appendix a methodology - policy...

Appendix AMethodology

158 Australias water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014

Appendix A: Methodology

2014 TA methodology

Introduction

Under the National Water Commission Act 2004 (Cwth) (NWC Act), the National Water Commission (the Commission) has a specific function to undertake regular assessments of progress by all governments inachieving the objectives and outcomes of the National Water Initiative (NWI). The purpose of the Australias water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014 (2014 assessment) is to provide an independent, evidencebased assurance to the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), the Australian Governmentand the broader community that the water reforms articulated in the NWI, along with anyother subsequent reforms adopted by COAG, are achieving their intended outcomes.

The 2014 assessment has been undertaken under three broad headings:

an assessment of progress in jurisdictional implementation of NWI actions, along with any subsequent water reform actions agreed to by COAG

an assessment of the impact of the NWI and related water reform efforts against the NWI objective ofoptimising economic, social and environmental outcomes

a review of emerging or changing water management challenges with discussion of future reformpriorities.

To inform the analysis for these three focal areas, the following questions were considered by theCommission:

To what extent has the NWI and subsequent reforms enabled water use to support Australiaseconomic development, our communities and our environment?

In 2014, as we reach the 10year anniversary of the NWI, does the agreement still provide enduring principles to guide future water reform in Australia?

Do any emerging issues and challenges indicate a need to adjust the NWI in the future?

What are the remaining barriers to implementing agreed water reforms and how can they beovercome?

Are there more efficient or effective ways, including industry and private sector participation, ofachieving the intended water reform outcomes?

Are there opportunities to better manage the interface of water policy with other policy realmssuch as energy and resources, agriculture and urban planning?

159National Water Commission

Approach

During 201213 the Commission engaged with Australian Government agencies, state and territoryagencies, industry and other stakeholders to discuss the 2014 assessments scope and proposed approach.

From August 2013 until June 2014 the Commission engaged further with these parties, as well as thepublic, through an open submission process to gather information and evidence required for the2014 assessment.

Information sources

The 2014 assessment has been informed by a wide range of sources, including:

a public call for submissions in September 2013 (see further details below)

a series of four water stakeholder roundtable workshops held in late 2013 and early 2014 in Albury,Cairns, Perth and Melbourne (see further details on page 154)

consultation with the Commissions Stakeholder Reference Group, representing peak industry andcommunity groups concerned with water management

consultation with NWI parties regarding advice on implementation progress with the NWI and subsequent reforms (see Appendix C)

consultation with other stakeholder groups including the Commissions Urban Water Strategic Advisory Panel

Commission reports published since the 2011 assessment

published and unpublished statistical data from agencies such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics(ABS) and Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)

Commission projects undertaken specifically to inform this assessment

peer reviews of key sections of this report

feedback from NWI parties on a draft version of this report.

The assessment of the impact of the NWI and subsequent water reform measures has been guided by the development of an updated NWI program logic a method of examining how and under what conditions change can occur as a result of policy interventions. Details of the program logic developed for this assessment are contained in Appendix D.

Public call for submissions

In September 2013 the Commission invited interested organisations and people to make a written submission to inform the 2014 assessment. An issues paper was made available to provide background to the assessment and identify matters on which information and comment were sought.

In October 2013, the Commission also issued an urban water futures discussion paper, to which some ofthe submissions responded. The responses that discussed urban water futures are marked * in the list below.

The assessment received 56 submissions from a variety of parties as shown over page. Each submission, except those provided in confidence, was published on the Commissions website.


Figure 1. Composition of public submissionsN

umbe

r of

sub

mis

sion

s

0

4

8

12

16

NGOIndustry GroupIndividualsResearch institutions

GovernmentBusiness

Public submissions received:

ACTEW Corporation

Agriculture New South Wales (Department of Primary Industries)

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Network of Environmental Defenders Offices

Australian Waterlife

Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence*

BarmahMillewa Collective Friends of the Earth Melbourne

Brian Bycroft

Business Council of Australia

Cape York Land Council

Centroc Water Utilities Alliance*

Chamber of Minerals and Energy

Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre*

Council of Mayors (SEQ)*

Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Sensitive Cities*

CSIRO*

Environment Centre Northern Territory

Environment Victoria

New South Wales Farmers Association

New South Wales Farmers Association, Griffith Branch

Fiona MacDonald Consulting

Flow Systems*

Inland Rivers Network

Institute for Sustainable Futures*

Local Government New South Wales*

Lock the Gate Alliance


Luke Stewart

Melbourne Water*

Minerals Council of Australia

Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Association

National Farmers Federation

National Irrigators Council

North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management

New South Wales Irrigators Council

New South Wales Office of Water*

Ord Irrigation Cooperative Ltd

Queensland Natural Resource Management Groups Collective

Qldwater*

Queensland Farmers Federation

Redland City Council*

Regional Development Australia Far North Queensland & Torres Strait Inc

South Australian Murray Irrigators Incorporated

Southern Rural Water

SunWater

Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association

Water Directorate*

Water Industry Operators Association of Australia*

Water Industry Skills Taskforce*

Water Services Association of Australia*

Water Stewardship Australia

Waterfind

Yvette Bettini and Brian Head University of Queensland

Yarra Valley Water*.

*response focused on urban water futures discussion paper

Public submissions varied in focus, from reform issues relevant at the national scale to those more concerned with specific local issues. Most were broadly supportive of the NWIs principles and the workof the Commission as a necessary independent voice in water reform. Several submissions noted that implementation of the NWI had not yet been fully completed. In particular, the failure to achieve theNWI commitment to return overallocated systems to a sustainable level of extraction was discussed, and concerns were raised about nonNWIcompliant water entitlement arrangements in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

The success of the NWI in underpinning economic growth and market flexibility for waterdependent industries was acknowledged, although further improvements in data and information availability were sought. Disappointment with the lack of progress on the National Water Market System was noted in several submissions.

Other common themes included the need for wellresourced, sciencebased and transparent policy development, from research through to ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Climate change was noted asa key driver in water reform moving forward.


Many submissions indicated concerns with current engagement processes in water reform and water planning activities. Reference was made to the need for consistent engagement, with some suggesting a national engagement framework to improve the transparency of water planning arrangements. The variability of engagement and unclear links between engagement and policy were criticised. Submissions also called for more inclusive engagement of Indigenous groups, particularly in relation to the development of northern Australia.

Urban water issues were put forward as a priority for water reform, with submissions concerned about clarifying roles and responsibilities, integrating wholeofcycle water management, strengthening regulation, private sector investment and the challenges of water management in regional urban centres.

Fitforpurpose water quality was also identified as an issue for both urban and rural areas. Several submissions suggested better integrated land and water management was needed to achieve water quality outcomes.

As discussed above, submissions commented on specific parts of the NWI where it was felt that not enough progress had been made. This included interception management, trading restrictions and the management of connected groundwater and surface water systems. In addition, some submissions identified the potential for a loss of momentum in water reform following the end of the Millennium Drought, and a concern that some jurisdictions were taking steps of a regressive nature, such as moves to manage water for mining and coal seam gas (CSG) extraction outside the water entitlement framework. Submissions argued that mining and related issues should be integrated into the NWI framework as a matter of urgency, and a solid scientific understanding of impacts determined.

Water stakeholder roundtable workshops

The Commission held four water stakeholder roundtable workshops to gather input for the assessment at a crosssection of locations across the country in Albury, New South Wales on 17 September 2013; Cairns, Queensland on 24 October 2013; Perth, Western Australia on 8 November 2013 and Melbourne, Victoria on 6 February 2014. In addition to Commissioners and staff, the names of participants at the workshops are listed below:

Name Organisation Workshop

Darren Baldwin Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre Albury

David Thurley Albury City Council Albury

Ian Longfield Rivalea Australia Albury

Lani Houston Regional Development Australia Riverina Albury

Natalie Dando North East CMA (Wodonga) Albury

Paul Mayton Murray Darling Association Albury

Peter Borrows Murrumbidgee Irrigation Albury

Brad Ferris Albury City Council Albury

Gillian Kirkup Murrumbidgee Irrigation Albury

Gordon Ball Murray Catchment Management Authority Albury

Helen Dalton New South Wales Farmers Federation Albury

Peter Crowe Regional Development Australia Murray Albury

Barbara Hull Regional Development Australia Murray Albury



Darryl Jacob Murray Darling Association Albury

John Culleton Coleambally Irrigation Albury

Jonathon Howard Charles Sturt University Albury

Les Gordon Ricegrowers Association of Australia Albury

John Francis Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority Albury

Ken Gaudion Victorian Farmers Federation Albury

Bruce Diffey Victorian Farmers Federation Albury

David Harriss New South Wales Office of Water Albury

Ed Cox Murray River Group of Councils Albury

Jenny McLeod Murray Irrigation Albury

Lin Crase La Trobe University Albury

Rhonda Sinclair Murray Darling Wetland Working Group Albury

Sarah Dinning New South Wales Office of Water Albury

Alan Dale James Cook University Cairns

Jann Crase Regional Development Australia Far Nth Queensland and Torres Strait Inc. Cairns

Steve Tansley Australian Water Association Queensland Cairns

Jon Black Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage Protection Cairns

Ian Johnson Queensland Farmers Federation Cairns

Peter Callaghan Cape York Land Council Cairns

Trish Butler Cape York Sustainable Futures Cairns

Nigel Kelly Department of Natural Resources and Mines Cairns

Paul Utting Cairns Regional Council Cairns

Richie Bates Cairns Regional Council Cairns

Matt Darcey Northern Territory Department of Land Resources Management Cairns

Cr Margaret de Wit Local Government Association of Queensland Cairns

Mike Berwick Terrain Natural Resource Management Cairns

Nigel Parratt World Wildlife Fund (Brisbane) Cairns

Terry Piper Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation Cairns

Meredith Blais Water Corporation, Western Australia Perth

Greg Stewart Australian Drilling Industry Association Perth

Natasha Woods Wheatbelt Natural Resource Management Perth

Don McFarlane CSIRO Perth

Tad Bagdon Department of Water, Western Australia Perth

Peter Bowyer Civil Group Perth

Stephen Cook Harvey Water Perth



Lisa Potter Perth Region Natural Resource Management Perth

Michael Bennett University of Western Australia Perth

Mark Batty Western Australia Local Government Association Perth

Justin Fromm Association of Mining and Exploration Companies Perth

Ian Randles Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia Perth

Alex Gardner University of Western Australia Perth

Iqbal Samnakay Department of Water, Western Australia Perth

Jaci Moore Department of Water, Western Australia Perth

Steve Dilley Farmers Federation of Western Australia Inc. Perth

Daniela Tonon Australian Water Association (Western Australia Branch) Perth

Blair Nancarrow Syme & Nancarrow Water Perth

Adam Lovell Water Services Association of Australia Melbourne

Alison White New South Wales Metropolitan Water Directorate Melbourne

Ben Goodsir Tasmania Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment Melbourne

David Cameron Queensland Water Melbourne

David Marlow CSIRO Melbourne

Greg Allen Sydney Water Melbourne

Jo Benvenuti Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre Melbourne

Jonathan Kennedy Infrastructure Partnerships Australia Melbourne

Julia Grant South Australia Department of Environment, Water & Natural Resources Melbourne

Malcolm Roberts Queensland Competition Authority Melbourne

Marcus Crudden Essential Services Commission, Victoria Melbourne

Mark Bartley Australian Water Association (Victorian Branch) Melbourne

Mark ODonohue Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence Melbourne

Michele Akeroyd Goyder Institute Melbourne

Robyn GreyGardner Centre for Appropriate Technology Melbourne

Ross Allen Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities Melbourne

Sally Armstrong Sydney Water Melbourne

Stuart Wilson Water Services Association of Australia Melbourne

Tony Holmes New South Wales Water Directorate & Shoalhaven Water Melbourne

The first three of these workshops focused mainly on rural water management, while the fourth dealt specifically with urban water issues. These events were attended by a variety of stakeholders, including representatives from government agencies, water utilities, research organisations, catchment management authorities, irrigators, industry associations and environmental groups.


In general, the workshop participants agreed the NWI and its principles were sound and remained relevant. With regard to the NWI, workshops examined benefits, limitations, emerging issues, barriers tosuccess and potential improvements.

Key benefits nominated included the increase in water trade and entitlement security, the increased availability of waterrelated information and improvements in the monitoring and enforcement of entitlements. The recognition of the environment as a legitimate water user, along with the development and implementation of sustainable development approaches, were also nominated as gains attributable to the NWI.

The workshops also nominated several areas where the results were less positive. These included relationships between government agencies and irrigation communities, the reduction of available water to support regional economies and a perception that the NWI was focused on the MurrayDarling Basin. It was also noted that in many areas the environmental benefits of the NWI were as yet unclear, and that significant changes had been imposed with little documented benefit.

Barriers to the NWIs success or its implementation were also identified. These tended to focus on resourcing (investment in infrastructure, implementation costs, funding for evaluation and benchmarking), the interaction of mining and water, and a lack of clarity on how water is shared. Skills shortages and leadership at local and regional levels were also noted as issues that needed to be addressed.

The workshops nominated increased localism and collaboration as key ways to improve NWI implementation. Other issues discussed included regulation, the integration of water into regional development planning (including in northern Australia), improved risk management and the developmentof policy to manage interactions between water and energy.

Issues that were identified included mining and its interaction with water resources, treatment ofgroundwater and responsible development practices.

The workshops also examined issues relating to social wellbeing and community engagement.

It was reported that the effects of water reform on social wellbeing were unclear. Some participants praised voluntary buybacks through water trade as an efficient and effective method for dealing with overallocation, whereas others suggested they were divisive. Concerns persist regarding the decline of some rural communities and the inequitable distribution of the costs and benefits of water recovery measures. It was also noted that the effects of reform could be difficult to discern in the context of recent extreme climate variability such as the Millennium Drought in southeastern Australia, which wasfollowed by two very wet years.

While there was broad agreement about the importance of engagement, it was argued that it had not always been done well or consistently. Issues that commonly arose were levels of transparency, perceptions of influence and the capacity of participants to affect outcomes. Indigenous participants suggested that despite a high degree of contact during consultation processes, they did not feel they had significant influence on issues important to them. It was also noted that after agreements were reached, engagement declined or ceased, and that this presented challenges to ongoing community buyin.

The urban workshop acknowledged that the urban sector was often characterised by tradeoffs and tensions that moderated the reform process, but that nonetheless significant benefits were available providing policy makers were prepared to offer leadership on issues such as private capital, water security and investment. The lack of clarity that characterises pricing, ownership, roles and responsibilities and governance also present challenges that the workshop argued should be addressed. These issues, along with customer choice, service contestability and planning were all identified as matters for examination.


The urban workshop identified that future urban water development needed to be focused on the customers and the communities they reside in. The Commission was nominated as having a key role toplay in facilitating discussions among regulators and stakeholders more broadly to ensure that customer needs and expectations could be met. Regulatory reform was also identified as a key issue tobe addressed, including providing incentives for innovation and efficiency gains, breaking down planning silos and addressing the tensions between utility owner and regulator roles (in those cases where they are the same). Other matters raised included liveability, available benefits from integrated water management, and the roles and responsibilities of different levels of government (especially in regard tothe national reform program).

Consultations with NWI parties

To minimise reporting burdens, jurisdictional input to the 2014 assessment was sought in a judicious and coordinated manner. As far as possible, the Commission drew on evidence from its existing work program and publicly available information. Jurisdictions were given the opportunity to provide comment and undertake fact checking for the report.

Meetings with and submissions from NWI parties

On 30 July 2013 NWI parties were advised that the Commission had begun the 2014 assessment and invited to meet to discuss the parameters of the assessment and the input required from each of them.

Meeting dates and representative agencies are set out in the table below.

Table A1: Meetings with state and territory agencies

Organisation Date

Northern Territory Department of Land Resource Management Thursday, 22 August 2013

South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources Tuesday, 27 August 2013

Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water & Environment Wednesday, 28 August 2013

Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection Tuesday, 3 September 2013

Queensland Department of Energy and Water Supply

Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines

Tuesday, 3 September 2013

Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries Monday, 9 September 2013

Office of Living Victoria Monday, 9 September 2013

New South Wales Office of Water

New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet

Wednesday, 11 September 2013

Western Australian Department of Water Wednesday, 25 September 2013

Australian Capital Territory Environment and Sustainability Directorate Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Commonwealth Department of the Environment Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Detailed requests for information were sent to all NWI parties between 22 October and 12November2013, with responses received in December 2013.


Meetings with water agency directorsgeneral

The Commission met with the directorsgeneral of the state and territory water agencies or their representatives on 1 April 2014. This meeting discussed water reform progress and considered strategic issues faced by agencies in implementing the NWI. Agencies also reflected on the key messages emerging from the 2014 assessment work to date and shared their views on the key future water reform priorities.

Consultation draft report

The Commission provided a consultation draft of this report to all NWI parties on 23 May 2014, and sought comments on the accuracy of factual content, as well as the Commissions expressed view of water reform priorities for the future. Comments were received from all parties throughout June and early July 2014. Seniorlevel discussions on the messaging in the draft report were also held with a number of these agencies during the consultation period.

Regional wellbeing survey

In 2013 the MurrayDarling Basin Futures Collaborative Research Network (MDBfutures) conducted a survey canvassing the wellbeing of people living in regional and rural communities. The survey results were published on 18 June 2014 and are available at http://www.canberra.edu.au/murraydarlingcrn/regionalwellbeing.

The survey focused on how wellbeing is influenced by change, including changes brought about by water reform. Its findings were used to inform the 2014 assessment, particularly with regard to the NWIs economic and social impacts and water reform more broadly. The survey canvassed the views of more than 9000 respondents, including 900 irrigators and 1600 dryland farmers, spread across rural and regional Australia (excluding Tasmania).

The sample of irrigators obtained was representative of the distribution of irrigators across Australia with three exceptions: Tasmanian irrigators were not included in the survey (and hence none of the data reported includes the views of Tasmanian irrigators), irrigators in South Australia were oversampled and Queensland irrigators located outside the MurrayDarling Basin were undersampled. The weighting process corrected for the identified over and undersampling of these irrigators with theexception of Tasmania.

The main topics examined included personal and community wellbeing, demographic changes, access to services, and the experience and views of water reform.

Social impact analysis

The Commission engaged Marsden Jacob Associates (MJA) to examine the impact of water reform oncommunity wellbeing, as well as to develop performance indicators and provide longitudinal information for the 2014 assessments consideration.

MJA selected communities on the basis of how long each had been exposed to key water reform activities, with this measure used as a proxy for how much each had been affected by water reform. Thestudy group was further narrowed by other measures selecting those communities that had overall been at the centre of the water reform process and finally settling on a group of 20 communities.

Each of these communities was compared with other communities of a similar population size that were deemed to have been substantially less affected by water reform. These communities were compared using a variety of measures, ranging from basic comparisons to detailed statistical modelling.


The results of this study did not identify any negative socioeconomic effects of water reform, with little difference observed in social outcomes between the case study communities and their comparators. The results showed that most of the communities had:

maintained their population

maintained diverse economies showing stability

had largely unchanged employment levels

reported high levels of personal and communitylevel satisfaction.

The results also showed that where socioeconomic conditions had declined there was no causal link between this and the level of water reform activity, and that the changes were more likely the result of regional demographic factors such as population migration to larger regional urban centres.

The study concluded water reform had not negatively affected the communities within the case study areas in a measurable way, with the overall changes in these communities influenced to a greater extent by other factors, such as proximity to mining and other extractive industries, regionspecific economic conditions and demographic migration.

Noting its limitations, the Commission assessment used this work to help measure the impact of waterreform.

Appendix BProgress against 2011 recommendations


Appendix B: Progress against 2011 recommendations

The National Water Commissions 2011 assessment identified progress in national water reform to date under the National Water Initiative (NWI). It also articulated the challenges preventing the NWI parties from gaining the full benefits of water reform. These included delays and gaps in implementation, new and emerging issues, less than adequate resourcing and ad hoc decisionmaking. To address these challenges the 2011 assessment identified 12 headline recommendations and several priority areas for the reform process into the future.

This appendix documents the Commissions 2014 assessment of progress against the 2011 recommendations.

2011 assessment recommendation 1

The National Water Commission calls on the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) to recommitto the National Water Initiative as the guiding blueprint for sustainable water managementin Australia and to task the Standing Council for Environment and Water to drive thesereforms as a priority. COAG leadership is essential to reinvigorate national water reform.

Summary of progress since 2011

COAG recommitted to the NWI by endorsing the Next Steps in National Water Reform: Preparation for the future (a report by the Standing Council on Environment and Water), outlining the National Water Reform Work Plan 20132017 as the next stage in the Australian water reform agenda. The report, included at Attachment E, identifies thewater issues in which the greatest benefit from national progression is expected to be derived overthe next 10years, and lists specific actions for addressing these issues overthe next five years. It also identifies the significant unfinished business from the NWI.

The key water issues identified for action in the next five years were:

National Groundwater Strategic Plan develop (by the end of 2013) and implement (jurisdictional action plans by 2014) a National Groundwater Strategic Plan

improving certainty and security of access to water explore the costs and benefits of further entitlement reform in locations where rights are not explicitly defined within existing water access and entitlement frameworks

urban water provide evidence to inform national urban water reform initiatives that support secure, safe, healthy and reliable waterrelated services and which meet community needs in an efficient and sustainable manner

integrating water quality and quantity better integration between water quality and quantity in planning, management and regulation frameworks to achieve improved environmental, economic and social outcomes

improved longterm water planning ensure water resource decisionmakers are better able to plan for likely longterm impacts on water supply and demand, including identifying areas ofcriticalbalance


water resource development inform decisions on the development of water resources based ontheconsistent application of agreed principles.

The Next Steps report includes new approaches to implement these water issues and identifies unfinished business from previous commitments. These include:

fully implement commitments for NWIcompliant water planning

use best endeavours to introduce and pass legislation to enable implementation of NWIconsistent water access entitlements (Northern Territory and Western Australia) and water planning (WesternAustralia)

identify and report on water systems where use is not sustainable

address stakeholder concerns about water market intermediaries

the Commonwealth, Victorian, South Australian and New South Wales governments will work collaboratively to develop practical measures to overcome impediments to the consistent applicationof the four per cent cap and a staged increase in the limit

continued implementation of the National Framework for NonUrban Water Metering

estimation of rural water use

implementation of the National Water Knowledge and Research Platform.

In December 2013 COAG announced its decision to reduce the number of standing councils. The Standing Council on Environment and Water (SCEW) was disbanded and, consequently, the committee of senior water officials reporting to it the Water Thematic Oversight Group (WTOG). This has left nospecific standing council with the responsibility for considering water policy at the national level.

Following disbanding of the SCEW and its WTOG, an ad hoc committee of senior officials has been in the process of formation. At the first meeting of this government officials water reform committee areduction in the work program of future reform activities was proposed, including the discontinuance ofseveral previously agreed actions, including:

identification and reporting on systems where use is in excess of sustainable water extraction regimes

development of a decision framework to guide water resource development

preparation of a national plan for estimating rural water use

fully implementing the interception commitments in the NWI

developing water market service standards for trade approvals for nonMurrayDarling Basinjurisdictions

development of a regulatory framework for water market intermediaries.

The Commission is concerned that this reduction in water reform scope, along with the absence ofincentives for jurisdictions to coordinate their efforts and the lack of national ministerial standing council oversight, are likely to hinder the progress of nationally significant reforms in the future.

Without a national governance structure, the full benefits of ongoing national water reform are less likelyto be realised and any resiling from the more difficult aspects of reform less likely to be publicly held to account.



All NWI parties must resolve to stay the course on their reform commitments and give priority todelivering the significant unfinished actions identified by this assessment. This is critical to reap the full benefits of past efforts and to meet the continuing imperative of increasing the productive and efficient use of Australias water and ensuring the health of river and groundwater systems.


The 2011 assessment identified 11 key areas of unfinished business from the NWI, including both priorities for improved practice and areas where evidence of the reversal of reform needed to be arrested. These areas are examined in detail in Chapter 3 of this report.


Governments around Australia should engage with their constituents to develop a shared understanding of why water reform is still vital to build resilient communities, productive industries and sustainable environments.


Since 2011, the MurrayDarling Basin Authority (MDBA) has made considerable effort to engage withthe community and to restore community confidence in the reforms. The MurrayDarling Basin Plan (the Basin plan) passed through Parliament in November 2012.

A concerted effort to highlight the benefits of water reform more broadly at the jurisdictional or nationallevel has not generally ensued. While individual (usually funding) announcements are made andshortterm, often localised benefits are highlighted, a shared understanding of bigpicture, longterm benefits has not been widely promoted in most jurisdictions.

The debate on urban water reform has progressed since 2011 with a greater focus on community and customer engagement across the sector. Mechanisms for reflecting community values in major policy and planning decisions, and for enabling individual consumers to express preferences through choice, continue to be improved but further work is required. This enduserfocused engagement has embedded service standards and delivery options within most utilities, creating more flexible arrangements to meet needs and demand where possible. While this progress is widespread across the urban water sector, itlacks a unified approach thus remaining fragmented with ad hoc implementation.


All levels of government should strengthen community involvement in water planning and management, recognising the value of local knowledge and the importance of regional implementation, and review institutional arrangements and capacity to enable effective engagement at the local level.



There has been community involvement in the development and review of water plans across alljurisdictions.

Development of the Basin plan demonstrated what a challenging process this can be when action to recover from situations of overuse or overallocation needs to be taken. Considerable community uncertainty and dissent was expressed during the first attempt at plan development. Initial missteps andmisunderstandings were addressed in order to obtain greater community acceptance of a final Basin plan in 2012, five years after the Water Act 2007 (Cwth) was passed. A number of submissions and consultations for this assessment expressed strong ongoing concern with the new water governance arrangements in the MurrayDarling Basin, and the underlying basis of the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), andit would be very premature to suggest that community opposition to the arrangements has been entirely dispelled.

The process to finalise the Basin plan included numerous commitments to localism, however tangible mechanisms in the implementation arrangements are yet to be finalised.


Australia needs a stronger and more contemporary urban water reform agenda. The Commission recommends that COAG develops a new set of objectives and actions to provide national leadership for urban water management.


To guide development of the 2011 assessment, the Commission published Urban water in Australia: future directions (NWC 2011) and a series of related, more detailed analyses of pricing, competition and water quality regulation. These identified opportunities for further urban water policy reform, as well as ways to better manage current and future challenges and opportunities to improve economic, social and environmental outcomes from the urban water sector. Specifically, the Commission called for COAG to:

adopt an agreed set of national objectives for the urban water sector and general principles to guidereform

pursue priority actions for each jurisdiction that contribute materially to national urban water sector objectives, and use stronger incentives and an improved monitoring and evaluation framework todrive timely and effective implementation.

In responding to the 2011 recommendations, the SCEW provided COAG with a modestly enhanced urban water reform agenda in 2012 and identified a range of actions including:

review of NWI pricing principles by the end of 2014

review of the 2008 COAG National Urban Water Planning Principles by the end of 2014

promoting awareness of the outcomes of research and analysis of urban water issues across governments through existing forums.


Pricing principles

The review of the NWI pricing principles aims to address a variety of issues including pricing the scarcity value of water, the valuation and recovery of environmental externalities, the feasibility of multiple tariffoptions, costs and benefits of postage stamp pricing, and sewerage and trade waste licensing. Thereview will consider whether the pricing principles meet the intent of the NWI bestpractice water pricing arrangements, taking into account changes since the pricing principles were developed.

Planning principles

The review of the 2008 Urban Water Planning Principles seeks to assess the extent of implementation and the effect on urban water planning decisions by utilities and local governments, as well as to examine the role of planning principles in advancing new approaches to planning, such as adaptive management and integrated urban water management.

Promoting awareness

At a national level, awareness raising is largely limited to activities previously endorsed through COAG subcommittee processes and identified in the National Water Knowledge and Research Platform. Atjurisdictional level, interactions between governments, industry and the public have been associated with reforms to legislation, planning and regulation.

Reforms to legislation, planning and regulation

Although the appetite for urban reform varies across the country, governments and industry continue to pursue actions to advance water reform outcomes and have embarked on public consultation and review processes to identify new approaches to urban water legislation, regulation and planning (Table B1).

Table B1. Jurisdictional urban water reforms undertaken 2011 to 2014

Jurisdiction Review

New South Wales Review of urban water regulation: Metropolitan Water Directorate

Independent Local Government Review strengthening the effectiveness oflocalgovernment

Planning for our Future: NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure

Victoria Victorian Governments Living Victoria Policy

Melbournes Water Future Strategy: Office of Living Victoria

Vic Health Safe Drinking Water Regulatory Review and Review of the regulatory frameworkfor alternative water supplies: Department of Health

Water Law Review: Department of Environment and Primary Industries

Queensland Queenslands Water Sector: A 30year Strategy

Western Australia Economic Regulation Authority: Review of water service operating licences

South Australia Essential Services Commission: Economic Regulation of SA Water from 1 July 2016 DraftFramework and Approach

Essential Services Commission Inquiry into Drinking Water and Sewerage Retail ServicesPricing Reform

Tasmania House of Assembly Select Committee into the Tasmanian Water and Sewerage Corporations Reform of Tasmanias water and sewerage sector: Tasmanian Government

Australian Capital Territory

ACT Government: Review of regulated water and sewerage service in the ACT

ACT Government Water for the Future striking the balance

Northern Territory Northern Territory Government: Reforms to Power and Water Corporation


These reviews explore key issues and options for progressing national water reform directions. Commonfeatures include:

longterm urban water planning that takes account of the variable nature of our climate

financial resilience and economic efficiency emphasised

light handed regulation and incentivising innovation to reduce cost pressures and improve productivity

a focus on enhancing liveability and the environment

creating greater opportunity for private sector involvement and investment

encouraging customers in the smarter use of water and fair pricing signals

integration of planning for water and sewerage services in regional planning

improved nationally based skills framework and improved coordination of research and development

building certainty into the planning and approval process.


Water quality objectives should be more fully integrated into the reform agenda, with better connections between water quality and quantity in planning, management and regulation to achieveimproved environmental outcomes. There is also a need for a more coordinated and structured approach to urban water quality regulation at a national level.


The Basin plan includes a water quality and salinity management plan, with arrangements to be incorporated in state water resource plans.

Outside the MurrayDarling Basin progress has been limited. Previously strong bilateral arrangements that were put in place through the (completed) National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality areweakening.

Emerging issues include potential damage to the Great Barrier Reef and waste discharges associated with mining and coal seam gas (CSG) extraction activities.

In 2013 a Great Barrier Reef scientific consensus statement highlighted the decline in marine waterquality and associated the decline with excess nutrients, fine sediments and pesticides from Great Barrier Reef catchments due to diffuse source pollution from agriculture. The Queensland and federalgovernments, industry bodies and landholders have developed bestmanagement practice programs for cattle grazing and sugar cane growing to reduce this pollution from agriculture.

More coordinated and structured approach to urban water quality regulation at a national level

Regulatory arrangements governing urban water quality have served Australia well, with drinking watergenerally safe and of a high quality. Since 2011, many utilities have continued with improvements to the management of water quality the riskmanagement process developed within the National WaterQuality Management Strategy (NWQMS) framework has become the central process for water quality regulation across Australia.


The Commissions 201213 urban National Performance Report (NWC 2014) found that the overwhelming majority of water delivered to consumers is safe. The report found very few instances of drinking water in Australia not complying with the Australian drinking water standards. Microbiological compliance has improved from 201112 to 201213 with only three of more than 80 utilities reporting less than 100 per cent compliance (Ben Lomond Water, 97 per cent; Clarence Valley, 73 per cent; Tamworth, 99 per cent).

However, some small regional utilities still face particular difficulties in meeting economic, environmental and public health objectives due to financial viability, water regulation compliance and skills shortages as noted by the Productivity Commission (PC 2011).

The supply of safe drinking water for remote Indigenous communities also poses a particular challenge, with drinking water quality in many small remote Indigenous communities often not meeting Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (NWC 2012).

Despite developments in managing water quality, challenges remain. Regulatory systems for urban and wastewater have been tested by changes including new institutional arrangements, source diversification, interconnectivity and new market participants. A lack of clarity about roles and responsibilities across water quality and quantity institutions compound these challenges.

The Standing Council on Environment and Water provided COAG with a range of actions for supporting better integration of water quality and quantity, revising the strategic direction of the NWQMS. These actions included:

revising the policy settings for the NWQMS in line with developments in water reform and includingafocus on integration of water quality and quantity planning and management

resetting governance arrangements for NWQMS management

rationalising guidance material

developing appropriate monitoring and evaluation techniques

consider preparing NWI policy guidelines for water planning.

Since 2011, state and territory governments continue to review water quality regulations in order toreduce regulatory inefficiencies and facilitate more consistent, coordinated and timely regulation (seeAppendix C). Innovative approaches to urban water quality regulation have been enhanced through collaboration between industry, communities, the research and development sector and government. The centres of excellence and cooperative research centres have made valuable contributions to ensurenationally applicable, demanddriven and goal orientated research and development.

Urban water quality progress since 2011

Urban water quality arrangements have improved significantly since 2011, including a greater focus onrisk management and the development of new regulatory approaches.

Risk management has been increasingly adopted as the central mechanism for managing water quality, with regulators mandating the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling. Utilities have advanced treatment of risk, ensuring the quality and reliability of drinking water in towns and cities (noting that regional supplies face different challenges). There has also been significant research and development investment supporting risk management, with the development ofthe NatValThe Map to a National Validation Framework for Water Recycling Schemes.

The challenges that remain include reforming regulatory inefficiencies, such as duplication and overlap, the degradation of urban waterways, and the tensions between regulators and utilities regarding price and community preferences. Utilities are seeking to understand what consumers are prepared to pay forenvironmental sustainability, but such assessments are immature.


The value of environmental water is not being adequately quantified as yet, and therefore it is not driving innovation or efficiency gains. The costs and benefits of waterway health and other nonfinancial impacts are not generally being measured, reducing the comprehensiveness of urban planning processes.


Greater coordination of water management and natural resource management initiatives would yieldsignificant gains, for example by better aligning the development, implementation and reviewofwater plans and catchment plans.


While little demonstrable progress is being made in this area, jurisdictions continue to view integrated management and better alignment as an important aspiration. For example in New South Wales, the recent 10year review of the 31 water sharing plans which commenced in 2004 was done within the context of progress towards natural resource management targets. The New South Wales Natural Resources Commission assessed the contribution of these water sharing plans to the state natural resource management targets and the relevant regional Catchment Action Plans and concluded that thecontribution was difficult to ascertain given the lack of comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (NRC 2013).

In South Australia, Water Allocation Plans are developed by Natural Resources Management (NRM) boards for each prescribed water resource in their particular region and are supported by their respective Regional NRM Plans (which include goals and strategies for the integrated management of water and other natural resources). If there are water resources outside prescribed areas, they are managed in accordance with the provisions of the relevant NRM Plan. For example, in the Alinytjara Wilurara region the NRM Plan was amended to specifically manage concerns of the NRM board and thecommunity in relation to water management.


The Commission urges states and territories to review their existing mining and petroleum regulatoryarrangements to ensure that water resource impacts are addressed explicitly, and that those extractive activities are fully integrated into NWI-consistent planning and management regimes.


There has been strong progress in jurisdictional development of policy and regulation to address water resource impacts from extractive industries, including more recently CSG and large coal mine operations. Further work is still required to ensure mining and petroleumrelated activities impacting water are fully aligned with NWIconsistent planning and management regimes. Both in Queensland (petroleum and gas) and the Northern Territory (mining and petroleum), water used in operations remains outside of their respective water planning and entitlements frameworks.

In parallel to the establishment of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee, the Commonwealth funded the National Partnership Agreement (NPA) on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development with signatory states New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia.


TheNPAs objective is to strengthen regulation of CSG and large coal mining development and ensure future decisions are informed by substantially improved science and independent expert advice.

The Commonwealth Department of the Environments Office of Water Science has developed a bioregional assessment program. The program is undertaking scientific analysis of the ecology, hydrology and geology to assess the potential risks to water resources as a result of the direct and indirect impacts of CSG development or large coal mining development.

In May 2013, the Standing Council on Energy and Resources released the National Harmonised Regulatory Framework for Natural Gas from Coal Seams outlining leading practice principles and providing guidance to regulators of the CSG industry.

Opportunities for more effective and efficient water use still remain where governments can develop NWIconsistent planning and entitlement arrangements for extractive industries. These arrangements should take into account water quality with respect to purpose of use, and beneficial use of excess or coproduced water.


It would be prudent at this stage to analyse the nature and materiality of potential changes to water use as a result of climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives. Water management policies may need to be elaborated to operate more effectively in the context of these new initiatives.


The NWI Policy Guidelines for Water Planning and Management (the Guidelines) were developed to support NWIconsistent water planning and management arrangements. The Guidelines include some principles and considerations to take account of climate change in water planning. A Climate Change and Extreme Events module has been proposed to expand and support the Guidelines and provide further guidance on climate change and extreme events as they relate to water planning. The Planning Subgroup of WTOG began drafting this module in 2013. It is expected to be finalised for WTOG endorsement in 2014.

Western Australia released a position paper for public comment in September 2013 outlining an updated legislative framework to manage the states water resources. Changed climate patterns and reduced rainfall are key drivers behind development of the proposed reform framework. The position paper identifies that flexible and adaptive mechanisms are needed to better address climate change and variability, and improve security for users and the environment (DoW 2013a).

Possible mechanisms for managing variability include the use of variable water entitlements and annual allocation announcements, coupled with the introduction of statutory allocation plans and water access entitlements. The Western Australian Department of Water provides a standard range of climate projections to inform water planning and is developing a guideline on the application of climate projections for the states southwest (DoW 2013b).

In October 2013 the Northern Territory Government announced that the data used to model water availability for the Mataranka Water Allocation Plan had been reconsidered. Instead of using the past 100years of historical data, runoff and recharge data from the past 30 years (which have been wetter than the longerterm average) has been used to estimate water availability over the 10year life of the plan. This change was based on advice from the Bureau of Meteorology that the plan areas future climate wasmost likely to be similar to recent climatic conditions. This increases the annual volume of water available for allocation from 19.5 GL to 36 GL.



Evidence-based decision-making and good stewardship of Australias water assets rely on robust science and socio-economic information. The Commission reiterates its call for a national water science strategy, backed by sufficient investment to deliver the required capacity. To support improved water management, the Commission also recommends that water service providers and governments state publicly their commitment to resource adequately and implement fully theNational Water Skills Strategy.


In November 2008, COAG agreed to the development of a National Water Knowledge and Research Strategy to establish priority research areas, ensure coordinated research effort, and improve the returns from investment. The outcome of that process was the National Water Knowledge and ResearchPlatform, which all NWI governments agreed to in September 2012 through the SCEW. SCEWhad directed that implementation of the platform, within the resources available, be progressed under the guidance of the WTOG with the then Commonwealth Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities as lead agency. Governance arrangements forthiswork are now uncertain following changes to COAG Council arrangements.

The platforms objective is for key decisions on water policy, management and use in Australia to be based on bestavailable and continuously improving knowledge and information. The platform identifies national priority water knowledge and research needs for the next five years. It does not seek to describe governance models, funding options or budget for the supply of research services, rather it focuses onidentifying priorities and establishing consistent approaches for obtaining and using research in priority areas.

The platform identifies eight priority research themes:

environmental water

water quality

social, economic and institutional reforms

future water availability

irrigation water use efficiency

hydrology and hydrological modelling

urban water systems

groundwater.

Focal groups, comprising representatives from each jurisdiction, will continue to monitor researchanddevelopment relating to each research theme, consulting with relevant research andindustry communities1.

1 Department of the Environment website, accessed 28 July 2014, http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/water/ waterinformation/nationalwaterknowledgeandresearchplatform


The National Water Skills Strategy was released in 2009 to focus attention on skills shortages in the water industry. Three initiatives were funded, including:

Initiative 1: up to $500,000 for a pilot program to trial development of training in water management skills for remote and Indigenous communities. To date, a series of capacity building workshops aimed atdeveloping Indigenous community skills to develop drinking water management plans have been undertaken in north Queensland using the Community Water Planner template. In addition, community water management plans were implemented throughout the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia.

Initiative 2: up to $250,000 for the development of skills and training standards for operators of potable water treatment facilities. During 2014 a pilot of the National Certification Framework: Operators within Drinking Water Treatment Systems is being run in Queensland and New South Wales. The framework isbeing led and managed by industry.

Initiative 3: funding on a 3for1 matching basis of up to $250,000 to support the H2Oz water industry marketing campaign (the water industrys own initiative aimed at addressing the skills shortage); and funding of up to $100,000 to enable the Australian Water Association on behalf of the Water Industry Skills Taskforce to develop a business plan to implement the COAG National Water Skills Strategy2.

At present the H2Oz water industry marketing campaign continues to focus mostly on the H2Oz website which promotes careers and jobs in the water sector. The Water Industry Skills Taskforce remains hosted by the Australian Water Association and continues to provide a forum to promote and oversee anationally coordinated effort to address the skills shortage in the water sector.

While there has been limited commitment from service providers or governments for the National Water Skills Strategy, industry groups have shown strong support. A lack of government funding for some of thestrategys initiatives has hampered progress which presents a challenge to jurisdictions.

2011 assessment Recommendation 11

Renewed political commitment will require a refreshing of the approach to national reform. TheCommission proposes that each of Australias governments commits to a program of specific actions every three years, based on agreed national priorities and jurisdictional priorities underpinned by the NWI commitments, together with explicit levels of resourcing to implement the program. In the interests of accountability and transparency, the Commission calls on COAG torecommit to oversight of water reform progress by an independent assessment body.


Individual jurisdictions have progressed areas of reform, although no jurisdiction has publicly committed to a specific program of reform actions to be progressed into the future in accordance with this recommendation.

Following the 2011 assessment, COAG endorsed the Next Steps in National Water Reform: Preparation for the future (a report by the Standing Council on Environment and Water), outlining the National Water Reform Work Plan 20132017 asthe next stage in the Australian water reform agenda.

2 Department of the Environment website, accessed 08 May 2014, http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/water/ ruralwater/sustainableruralwateruseandinfrastructure/nonurbanwatermetering


The report identified the water issues in which the greatest benefit from national progression is expected to be derived over the next 10 years, and lists specific actions for addressing these issues over the next five years. It also identifies the significant unfinished business from the NWI.

In December 2013 COAG announced its decision to reduce the number of standing councils. TheStanding Council on Environment and Water (SCEW) was disbanded and, consequently, the committee of senior water officials reporting to it the WTOG.

COAG commissioned an independent review of the Commission in 2011, as was required to inform a proposed sunset clause in the National Water Commission Act 2004 (Cwth). The COAG review afforded an opportunity to take stock of the needfor continued national leadership and crossjurisdictional cooperation in water management, andthe Commissions roles and functions in the reform process.

The review concluded: the elements of the NWI still to be implemented are, by their nature, the more difficult ones and the role that can be played by a specialist and independent body like the Commission is likely to be even more important in the future (Rosalky, D 2012).

This review underpinned the subsequent renewal of the Commissions national water reform role with the Australian Governments decision to renew the Commission, leading to an amended National WaterCommission Act effective from 1 July 2012, without a sunset clause.

However, the Australian Government has recently decided to close the Commission at the end of 2014. Some functions will be transferred to other agencies. With the splitting of functions across agencies and the loss of some activities, there is a risk that independent oversight of water reform as a whole will be reduced, increasing the likelihood of backsliding on current progress and a retreat from publicaccountability.

2011 assessment Recommendation 12

The Commission urges COAG to consider a new approach to incentives to encourage the delivery ofnationally significant water reforms.


No new incentive arrangements have been put in place outside of the MurrayDarling Basin.

Within the MurrayDarling Basin, the Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the MurrayDarling Basin (IGA) is an undertaking by the Australian Government and participating Basin state governments to build on existing achievements by implementing the next tranche of water reforms to further improve the health of the Basin and secure a future for its communities. The IGAs objective isto ensure that the Commonwealth led MurrayDarling Basin water reforms, including the Basin plan, are implemented in a costeffective manner to support the national interest of improving river andwetland health, putting water use on a sustainable footing, enhancing irrigation productivity, providing water for critical human needs, and providing farmers and communities with more confidence to plan for a future with less water. Part 7 of the IGA commits the Australian Government to providing funding support to the Basin states via the National Partnership Agreement on Implementing Water Reform inthe MurrayDarling Basin (NPA).


References

DOW (Department of Water) 2013a, Securing Western Australias Water Future Position paper reforming water resource management, Government of Western Australia, Perth.

DoW (Department of Water) 2013b, Triennial Assessment submission, Government of Western Australia, Perth.

NRC 2013, Review of 2004 water sharing plans, NRC, Sydney.

NWC (National Water Commission) 2011, Urban water in Australia: future directions, NWC, Canberra.

NWC (National Water Commission) 2012, Position Statement: Indigenous access to water resources, 2012, accessed 20 May 2014, .

NWC (National Water Commission) 2013, National Performance Report 201213 Urban water utilities, NWC, Canberra.

NWC (National Water Commission) 2014, National Water Planning Report Card 2013, NWC, Canberra.

Rosalky, D, 2012, COAG Review of the National Water Commission

Appendix CProgress against National Water Initiative actions


App

endi

x C:

Pro

gres

s ag

ains

t Nat

iona

l Wat

er In

itiat

ive

actio

ns

Aust

ralia

n G

over

nmen

t

NW

I ac

tion

sN

WI

para

grap

hC

omm

enta

ry 2

014

Wat

er a

cces

s en

titlem

ents

and

pla

nnin

g fr

amew

ork

Impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

fram

ewor

k:

su

bsta

ntia

l com

plet

ion

of

plan

s to

add

ress

any

exi

stin

g ov

eral

loca

tion

for

all r

iver

sys

tem

s an

d gr

ound

wat

er r

esou

rces

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith c

omm

itmen

ts

unde

r th

e 19

94

CO

AG

Wat

er

Ref

orm

Fra

mew

ork

le

gisl

ativ

e an

d ad

min

istr

ativ

e re

gim

es a

men

ded

to in

corp

orat

e th

e el

emen

ts o

f the

ent

itlem

ents

an

d al

loca

tion

fram

ewor

k in

th

isa

gree

men

t.

2626

A

t the

com

men

cem

ent o

f the

Nat

iona

l Wat

er In

itiat

ive

(NW

I), th

e C

omm

onw

ealth

had

no

Nat

iona

l Com

petit

ion

Cou

ncil

(NC

C) c

omm

itmen

ts in

rel

atio

n to

add

ress

ing

over

allo

catio

n th

roug

h w

ater

pla

ns u

nder

the

199

4 C

ounc

il of

A

ustr

alia

n G

over

nmen

ts (

CO

AG

) W

ater

Ref

orm

Fra

mew

ork.

The

Com

mon

wea

lth, t

hrou

gh th

e M

urra

yD

arlin

g B

asin

Aut

horit

y (M

DB

A),

has

deve

lope

d th

e M

urra

yD

arlin

g B

asin

P

lan

(the

Bas

in p

lan)

, fina

lised

in 2

012.

The

Bas

in p

lan

sets

Sus

tain

able

Div

ersi

on L

imits

(SD

Ls)

for

each

juris

dict

ion

on b

oth

grou

nd a

nd s

urfa

ce w

ater

sou

rces

. The

SD

Ls a

re im

plem

ente

d th

roug

h ju

risdi

ctio

nal w

ater

pla

nnin

g. T

he

Bas

in p

lan

requ

ires

SDLs

to b

e in

eff

ect b

y 1

July

201

9 an

d ju

risdi

ctio

ns a

re in

the

proc

ess

of m

anag

ing

thei

r w

ater

pl

anni

ng to

mov

e to

war

ds th

ese

limits

.

Wat

er a

cces

s en

title

men

ts to

be

defin

ed a

nd im

plem

ente

d.

283

428

33

N

oted

as

a st

ate

and

terr

itory

onl

y ac

tion

in th

e N

WI.

CO

AG

end

orse

d th

e N

ext S

teps

in N

atio

nal W

ater

Ref

orm

: Pre

para

tion

for t

he fu

ture

(a

repo

rt b

y th

e St

andi

ng C

ounc

il on

Env

ironm

ent a

nd W

ater

), ou

tlini

ng th

e N

atio

nal W

ater

Ref

orm

Wor

k P

lan

2013

201

7. A

ctio

n 2

in th

is w

ork

plan

co

mm

its g

over

nmen

ts to

exp

lorin

g th

e co

sts

and

bene

fits

of im

prov

ing

cert

aint

y an

d se

curit

y of

acc

ess

to s

ourc

es

ofw

ater

whe

re r

ight

s ar

e no

t exp

licitl

y de

fined

with

in th

e ex

istin

g w

ater

acc

ess

and

entit

lem

ent f

ram

ewor

k by

201

5.

34

A

men

dmen

ts to

the

Envi

ronm

ent P

rote

ctio

n an

d B

iodi

vers

ity C

onse

rvat

ion

Act 1

999

(Cw

th) i

n Ju

ne 2

013

know

n as

the

wat

er tr

igge

r cu

rren

tly e

mpo

wer

the

Com

mon

wea

lth to

ass

ess

coal

sea

m g

as (

CSG

) an

d la

rge

coal

min

ing

deve

lopm

ents

that

hav

e, o

r ar

e lik

ely

to h

ave,

a s

igni

fican

t im

pact

on

a w

ater

res

ourc

e an

d de

cide

whe

ther

or

not t

o ap

prov

e an

d im

pose

con

ditio

ns o

f app

rova

ls fo

r th

ese

deve

lopm

ents

. Rec

ent p

ropo

sed

amen

dmen

ts to

the

Act

wou

ld

enab

le e

ach

stat

e an

d te

rrito

ry to

und

erta

ke th

is a

sses

smen

t and

app

rova

l pro

cess

und

er o

nes

top

sho

p b

ilate

ral

agre

emen

ts a

nd C

omm

onw

ealth

acc

redi

tatio

n pr

oces

ses.


NW

I ac

tion

sN

WI

para

grap

hC

omm

enta

ry 2

014

Wat

er to

mee

t env

ironm

enta

l and

ot

her

publ

ic b

enefi

t out

com

es

iden

tified

in w

ater

pla

ns to

be

defin

ed,p

rovi

ded

and

man

aged

.

3535

T

he B

asin

pla

n in

clud

es a

n en

viro

nmen

tal w

ater

ing

plan

(E

WP

) w

hich

pro

vide

s a

fram

ewor

k fo

r pl

anni

ng a

nd

coor

dina

ting

envi

ronm

enta

l wat

er m

anag

emen

t, in

clud

ing

envi

ronm

enta

l obj

ectiv

es fo

r w

ater

dep

ende

nt e

cosy

stem

s,

targ

ets

for

mea

surin

g pr

ogre

ss to

war

ds a

chie

ving

the

obje

ctiv

es, a

nd p

rinci

ples

to b

e ap

plie

d in

env

ironm

enta

l w

ater

ing.

It d

oes

not s

tipul

ate

whe

n an

d w

here

spe

cific

site

s sh

ould

be

wat

ered

. The

EW

P a

lso

requ

ires

the

deve

lopm

ent o

f:

a

Mur

ray

Dar

ling

Bas

in e

nviro

nmen

tal w

ater

ing

stra

tegy

by

the

MD

BA

(to

be

com

plet

ed b

y

Nov

embe

r 20

14)

lo

ngt

erm

wat

erin

g pl

ans

for

each

wat

er r

esou

rce

plan

are

a by

Mur

ray

Dar

ling

Bas

in s

tate

s

an

nual

env

ironm

enta

l wat

erin

g pr

iorit

ies

by M

urra

yD

arlin

g B

asin

sta

tes

(pro

vide

d to

the

MD

BA

by

31

May

eac

hye

ar)

M

urra

yD

arlin

g B

asin

ann

ual e

nviro

nmen

tal w

ater

ing

prio

ritie

s by

the

MD

BA

(to

be

publ

ishe

d

by 3

0 Ju

ne e

ach

year

).

The

prin

cipl

es to

be

appl

ied

in e

nviro

nmen

tal w

ater

ing

requ

ire e

nviro

nmen

tal w

ater

ing

in th

e B

asin

to b

e un

dert

aken

co

nsis

tent

with

the

obje

ctiv

es a

nd h

avin

g re

gard

to th

e B

asin

s a

nnua

l env

ironm

enta

l wat

erin

g pr

iorit

ies.

The

Com

mon

wea

lth E

nviro

nmen

tal W

ater

Hol

der

(CE

WH

) ha

s re

spon

sibi

lity

unde

r th

e W

ater

Act

200

7 (C

wth

) to

m

anag

e its

wat

er to

mee

t env

ironm

enta

l out

com

es. T

he C

EW

Hs

func

tions

are

to b

e pe

rfor

med

for

the

purp

ose

of

prot

ectin

g or

res

torin

g th

e en

viro

nmen

tal a

sset

s of

the

Mur

ray

Dar

ling

Bas

in, a

nd o

ther

are

as o

utsi

de th

e B

asin

whe

re

the

Com

mon

wea

lth h

olds

wat

er. T

he C

EW

H m

ust m

anag

e th

e ho

ldin

gs in

acc

orda

nce

with

rel

evan

t EW

Ps,

the

Wat

er

Min

iste

rs o

pera

ting

rule

s an

d th

e en

viro

nmen

tal w

ater

ing

sche

dule

s to

whi

ch th

e C

EW

H is

par

ty.

One

of t

he C

EW

Hs

func

tions

is to

wor

k in

par

tner

ship

with

wat

er o

pera

tors

in th

e B

asin

juris

dict

ions

. The

CE

WH

mus

t pe

rfor

m it

s fu

nctio

ns a

nd e

xerc

ise

its p

ower

s co

nsis

tent

with

and

in a

man

ner

that

giv

es e

ffec

t to

the

Bas

in p

lan,

and

m

ust m

anag

e th

e w

ater

hol

ding

s in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

Bas

in p

lan

s E

WP.

The

MD

BA

mus

t als

o co

nsul

t with

the

CE

WH

and

oth

er e

nviro

nmen

tal w

ater

man

ager

s in

impl

emen

ting

its r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s un

der

the

EW

P.

The

Bas

in p

lan

requ

ires

juris

dict

iona

l wat

er r

esou

rce

plan

s to

iden

tify

plan

ned

envi

ronm

enta

l wat

er a

nd a

ssoc

iate

d ru

les

and

arra

ngem

ents

rel

atin

g to

that

wat

er, t

o es

tabl

ish

and

mai

ntai

n a

regi

ster

of h

eld

envi

ronm

ent w

ater

, and

to

impl

emen

t man

agem

ent a

rran

gem

ents

for

thes

e co

nsis

tent

with

the

Bas

in p

lan.


NW

I ac

tion

sN

WI

para

grap

hC

omm

enta

ry 2

014

Wat

er p

lans

to b

e pr

epar

ed a

long

th

e lin

es o

f the

cha

ract

eris

tics

and

com

pone

nts

at S

ched

ule

E ba

sed

onth

e fo

llow

ing

prio

ritie

s:

pl

ans

for

syst

ems

that

are

ov

eral

loca

ted,

fully

allo

cate

d or

ap

proa

chin

g fu

ll al

loca

tion

pl

ans

for

syst

ems

that

are

not

yet

ap

proa

chin

g fu

ll al

loca

tion.

394

039

T

he W

ater

Act

200

7 (C

wth

) re

quire

s th

e M

inis

ter

and

the

MD

BA

to h

ave

rega

rd to

the

NW

I whe

n pr

epar

ing

and

mak

ing

the

Bas

in p

lan.

Cha

pter

10

of th

e B

asin

pla

n se

ts o

ut r

equi

rem

ents

that

mus

t be

met

by

stat

es w

hen

prep

arin

g w

ater

res

ourc

e pl

ans

that

ach

ieve

the

SDLs

. The

se r

equi

rem

ents

are

larg

ely

cons

iste

nt w

ith th

e N

WI.

Wat

er r

esou

rce

plan

s ac

cred

ited

by th

e C

omm

onw

ealth

Min

iste

r fo

r W

ater

mus

t be

in p

lace

by

1 Ju

ly 2

019.

40

Th

e M

DB

A c

oord

inat

es th

e m

onito

ring

and

repo

rtin

g of

the

Bas

ins

con

ditio

n, u

sing

the

Bas

in P

lan

Mon

itorin

g an

d Ev

alua

tion

Pro

gram

s fr

amew

ork

and

prin

cipl

es. T

he p

rogr

am in

clud

es p

rovi

sion

s fo

r:

co

mpl

ianc

e au

dits

re

view

of t

he w

ater

qua

lity

and

salin

ity ta

rget

s an

d th

e E

WP

pe

riodi

cally

ass

essi

ng th

e co

nditi

on o

f the

Mur

ray

Dar

ling

Bas

in to

info

rm c

hang

es to

the

Bas

in p

lan.

Und

er th

e W

ater

Act

200

7 (C

wth

), th

e C

omm

issi

on is

req

uire

d to

und

erta

ke a

udits

of t

he e

ffec

tiven

ess

of th

e im

plem

enta

tion

of th

e B

asin

Pla

n. A

n in

itial

rep

ort w

as p

rovi

ded

in M

arch

201

3. W

ith th

e fo

rthc

omin

g cl

osur

e of

th

eC

omm

issi

on, i

t is

uncl

ear

at th

e tim

e of

writ

ing

wha

t arr

ange

men

ts w

ill b

e pu

t in

plac

e re

gard

ing

futu

re a

udits

.

Subs

tant

ially

com

plet

e ad

dres

sing

ov

eral

loca

tion

as p

er N

CC

co

mm

itmen

ts.

Subs

tant

ial p

rogr

ess

tow

ards

ad

just

ing

all o

vera

lloca

ted

and/

or

over

used

sys

tem

s.

41, 4

34

541

S

ee N

WI p

arag

raph

26

for

deta

il on

pro

gres

s.

43

45

Th

e A

ustr

alia

n G

over

nmen

t has

est

ablis

hed

a nu

mbe

r of

cro

ssju

risdi

ctio

nal i

nitia

tives

to a

ssis

t with

the

man

agem

ent o

f hig

hly

deve

lope

d w

ater

sys

tem

s. T

he in

itiat

ives

hav

e be

en le

d or

coo

rdin

ated

by

the

Aus

tral

ian

Gov

ernm

ent,

are

stat

e or

terr

itory

gov

ernm

ent i

nitia

tives

sup

port

ed b

y C

omm

onw

ealth

fund

ing,

or

cof

unde

d pr

ogra

ms

impl

emen

ted

by ju

risdi

ctio

ns.

The

Livi

ng M

urra

y (T

LM)

initi

ativ

e w

as e

stab

lishe

d in

20

04

betw

een

the

Aus

tral

ian

Gov

ernm

ent a

nd th

e pa

rtne

r go

vern

men

ts o

f New

Sou

th W

ales

, Vic

toria

, Sou

th A

ustr

alia

and

Aus

tral

ian

Cap

ital T

errit

ory

to r

esto

re th

e he

alth

of

the

Riv

er M

urra

y sy

stem

by

reco

verin

g an

ann

ual a

vera

ge o

f up

to 5

00

GL

and

cons

truc

ting

maj

or w

ater

man

agem

ent

stru

ctur

es a

t six

icon

site

s. O

n be

half

of r

elev

ant M

DB

juris

dict

ions

, the

MD

BA

man

ages

the

port

folio

of e

nviro

nmen

tal

wat

er th

at h

as b

een

secu

red

by T

LM r

iver

res

tora

tion

prog

ram

. To

date

a lo

ngt

erm

ave

rage

of 4

79 G

L ha

s be

en

reco

vere

d fo

r TL

M p

ortf

olio

and

the

prog

ram

is d

ue to

be

com

plet

ed in

201

4.

Whi

le th

e C

omm

onw

ealth

s w

ater

rec

over

y pr

ogra

m h

as fo

cuse

d m

ainl

y on

the

Mur

ray

Dar

ling

Bas

in, o

ther

pro

ject

s ar

e be

ing

unde

rtak

en in

clud

ing

the

Gre

at A

rtes

ian

Bas

in S

usta

inab

ility

Initi

ativ

e (G

AB

SI),

a 15

yea

r pr

ogra

m fu

nded

by

juris

dict

ions

, Com

mon

wea

lth c

ontr

ibut

ions

mat

chin

g th

ose

of th

e ju

risdi

appendix a methodology - policy...

Documents