Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  58
Division/Agency:	Water Resources Division
Topic:	National Plan for Water Security
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator SIEWERT asked:
1.	How is the Snowy River being included in the National Plan for Water Security?
2.	How are environmental flows calculated for the Snowy River?
3.	What plans have been put in place to ensure environmental flows are delivered to the Snowy River?
4.	The Snowy Water Licence is due for review - is it intended to consult the communities affected by the River about the provisions of the new licence? 
5.	Why has the Webster Inquiry recommended amount of minimum environmental flows (28%) to the Snowy River not been implemented immediately?

Answers:
1.	The Snowy River lies outside the Murray-Darling Basin and will continue to be covered by the Joint Government Enterprise under Section 10 of the Snowy Water Inquiry Outcomes Implementation Deed. The Snowy River may benefit from components of the Plan that apply nationally including those concerned with improved delivery efficiency and water measurement and information management.
2.	Environmental flows for the Snowy River will continue to be determined as set out in Section 7 of the Snowy Water Inquiry Outcomes Implementation Deed.
3.	The Snowy Water Inquiry Outcomes Implementation Deed is a multi-jurisdictional plan to deliver environmental water to the Snowy River.
4.	The conduct of the review of the Snowy River licence is a matter for NSW.
5.	It was always intended that the Snowy River flows would be gradually increased in three stages over a ten year period, as outlined in Section 7.1 of the Snowy Water Inquiry Outcomes Implementation Deed.

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  59
Division/Agency:	Water Resources Division
Topic:	National Plan for Water Security
Hansard Page ECITA:	7

Senator SIEWERT asked:
In the discussions that have taken place in the development of the National Plan for
Water Security, was the possibility of adding water as a trigger to the EPBC Act discussed?
  
Secondly, is it now being considered?

Answer/s:
1. No.

2. Not at this stage of Plan development. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  60
Division/Agency:	Water Resources Division
Topic:	Water sharing plan
Hansard Page ECITA:	117

Senator O’BRIEN asked:
Senator O’BRIEN—How can the water sharing plan remain the same if there is a change in a particular catchment in a particular state? Are you going to adjust backwards? If there is a change in a cap in a Queensland catchment, which goes down, it would bring the overall cap down, but if the proportion of Queensland goes down, does that mean that they will lose part of their water share as a proportion?
Mr Borthwick—I will stand to be corrected but, once the system has been done on that catchment-by-catchment basis, the Commonwealth’s proposal is that, once that has been reset, the shares will remain of whatever that overall cap is as they currently are.
Senator O’BRIEN—It does not matter what the catchments in particular states are, if the overall cap comes down five per cent then each state’s allocation will come down five per cent. Is that what you are saying? Are you saying that, if the overall cap is reduced by five per cent, then each state’s share will come down by five per cent? Is that how I should understand it?
Dr Horne—No. What we will simply have is this: let us say with catchment A we see a need for a reduction of some percentage—let us say 10 per cent. We will then look to various elements of the plan to try to reduce the amount of entitlements within that catchment, to bring that catchment back into balance. That will be through irrigation district purchases and various addressing of overallocation savings.
Senator O’BRIEN—How can each state’s share stay the same if you are going to make a catchment-by-catchment adjustment?

Answer/s:
The Murray-Darling Basin as a whole is made up of 22 catchments and the overall cap is made up of 22 individual caps aggregated up to one cap. 

Under the National Plan for Water Security (NPWS), the Commonwealth will be setting a new cap for each of these catchments that includes all forms of water use and is based upon the sustainable level of water use that is determined for that catchment. The new sustainable cap will also apply to the groundwater resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. 

It is likely that for many catchments in the Basin, the new sustainable cap will be set at a level lower than current water use. Reductions in use will be achieved through the ‘Modernising Australia’s Irrigation Infrastructure’ and ‘Addressing Overallocation in the MDB components of the NPWS. The Department has does not hold a view on the distribution of such reductions across the Basin, between states or within particular states in the Basin. Such distributional effects will be an outcome of, and not an input to, the development and implementation of the new sustainable cap by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. 

In discussing these matters, it is important to distinguish between State shares of the River Murray water resources and water diverted under the cap. State shares in the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement define the bulk sharing of the waters of the River Murray between NSW, Victoria and South Australia. These current State water shares will be maintained under the new arrangements as per the MDB Agreement.

The water diverted under the cap by each state on the River Murray is a part of its state share, but not the total of its state share. For example, a certain amount of water in the River Murray at any time is part of each state’s share. States receive additional water from tributary inflows within their own jurisdiction. The diversion of water is subject to the cap which may change under the new arrangements. Adjusting the cap does not adjust the calculation of State shares from the River Murray.