Prior to the formal release of the proposed Basin Plan for public comment, the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) had held more than 160 round-table and technical meetings with community, industry, Aboriginal and environment groups, representatives from Basin states and the Australian government, met with thousands of people living along different stretches of the Basin’s rivers, and presented at dozens of conferences and workshops.
The MDBA then released the proposed Basin Plan on 28 November 2011 for a 20-week consultation period. The formal consultation period ended on 16 April 2012. During this time we continued to meet with stakeholders, holding a total of 24 public meetings, 56 round table and technical meetings, 18 social and economic briefings for representatives from rural financial organisations, five regional briefings on water trading issues, 23 bilateral meetings with Basin governments and 8 Basin Government working group meetings and a tailored Aboriginal consultation process in more than 30 towns across the Basin.
At the end of the 20-week consultation period we had received nearly 12,000 submissions from individuals, businesses and organisations from all around the country and some from overseas.
Of these submissions over 9,000 were published on the MDBA website, while over 2,000 identified by the submitter as confidential were not published.
The submissions raised issues directly related to the proposed Basin Plan content as well as commenting on issues related to broader water reform in the Murray–Darling Basin. A small number of submissions raised issues related to other government policies not directly related to water reform.
This report includes a summary of issues raised in submissions, MDBA response to those issues, and any changes made to the proposed Basin Plan.
It covers issues relating to proposed Basin Plan chapters and schedules, issues relating to broader proposed Basin Plan content, and issues relating to broader water reform.
The process used by MDBA to consider and make decisions based on submissions received is detailed in Appendix A.
All changes made to the proposed Basin Plan including those that did not directly arise from consideration of submissions, for example by a policy decision of MDBA, are included in the document ‘Proposed Basin Plan consultation report – Appendix B’.
Issues relating to proposed Basin Plan chapters and schedules
Many of the submissions received related specifically to provisions contained in the proposed Basin Plan’s 12 chapters and 10 schedules. The following sections summarise the issues in these submissions and MDBA’s response under each of these chapters and related schedules.
Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 1 of the proposed Basin Plan sets out how the plan should be cited, its scope and its commencement dates. It also provides an overview of the structure of the plan; consisting of 12 chapters and 10 schedules. Definitions of terms used in the proposed Basin Plan are provided, many of which have special meanings as used in the proposed Basin Plan. Chapter 1 also outlines that the Basin Plan has no effect to the extent to which it is inconsistent with the Snowy Hydro licence; and the extent to which the proposed Basin Plan may impose an obligation on a Basin state that would contravene a constitutional doctrine restricting the obligations that the Australian Government may impose on a State.
1.ISSUE
Submissions suggested that further clarification of definitions in chapter 1 of the proposed Basin Plan was needed. Issues surrounding clarity of definitions particularly focused on definitions of commercial forestry/plantations and water trading where different states use different terms.
‘Definitions, particularly of terms in Chapter 1, could be clearer, more comprehensive and better reflect recent changes to the draft Basin Plan’
RESPONSE
Terms are defined in chapter 1 only when they differ from the common language definition in the Macquarie Dictionary and are not already defined within the Water Act 2007 (Cwlth) (the Act). The definitions in chapter 1 apply to the defined term each time it is used in the proposed Basin Plan. Other definitions which have specific meaning within a chapter are defined within the relevant chapter.
MDBA is satisfied that the definition for ‘commercial plantation’ is appropriate. The ‘net take by a commercial plantation’ best represents the net impact on water resources of a catchment and aligns with the baseline estimates of water interception by commercial plantation.
MDBA has consulted state governments to ensure that the most appropriate term is used when there is more than one term for particular water trade rules.
2.Issue
Submissions raised the importance of removing inconsistencies in the use of terms in different parts of the proposed Basin Plan. Some pointed out that uniformity was needed when the Basin state agencies prepared water resource plans.
Response
MDBA agrees that it is important that the terms used in the Basin Plan are consistent throughout the document. Where definitions have specific meaning within a chapter, they are clearly defined within the confines of that chapter. Definitions contained in chapter 1 have been reviewed for consistency with definitions used in other parts of the Plan.
There has been a change to terminology in chapter 10 (Critical Human Water Needs). The use of the term ‘water quality characteristic’ in this chapter was different to the way it was defined in chapter 1 and used in chapter 8 (Water Quality and Salinity Management Plan). To prevent any confusion, chapter 10 now defines ‘water quality characteristic’ by reference to health-related guideline values.
Chapter 2 and schedule 1 of the proposed Basin Plan provide a description of Basin water resources and the context in which those resources are used. It has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of section 22(a) of the Act and is based upon the best information available to MDBA at this point in time. It comprises information on the size, extent, connectivity, variability and condition of the Basin water resources; the uses to which the Basin water resources are put (including by Aboriginal people); the users of the Basin water resources; and the social and economic circumstances of the Basin.
The Murray–Darling Basin is large, diverse and dynamic in terms of its climate, natural resources and the social and economic circumstances of its industries and communities. Spatial and temporal changes in the availability, condition and use of water resources are ongoing, resulting in a highly variable set of circumstances across different parts of the Basin at any given time. This description considers the Basin water resources and the context in which those resources are used, primarily from a Basin-wide perspective.
3.Issue
Submissions raised a range of issues regarding schedule 1 including:
-
Questioning assertions of fact, missing data or errors within the description of the Basin.
-
Expressing concern that the data sources used in the assessment of Basin water resources were too reliant on small data samples, were biased data from third parties or were biased due to the recent drought. For example, it was identified that data used in the Sustainable Rivers Audit came from a period of drought.
‘We also express concern about the “So Called” science and incorrect claims about the health and salinity of the Murray River, and would like to see more scientific research over a longer period when not in drought times’
-
Others expressed the view that the data used treated the Murray–Darling system as a whole and did not adequately include consideration of regional or local information.
-
Submissions disputed the extent to which water resources and the environment, particularly in the Murrumbidgee and Mildura regions, have been degraded. These submissions generally cited the cyclical nature of the Murray–Darling river system, claiming that the area is regarded as semi-arid and that in some cases irrigation actually improves biodiversity.
-
Submissions disputed the socioeconomic figures in the proposed Basin Plan. Most cited local employment numbers and examples of communities’ reliance on single irrigation-centred industries.
Response
The documents and reports used in the preparation of the description of Basin water resources included those from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and scientific papers and reports from institutions such as CSIRO, as well as reports prepared by MDBA4 such as the Sustainable Rivers Audit report. Some of these data were derived from the period of the drought, which is considered appropriate as they document one of the climate extremes which the Basin Plan needs to take into account, but much also refers to longer term trends. For example, some hydrologic data used in the description of Basin water resources spans 114 years, from 1895–2009.
While most of these information sources indicate that the water resources and environment of the Basin have been degraded, it is acknowledged that in some areas of the Basin river regulation has provided some localised environmental benefits such as drought refuge and habitat provision.
Data used to describe the social and economic circumstances of Basin communities draws on a range of works, but primarily from ABS reports and information, as this provides the most authoritative and consistent view across the whole Basin.
The Basin is a large and diverse geographic entity. MDBA agrees it is very difficult to include the appropriate level of detail in a description of the entire Basin, including its water resources and communities, that reflects the full range of individual local circumstances. Schedule 1 of the Basin Plan is intended to provide an overview of the whole Basin, and as a consequence the more detailed regional and community level information is not included. However, the MDBA acknowledges that this information is extremely important, and has been used to inform the setting of the Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDLs) and will be critical to the effective implementation of the Basin Plan. More information on local scale issues is available from other sources.
Schedule 1 has been rewritten to describe the Basin’s water resources and the socioeconomic circumstances of Basin communities more simply and holistically whilst providing specific examples where appropriate.
Dostları ilə paylaş: | 
