Submission on Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee River

14 June, 2002 

Director General 

Department of Land and Water Conservation 

Attention: Peter Houghton 

GPO Box 39 

SYDNEY NSW 2001 

Email: watersharingplans@dlwc.nsw.gov.au 

Dear Mr Houghton, 

Re: <strong>Submission</strong> regarding the Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River 

Water Source 

The Inland Rivers Network (IRN), Nature Conservation Council (NCC) and Australian Conservation 

Foundation (ACF) would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Water Sharing Plan 

for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source. 

This Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source has been reviewed by 

the IRN, in consultation with the NCC environment representatives Mike Schultz and Pat Murray, and the 

ACF. We are extremely concerned that this Draft Plan does not contain provisions that secure the 

improvement of this stressed river and its ecosystems. IRN, NCC and ACF are of the opinion that the 

environmental flow rules for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River are totally inadequate and must be 

completely rewritten taking the following recommendations into account. The following key issues require 

further consideration and development: 

• Adaptive management 

• Environmental water 

• Basic landholder rights 

• Managing allocations to regulated river (high security) and regulated river (general security) access 

licence holders 

• Management of supplementary water 

• Access licence transfer guidelines 

• System operation rules 

• Performance indicators 

These issues are expanded upon in the following pages, and if you wish to discuss the comments please 

contact me on 02 9212 5112 or via coordinator@irnnsw.org.au. 

Yours sincerely, 

Greg Williams 

Coordinator 

Inland Rivers Network 

- 1 -

Inland Rivers Network and Nature Conservation Council submission: 

Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source – 14 June 2002 

INTRODUCTION 

IRN, NCC and ACF recommendations for additional targets and word changes are listed below. We believe 

they will enhance the scope of the clauses and their ability to achieve the ‘SMART’ objectives. Applying the 

‘SMART’ principle is essential in developing an effective WSP. This means clauses are: 

• Specific 

− within the sphere of influence. 

− expressed in biophysical terms. 

• Measurable 

− clearly defined. For example, targets with percentages. Where qualitative words are used a definition 

should accompany them. 

− relative to an existing baseline or trend. 

• Achievable: 

− within the bounds of realistic resourcing, ensuring that monitoring, capability and commitment are 

available. 

• Relevant 

− consistent with relevant legislation and strategies. 

• Timebound 

− defined within a delivery date 

IRN, NCC and ACF recommend that where scientific knowledge is lacking, the Precautionary Principle 

should be applied to protect the water source and its dependent ecosystems. The development of adaptive 

Management systems and research to improve understanding of these ecosystems is essential to their 

management. 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 

Inland rivers in New South Wales have often highly variable and unpredictable flows. Changes to flow 

patterns can have significant ecological effects that may not be noticed for many years or even decades. 

Water management needs to be sufficiently adaptive to these natural and human induced changes, in order to 

maintain our rivers in an acceptable state for current and future generations. 

The 1994 Council of Australian Governments (CoAG) Water Reforms Framework states that “… 

environmental requirements … be determined on the best available scientific information available” 

(Attachment A (4)(d)). The CoAG Water Reforms Frameworks also states that “… jurisdictions would 

consider establishing environmental contingency allocations which provide for a review of the allocations 

five years after they have been determined”. Basing environmental requirements on the best available 

scientific information and regular review of environmental flow provisions is essential for ensuring that the 

Water Management Act 2000 objectives of protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems are implemented. 

IRN, NCC and ACF are concerned that this Draft WSP does not contain adequate provisions for adaptive 

management. Section 42(2) of the Water Management Act 2000 allows WSPs to specify the circumstances 

by which a plan may be changed within its ten-year tenure, without attracting compensation to entitlement 

holders. IRN, NCC and ACF believe that there are a number of issues and processes relevant to the 

Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source that will impact upon water sharing, and must be incorporated 

into the Plan as they arise. 

In Part A Section 2, page 3 of the WSP guide it is stated that: 

“The Water Sharing Plan will become a statutory plan under the Water Management Act 2000 

and be in effect for a 10 year period, thereby providing security of access for environmental 

water and for all water users during its term. Further to this, holders of water access licences 

will be able to claim compensation if water access is reduced during the term of this plan, as a 

consequence of variation to the bulk access regime established by the plan, for purposes not 

specified by this plan.” change made to the Plan during its term reduces the water available for 

extraction”. 

- 2 -



If it is shown that there is not enough water allocated for the protection of the environment, IRN, NCC and 

ACF believes there must not be any compensation due to the paucity of data regarding the nature of the 

watercourses and flow patterns, as well as the nature of the requirements for the environment. 

The WSP and the WSP Guide do not contain provision for flexibility in the face of possible reductions in 

available water, likely to arise from climate change or other catchment/landuse practices that may increase 

water use. Nor does it contain provisions for specified amendments relating to threatened species, flow 

provisions, environmental health water or the impact of a significant water quality incident. 

IRN, NCC and ACF are also concerned that flow rules to protect pools during the drier months are not 

sufficiently adaptive. It is imperative that flows be adaptively managed within the ten year tenure of the 

Water Sharing Plans as provided for by the Water Management Act 2000 Section 5(2)(h). 

Adaptive management provisions have been included in WSPs prepared for groundwater and unregulated 

water sources, and the environment groups can see no reason why they should not apply to regulated systems 

such as the Murrumbidgee River. Further, Clause 4 of the 1994 CoAG framework requires an adaptive 

management approach. 

Recommendations 

IRN, NCC and ACF recommend that: 

• Provisions for flexibility under Section 42(2) of the Water Management Act 2000 are allowed for in the 

Murrumbidgee Regulated River WSP without attracting the need for compensation in the following 

circumstances: 

− the Murray interstate flows process. 

− the needs of Ramsar listed wetlands and wetlands of national importance. 

− changes in water source hydrology as a result of catchment land use changes or climatic changes. 

− provisions for specified amendments relating to key threatening processes; threatened species recovery 

and threat abatement plans threatened species (in particular the Trout Cod recovery plan). 

− provisions for specified amendments relating to environmental health water or the impact of a 

significant water quality incident (such as salinity or blue-green-algae blooms). 

− monitoring and research programs (such as IMEF) 

− exercise of native title rights to water allocations for indigenous purposes. 

− future information about the social and economic impacts of changing environmental conditions. 

• Flows are adaptively managed within the ten-year tenure of the Water Sharing Plans as provided for by 

the Water Management Act 2000 Section 5(2)(h) without attracting the need for compensation. 

ENVIRONMENTAL WATER 

It is generally acknowledged by freshwater ecologists that water is the most critical component of healthy 

riverine ecosystems. The IRN, NCC and ACF is concerned that in spite of the extensive process of 

community consultation, there still appears to be a fundamental lack of understanding about the role of water 

in maintaining healthy riverine ecosystems. This is reflected in some of the recommendations from the 

Murrumbidgee Regulated River Management Committee in the Draft WSP for the Murrumbidgee Regulated 

River Water Source. 

All ecosystems require an input of energy to function. Land-based ecosystems derive this energy directly 

from the Sun through the process of photosynthesis. Rivers however, particularly those in the upper 

catchment, do not have enough green plants within them to supply sufficient energy for the requirements of 

aquatic animals (fish, yabbies, mudeyes, etc.). Rivers therefore have to rely on inputs of organic material in 

the form of leaves, bark, twigs and branches, from their riparian and floodplain zones. Some of this material 

either falls into the river or is blown in. Most however is carried in by medium to high flows (lateral or 

floodplain connectivity). Macroinvertebrates process this material, and they in turn, are eaten by fish. This 

is the most important reason behind the EPA’s River Flow Objectives 3-7. (River Flow Objectives 1-2 

ensures that aquatic life survives dry periods and droughts). 

- 3 -



Other benefits that medium and high flows bring, are that they provide critical cues for fish and colonial 

waterbird breeding events, and are important in the dilution of toxicants such as salt and blue-green algae. 

The CRC for Freshwater Ecology draws the analogy that the riparian and floodplain zones of a river are 

equivalent to the bark surrounding the woody material of a tree. Therefore harvesting high flows is like 

ringbarking a river. 

Water levels in natural river pools should be protected during periods of no flow (River Flow Objectives 1- 

2). During dry times some streams stop flowing and form pools that are refuges for aquatic plants and 

animals. Pumping water from these areas can make it more difficult for many species to recover after a 

drought. We have included some additional recommendations in this submission which will go further in 

protecting low flows, and help ensure that fish passage and pools are protected. 

Water Management Principles in the Act that are particularly relevant to environmental flow provisions in 

water sharing plans include; protecting and restoring water sources, floodplains and dependent ecosystems 

(including wetlands), protecting habitats, animals and plants which benefit from water, protecting water 

quality, minimising cumulative impacts, and applying the principles of adaptive management. Plans can be 

changed or amended by a Minister’s plan under Section 42(2) of the Act if in the public interest or if 

specified within the plan. It is evident that there is a flagrant disregard for the Water Management Principles 

in the Draft WSP for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source. 

Most of the rules in the Draft Plan for the provision of environmental water are made “contingent on supplies 

to water users and are generally tied to the resource availability for water users rather than environmental 

needs. There also does not appear to be any clearly defined environmental management objectives for the 

various environmental water accounts and the draft plan does not specify the triggers and rules for the release 

of this water for environmental purposes” ((Part B, p. 11). 

The following table (Table 1), prepared by Professor Gary Jones from the CRC for Freshwater Ecology, 

indicates the percentage of natural flow required to sustain a healthy working river. 

Table 1: Percentage of Natural Flow Required to Sustain a Healthy Working River 

% of Natural Flow (for 

critical indicators) 

Greater than two-thirds 

Greater than half 

Less than half 

Probability of having a 

healthy working river 

HIGH 

MODERATE 

LOW 

Reference: Jones, G. 2002 Setting environmental flows to sustain a healthy working river. Watershed 

February: 1-2. 

Scientific evidence indicates that the current flow regimes in NSW are not sufficient to achieve the principle 

of Ecologically Sustainable Development nor to “protect, enhance and restore water sources, their associated 

ecosystems, ecological processes, biological diversity and their water quality” (NSW Water Management Act 

2000 Section 3 Objects (a) &(b)). 

Our primary concern is that the Draft WSP for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source is that it 

has not been developed in a manner that is consistent with the Act. The environment has not been prioritised 

as per Section 5(3) & 9(b) of the Act, and the plan is not consistent with the State Water Management 

Outcomes Plan (SWMOP) as per Section 9. Under the Water Management Act the WSP is to determine the 

environment’s adequate share of rivers as first priority, basic landholder rights second, and the extractive 

regime last. 

As it stands now, the Draft WSP for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source: 

- 4 -



• Environmental water is contingent on irrigation allocation requirements and as such compromises the 

protection and restoration of the river’s ecological processes, its dependent ecosystems and native species. 

• Has no secure environmental water other than that for the maintenance of minimum flows. 

Environmental Contingency/Health Allowance water is incorporated in the WSP as Class B 

Supplementary Environmental Water. 

• Has no methodology for managed environmental releases from stored water. 

• Stands in isolation from the WSP’s of unregulated catchments, in particular Tarcutta Creek WSP, and 

identifies no environmental relationships. 

• Does not identify the ecological values that the Plan is to protect 

Minister’s Note: (Part B, p.11) 

IRN, NCC and ACF fully concur with the Minister’s Note on p.11 of Part B. The environmental flow rules, 

as they stand in this Draft WSP, are extremely complex to the point that they are virtually impossible to 

understand, review and identify their intended or likely outcomes. It would seem that the intent of this 

complexity is to reinstate the status quo and entrench the highly inappropriate irrigation practices of the last 

30 years – which have led to this river being classified as ‘stressed’. 

The scientific evidence for this, as compiled in the report “The Murrumbidgee: assessing the ‘health’ of a 

working river”, jointly commissioned by the Agribusiness Taskforce, DLWC, the EPA and included several 

members of the irrigation community, is unequivocal. It is these practices that have led to the Murrumbidgee 

River being brought to the brink of becoming an ecological basket case. The recent listing of the aquatic 

ecological community in the natural drainage system of the lower Murray River catchment as an endangered 

ecological community under the Fisheries Management Act 1994 is further evidence of the desperate state of 

this river. 

Not only do the dissenting reports cast doubt about the ability of the proposed rules to maintain or improve 

the ecological health of the Murrumbidgee River, but the WSP also concedes as much. Table 1, Part A of 

the Plan indicates that the environmental provisions will only make a marginal improvement to flow 

conditions compared to the1993/94 conditions under the Murray-Darling Basin cap on water diversions. 


The Minister’s Note on p.9 of Part B also correctly identifies, according to our environment representatives, 

that the environmental water rules are overly focussed on providing flows to wetlands in the middle reaches 

of the Murrumbidgee River. There are significant wetlands on the lower floodplain of the river, notably the 

Lowbidgee wetlands, which are not targeted and which presently receive a greatly reduced water supply. 

Changing Water Regimes and Wetland Habitat on the Lower Murrumbidgee Floodplain of the 

Murrumbidgee River (Kingsford, R.T. and Thomas, R.F., 2001) documents how over 140 years of water 

resource development at a catchment and local scale has resulted in the disappearance or degradation of at 

least 76% of the wetlands. In 1998/99 95% of diverted water reduced the amount of water reaching the 

Lower Murrumbidgee floodplain by at least 60%. ‘Development’ of the water resource has not been evenly 

spread out over the 140 years. Kingsford and Thomas estimate that 26% of the floodplain was lost in the 

period up to 1975. Over the next 23 years from 1975 to 1998 an additional 32% of the original wetland was 

lost. Of the remaining 42% of original wetland area in the Lower Murrumbidgee floodplain, 44% of the 

perennial flood dependent vegetation was in poor health or dead and defined as ‘degraded’. 

Water for other ecological requirements has also not been explicitly addressed by the plan. Furthermore, the 

mimicking of natural flow variability below Burrinjuck Dam achieved by the 1998 rules is not fully 

maintained. 


IRN, NCC and ACF are of the opinion that the environmental flow rules for the Murrumbidgee 

Regulated River are totally inadequate and must be completely rewritten taking the following 

recommendations into account. 

- 5 -



• The current Supplementary Environmental Water must be changed to Class A Environmental Health 

Water (EHW), so that this water is assured for environmental purposes and in no way contingent upon 

irrigation allocations. EHW stored for managed release should be increased to 100 gigalitres (GL) per 

year, which is considered by environment groups to be the minimum amount required to maintain the 

health of the river and its wetlands. 

The groups envisage that the 100GL EHW volume would not necessarily have to be released each year, 

but should be able to be stored, and released contingent upon environmental triggers. There is significant 

ecological benefit in releasing some water following a natural ‘fresh’, with further releases after two 

weeks depending upon tributary flows. A regime such as this will ensure wetlands are adequately 

inundated further downstream. 

• An environmental flow sub-committee should be formed to oversee the management of environmental 

water. This could include representatives from local environment groups (such as the REC), DLWC, 

EPA, NPWS, State Forests, scientists and indigenous interests. They would consider tributary inflows in 

deciding on the timing and volume of water released and incorporate triggers and protocols for managed 

releases ensuring adequate environmental water. This could be included as an additional Schedule 9 to 

Part B of the Draft WSP. 

• Translucent release rules in the Draft WSP only apply to the area below Burrinjuck Dam to the 

confluence of the Tumut River. The environment groups believe that new translucent rules need to be 

developed which are simpler and have dam release triggers that are environmentally and hydrologically 

sound. 

• The Draft WSP has not put in place appropriate targets to provide for the recovery of threatened species, 

populations and communities and their future removal from threatened species listing. The objective to 

promote threatened species recovery is conditional in the Draft WSP, and there is a low probability that 

this will prevent the continued decline of populations. The environment groups recommend that Part B of 

the Water Sharing Plan include a schedule of threatened species and facilitate implementation of threat 

abatement plans and recovery plans where these species occur. Recovery Plans must be produced 

pursuant to the Fisheries Management Act 1994 within three years of gazettal and the WSP should be 

amended to be consistent with recommendations made therein. The environment groups recommend that 

the Draft WSP acknowledge Key Threatening Processes and reduce or ameliorate these impacts. 

• Schedule 8 flows, which determine when water is diverted into the Lowbidgee Floodplain District are 

totally inadequate in the Draft WSP and do not account for, or protect environmental water. Further, the 

seasonality required for ecosystem function is not considered. IRN, NCC and ACF recommend that 

Schedule 8 flows in this WSP for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source must make provision 

for environmental water flows and its seasonality into the Lowbidgee Floodplain Districts. 

• An environmental flow sub-committee should be formed to oversee the development of a water 

management plan for the Lowbidgee Floodplain Districts. This could include representatives from local 

environment groups (such as the REC), DLWC, EPA, NPWS, State Forests, scientists and indigenous 

interests of environmental water. 

• The Draft WSP has not established adequate flow rules and extraction limits in relation to interim targets 

2 and 4 of the Draft State Water Management Outcomes Plan. The WSP must be consistent with these 

requirements. 

BASIC LANDHOLDER RIGHTS 

Native title rights 

Advice No. 14 to Water Management Committees outlines the Committee’s role with respect to Aboriginal 

issues and cultural heritage protection. The Committee’s role is to identify Aboriginal cultural and heritage 

values and provide recommendations on how to protect these in their area as far as they relate to water 

sharing. Therefore the plan must include: 

- 6 -



• consideration of the Aboriginal Heritage Information System register of sites and Aboriginal places. 

• habitat requirements for totemic and other culturally important species, including threatened species in 

the water management area. 

• consideration of contemporary Aboriginal needs and uses of water and related water resources. 

Whilst IRN, NCC and ACF are in full support of water allocations for indigenous purposes, we strongly 

oppose such water being taken from the environment. As such we believe that Part 5 ‘Basic landholder 

rights’, and specifically Clauses 27, 28 and 31, [a formatting error exists at this point as Clause 29 and 30 are 

not included] need to be strengthened in terms of their treatment of native title rights. 



• The following clauses be included after Clause 31: 

− “A native title holder in relation to waters of the water source is entitled, under the provision of 

Section 55 of the Act, to take and use water in the exercise of native title rights.” 

− “Should native title rights that extend beyond those which are provided for in the Water Management 

Act 2000, or in this Water Sharing Plan, be found to exist in a court of law, this plan will be reviewed 

and amended accordingly under Section 42(2) of the Water Management Act 2000.” 

− “At the commencement of the Plan no native title rights have been granted for the Murrumbidgee 

Regulated River Water Source” 

− “The Plan recognises that the exercise of native title rights, as defined in Section 55 of the Act, may 

increase during the term of this Plan” 

− “Any granting of water allocations under native title rights must be allocated from the BEV for each 

flow class and cannot impact upon the agreed EHW allocations”. 

• Evidence should also be provided of having considered the Aboriginal Heritage Information System 

register of sites and Aboriginal places, or the habitat requirements for totemic and other culturally 

important species, including threatened species in the water management area. 

MANAGING ALLOCATIONS TO REGULATED RIVER (HIGH SECURITY) AND REGULATED 

RIVER (GENERAL SECURITY) ACCESS LICENCE HOLDERS 


IRN, NCC and ACF support the CoAG concept of water trading which is that water should be used “to 

maximise its contribution to national income and welfare, within the social, physical, and ecological 

constraints of catchments” (1994 CoAG Agreement, Clause 5[a]). We believe that this facilitates the flow of 

water to the highest value uses where there are greater incentives to conserve water. 

As such, we oppose Clause 75(h), which places a constraint on temporary trade of water through the forfeit 

of carryover and access to supplementary water. 

Recommendation 


• Clause 75(h), which places a constraint on temporary trade of water through the forfeit of carryover and 

access to supplementary water, is removed from the Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee Regulated 

River Water Source. 

MANAGEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY WATER 


IRN, NCC and ACF agrees with the Minister’s Note Part B, p.22 that unregulated flows emanating from 

tributaries or dam spills are potentially very important for the ecological functioning of the river system. 

These flows significantly impact on the environmental benefit of natural ‘freshes’ and dam spills, and should 

be omitted from the Draft WSP. These licences have been cancelled in the past and we see no reason why 

they should be considered again. Extraction from ‘freshes’ and spills will also diminish the effectiveness of 

stored environmental releases throughout the river system, particularly in the lower reaches. 

- 7 -



This note also mentions that they are important to many users in the water source as additional supply. The 

draft plan proposes to continue to allow water users access to these flows. 

As far as the IRN, NCC and ACF are concerned, the priorities of the Act clearly determines how this water 

should be allocated. Under the Water Management Act 2000 the WSP is to determine the environment’s 

adequate share of rivers as first priority, basic landholder rights second, and the extractive regime last. We 

object to the reinstatement of Supplementary Access Licences (SALs) and strongly recommend that they be 

removed from the WSP. 


IRN, NCC and ACF strongly recommend that: 

• Supplementary Access Licences (SALs) be removed from the Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee 

Regulated River Water Source. 1 

ACCESS LICENCE TRANSFER GUIDELINES 

IRN, NCC and ACF are concerned that losses due to seepage and evaporation will be omitted from the total 

water transfer amount, and be borne by the environment. Part 13 Access Licenses Transfer Guidelines of the 

WSP are not clear about allocation of water lost through the transfer of water allocations. The Draft 

SWMOP defines the ‘extraction limit’ in the glossary as: 

A limit on the amount of water that can be taken from a river for licensed purposes and includes 

both the water pumped directly from the river or aquifer as well as those volumes diverted from 

the rivers via irrigation or other channel measured at the offtake point, and therefore includes 

the transmission loses associated with those diversions. 

Part 13 Access Licenses Transfer Guidelines are not clear about assessing the environmental impact of water 

trading within the Diversion Management Unit. Trade in water, up or downstream, and between various 

water sources can have a range of environmental consequences which should be investigated and assessed 

prior to trades taking place. 



• The following Clause should be inserted after Clause 96: 

“The transfer of water allocations is to account for both the water pumped directly from the river or 

aquifer as well as those volumes diverted from the rivers via irrigation or other channel measured at the 

offtake point, and therefore includes the transmission losses associated with those diversions.” 

• The environmental consequences of trade-in water, up or downstream, and between various water sources 

be investigated and assessed in a transparent manner before transfers are begun. 


IRN, NCC and ACF support the CoAG concept of water trading which is that water should be used “to 

maximise its contribution to national income and welfare, within the social, physical, and ecological 

constraints of catchments” (1994 CoAG Agreement, Clause 5[a]). We believe that this facilitates the flow of 

water to the highest value uses where there are greater incentives to conserve water. 

As such, we oppose: 

• Clause 93 (not allowing any trading of supplementary water) because we do not believe that 

‘supplementary water’ should exist and it must be taken out of the Plan altogether. 

• Clause 100 (restricting high security trading); and 

• Clause 101 (introducing limitations on general security temporary trade). 

1 A less desirable solution, would be to quarantine these unregulated flows emanating from tributaries or dam spills 

(‘supplementary water’) during winter and spring and only allowing them to be pumped during the irrigation season. 

- 8 -



Recommendation 


• Clauses 93, 100 and 101 placing restrictions on water trading in the Draft WSP, be removed from the 

Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source. 

SYSTEM OPERATION RULES 

Flows into the Lowbidgee District 


The Minister’s Note on p.27 of Part B raises specific concerns about the Lowbidgee wetlands. IRN, NCC 

and ACF are also extremely concerned about the health of these important wetlands. Our primary concern is 

that the environment’s share of water, and the ecological requirements for the Lowbidgee Floodplain are not 

part of the WSP. Provision of water to the Lowbidgee District is contingent to irrigation requirements. The 

Draft WSP allocates the lowest priority water of all water in the water source to this region. At times this 

water is also of lower priority than water supply commitments to the Murray River. The circumstances and 

conditions under which water will be diverted into the Lowbidgee District to meet the environmental 

concerns of the river downstream of the diversion point are not specified at all by the schedule. Quite 

clearly, this aspect of the plan has not been developed in a manner that is consistent with the Act. 

Legislation and policy measures usually protect actual sites of wetlands from development but do not control 

threatening processes upstream. To protect wetland areas, policy and legislation for wetland conservation 

need to be applied to flow regimes. This necessitates the interaction of policies applied to the floodplain 

with legislation that governs the management of water. Until there is protection of the flow regimes that 

define wetlands and their biota, their long-term future, even if they have reserve status, cannot be 

guaranteed.” (Kingsford and Thomas, 2001, p.73). 

The Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source backed up by the Water 

Management Act 2000 should be the policy and legislation that protects the wetlands of the Murrumbidgee 

River. It doesn’t. Kingsford and Thomas (2001, p.73) identifies two areas in the Lower Murrumbidgee 

floodplain protected under conservation legislation and policy. The Yanga Nature Reserve was primarily 

conserved for its Black Box woodland vegetation and 23 800 hectares of the Lower Murrumbidgee 

floodplain was protected from clearing. Their long-term prospects are poor because the flooding regime may 

not be sufficiently frequent to sustain the flood dependent vegetation that established in these areas. 

This water sharing plan must be the initial mechanism to establish the appropriate flow regimes coming into 

the Lowbidgee Floodplain Districts in order to sustain the floodplain vegetation established in these two 

protected areas. 



• The Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source must establish and protect 

appropriate flow regimes coming into the Lowbidgee Floodplain Districts in order to sustain the 

floodplain vegetation established in the Yanga Nature Reserve and the 23 800 hectares of the Lower 

Murrumbidgee floodplain protected from clearing. 

• The environmental health water needed to sustain the Lowbidgee floodplain must not be contingent upon 

irrigation allocations for the Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers and must be articulated in this plan. 

• Environmental Health Water provisions must be stronger in relation to flows to the Lowbidgee area, 

including contribution of environmental flows from the Lowbidgee areas into the Murrumbidgee. 

• The WSP for the Murrmbidgee Regulated River Water Source recognises the connection and impacts of 

water extraction on this area. 

• The preparation of a Water Management Plan for the Lowbidgee region must be immediately 

commenced. 

- 9 -



PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 


IRN, NCC and ACF believes it is essential that performance indicators are established to monitor the 

outcomes of the WSP. These indicators should monitor the biological, chemical, physical, habitat 

components of each ecosystem. Performance indicators should determine the base line data which will be 

used to assess the adequacy and performance of the water sharing plans and in turn direct on-going adaptive 

management. 

The IRN, NCC and ACF support the Ministers Note in Part 17 requesting the development of performance 

indicators using those stated objectives. Specifically, performance indicators must be developed for the 

following factors: 

Threatened species 

The WSP must be consistent with the outcomes of the SWMOP. Long term outcome 1.3 states: 

The diversity and abundance of native aquatic plants and animals protected and improved, by 

addressing the cumulative impacts of water resource management on their habitats and 

lifecycles. The status and diversity of aquatic communities to be informed through, but not 

limited to, the following: 

• improvements in the abundance and diversity of invertebrate populations. 

• increase in native fish populations within their natural range, and reductions in the 

proportion of alien-to-native fish species. 

• increased colonial waterbird breeding opportunities. 

• improvements in the status of threatened species, populations and communities. 

Draft SWMOP Target 2 state: 

All water management plans to put in place appropriate mechanisms for improving physical 

habitats, and the diversity and abundance of native animals and plants with particular 

reference to threatened species, populations and communities. 

The Fisheries Scientific Committee, established under Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994, has 

made a recommendation to list the installation and operation of instream structures and other mechanisms 

that alter natural flow regimes of rivers and streams as a Key Threatening Process (KTP). Alteration to 

natural flow regimes can occur through “reducing or increasing flows, altering seasonality of flows, 

changing the frequency, duration, magnitude, timing, predictability and variability of flow events, altering 

surface and subsurface water levels and changing the rate of rise or fall of water levels.” 

The Fisheries Scientific Committee is also of the opinion that: 

“The installation and operation of instream structures and other mechanisms that alter natural 

flow regimes of rivers and streams adversely affects more than two threatened species, 

populations or ecological communities, or could cause species, populations or ecological 

communities that are not threatened to become threatened. Therefore, this process qualifies for 

inclusion in Schedule 6 of the Fisheries Management Act 1994 as a Key Threatening Process”. 

It should be ensured that the provisions within WSP are consistent with the Fisheries Scientific Committee, 

and this KTP. 

The WSP Guide identifies the Macquarie Perch, Murray Hardyhead, Olive Perchlet, Silver Perch, Purplespotted 

Gudgeon, Southern Pygmy Perch and Trout Cod as seven species found in the Murrumbidgee 

Regulated River Water Source and with a conservation status listed as either endangered or vulnerable under 

the Fisheries Management Act (NSW) 1994. The Macquarie Perch, Murray Hardyhead and Trout Cod are 

also listed under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (Cmth) 1999. All of the 

species listed under the Fisheries Management Act (NSW) 1994 will have a recovery plan written for them 

within the ten-year life of the Water Sharing Plan. As the Fisheries Management Act 1994 has concurrence 

with the Water Management Act 2000 the WSP must, at the very least, acknowledge that these statutory 

- 10 -



documents will be coming on line during the life of the WSP. These recovery plans may identify the 

requirement for additional water in order to facilitate the recovery of these species, and this plan must be able 

to provide for such requirements. 

There is not sufficient reference to these species, key threatening processes, threat abatement plans and 

recovery plans in Part B of the WSP. This is concerning, because this is the only part of the plan that is 

statutory. 



• The threatened species identified in the WSP Guide be listed as Schedule 9 of the Water Sharing Plan for 

the Murrumbidgee Regulated River Water Source. 

• Provision should be made within the WSP for additional water, as identified by a Threatened Species 

Recovery Plan, to be made available without the requirement to pay compensation to water extractors. 

• Minimum flow sharing should at the very least provide for passage of native fish over riffles, and past 

instream obstructions such as weirs or road crossings, particularly during breeding times. 

• Part B of the WSP acknowledges the relevant recovery plans and facilitates relevant implementation of 

threat abatement plans and recovery plans where threatened species, populations and communities occur. 

Flow arrangements should be consistent with threat abatement plans and recovery plans. 

• Part B of the WSP acknowledges Key Threatening Processes (KTPs) and reduce or ameliorate the 

impacts of KTPs wherever possible. Given the importance of threatened species recovery, this should 

exclude any potential for compensation to water users. 

• Threatened species considerations should be incorporated in Part 14 Performance Indicators, as part of the 

species presence and absence indicators. 

Water Quality 

IRN, NCC and ACF are concerned that no mention is made about water quality, the monitoring regime that 

will be carried out and the standards that will be applied in the monitoring program. IRN, NCC and ACF 

believe that water quality monitoring should be consistent with ANZECC guideline ‘trigger values’ as 

outlined in the SWMOP. 



• Water quality should be monitored in accordance with ANZECC guidelines. 

Monitoring 

The Water Management Act 2000 provides for review of a WSP within the fifth year of its tenure so as to 

ascertain whether it remains ‘adequate and appropriate’ for implementing the Water Management Principles 

of the Act. In addition the Act provides for auditing of plans. 

The Integrated Monitoring of Environmental Flows (IMEF) inter-agency monitoring program commenced in 

1998, with the first stage due for completion in 2003. IMEF data reported thus far has provided a useful 

basis for critically appraising the effectiveness and adequacy of current environmental flow rules. If the 

IMEF is to guide the delivery of environmental flows there must be sufficient flexibility within the ten-year 

tenure of the WSP. This could be most usefully achieved with a provision exempting Government for 

compensating water users for reduced allocations if the monitoring results clearly indicate a need to increase 

environmental allocations. 

- 11 -



IRN, NCC and ACF has concerns about the lack of SMART targets in relation to the monitoring of water use 

and water quality. Base-line information is required to gauge on-going impacts of the water sharing 

proposals. 

It is imperative that accurate water extraction data is established, as pump diaries are considered inaccurate 

and unlikely to reveal any breaches of license conditions. 

The monitoring program should: 

• evaluate the effectiveness of the WSP in achieving the Plans vision, principles and objectives; 

• ensure compliance with strategies and proposals within the WSP and it’s implementation plan, and; 

• improve knowledge regarding the resource and its ecosystems. 

- 12 -





• The performance indicators in Table 3 are added to the WSP: 

Biological Performance 

Indicators 

• Invertebrates 

- DLWC and community role 

- require seasonal monitoring 

(spring/autumn) 

- AusRivas may be a good 

model 

- Need to monitor: 

- hyporrheic 

- sediment 

- water column 

- surface 

- vegetative 

• Fish 

- NSW Fisheries and 

Universities role 

- need to monitor species and 

abundance (ie fish, oysters, 

crustaceans etc) 

- need to monitor seasonally 

(ie 4 times a year) 

• Birds 

- NPWS and community role 

- Need to monitor species and 

abundance (including 

breeding events) 

• Mammals/vertebrates 

- NPWS and community role 

- need to include threatened 

species and species of local 

significance 

• E.coli, bacteria, viruses, 

algae 

Table 3: Proposed Environmental Performance Indicators 

Chemical 

Performance 

Indicators 

• Water 

quality 

(ANZECC 

guideline 

‘trigger values’) 

Need to 

monitor: 

- pH 

- BOD 

- Turbidity 

- TDS 

- Temperature 

- Total 

Nitrogen 

- Total 

Phosphorus 

- Pesticides 

Physical Performance 

Indicators 

• DLWC, universities 

& community role 

• Erosion 

• Siltation 

• Bank stability 

• Flows 

- velocity 

- quantity 

- seasonality 

• Depth to water table 

• Bench wetting 

• Floodplain 

inundation 

• Duration & frequency 

of cease to flow 

• Subsidence 

• Riffle/pool 

connection 

• Water usage 

• Success of demand 

mgmt strategies 

• Extraction density 

Habitat 

Performance 

Indicators 

• Estuarine health 

(seagrass, 

mangroves) 

• Riparian veg 

extent and health 

• Aquatic veg extent 

and health 

• Snags 

• Identify GDE's 

• GDE's condition 

& extent 

• High priority 

• Med priority 

• Low priority 

• CAMBA and 

JAMBA 

requirements 

• wetlands 

• If performance indicator targets are not met, a review is triggered and the findings incorporated into the 

WSP. 

• If a new threatened species, populations or ecological community is found, this is an indication that the 

Plan is not working and it must trigger a complete review of the whole Water Sharing Plan. 

• The WSP be audited every year. Further, we recommend that the Minister should undertake to monitor 

water quality and water use applying the SMART targets. Results are to be reported annually in the audit 

throughout the ten-year tenure of the plan. 

- 13 -



• A new clause should be added, ensuring that baseline data are gathered on a yearly basis during the tenyear 

tenure of the plan. The results should be incorporated into the yearly auditing plans and the five-year 

review. 

• The results of the IMEF process should be incorporated into the yearly auditing plans and the five-year 

review. As significant data becomes available, it should be reviewed and incorporated into the WSP 

where appropriate. Government should be exempted from compensating water users for reduced 

allocations if the monitoring results clearly indicate a need to increase environmental allocations. 

• IRN, NCC and ACF recommends that 100% of licensed installations for extraction of surface or ground 

waters (excepting stock and domestic bores) are monitored with verifiable and timed volumetric 

metering. This should be fully implemented within two years. 

• The following processes are incorporated into the WSP: 

− the monitoring program should include vegetation eco-systems (particularly riparian), aquatic ecosystems 

and identifying sites that are (i) highly sensitive, (ii) moderately sensitive and (iii) of low 

sensitivity. It is proposed that at least 4 highly sensitive sites, 4 moderately sensitive sites, 4 low 

sensitive sites be monitored for each planning area (numbers are debatable). The method of 

determining these sites will vary from catchment to catchment. For each monitoring site, at least 3 

control sites should be determined. 

− all reviews of WSPs must assess the results and trends of any monitoring programs. 

− monitoring should be attributed to an agency or a particular group (eg Waterwatch, local 

environmental consultants, academics). 

− the periods of time between site monitoring be less for high sensitive sites (say 6 months) and more for 

low sensitive sites (say 12 months), and seasonal monitoring requirements should be addressed when 

developing a monitoring regime. 

− once water sharing is fully implemented, the proposed monitoring regime must continue and be 

publicly reported on an annual basis. 

− all monitoring should be maintained in a central database that is publicly accessible. We suggest an 

independent organisation such as a University which could act as the custodian for the data. 

− the results from the monitoring process must be ecologically acceptable before progressing to the next 

stage of the WSPs implementation. It is important that targets are be quantative. For example; “no 

decline in status of threatened species, populations or ecological communities”, and “10% loss of 

health, distribution or extent of any high or medium priority ecosystem triggers a review”. 

CONCLUSION 

IRN, NCC and ACF are extremely concerned that this Draft Plan does not contain provisions that secure the 

improvement of this stressed river and its ecosystems. We are of the opinion that the environmental flow 

rules for the Murrumbidgee Regulated River are totally inadequate and must be completely rewritten taking 

the following recommendations into account. 

- 14 -

Submission on Draft Water Sharing Plan for the Murrumbidgee River

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?