Chapter 7
Unregulated water interception activities
Introduction
7.1
This chapter begins with an overview of the types of water interception
activities carried out in the Murray-Darling Basin (MDB or Basin) and includes
a brief section on the risks posed by water theft in the MDB. The discussion
then moves to a general overview of the efforts of the Commonwealth, State and
Territory governments to regulate water interception activities.
7.2
The committee was particularly interested in the impact of floodplain
harvesting in the Basin. This chapter concludes with a discussion of this
issue, including an overview of the steps taken by the New South Wales and
Queensland governments to regulate this activity.
Water interception activities in the Murray-Darling Basin
7.3
The National Water Initiative (NWI) recognises that a number of
land use change activities have the potential to intercept significant volumes
of surface and/or groundwater now and in the future. The NWI identifies farm
dams and bores; intercepting and storage of overland flows; and large-scale
plantation forestry as examples of activities that are of concern, many of
which are undertaken without a water access entitlement.[1]
7.4
Accurate current levels of water interception across the MDB are not
available.[2]
However, the CSIRO has been able to estimate the longer-term impact of some of
these interception activities:
The Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project estimated
the additional water use of likely new commercial forestry plantations and
additional small farm dams by 2030. Mainly due to the small increases in
commercial forestry plantation area, it was estimated that impacts by 2030
would be small at the scale of large rivers and the whole Basin, although they
may have considerable impact on streamflow at the local scale. The best
estimate of the additional surface water use due to the expansion in commercial
forestry plantations was 28 GL/year on average. Farm dam construction is
controlled in different ways in different states, but further increases are
likely in many regions. Likely new small farm dams by 2030 were estimated by
the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project to represent an additional
surface water use of 170 GL/ year on average.[3]
7.5
The CSIRO's submission notes that the Sustainable Yields Project
has also identified other water intercepting activities, namely stock and
domestic bores, land use intensification, and changes in land management
practices designed to improve vegetation growth and water retention in the
landscape. However, the impact of these interception activities could not be
investigated by the project due to a general lack of data.[4]
7.6
The Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) provided the committee with
information from its 'Risks to Shared Water Resources' Program which
investigated the risks to the MDB from climate change, bushfire, afforestation,
groundwater extraction, irrigation return flows, and farm dams:
Initial investigations identified that annual stream flows in
the Basin could potentially be reduced by between 2500 GL – 5500 GL over the
next 20 years – 10-23% of annual stream flow. While there was a large degree of
uncertainty about these impacts, further investigations have found that the
main risks derive from climate change.[5]
7.7
The National Farmers' Federation (NFF) provided the committee with this
assessment of the impact of unregulated water interception activities across
the Basin:
Unregulated water interception activities could also refer to
stock and domestic water rights or basic landholder rights as these are now
more widely [known]. Such licences could fall into the category of unregulated;
however, these rights are enshrined in state water legislation. In the majority
of cases, these are unlicensed and unmetered due to the smaller individual
volumes and the prohibitive cost of metering for small volumes. In some
situations, like Victoria, such uses have been 'deemed' to account for the use
as part of the water source water-sharing plan.
NFF understands that stock & domestic (farm dams) have
little impact on surface water in Queensland due to the low stock carrying
capacity per hectare of land. Queensland does require licensing of intensive
livestock operations, however, these generally use water sourced from the Great
Artesian Basin, which is undergoing a capping and piping program.[6]
7.8
The committee received limited information on the risks posed by water
theft in the Basin. The CSIRO identified a number of ways in which water theft
could occur: through the greater than permissible run-off harvesting, or greater
than permissible pumping of river water or groundwater. The CSIRO indicated
that it is not aware of investigations into the prevalence of water theft and
water volumes involved.[7]
7.9
The NFF indicated its support for an appropriate compliance program to
address the theft of water, including monetary and water penalties. The NFF's
submission notes that in many cases the issue is the detection of the action
and the proof of theft. The NFF submission supports a significant investment in
metering:
However, in reality a cost to benefit analysis should
accompany the decision to install new meters to ensure that small volumes of
diversion are not accompanied by a very expensive meter. In the latter case, it
may be appropriate to deem the volume of water taken and use other methods to
ensure compliance (eg satellite imagery or helicopter/plane assessment at peak
irrigation times).[8]
7.10
The Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water noted in its
submission that it carries out the investigation and enforcement of illegal
activities such as water theft, unauthorised works for storage, unauthorised
diversion and pumping and meter tampering. The submission went on to highlight
the assessment of the MDBC's Independent Audit Group (IAG) in its Review of
Preliminary Assessments of Risks to Shared Water Resources 2007:
The IAG was impressed by the Queensland approach to ensuring
compliance with water policy and regulatory controls and in dealing with
reports of inappropriate or illegal water related practices...The Queensland
approach to natural resource management compliance may well be a model for
other jurisdictions to consider.[9]
7.11
Ms Sarah Moles gave the committee a different perspective on the issue
of water theft, submitting that 'unscrupulous' landholders saw water theft as
merely another input cost to production:
The current penalties for breaching licence conditions are
totally inadequate and unscrupulous landholders regard them as merely another
(affordable and tax deductible) input cost. Landholders affected by water theft
believe penalties should be much more severe and many support reducing
entitlements and/or access conditions as more effective deterrents and
penalties.[10]
Regulation of water interception activities
7.12
Responsibility for the regulation of water interception activities rests
with state and territory governments. In agreeing to the NWI, the parties
acknowledged that if interception activities are not subject to some form of
planning and regulation, they present a risk to the future integrity of water
access entitlements and the achievement of environmental objectives for water
systems:
The intention is therefore to assess the significance of such
activities on catchments and aquifers, based on an understanding of the total
water cycle, the economic and environmental costs and benefits of the
activities of concern, and to apply appropriate planning, management and/or
regulatory measures where necessary to protect the integrity of the water
access entitlements system and the achievement of environmental objectives.[11]
7.13
The NWI sets out a series of measures for parties to implement in
relation to water interception activities.[12]
According to the Department of Environment Water Heritage and the Arts' (DEWHA)
submission, the NWI 'provides a framework for risk-based management of
interception based on the level of allocation in a given catchment or aquifer'.[13]
7.14
Despite this framework being in place, it appears that jurisdictions
have made little progress in relation to regulation of water interception
activities. An assessment of the NWI in 2007 by the National Water Commission
states:
Water interception activities (such as
large scale forestry and farm dams) continue to be recognised by governments as
serious challenges to water security, but action by governments to date has
been neither concerted nor systematic.[14]
7.15
DEWHA's submission summarises the issues impeding the introduction of
regulatory reforms:
-
there is uncertainty within jurisdictions as to how to approach
the requirements on interception;
-
current jurisdictional responses to interception are variable and
patchy; and
-
where there is legislation, compliance does not appear to be
adequate and policing is very sporadic.[15]
7.16
At the 26 March 2008 Council of Australian Governments' meeting it was
agreed, as one of the projects of the forward work program to address water
reform issues, to accelerate the interception commitments of the NWI and a
national consistent approach to the management of interception, in line with
those commitments.[16]
7.17
The MDBC provided the committee with some of the work that it had been
done on the regulatory approaches to the management of interception risk
factors in the Basin. In December 2006 the MDBC requested Basin jurisdictions
report on the regulatory approaches, and identify potential growth, for the
risks over which they have direct legislative control – farm dam construction,
groundwater extraction, and afforestation. The MDBC summarised the key issues
identified through the resulting reports as:
-
approval for water use is not required in most
jurisdictions for farm dams and groundwater bores for stock and domestic
purposes;
-
uncertainty in estimating the potential cumulative
future impact on shared water resources due to lack of regulation of farm dams
and extraction from groundwater for stock and domestic purposes;
-
difficulty defining a sustainable yield for
groundwater extraction;
-
limited capacity in most jurisdictions to regulate
water use for afforestation; and
-
policy response development has been complicated by
the use of different approaches and definitions in the regulation of the risk
factors by the jurisdictions.[17]
7.18
The MDBC's submission also states that '[e]ach jurisdiction claims that
existing regulatory mechanisms are sufficient to limit future growth in farm
dam establishment and groundwater extraction'.[18]
7.19
The risks of water interception activities to the MBD were also
considered as part of MDBC's 'Murray-Darling Basin Risks Strategy' (Risks
Strategy). According to the MBDC, the Risks Strategy 'provides an objective operating
framework and a broad process to ensure a consistent and flexible approach to
the management of risk factors now and into the future'. The Risks Strategy
involved annual assessments by Basin jurisdictions of priorities and responses
to risk factors to the MDB and an annual review of these assessments by an
Independent Audit Group.[19]
7.20
Information from the MDBC suggests the possibility that the Risks
Strategy may be continued under the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, for the
purposes of implementing the Basin Plan:
The Basin Plan must include an identification of the risks to
the condition, or continued availability of the Basin water resources, and the
strategies to be adopted to manage or address these risks. The Risks Strategy
may inform this task by delivering information and research into potential
options to address the currently identified risk factors.[20]
Harvesting of overland flows
7.21
One particular area of interest for the committee was the regulation of
overland flows in the northern MDB. The investigation of, and the enforcement
of penalties for, illegal water diversions is primarily the responsibility of
the states and territories.[21]
This section of the report looks at the steps being taken by the NSW and
Queensland governments to monitor the harvesting of overland flows.
7.22
Mrs Deborah Kaluder of the Australian Floodplain Association explained
to the committee the impact that unregulated floodplain harvesting has on
floodplain graziers:
Many of us have been directly affected by the loss of water
across our land. We are seeing our incomes halved, our small communities
diminishing, the local ecosystems deteriorating and, consequently, the
biodiversity of whole riverine systems on the point of collapse...
Flood plain graziers depend on the water that flows down the
inland river systems to grow the grasses, to feed the stock, to produce an
income and to be economically viable. In terms of a grazing operation, the
flood plains play an integral role in the long-term management plans of those
who live along these systems.[22]
7.23
Mr Terence Korn of the Australian Floodplain Association expressed
concern at the inability of governments to successfully monitor and manage this
practice.[23]
In particular, Mr Korn indicated that policy development and implementation in
this area has been poor or not resourced.[24]
The committee also notes the evidence of Professor Richard Kingsford who
described the management of floodplains in Australia as 'very, very poor',
going on to state that 'there is very little policy development and very little
legislation that actually helps'.[25]
7.24
The committee also recognises the distinction made by Mr John Clements
of Namoi Water in his evidence to the committee:
...we don’t agree with water theft. I do not think overland
flows should be characterised as water theft: where they are a licensed
activity, they are a licensed activity.[26]
New South Wales
7.25
The New South Wales government has announced the development of a
floodplain harvesting policy to bring these activities under the statutory
framework of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) and to 'put a stop to
the unconstrained harvesting of floodwater':
The policy will look at the types and capacity of floodplain
harvesting activities, the volumes of water being extracted and the potential
impacts on associated riverine ecosystems and downstream users.
Under the new draft Policy, the amount of floodwater
available for commercial extraction will be capped and shared amongst existing
users who will have to get a Floodplain Harvesting Access Licence.
...Works such as levees, banks and diversion channels already
need approval from the NSW Government before construction begins. But from
today, under this new policy, no additional works will be considered for
approval to take floodplain water.[27]
7.26
The new policy will only apply to water flowing across a floodplain that
is not covered by other licences or landholder rights. In particular, the
policy will not cover harvestable rights limits which allow landholders to
capture and store 10 per cent of the rainfall runoff on their property without
a licence.[28]
7.27
The Inland Rivers Network (IRN) provided the committee with a copy of
its submission in response to the NSW government's announcement of the
development of a floodplain harvesting policy. Some of the key recommendations
from IRN's submission include that the policy should:
-
include explicit details on how environmental water regained
through the adequate regulation of floodplain harvesting and water entitlement
recovery will be provided with legal recognition and protection;
-
ensure that there is a sunset clause within the policy for
licences to enable a review of these licences;
-
floodplain harvesting limits should be set according to
sustainable levels of extraction, determined in light of best available science
and climate change estimates, which may well mean ensuring floodplain
harvesting is not only within MDB cap limits but below them;
-
works licensed for flood control and without pending water
extraction licence applications, should be treated as illegal in line with all
other works not licensed for extraction; and
-
floodplain harvesting extraction should be included within
current water sharing plans.[29]
7.28
The committee was also interested in the investigations that the New
South Wales government has carried out on water diversions and floodplain
structures. The NSW Department of Water and Energy provided the committee with
the following information on its investigations of water diversion and
floodplain structures in NSW:
A total of 39 water diversion and floodplain structures have
been investigated by NSW Government during the past 18 months.
15 of these were investigated in August 2007 and, more
recently, a further 24 structures under the joint Commonwealth-NSW Wetland Recovery
Program.
3 of these structures have been identified as not operating
in accordance with the conditions of their licence and 3 works have been
constructed without approval, 5 were identified during the August 2007
investigations and only 1 under the more recent investigation.
Respective licensees have been requested to make appropriate
modifications to comply with licence conditions or have been advised that their
works are not approved.[30]
Queensland
7.29
In Queensland, under the Water Act 2000 (Qld), for areas where a
water resource plan is in place, an authorisation is required to take overland
flow water. Most works for taking overland flow require an approval under the Integrated
Planning Act 1997 (Qld).[31]
The submission of the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water
stated that overland flow is now regulated via water resource plans in the
majority of plan areas, including all of Queensland's MDB catchments.[32]
7.30
When questioned by the committee as to how water taken from overland
flow was measured, representatives of the Queensland Department of Natural
Resources and Water gave the following example from the lower Balonne:
...we have required registered professional engineers to survey
the storages in that area, the largest within the catchment, and those surveys have
had to be certified by those registered professional engineers: the volume had
to be certified and how the water gets into the storages had to be certified.
We have used measuring devices – and they are not the water meters for a pipeline
that people are used to seeing; they are measuring devices that are based on
the depth of water in storage—and from that information we can tell how much
water has been captured by that particular storage.[33]
7.31
One issue which the committee considered briefly in the course of its
inquiry was floodplain development on the Paroo River in Queensland. Under
Queensland legislation, the Minister has the power to put in place a moratorium
on developments that increase the take of water resources from the catchment
until the water resource planning process is complete. In 2001 a moratorium was
put in place over the Paroo River catchment.
7.32
In August 2008 a case study released by Professor Richard Kingsford and Adam
Roff of the University of New South Wales raised concerns about structures on
the Paroo River that captured overland flow. The structures were approved as
'existing works' by the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water
(that is, established or initiated at the time of the moratorium in 2001). The
University of New South Wales case study stated that there was 'unequivocal
evidence' that these existing works did not exist in July 2002.[34]
7.33
The committee notes that the Queensland Department of Natural Resources
and Water, in responding to a question on notice, asserts that the works in
question are not works that allow taking overland flow water.[35]
The committee also notes the evidence of Professor Kingsford that he stands by
the results in the case study.[36]
Committee view
7.34
The committee notes that there are significant discrepancies between
states in implementing their obligations.
7.35
The committee notes that the National Water Commission identified
uncertainty within jurisdictions as to how to approach the requirements on
interception. Similarly, the committee notes the work of the MDBC which found
that a key issue in the management of interception activities was that policy
response development has been complicated by the use of different approaches by
the jurisdictions.
7.36
Clearly, this is an area which deserves further attention at the level
of the Council of Australian Governments to clarify and direct the way forward
to ensure States and Territories have a consistent and timely approach to
regulation.
7.37
The committee's understanding of the evidence before it is that in cases
where there is some regulatory regime in place in relation to water
interception activities, there is inadequate monitoring and policing of these
regimes. The committee thought that this issue was well demonstrated in
relation to the harvesting of overland flows. While it appears that both New
South Wales and Queensland are well advanced in policy development and
implementation, the committee is not convinced from the evidence it has heard
that compliance and monitoring of these regimes is adequate.
7.38
The committee strongly urges these governments to consider increasing
resources to ensure adequate monitoring of the harvesting of overland flows.
7.39
The committee recommends that priority should be given to upgrading and
modernising monitoring of water usage from the MDB.
7.40
The committee recommends urgent identification of unregulated water
interception activities across the MDB. The relevant data should be used to
inform the development of state policies regarding the regulation of usage of
these activities.
Recommendation 12
7.41
The committee recommends that priority should be given to upgrading and
modernising monitoring of water usage from the MDB.
Recommendation 13
7.42
The committee recommends urgent identification of unregulated water
interception activities across the MDB. The relevant data should be used to
inform the development of state policies regarding the regulation of usage of
these activities.
Recommendation 14
7.43
The committee recommends a study to be undertaken to better understand
how the states monitor and manage the harvesting of overland flows and to
provide policy development guidelines in this area for the relevant states.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page