In his annual report on water management plans for the basin, the inspector general of water compliance, Troy Grant, has noted that federal and state agencies have been altering the baselines for diversion limits.
Sustainable diversion limits are the limits set by the basin plan on the average amount of surface and groundwater that can be taken by towns, communities, industries and farmers in the basin each year, while ensuring that sufficient water remains in rivers and groundwater systems to maintain healthy ecosystems.
Mr Grant has pointed out that at the start of the basin plan, baseline diversion limits were set.
“Changes to baseline diversion limits are significant and risky,” he said.
“By basic definition, a baseline should be a starting point which does not change and can be used consistently over time for comparison.
“However, the plan left open the possibility that baseline diversion limits for surface water could change.
“As implementation of the plan continues, I am observing a willingness by state and Commonwealth agencies to make changes to the baselines. This makes compliance, accountability and monitoring of outcomes very difficult, as the goalposts are moving. It also has consequence for public trust and confidence which is an important consideration for me as the inspector-general.”
An example, he said, was the Barwon-Darling Watercourse, where the baseline diversion limit and sustainable diversion limit had both increased through the recent water resource plan accreditation process.
“The sustainable limit is now higher than the original baseline of take in 2012. When baselines change, this has implications for the assumptions made in 2012 which underpin important areas of the basin plan such as sustainability and recovery volumes,” Mr Grant said.
“The volume, frequency and consequence of changes to baseline limits are issues which should be examined and publicly ventilated by the MDBA (Murray-Darling Basin Authority) in the review of SDLs in the basin plan in 2026.”
Mr Grant is supposed to examine the compliance of water resource plans but he is still waiting for at least two plans to be submitted for examination from the Namoi and Gwydir.
While other jurisdictions, including Victoria, have completed their plans, the above two have been outstanding for years.
“It is uncertain when these water resource plans will be submitted or accredited, and therefore when SDL compliance will be enforceable,” Mr Grant said in his report.
For the 2023-2024 water accounting year, all 78 SDL resource units submitted to Mr Grant’s office were assessed and found to be compliant.
To address continued concerns around compliance across the Murray-Darling Basin, the inspector-general has established an SDL Compliance Advisory Panel.
“I have appointed Mr Anthony (Tony) Slatyer as chair of the panel,” Mr Grant said.
“Mr Slatyer brings extensive water policy and strategy experience to the panel.
“The panel will focus on SDL compliance, contributing to my annual compliance statement and other key areas.
“Having this panel at my disposal will strengthen the current assessment process by providing the most up-to-date knowledge, critical thinking and analysis. In turn, this will increase confidence in compliance assessments.
“While the ongoing strides toward sustainable water management across the Murray-Darling Basin are encouraging, there remains a gap in implementation of the basin plan that must be addressed to achieve lasting impact and outcomes.”
Mr Grant also remarked on the annual provision of data from the basin states to the MDBA, and subsequently from the MDBA to the inspector-general as being “too slow”.
“Delays are affecting timely compliance assessment,” he said.
“This is now a recurrent issue over a number of years.“
8°C