33 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Comment received Recommendation Only four responses referred directly to this issue. • The possibility of operating the Dartmouth The Mitta Mitta landholders were keen to see power station during floods to decrease flood some reduction in flooding duration but without duration without increasing peak flood flows increasing the peak. This implies gradually should be investigated in detail, in bringing the power station on line after a flood consultation with stakeholders. The peak passes, the aim being to maintain investigation should include: approximately the peak outflow until it can be * technical and operational feasibility, reduced enough to bring Tallandoon back to * benefits to generation, channel capacity. It was recognised that this would * effects on agricultural land, increase duration at some levels above duration * environmental impacts, and with existing rules (though not above natural * any legal implications. duration) and that follow-up rain could negate the benefits of the strategy or even make things worse. 1.3 Adverse effects on small areas of One response commented that the panel had land at peak regulated flow abrogated responsibility in this matter, and that Preliminary view the power station should be used early during floods to reduce duration. The panel considered that there were three Southern Hydro was keen to see operation of options for resolving this problem: the power station during floods investigated • investigate nominal channel capacities in the further, and keen to be a party to any range 9000 to 10 000 ML/day; discussions on the subject. • investigate construction of regulators where appropriate; or Conclusions • take flood easements over affected land and • Dartmouth has a powerful effect on flood pay appropriate compensation. frequency in the Mitta valley, removing The panel further considered these options in about half the low-level floods and light of the following factors: three-quarters of higher level floods. It also • problems may be minimised by carefully markedly reduces flood peaks. selecting the regulated release figure; • Of the remaining floods, Dartmouth • regulators would probably only be required increases average flood duration at some on one or two properties; and levels and decreases it at other levels. • easements could be taken over the affected • However, at all levels the dam increases the land if no structural solution is possible. duration of some individual floods and Further investigations were thought necessary decreases the duration of others. to ascertain which was the most beneficial • There may be scope to decrease the duration option for each affected property. of some floods by careful use of the power station during the flood event, but there Comment received would be an associated risk of making some Numerous submissions recognised that, as a individual floods worse in some locations. matter of equity, any adverse effects on property

34 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

at regulated flow levels should be remedied either suggested by the North East Catchment by fixing the problem or, if that was not possible, Management Authority. by monetary compensation. Property specific The panel’s preliminary view was that an solutions were generally seen as appropriate. integrated program of waterway and floodplain A few submissions disagreed – ‘low level land management along the lines suggested by the is always prone to flooding’ or were concerned NECMA should be developed. that ‘landholders will be over-compensated for Comment received something that was apparent at the time of There was unanimous support for the panel’s acquiring the property’. A few favoured outright preliminary view, with most respondents seeing purchase rather than easements, to make sure the such plans as a high priority. The NECMA payment was once only. response was critical that the panel did not Conclusion appear to think waterway management of the • As a matter of equity, adverse effects on Mitta Mitta was as urgent as between Hume private property of regulated flows should be and Yarrawonga. It felt that geomorphic studies, reduced where possible by flow management similar to those done between Hume and changes, or remedied by physical works or Yarrawonga, were needed for the Mitta Mitta to by negotiating flood easements. estimate the effects of Dartmouth. NECMA is Recommendation developing a management plan for the Mitta • Adverse effects on agricultural land at peak Mitta River in consultation with the Mitta Mitta regulated flow on the Mitta Mitta River Catchment Coordination Committee, initially should be addressed as follows: concentrating on the waterway itself. * in the first instance, the possibility of Conclusion reducing the nominal channel capacity • An integrated program of waterway and below 10 000 ML/d should be investigated, floodplain management for the Mitta Mitta * once channel capacity is set, the River should be supported and funded in possibility of effective regulators to solve consultation with local interests. any residual problem on each affected Recommendations property should be assessed, • The Commission should contribute to the * if regulators are impractical or uneconomic, funding for a geomorphic study of the Mitta flood easements should be acquired and Mitta River, similar to that already appropriate compensation negotiated. undertaken for the Hume to Yarrawonga reach of the Murray. 1.4 Erosion on the Mitta Mitta River • An integrated program of waterway and Preliminary view floodplain management for the Mitta Mitta Based on the submissions received and analysis River should be supported based on the conducted by the panel, the following options above study, along the lines already under were identified: development by NECMA and in consultation • continue with existing stream erosion control with local interests. methods, accepting that the result over time • Implementation of the program should will be a willow and rock lined river channel receive support from water users (both for of limited environmental value; consumption and power generation) based • fund further research into mechanisms and on the extent to which their activities factors contributing to bank slumping on the contribute to river management problems. Mitta Mitta River; • develop an integrated program of waterway and floodplain management along the lines

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 35 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

1.5 Impact of Dartmouth Dam on water for damage caused to the Mitta Mitta. temperature and quality Conversely, the panel was conscious of the view of the Murray Scientific Panel on Preliminary view Environmental Flows that temperature is the Based on the submissions received and analysis crucial environmental factor in this reach of river. conducted by the panel, the following options Conclusions were identified: • no action – accept that temperatures in the • Given the environmental significance of Mitta Mitta River will remain depressed, and temperature suppression in the Mitta Mitta, that the river ecology will remain altered the costs and benefits of a multi-level offtake from its natural state; on the high-level outlet should be • install shutters on the existing high-level investigated in detail. outlet to provide limited improvement; • Operational improvements other than • raise the existing structure to above full temperature restoration, such as increasing supply level and install a fully functional the variability of in-stream flows, are of multi-level offtake; doubtful value to the in-stream habitat until • agree in principle that a fully functional offtake the water temperature problem is addressed. is required, and conduct detailed investigations However, they may improve bank habitat into the cost, benefit and optimum way to and alleviate river erosion. achieve a fully functional offtake. Recommendations The panel’s preliminary view was that it agreed • Detailed investigations into the cost, benefit in principle that a fully functional offtake is and optimum way to achieve a multi-level required and that detailed investigations into offtake on the Dartmouth High Level Outlet cost, benefit and the optimum way to achieve a should be undertaken. In particular, the fully functional offtake must be undertaken. likely benefits should be quantified as far as Comment received possible, in terms of the overall potential to improve the riverine environment. Many comments supported the panel’s • Strategies to increase the variability of in- preliminary view. Several were careful to make stream flows below Dartmouth should be the point that a multi-level outlet should only developed, and should not await solution of be installed if detailed investigation showed that the water temperature problem. the benefits (mostly environmental) exceeded the dollar costs. There was concern that the 2. Hume to Yarrawonga reach of river benefits of improved temperature from the high-level outlet could be negated by the 2.1 Adverse effects on agricultural land inevitable periods of release from the low-level at peak regulated flow outlet, which would be of low temperature and Preliminary view probably poor quality. Southern Hydro expressed concern that the The panel considered that options for dealing project would mean the power station was out with this problem were to: of service for a period, imposing a loss of • reduce peak regulated flow level to a figure income on Southern Hydro. significantly lower than 25 000 ML/day; It is interesting that NECMA believed that a • do nothing, on the basis that the penalties multi-level outlet might well have minimal are outweighed by flood mitigation benefits beneficial effects on downstream habitat, and to agricultural land; or that it might be preferable for the dam operators • take flood easements over the affected land to fund other works (such as rehabilitation of and pay appropriate compensation. other streams and waterways) as compensation The panel considered that, for equity reasons,

36 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

taking flood easements over the affected land management of this reach of the Murray were to: and paying appropriate compensation is the • retain the present management arrangement only reasonable option. – under which the Commission provides Comment received limited funding to Department of Land and Water Conservation to treat actively eroding The proposals for easements received almost sites on a priority basis; or universal support. Some irrigator submissions • develop a comprehensive, properly funded made the point that it was reasonable for the program for management of the reach. compensation to be funded by consumptive water users. The panel believed that this issue could only be A few submissions disagreed – ‘low level fully addressed by developing a comprehensive land is always prone to flooding’ or were and properly funded program for management concerned that ‘landholders will be over- of the reach. The management program will compensated for something that was apparent initially need a strategic approach to articulate a at the time of acquiring the property’. A few vision for the future desirable state of the river. favoured outright purchase rather than The strategic framework will require: easements, to make sure the payment was once • developing criteria for acceptable and only on a particular piece of land. unacceptable erosion rates (and acceptable methods of erosion control); Floodplain interests pointed out that a • setting limits to acceptable rates of channel program has been in place for many years to widening and bed degradation; contribute to works (bridges or causeways) to • a decision on the extent to which anabranch provide access to land cut off by regulated river development needs to be contained; flows. This program should continue, because • setting desired levels of protection for aquatic anabranches are continuing to develop. and riparian habitats; and Conclusion • documenting desired aesthetic and • As a matter of equity, any adverse effects on recreational values. private property of regulated flows should be Based on the strategic framework, a remedied, principally by negotiating flood comprehensive river management program easements. should be developed. This program would: Recommendation • establish an agreed management • Adverse effects of flooding or waterlogging of arrangement (which needs to work in two private land at peak regulated flow level states, have proper local input, etc); between Hume and Yarrawonga should be • establish links with associated land remedied, principally by negotiating flood management programs in each state; easements over affected land. • establish agreed funding arrangements – • In general terms, it is reasonable for the cost to with consideration of funding from such be met by the beneficiaries of regulated flows. sources as the Commission, catchment • In addition, the ongoing program of management authorities, local government contributing to works to provide access to land and input (cash or kind) from landholders; cut off by regulated flows should continue. • set a works program – including both an annual program of necessary patch up works 2.2 The need for a comprehensive river (done now to a modest extent with MDBC management plan between Hume funding) and a coordinated strategy of activities and Yarrawonga designed to achieve the long term goals; • monitor progress and extent to which the Preliminary view strategic framework might need to be changed. The panel considered that future options for

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 37 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Comment received Recommendation There was an extremely high level of support • A comprehensive and properly funded program should be developed, as a matter of for the development of a comprehensive plan, high priority, for management of the Hume – with many comments that it is a high priority. Yarrawonga reach of the Murray. Irrigator organisations seemed to generally • The management program will initially need accept that the principle of ‘beneficiary pays’ a strategic approach to articulate a vision for should apply, but are keen for funding the future desirable state of the river. The arrangements to be transparent. strategic framework will require: The Victorian NECMA comment concentrated * developing criteria for acceptable and on the Mitta Mitta, but states that its comments unacceptable erosion rates; also apply to ‘the Victorian floodplain between * setting limits to acceptable rates of Hume and Yarrawonga’. It made no comment channel widening and bed degradation; about how a management arrangement that * a decision on the extent to which anabranch development needs to be contained; works across State boundaries (referred to in the * setting desired levels of protection for options paper) might be established. aquatic and riparian habitat including The NSW Murray Catchment Management protection of snags, specific billabongs Committee supported the development of a etc.; and comprehensive plan and suggested that it and * documenting desired aesthetic and NECMA, as the responsible State agencies, recreational values. should both be represented in developing the • Based on the strategic framework, a river management plan. comprehensive river management program The panel fully endorses that approach. It is should be developed. This program would: very concerned that there is a danger of * establish an agreed management momentum being lost because of the difficulties arrangement, working across State of planning in a way that spans the State border boundaries and with appropriate proper and achieves a truly ‘no borders’ plan. After local input; considerable debate, it concluded that the * establish links with associated land management programs; process should initially be led by the * establish agreed funding arrangements – Commission, but with an aim of setting up a with consideration of funding from such responsible cross-border agency (or joint sources as the Commission in recognition venture between agencies) as soon as possible. of the effects of regulated flow, catchment Conclusion management authorities, local • Waterway management of the Hume to government and input (cash or kind) from landholders; Yarrawonga reach of the Murray can only be * set a works program – including both an fully addressed by developing a annual program of necessary patch up comprehensive and properly funded works and a coordinated strategy of program. Planning should be on a ‘no activities designed to achieve the long borders’ basis and the planning process term goals; and should initially be led by the Commission * monitor progress and the extent to which and include full consultation with relevant the strategic framework might need to be state agencies and local stakeholders. changed or refined.

38 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

• The Commission should lead preparation of The panel’s preliminary view was that the the initial river management plan in close proposal should be developed in more detail consultation with: (subject to acceptance in principle by those * local stakeholders; affected) and that it may well form a useful part * the responsible NSW agency (DLWC of a scenario package. supported and advised by community Comment received groups); * the Victorian North-East Catchment Responses on this issue were varied. A majority Management Authority. of the respondents with environmental interests • The Commission should provide funding were in favour of it, as were most of those on assistance for initial plan preparation; the floodplain. It was not clear from the • One aim of the initial plan should be to set responses whether the latter included many of up a responsible ‘no borders’ river those with land that would be subject to flood management agency (or joint venture easements. The River Murray Action Group was between agencies) as soon as possible. in favour of it. However one landholder with a large parcel 2.3 Increased environmental and pre- of land that would be subject to easements was release rates from Hume Dam firmly opposed to the idea. Floodplain landholders were concerned that Preliminary view the nature of the releases they were agreeing to In summary, the benefits of increasing allowable should be well specified. The proposal is for pre-releases from Hume to 31 500 ML/day are: pre-releases (ie those designed to delay filling of • a modest decrease (modelled at the dam and for environmental releases for $16,000/year) in the costs of flooding land purposes such as forest watering. The easement above the 31 500 ML/d level; • environmental benefits to low level wetlands documents would probably need to specify the – mainly between Hume and Yarrawonga, months of the year when deliberate flooding but also below Yarrawonga; was permissible (probably June to October • an enhanced ability to vary pre-releases – inclusive or July to November inclusive) whether by translucency or other more Many of the more thoughtful responses managed means – which would also improve agreed that the idea should be investigated in within-channel variability; and more detail, but were sceptical about the • a small enhancement in ability to provide a benefits. Irrigator groups were not generally suitable watering regime for the Barmah and opposed, but made the point that the benefits Millewa forests. were to floodplain landholders and the Potential costs and risks of the proposal are: environment, so water consumers should not be • significant capital cost – possibly in the order expected to contribute to costs. Environmental of $3 million to $6 million; and interests dispute that view, pointing out that the • even if most of the affected landholders action is necessary partly because of the agree with the proposal, there is a possibility decreased flooding following river regulation. that a minority may feel aggrieved. It is clear that if this proposal is to succeed, The panel considered that the increased pre-release the justification will have to come from from Hume scenario has potential to: environmental benefits. • improve environmental conditions – Conclusion primarily between Hume and Yarrawonga; • provide a small benefit to flood-prone land • The proposal merits detailed development above the 31 500 ML/day flow level; and and evaluation. It may well form a useful • support river management proposals that part of a scenario package, but its involve converting some land from justification depends on clear identification agriculture to riverside red gum plantation. of the environmental benefits.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 39 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Recommendation Recommendations The proposal to increase allowable • In the short term, variability in Hume environmental and pre-release rates from Hume releases should be trialled, to the extent that to approximately 31 500 ML/d (3.5 m at it is possible within the current nominal Albury) through acquisition of flood easements channel capacity and without reducing should be developed in more detail, subject to irrigation supply. acceptance in principle by those affected. • In the longer term, flow variability should be further investigated via the interstate flows 2.4 Flow variability process. Preliminary view 3. Conclusions that are not reach-specific This was not covered as a separate issue in the Options Paper, but interacts with many of the 3.1 Effects of regulated flow and rain issues discussed, in all river reaches. rejections on natural drying cycles in The Murray Scientific Panel on wetlands Environmental Flows identified negative Preliminary view impacts that can arise from making dam releases The panel considered that this issue would at a constant rate. The resulting constant river require considerably more work, integrated into heights can diminish habitat, aggravate bank river flow management plans, and that solutions erosion and contribute to significant changes in are likely to involve the following: channel morphology. • Improved river operation. Improved river Comment Received operation may be possible from better There were several comments that indirectly weather forecasts, more accurate ordering referred to the desirability of varying releases from irrigation agencies and improved from storages, but little direct comment, estimation of river losses. probably because it was not isolated as a single • Retention of rain rejections in storage of some kind. issue in the Options Paper. Four possibilities were identified as follows: Conclusions * storage on-farm, particularly as drainage recycling dams become more popular; • Constant releases from Lake Hume should be * storage in distribution channels; avoided where possible. * continued emphasis on drainage diversion • There appear to be opportunities to improve permits to encourage irrigators to pump variability within current operating from authority drains, which contain a arrangements and without affecting proportion of rain rejection water; irrigation supply. * provision of storage in some weir pools. • However, significant environmental improvement will require changes that may • Physical works on individual wetlands. Works impact on irrigation supply. Any such would consist of banks, regulating structures changes should be negotiated within the and perhaps pumps to control the extent to environmental flows process. which water was introduced into, or kept out of, a particular wetland at different times of the year. Again the panel considered that it is likely that the Interstate Working Group on River Murray Flows will need to consider this issue in some detail.

40 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Comment received The exception is Euston Weir pool, which Many responses were in favour of the aims, but has an official operating range of 1.2 metres there were few substantial comments. Physical (20 000 ML) below full. In fact it can be works in wetlands was seen as a way to achieve drawn down further; as far as 2 metres in an results without using huge amounts of water. emergency. However, this capacity is not There was support for varying the level of weir often used because boating interests tend to pools, and no objections to the idea. object, and the normal operating range is It is understood that the recently constructed only 0.3 metres below full. There is scope for power station at Yarrawonga has decreased the more variation in operating levels, subject to flexibility to vary the level of the Yarrawonga local agreement. Weir pool. Potential gains in operational flexibility by allowing Mildura Weir levels to fluctuate Conclusion are much smaller than at Euston. However, • This issue will require considerably more there may be environmental benefits in work and should be integrated into river introducing some variation. flow management plans. Solutions are likely • Improve measurement. Measurement points are to involve more accurate river operation, presently at Euston and Wentworth, with no better management of rain rejections, and reliable measurement at Mildura. Mildura physical works. flows can be calculated from the Wentworth Recommendation measurement, allowing for Darling inflows • The Interstate Working Group on River and changes in weir level. Considerable Murray Flows should consider the issue of improvements in flow control could be improved natural drying cycles in wetlands, achieved by improved measurement at in particular the scope for: Mildura. The most feasible measurement * improved and more accurate river improvement would probably be to reduce operation, which may become possible as or quantify leakage at the weir and measure weather forecasting, data collection the flow over it. However this action is really methods and flow modelling improve, * retention of rain rejection water on farm, incidental to improved flow control. within distribution systems or in weir The Panel considered that all the options above pools by allowing more level variation. can be adopted. This issue is essentially one of * physical works in some wetlands. better flow control in this reach of river – operation of Hume and Dartmouth Dams has no 3.2 The need to better manage minimum direct effect on control of these flows. flows downstream of Mildura Comment received Preliminary view There were few specific comments on this issue, The panel considered that there are three though many respondents were generally in options for resolving this problem as follows: favour of better managing minimum flows at • Obtain more precise orders from diverters. Orders Mildura. One comment was that ‘South for major diversion points (Red Cliffs, etc.) Australia gets too much’, but this was balanced are received a week in advance, but are not by another that more precise management always adhered to. Private diverters are might help, but the real problem was relatively uncontrolled. insufficient flow at Mildura. • Utilise more storage volume in weir pools. Most The Victorian Mallee CMA commented that: weir pools are operated at almost constant levels, which is convenient for water • better accounting of diversions between Euston diverters and boating interests but provides and Mildura was needed, but it did not support little or no scope to re-regulate water. The an ordering system for private diverters; constant pool levels also have environmental • better flow measurement is needed both disadvantages. above and below Mildura Weir;

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 41 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

• better management of Euston and Mildura Comment received weir pools is imperative to better Perhaps surprisingly, this emerged as the most environmental outcomes. It was accepted important issue to many stakeholders. In the that this would require greater fluctuations initial scoping study the CSIRO found in pool levels. dissatisfaction with communication along the Conclusion whole river. The Commission was perceived as • Because of the position of Mildura on the unwilling to consult, remote, and dismissive of Murray, immediately upstream of Darling local knowledge and experience. The panel inflows and well downstream of significant found ample evidence of these views as the re-regulating storage, the management of review progressed. minimum flows is a real issue. It is fair to say that in many cases these • Improvements are a matter of refining river views were partly because people did not operation rather than operation of Hume understand the detail of how the river is and Dartmouth as such. operated and the geographic and hydrologic constraints of the system. This indicates the Recommendation need for continual explanation of these • The Interstate Working Group on River constraints. Nevertheless there is a very strong Murray Flows should be asked to consider demand for more and better liaison between the the sufficiency and more accurate actual river operators and interest groups. Some management of minimum flows in the groups had quite specific ideas about what they stretch of the Murray between Euston and wanted, and suggestions included: Wentworth. The Working Group will need to • early flow advice for farmers, campers, consider this issue in a whole-of-river townspeople etc.; context, and be prepared to consult with • a special liaison group formed as a local and regional stakeholders. Possible subcommittee of the CAC; avenues of improvement may include, but • a formal relationship or partnership between not be limited to: MDBC and interest groups (this was * obtaining more precise orders from diverters, suggested by several respondents), or improving methods of estimation; • interest from catchment management * utilising more storage volume in weir authorities in being involved, pools, especially Euston; • a formal operations advisory committee to * improving measurement. the MDBC, • from the Mitta Mitta landholders, a proposal 3.3 The need for improved communication for a formal ‘Dartmouth Dam Operations Preliminary view Impact Committee’ on which landholders and The panel concluded that formal and continuous all interested agencies would be represented. liaison should be set up between the Commission Conclusion (or River Murray Water) and interested Well-structured, formal and regular liaison community groups. This liaison should be: should be set up between the Commission (or • regarded as a real commitment – not just River Murray Water) and interested community something to be fitted in when time is groups as a matter of urgency. available; and • of a frequency and form negotiated with particular interest groups to suit their needs.

42 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Recommendations current pre-release rules are (possibly • Well-structured, formal and regular liaison building in a defined risk of failing to spill), should be set up, as a matter of urgency, and then operating from day-to-day on a between River Murray Water (and its translucent rather than fixed release basis. operational agents) and interested • Allowing pre-releases and Barmah watering community groups. This liaison should be: releases to be made up to an increased * of a frequency and form negotiated with nominal channel capacity (eg. 31 500 ML/day particular interest groups to suit their needs; between Hume and Yarrawonga) has little * regarded as a real commitment – not just benefit to forest watering, but the increased something to be fitted in when time is channel capacity would allow more freedom available; for translucent type releases. * supported by a formal resource allocation • Using Dartmouth power station during floods and budget, including support to would have significant net economic benefits community groups to cover and marginal environmental benefits. This administrative costs. scenario could also ensure that flood duration • In particular, ongoing liaison is needed with is not increased. There would be a small cost Mitta Mitta landholders, Hume to Yarrawonga to agriculture in the Mitta Mitta valley, but landholders and peak irrigator groups. there would be no effects below Hume. • The scenario that models the Victorian 3.4 Broad conclusions from modelling proposal to water the Barmah-Millewa forests provides good increases in low level Preliminary view flooding but has less effect at higher levels. • A simple fill and spill arrangement appears to Variations to the proposal produce very little have few benefits in economic or difference in either benefits or penalties. environmental terms. Comment received • Airspace scenarios do not present adequate benefits in return for costs. The same In very general terms, the modelling results advantages to floodplain landholders can be were accepted by most respondents, though obtained at far less cost to irrigators by some clearly did not believe results that changing pre-release rules. By changing pre- conflicted with their own perceptions. Most release rules from the present conservative appeared to accept that modified pre-release rules (that take almost no risk of failing to rules and some form of variable releases were fill) to rules that allow a specified risk, more needed for environmental reasons. However airspace is created but often the storages do airspace, fill and spill and so on all had their fill and consumptive use is not impacted. In supporters. contrast, simple airspace rules impose near Irrigators naturally focussed on the impact of certainty of failing to fill and, in effect, changed rules on their security. Unfortunately reduce the volume of storage useful for the word ‘translucency’ is automatically rejected water conservation by the airspace volume. by many irrigators. They see translucent releases • Translucent flow scenarios show considerable as mimicking nature because we don’t know promise. The simple 10% translucency rule what else to do, and are more comfortable with is not enough to produce worthwhile the ideas of ‘managed variable flows’ and environmental benefits but 30% translucent ‘modified pre-release rules’. flows produce worthwhile benefits. However, NSW irrigators objected to the use of the adverse effects on consumptive yield need to ‘Victorian’ proposal for Barmah-Millewa watering be minimised in some way. Conceptually, in the modelling. They see that proposal as adverse effects could be minimised by setting deliberately placing all the security impacts of storage targets in the same manner that forest watering on NSW consumptive water users.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 43 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Conclusions 3.5 Modelling of combined scenarios • A simple fill and spill arrangement appears to Preliminary view have few net benefits in economic or The panel considered that a package of environmental terms. operational policies could be developed on the • Airspace scenarios do not present adequate basis of the modelling results. This package benefits in return for costs. could include: • Translucent flow scenarios in the order of • a mechanism for watering the Barmah – 30% show considerable promise. However, a Millewa forests; ‘managed’ flow regime aimed at restoring • elements of translucent release; and natural variability while minimising impacts • an increase in nominal channel capacity on resource security warrants further between Hume and Yarrawonga for examination. pre-releases and forest watering releases. • Allowing pre-releases and Barmah watering The key issue is the balancing of releases to be made up to an increased environmental benefit against economic cost. nominal channel capacity (eg. 31 500 ML/day The panel has concluded that combined between Hume and Yarrawonga) has a small scenarios of the sort described above hold benefit to forest watering. The increased considerable promise for producing worthwhile channel capacity would allow more freedom environmental improvements at tolerable for introducing variability to pre-releases and economic cost. It seeks input from the wider allow some parts of the floodplain between community on where the balance between competing interests should lie. Hume and Yarrawonga to receive more regular watering. Comment received • Using Dartmouth power station during floods Comment on the packages proposed was mixed. would have significant net economic benefits There was considerable support from and marginal environmental benefits. A environmental interests. However most irrigator modified version of this scenario may have groups saw the financial penalties as potential to reduce flood duration without unacceptable. There were several comments to increasing peak level, but with a risk of the effect that the environmental benefits of the occasionally making an individual event strategies were virtually unknown, and that a much more rigorous approach was needed to worse at some locations (refer to sec 2.1.5 for define them to an acceptable degree. recommendation); It was recognised by most of the • The scenario that models the Victorian well-informed stakeholder groups that the proposal to water the Barmah – Millewa difficult issue of finding an acceptable balance forest provides good increases in low level between consumptive use and instream flows flooding but has less effect at higher levels. will take much more work to solve. The Variations to the proposal produce very little Interstate Working Group will tackle that issue difference in either benefits or penalties. for River Murray flows. This was generally However it does not take account of NSW welcomed, but there was much confusion about allocation policies. The Panel, while not the proposed consultative arrangements, how endorsing any particular forest watering the work would tie in with the present activities strategy, does see merit in strategies that aim of the (NSW) Murray – Lower Darling to build on natural flood events. It is Community Reference Committee, and how the important that these are further developed community consultation would be widened jointly by Victoria and NSW. from one State to three.

44 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

NSW irrigators were particularly concerned Recommendations that the review was only one of a series of • Between Hume and Yarrawonga, flow initiatives with the potential to erode their management options should be further water entitlements. They saw well defined explored that improve both river health and property rights to water as an essential pre- flood mitigation, but minimise impacts on requisite to them accepting any package. security of supply. Conclusions • The Interstate Working Group for River • A package of operational policies can be Murray Flows should be asked to further developed on the basis of the modelling develop a package of operational policies on results. This package could include: the basis of the review’s modelling results. * a mechanism for watering the Barmah – The package could include: Millewa forest; * a mechanism for watering the Barmah – * elements of translucent or otherwise Millewa forests; managed varied release with a defined * elements of varied flow release; risk of spilling; and * an increase in nominal channel capacity * an increase in nominal channel capacity between Hume and Yarrawonga for pre- between Hume and Yarrawonga for pre- releases and forest watering releases; releases and environmental (including * careful attention to the detailed rules to forest watering) releases. minimise impacts on consumptive water use. • The key issue is the balancing of • As part of package evaluation, the environmental benefit against economic cost. environmental benefits should be assessed as • Combined scenarios of the sort described thoroughly as possible. above hold considerable promise for • The IWGRMF should be strengthened by the producing worthwhile environmental addition of a community-based improvements at tolerable economic cost. steering/reference committee with However the detailed rules to achieve this community members from NSW, Victoria are likely to be complex. and SA as well as members from the various • Elements needed to clarify this issue are: State agencies. * more thorough assessment of expected • Concurrently, development of well-defined environmental benefits; property rights to water use in NSW should * development of well-defined property be pursued. rights to water use in NSW. • The Panel believes that the Murray Flows process will fail without community ownership. The IWGRMF should be strengthened by the addition of a community-based steering/reference committee with community members from NSW, Victoria and SA as well as members from the various State agencies.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 45 Appendix C: Issues not covered in Options Paper

The following comments on the options paper raised issues that were not directly considered within it.

Comment Panel Response Economic Figures – several The figures used represent gross margins at the farm respondents commented that the gate. Thus the value placed on a megalitre of water is agricultural values looked too low, the extra income that can be produced from it; ie the did not include multiplier effects, gross income less the direct costs incurred in gaining and so understated the economic that income. That, of course, is much less than the total penalties to agriculture of proposals value of the agriculture product sold by the dairy or rice such as harmony releases and forest co-op. The other figures, for flood damage, tourism, etc, watering. are similar, so the figures are useful in comparing scenarios, not as indicators of industry value. This is normal economic practice, but it is accepted that it was not made clear in the options paper. Effects on Snowy Mountains The modelling assumes that irrigation releases from the Hydro-electric Scheme. SMHEA scheme are not increased, but that irrigators suffer the are concerned that some of the losses from any decreased yield. There does not seem to alternatives canvassed would reduce be any omitted cost. the yield from Hume and Dartmouth, It is of course true that pressure for irrigation releases and in turn increase pressure for from the Scheme might increase, and whether or not irrigation releases from the Scheme, they are successful depends on the way the post- reducing its value and flexibility for corporatisation rules are written. electricity generation. The options In the wider context, the Scheme can hardly expect to paper has omitted this significant be insulated from external influences. The discovery of a cost to the Scheme. They are large, cheap source of natural gas, for example, could concerned that initiatives external to affect the value of the Scheme quite severely. Snowy corporatisation are continuing to erode the value of the Scheme. Disaster Planning and Dam True – they were not part of the terms of reference and structural safety were not are both dealt with elsewhere. addressed. Recreation on Lake Hume. MDA This was included in the modelling, and the extent to are concerned that Hume should be which this sort of objective is met is indicated by the held above 50% capacity until the dollar value for ‘Hume recreation’ for each scenario. end of February. Unfortunately for packages developed all tend to have an adverse effect on Hume recreation. Security of entitlement supply to True. The security is not significantly affected, though South Australia was shown as a the maximum shortfall does increase marginally for the matter of high relevance in the issues packaged runs. On the other hand the same runs give register, but not discussed. salinity benefits, which are to SA’s advantage. It is agreed that this was not discussed in the options paper.

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 47 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL

Comment Panel Response Volumes to SA are too high – An The last three years are not indicative of the long term average of 6300 GL has passed to situation. The accusation of ‘double dipping’ is SA over the past three years, incorrect; the reality is that someone with entitlement compared with entitlement of 1850 GL but no need to use it all is selling to someone with no and use of 800 GL. The sale of entitlement but a wish to use more. The sale of entitlement back to NSW is double entitlement upstream will have bad effects on flows at dipping. The over-riding need is for Mildura if it reaches significant volumes. more access to off-allocation water when it is available. Volumes to SA are too low. Present policies mean that SA gets entitlement flows of Commission needs to move away various kinds, plus whatever extra instream flows from perception that SA’s remain after extraction by the upstream states. The extra requirements are satisfied by component is to be safeguarded by the cap. In broad minimum entitlement volumes and terms, this component could be increased only by further problems belong to SA to lowering the cap. address as best it can. There are severe water quality problems in SA associated with periods of bare entitlement flow. River management planning is Agreed. needed for the whole river, not just between Dartmouth and Yarrawonga.

Thermal pollution below Hume Point taken. It was identified as an issue, but advice was not considered, though it was from the Murray Scientific Panel on Environmental addressed in detail below Flows indicates that on the Mitta it is the crucial issue Dartmouth. It may in fact be a higher affecting riverine health, but below Hume it is less priority below Hume. severe and less crucial.

48 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW Appendix D: Corrections to Options Paper

Page 18, Table 2

All except the last two figures in the final row are wrong (they were somehow transposed from Table 1). The final row should read:

43,000 3.08 1.21 -61 7.15 9.26 +69 22.02 11.20 -49 (minor flooding)

The other rows in the table are correct.

Page 22, first dot point under ‘River regulation and erosion’ The first dot point should read (changes and additions underlined):

‘The river channel has deepened between Hume Dam and Albury, and has become shallower downstream of Howlong. There has been little change in depth between those locations. The depth of the Hume-Albury reach is now fairly stable, and the bed has become armoured by a coarse layer of gravel. There is potential for this deepening and re-stabilising process to move downstream towards Howlong. Below Howlong, the river bed is continuing to become shallower.’

Page 33, second-last dot point of first column

‘31 500GL level’ should read ’31 500 ML/d level’

HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW 49 Appendix E: Reference Panel

Members Brian Haisman MDBC – Chair (02) 6279 0161 Allan Curtis, replaced by Noelene Wallace Community Advisory Committee (02) 6027 5322 Stuart Anderson Local government (03) 5480 9558 Tom Martin Mitta Mitta valley (02) 6072 0384 Arch McLeish Tourism/recreation/Albury-Wodonga (02) 6043 2244 Ian Lobban Hume – Yarrawonga reach (02) 6026 7255 Richard Sargood Hume – Yarrawonga reach (02) 6035 0555 Lance Gardiner NSW gravity irrigators (03) 5882 3583 Alan Major Vic gravity irrigators (03) 5456 8314 Pat Lanigan Sunraysia irrigators (03) 5025 7285 Dietrich Willing Environmental interests (02) 9396 8408 Tim Fisher Environmental interests (03) 9416 1166 David Harriss, replaced by Mel Jackson NSW operating authority (02) 6041 1650 Garry Smith Vic operating authority (03) 5833 5480 Andrew Jessup/Phil Pfeiffer SA operating authority (08) 8204 1513 Monica Morgan Aboriginal interests (03) 5869 3353

Non voting members Kevin Ritchie Dept. Nat Resources & Environment Vic (03) 5761 1611 Jody Swirepik Environment Protection Authority NSW (02) 6299 3330 Anne Jensen, replaced Dept. Environment, Heritage & by Paul Harvey Aboriginal Affairs SA (08) 8204 9137

Project team Clarke Ballard Project Manager (02) 6279 0176 Michelle Cowan MDBC (to end of 1997) Neville Garland MDBC (02) 6279 0136

50 HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW HUME AND DARTMOUTH DAMS OPERATIONS REVIEW REFERENCE PANEL