Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  53
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Western Australia drainage
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Siewert asked:
(a)	Have any drainage proposals been funded in Western Australia? If so, can you supply details?
(b) 	Are any drainage proposals being considered for funding in Western Australia? If so, can you supply details?
(c) 	Are drainage proposals being considered for funding anywhere in Australia?
(d) 	If so, which projects?
(e) 	How much has been allocated to these projects?
(f) 	Who are the proponents?
(g) 	Were the projects supported by the relevant Regional NRM Group?
(h) 	Were the projects supported by the State Investment Committee and/or Steering Committee?
(i) 	What conditions or criteria need to be met before a drainage proposal can be approved?

Answers:
Introduction
No drainage proposals have been substantially funded from the Natural Heritage Trust, which is administered by the Department of the Environment and Heritage.  However, some proposals have been funded from the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, which is administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.  In normal circumstances such questions would be re-directed to the administering portfolio for a response.  On this occasion, to avoid any delay in providing the information being sought, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry have agreed to provide the following answers through the Department of the Environment and Heritage.  The answers provided below relate to projects that are funded through the National Action Plan funding and, one project (Goulburn Broken Region – Victoria) that receives both National Action Plan and Natural Heritage Trust funding.  No information is available for projects funded by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission.

(a)	Yes – as part of the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality Bilateral Agreement with Western Australia. 
•	$4 million has been provided to the Engineering Evaluation Initiative.  
The Engineering Evaluation Initiative is investigating engineering options to tackle salinity and reduce the impact on the environment.  Under the Engineering Evaluation Initiative programme, demonstration drains have been constructed to examine the performance of specific engineering methods, such as deep drains, groundwater pumping, siphon and relief wells and surface water management:

i	$178,000 has been allocated for the construction of 30 km of deep drains at Pithara to evaluate the effects of draining groundwater on increasing the productivity of salt affected land.
ii	$187,500 has been allocated for the construction of 7 km of deep drains in conjunction with a 5 ha evaporation basin at Morawa to evaluate deep drainage and the associated impacts on lowering the watertable on previously highly productive land, and to evaluate the performance of a farm-scale evaporation Basin.
iii	$264,500 has been allocated for the construction of 17 km of deep drains in conjunction with 17.3 ha evaporation basin at Beacon to evaluate a larger multi-farm drain discharging into a community evaporation basin.
iv	$29,500 has been allocated for the enhanced monitoring of existing deep drains at Dumbleyung to evaluate the differences in performance of groundwater drains at various depths over a 12-month period.
•	$2.84 million has also been provided to the Wheatbelt Drainage Evaluation project under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality Bilateral Agreement with Western Australia.  The Wheatbelt Drainage Evaluation project is investigating a framework under which regional and catchment wide drainage projects can be implemented across all regions in Western Australia:
i	$500,000 has been allocated to conduct an engineering feasibility study for a regional drainage scheme for managing salinity and water within the Yenyening catchment.
ii	$500,000 has been allocated to conduct a study on the governance arrangements required to support a regional deep drainage scheme such as those being considered for the Yarra Yarra and Yenyening projects.
iii	$500,000 has been allocated towards the development of a regional drainage evaluation model, based on the Avon River Basin, for application to other catchments to assist in the assessment of drainage options.
iv	$250,000 has been allocated to undertaking the Blackwood Regional Drainage and Water Management evaluation that will define and evaluate a programme of planned engineering options for salinity and water management of the Blackwood Catchment.
v	$350,000 has been allocated to conduct an engineering feasibility study for a regional drainage scheme for managing salinity and water within the Moore River Basin.
vi	$350,000 has been allocated to conduct an engineering feasibility study for a regional drainage scheme for managing salinity and water within the Ravensthorpe/Esperance region. 
•	The Northern Agricultural Catchment Council’s 2005-06 Investment Plan has allocated $174,000 for stage 1 of the construction of a series of pilot drains in the Yarra Yarra catchment.  

(b)	The Yarra Yarra Catchment Management Group is seeking a further $1.644 million for the subsequent stages.  This additional funding requirement has been included in the Northern Agricultural Catchment Council’s 2006-07 and 2007-08 draft Investment Plan.  The draft Investment Plan is yet to be considered by the Australian and Western Australian Governments.
The Western Australian Channel Management Group is seeking to construct up to 150 km of arterial drain along the Yilgarn River (from Lake Baladjie to Lake Baandee) in Western Australia.  The Channel Management Group is a farmer organisation that has been established to promote the use of deep drains as a means to combating dryland salinity and rising water tables in the Western Australian Avon River Basin.  

(c)	Two significant drainage schemes already exist – the Murray-Darling Basin Salt Interception Scheme and the Upper South-East Drainage Scheme in South Australia. Other drainage systems are either under construction or being considered in Western Australia, Victoria and New South Wales.  Available details of the existing and proposed drainage schemes are included for the:
Murray-Darling Basin Salt Interception Scheme
Upper South East Drainage Scheme - South Australia
North Central Region – Victoria
Goulburn Broken Region - Victoria
Green Gully (Berriquin) – NSW

Murray-Darling Basin Salt Interception Scheme

Drains are being constructed in the Murray-Darling Basin as part of the Basin’s Salinity Management Strategy.  Neither DEH nor DAFF have 
funding information about this scheme as it is funded by the Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) and not through the NHT or NAP.  The MDBC web site is at www.mdbc.gov.au.  

Upper South East Drainage Scheme – South East region of South Australia

The Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Programme was developed in the early 1990’s to address community concerns about dryland salinity, waterlogging and ecosystem fragmentation and degradation.  Measures adopted to address these concerns include drainage, saltland agronomy, revegetation and wetland management.

(d)	The Australian Government has committed $19.15 million under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality to this Programme.

(e)	The programme is administered by the South Australian Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation.

(f)	Yes and the South East Natural Resources Management Board is represented on the Programme's Board.

(g)	Yes – the project was supported by the Joint Steering Committee

(h)	The Programme is administered under the Upper South East Dryland Salinity and Flood Management Act and must comply with the requirements of that state legislation.  The South Australian Minister for the Environment and Heritage has approval authority under the Act.
North Central Region - Victoria

(d)	Implementing the Loddon Murray Surface Water Management Priority Project.

(e)	$240,000 of National Action Plan funds in 2005-06 and the North Central Region Catchment Management Authority is seeking funding in 2006-07 and 2007-08 for this project.

(f)	The Department of Primary Industry - Victoria, administers the programme with the proponents being the North Central Region Catchment Management Authority of Victoria.

(g)	Yes – the North Central Region Catchment Management Authority of Victoria supported the project.

(h)	Yes – the project was supported by the State Investment Committee and the Joint Steering Committee.

(i)	A condition of approval is the North Central Region Catchment Management Authority must still seek the necessary Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act clearances as well as ensuring all other statutory and legislative requirements are met. 

Goulburn Broken Region – Victoria (1)
 
(d)	Sustainable Irrigation – Farm and Environment Programme (water use efficiency and community engagement). 

(e)	$2.218 million of National Action Plan and $118,000 of Natural Heritage Trust funds approved in 2005-06;
$2.233 million of National Action Plan and $118,000 of Natural Heritage Trust funds approved for 2006-07; and
$1.480 million of National Action Plan and $118,000 of Natural Heritage Trust funds approved for 2007-08.

(f)	The Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority of Victoria administers the programme.

(g)	Yes – the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority of Victoria supported the project.

(h)	Yes – the project was supported by the State Investment Committee and the Joint Steering Committee.

(i)	A condition of approval is the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority must still seek the necessary Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act clearances as well as ensuring all other statutory and legislative requirements are met.
Goulburn Broken Region – Victoria (2)

(d)	Sustainable Irrigation – Surface and Sub-Surface Drainage Infrastructure.

(e)	$3.599 million of National Action Plan funds was approved in 2005-06; 
$3.599 million National Action Plan funds approved for 2006-07; and 
$2.31 million of National Action Plan funds approved for 2007-08.

(f)	Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority of Victoria administers the programme.

(g)	Yes – the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority of Victoria supported the project.

(h)	Yes – the project was supported by the State Investment Committee and the Joint Steering Committee.

(i)	A condition of approval is the Goulburn Broken Catchment Management Authority must still seek the necessary Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act clearances as well as ensuring all other statutory and legislative requirements are met. 

Green Gully (Berriquin) – NSW

(d)	Installation of in-farm drainage and reuse systems on commercial irrigation properties in the Green Gully (Berriquin/Denimein, Cadell and Wakool sub-catchments of the Murray River) area of NSW.  Landholders have spent about $3 million over the past 15 years on saltbush plantings and improved farm management practices in an attempt to build an environmentally workable salinity discharge zone for this region.  This project forms part of the Land and Water Management Plans for this region.

(e)	$440,000 of National Action Plan funding has been approved - $200,000 in 2005-06 and $240,000 in 2006-07. 

(f)	The Murray Catchment Management Authority of New South Wales is the proponent of the programme.

(g)	Yes – the Murray Catchment Management Authority of New South Wales supported the project.

(h)	Yes – the project was supported by the State Investment Committee and the Joint Steering Committee.

(i)	A condition of approval is the Murray Catchment Management Authority must still seek the necessary Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act clearances as well as ensuring all other statutory and legislative requirements are met. 

Outcome:	1. Environment			Question No:  58
Division/Agency:	Natural Resource Management Programmes Division
Topic:	Natural Resource Management
Hansard Page ECITA:	Written Question on Notice

Senator Siewert asked:
(a) 	Is there a national strategic reserve fund in either NAP or NHT?
(b) 	If so, what size is the fund?
(c) 	What type of projects are funded?
(d) 	How are applications for funding assessed?
(e) 	Are there specific assessment criteria? If so, can you supply them?
(f) 	Who makes the fund allocation decisions?
(g) 	Are projects funded that are not supported by the relevant regional NRM Group/s? 
(h) 	If so, under what conditions would such a project be considered?

Answers:
(a) 	There is no national strategic reserve under the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality – as indicated at the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Budget Estimates hearings on 25 May 2006, refer Hansard page 84. The Natural Heritage Trust (the ‘Trust’) includes a national investment stream, refer http://www.nht.gov.au. There is a small contingency reserve at the national level of the Natural Heritage Trust. 
 
(b) 	In the 2005-06, the Trust national contingency reserve was $2 million. 

(c) 	The Trust national contingency reserve is used to fund activities that are emergencies, high priorities or emerging issues for which no other provision has been made. For example, $1 million from the contingency reserve was used to part-fund emergency natural resource management recovery activities following the January 2005 bushfire on the Lower Eyre Peninsula in South Australia. Another example provided $86,000 for the first Indigenous shared responsibility agreement project to assess and monitor coral bleaching in Queensland.

(d) 	Activities being considered for funding under the Trust national contingency reserve are assessed as they emerge on merit against national priorities and, as required under the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997, having regard to the principles of ecologically sustainable development. 

(e) 	See response to (d) above. 

(f) 	Trust national contingency reserve funding allocation decisions are made by the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board. 

(g) 	Priorities for funding from the national delivery components of the Trust are determined by the Natural Heritage Ministerial Board. 

(h) 	See response to (g) above.