Appendix A
Methodology
Appendix A: Methodology
2014 TA methodology
Introduction
Under the National Water Commission Act 2004 (Cwth) (NWC Act), the National Water
Commission (the Commission) has a specific function to undertake regular assessments of
progress by all governments in achieving the objectives and outcomes of the National Water
Initiative (NWI). The purpose of the Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment
2014 (2014 assessment) is to provide an independent, evidence‑based assurance to the Council
of Australian Governments (COAG), the Australian Government and the broader community that
the water reforms articulated in the NWI, along with any other subsequent reforms adopted by
COAG, are achieving their intended outcomes.
The 2014 assessment has been undertaken under three broad headings:

an assessment of progress in jurisdictional implementation of NWI actions, along with
any subsequent water reform actions agreed to by COAG

an assessment of the impact of the NWI and related water reform efforts against the NWI
objective of optimising economic, social and environmental outcomes

a review of emerging or changing water management challenges with discussion of
future reform priorities.
To inform the analysis for these three focal areas, the following questions were considered by the
Commission:
150

To what extent has the NWI and subsequent reforms enabled water use to support
Australia’s economic development, our communities and our environment?

In 2014, as we reach the 10‑year anniversary of the NWI, does the agreement still


provide enduring principles to guide future water reform in Australia?
Do any emerging issues and challenges indicate a need to adjust the NWI in the future?
What are the remaining barriers to implementing agreed water reforms and how can they
be overcome?

Are there more efficient or effective ways, including industry and private sector
participation, of achieving the intended water reform outcomes?

Are there opportunities to better manage the interface of water policy with other policy
realms such as energy and resources, agriculture and urban planning?
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Approach
During 2012–13 the Commission engaged with Australian Government agencies, state and
territory agencies, industry and other stakeholders to discuss the 2014 assessment’s scope and
proposed approach.
From August 2013 until June 2014 the Commission engaged further with these parties, as well as
the public, through an open submission process to gather information and evidence required for
the 2014 assessment.
Information sources
The 2014 assessment has been informed by a wide range of sources, including:

a public call for submissions in September 2013 (see further details below)

a series of four water stakeholder roundtable workshops held in late 2013 and early 2014
in Albury, Cairns, Perth and Melbourne (see further details on page 154)

consultation with the Commission’s Stakeholder Reference Group, representing peak
industry and community groups concerned with water management

consultation with NWI parties regarding advice on implementation progress with the NWI
and subsequent reforms (see Appendix C)

consultation with other stakeholder groups including the Commission’s Urban Water
Strategic Advisory Panel

Commission reports published since the 2011 assessment published and unpublished
statistical data from agencies such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and
Bureau of Meteorology (BoM)

Commission projects undertaken specifically to inform this assessment

peer reviews of key sections of this report

feedback from NWI parties on a draft version of this report.
The assessment of the impact of the NWI and subsequent water reform measures has been
guided by the development of an updated NWI program logic – a method of examining how and
under what conditions change can occur as a result of policy interventions. Details of the program
logic developed for this assessment are contained in Appendix D.
Public call for submissions
In September 2013 the Commission invited interested organisations and people to make a written
submission to inform the 2014 assessment. An issues paper was made available to provide
background to the assessment and identify matters on which information and comment were
sought.
In October 2013, the Commission also issued an urban water futures discussion paper, to which
some of the submissions responded. The responses that discussed urban water futures are
marked * in the list below.
The assessment received 56 submissions from a variety of parties as shown over page. Each
submission, except those provided in confidence, was published on the Commission’s website.
National Water Commission
151
Figure 1. Composition of public submissions
Number of submissions
16
12
8
4
0
Business
Government
Research
institutions
Individuals
Public submissions received:
152
•
ACTEW Corporation
•
Agriculture New South Wales (Department of Primary Industries)
•
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering
•
Australian Conservation Foundation
•
Australian Network of Environmental Defender’s Offices
•
Australian Waterlife
•
Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence*
•
Barmah‑Millewa Collective – Friends of the Earth Melbourne
•
Brian Bycroft
•
Business Council of Australia
•
Cape York Land Council
•
Centroc Water Utilities Alliance*
•
Chamber of Minerals and Energy
•
Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre*
•
Council of Mayors (SEQ)*
•
Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Sensitive Cities*
•
CSIRO*
•
Environment Centre Northern Territory
•
Environment Victoria
•
New South Wales Farmers’ Association
•
New South Wales Farmers’ Association, Griffith Branch
•
Fiona MacDonald Consulting
•
Flow Systems*
•
Inland Rivers Network
•
Institute for Sustainable Futures*
•
Local Government New South Wales*
•
Lock the Gate Alliance
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Industry Group
NGO
•
Luke Stewart
•
Melbourne Water*
•
Minerals Council of Australia
•
Murrumbidgee Valley Food and Fibre Association
•
National Farmers’ Federation
•
National Irrigators’ Council
•
North Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management
•
New South Wales Irrigators Council
•
New South Wales Office of Water*
•
Ord Irrigation Cooperative Ltd
•
Queensland Natural Resource Management Groups Collective
•
Qldwater*
•
Queensland Farmers’ Federation
•
Redland City Council*
•
Regional Development Australia Far North Queensland & Torres Strait Inc
•
South Australian Murray Irrigators Incorporated
•
Southern Rural Water
•
SunWater
•
Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association
•
Water Directorate*
•
Water Industry Operators Association of Australia*
•
Water Industry Skills Taskforce*
•
Water Services Association of Australia*
•
Water Stewardship Australia
•
Waterfind
•
Yvette Bettini and Brian Head – University of Queensland
•
Yarra Valley Water*.
*response focused on urban water futures discussion paper
Public submissions varied in focus, from reform issues relevant at the national scale to those
more concerned with specific local issues. Most were broadly supportive of the NWI’s principles
and the work of the Commission as a necessary independent voice in water reform. Several
submissions noted that implementation of the NWI had not yet been fully completed. In particular,
the failure to achieve the NWI commitment to return overallocated systems to a sustainable level
of extraction was discussed, and concerns were raised about non‑NWI‑compliant water
entitlement arrangements in Western Australia and the Northern Territory.
The success of the NWI in underpinning economic growth and market flexibility for
water‑dependent industries was acknowledged, although further improvements in data and
information availability were sought. Disappointment with the lack of progress on the National
Water Market System was noted in several submissions.
Other common themes included the need for well‑resourced, science‑based and transparent
policy development, from research through to ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Climate change
was noted as a key driver in water reform moving forward.
National Water Commission
153
Many submissions indicated concerns with current engagement processes in water reform and
water planning activities. Reference was made to the need for consistent engagement, with some
suggesting a national engagement framework to improve the transparency of water planning
arrangements. The variability of engagement and unclear links between engagement and policy
were criticised. Submissions also called for more inclusive engagement of Indigenous groups,
particularly in relation to the development of northern Australia.
Urban water issues were put forward as a priority for water reform, with submissions concerned
about clarifying roles and responsibilities, integrating whole‑of‑cycle water management,
strengthening regulation, private sector investment and the challenges of water management in
regional urban centres.
Fit‑for‑purpose water quality was also identified as an issue for both urban and rural areas.
Several submissions suggested better integrated land and water management was needed to
achieve water quality outcomes.
As discussed above, submissions commented on specific parts of the NWI where it was felt that
not enough progress had been made. This included interception management, trading restrictions
and the management of connected groundwater and surface water systems. In addition, some
submissions identified the potential for a loss of momentum in water reform following the end of
the Millennium Drought, and a concern that some jurisdictions were taking steps of a regressive
nature, such as moves to manage water for mining and coal seam gas (CSG) extraction outside
the water entitlement framework. Submissions argued that mining and related issues should be
integrated into the NWI framework as a matter of urgency, and a solid scientific understanding of
impacts determined.
Water stakeholder roundtable workshops
The Commission held four water stakeholder roundtable workshops to gather input for the
assessment at a cross‑section of locations across the country – in Albury, New South Wales on
17 September 2013; Cairns, Queensland on 24 October 2013; Perth, Western Australia on 8
November 2013 and Melbourne, Victoria on 6 February 2014. In addition to Commissioners and
staff, the names of participants at the workshops are listed below:
154
Name
Organisation
Workshop
Darren Baldwin
Murray Darling Freshwater Research Centre
Albury
David Thurley
Albury City Council
Albury
Ian Longfield
Rivalea Australia
Albury
Lani Houston
Regional Development Australia – Riverina
Albury
Natalie Dando
North East CMA (Wodonga)
Albury
Paul Mayton
Murray Darling Association
Albury
Peter Borrows
Murrumbidgee Irrigation
Albury
Brad Ferris
Albury City Council
Albury
Gillian Kirkup
Murrumbidgee Irrigation
Albury
Gordon Ball
Murray Catchment Management Authority
Albury
Helen Dalton
New South Wales Farmers’ Federation
Albury
Peter Crowe
Regional Development Australia – Murray
Albury
Barbara Hull
Regional Development Australia – Murray
Albury
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Name
Organisation
Workshop
Darryl Jacob
Murray Darling Association
Albury
John Culleton
Coleambally Irrigation
Albury
Jonathon Howard
Charles Sturt University
Albury
Les Gordon
Ricegrowers’ Association of Australia
Albury
John Francis
Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority
Albury
Ken Gaudion
Victorian Farmers’ Federation
Albury
Bruce Diffey
Victorian Farmers’ Federation
Albury
David Harriss
New South Wales Office of Water
Albury
Ed Cox
Murray River Group of Councils
Albury
Jenny McLeod
Murray Irrigation
Albury
Lin Crase
La Trobe University
Albury
Rhonda Sinclair
Murray Darling Wetland Working Group
Albury
Sarah Dinning
New South Wales Office of Water
Albury
Alan Dale
James Cook University
Cairns
Jann Crase
Regional Development Australia Far Nth Queensland and Torres Cairns
Steve Tansley
Strait
Inc. Water Association – Queensland
Australian
Cairns
Jon Black
Queensland Department of Environment & Heritage Protection
Cairns
Ian Johnson
Queensland Farmers Federation
Cairns
Peter Callaghan
Cape York Land Council
Cairns
Trish Butler
Cape York Sustainable Futures
Cairns
Nigel Kelly
Department of Natural Resources and Mines
Cairns
Paul Utting
Cairns Regional Council
Cairns
Richie Bates
Cairns Regional Council
Cairns
Matt Darcey
Northern Territory Department of Land Resources Management
Cairns
Cr Margaret de
Local Government Association of Queensland
Cairns
Wit
Mike Berwick
Terrain Natural Resource Management
Cairns
Nigel Parratt
World Wildlife Fund (Brisbane)
Cairns
Terry Piper
Balkanu Cape York Development Corporation
Cairns
Meredith Blais
Water Corporation, Western Australia
Perth
Greg Stewart
Australian Drilling Industry Association
Perth
Natasha Woods
Wheatbelt Natural Resource Management
Perth
Don McFarlane
CSIRO
Perth
Tad Bagdon
Department of Water, Western Australia
Perth
Peter Bowyer
Civil Group
Perth
Stephen Cook
Harvey Water
Perth
National Water Commission
155
Name
Organisation
Workshop
Lisa Potter
Perth Region Natural Resource Management
Perth
Michael Bennett
University of Western Australia
Perth
Mark Batty
Western Australia Local Government Association
Perth
Justin Fromm
Association of Mining and Exploration Companies
Perth
Ian Randles
Pastoralists and Graziers Association of Western Australia
Perth
Alex Gardner
University of Western Australia
Perth
Iqbal Samnakay
Department of Water, Western Australia
Perth
Jaci Moore
Department of Water, Western Australia
Perth
Steve Dilley
Farmers’ Federation of Western Australia Inc.
Perth
Daniela Tonon
Australian Water Association (Western Australia Branch)
Perth
Blair Nancarrow
Syme & Nancarrow Water
Perth
Adam Lovell
Water Services Association of Australia
Melbourne
Alison White
New South Wales Metropolitan Water Directorate
Melbourne
Ben Goodsir
Tasmania Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water &
Melbourne
David Cameron
Environment
Queensland Water
Melbourne
David Marlow
CSIRO
Melbourne
Greg Allen
Sydney Water
Melbourne
Jo Benvenuti
Consumer Utilities Advocacy Centre
Melbourne
Jonathan Kennedy
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia
Melbourne
Julia Grant
South Australia Department of Environment, Water & Natural
Melbourne
Malcolm Roberts
Resources Competition Authority
Queensland
Melbourne
Marcus Crudden
Essential Services Commission, Victoria
Melbourne
Mark Bartley
Australian Water Association (Victorian Branch)
Melbourne
Mark O’Donohue
Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence
Melbourne
Michele Akeroyd
Goyder Institute
Melbourne
Robyn
Centre for Appropriate Technology
Melbourne
Grey‑
Gardner
Ross Allen
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive Cities
Melbourne
Sally Armstrong
Sydney Water
Melbourne
Stuart Wilson
Water Services Association of Australia
Melbourne
Tony Holmes
New South Wales Water Directorate & Shoalhaven Water
Melbourne
The first three of these workshops focused mainly on rural water management, while the fourth
dealt specifically with urban water issues. These events were attended by a variety of
stakeholders, including representatives from government agencies, water utilities, research
organisations, catchment management authorities, irrigators, industry associations and
environmental groups.
In general, the workshop participants agreed the NWI and its principles were sound and remained
relevant. With regard to the NWI, workshops examined benefits, limitations, emerging issues,
barriers to success and potential improvements.
156
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Key benefits nominated included the increase in water trade and entitlement security, the
increased availability of water‑related information and improvements in the monitoring and
enforcement of entitlements. The recognition of the environment as a legitimate water user, along
with the development and implementation of sustainable development approaches, were also
nominated as gains attributable to the NWI.
The workshops also nominated several areas where the results were less positive. These
included relationships between government agencies and irrigation communities, the reduction of
available water to support regional economies and a perception that the NWI was focused on the
Murray–Darling Basin. It was also noted that in many areas the environmental benefits of the NWI
were as yet unclear, and that significant changes had been imposed with little documented
benefit.
Barriers to the NWI’s success or its implementation were also identified. These tended to focus on
resourcing (investment in infrastructure, implementation costs, funding for evaluation and
benchmarking), the interaction of mining and water, and a lack of clarity on how water is shared.
Skills shortages and leadership at local and regional levels were also noted as issues that needed
to be addressed.
The workshops nominated increased localism and collaboration as key ways to improve NWI
implementation. Other issues discussed included regulation, the integration of water into regional
development planning (including in northern Australia), improved risk management and the
development of policy to manage interactions between water and energy.
Issues that were identified included mining and its interaction with water resources, treatment of
groundwater and responsible development practices.
The workshops also examined issues relating to social wellbeing and community engagement.
It was reported that the effects of water reform on social wellbeing were unclear. Some
participants praised voluntary buybacks through water trade as an efficient and effective method
for dealing with overallocation, whereas others suggested they were divisive. Concerns persist
regarding the decline of some rural communities and the inequitable distribution of the costs and
benefits of water recovery measures. It was also noted that the effects of reform could be difficult
to discern in the context of recent extreme climate variability such as the Millennium Drought in
south‑eastern Australia, which was followed by two very wet years.
While there was broad agreement about the importance of engagement, it was argued that it had
not always been done well or consistently. Issues that commonly arose were levels of
transparency, perceptions of influence and the capacity of participants to affect outcomes.
Indigenous participants suggested that despite a high degree of contact during consultation
processes, they did not feel they had significant influence on issues important to them. It was also
noted that after agreements were reached, engagement declined or ceased, and that this
presented challenges to ongoing community buy‑in.
The urban workshop acknowledged that the urban sector was often characterised by trade‑offs
and tensions that moderated the reform process, but that nonetheless significant benefits were
available – providing policy makers were prepared to offer leadership on issues such as private
capital, water security and investment. The lack of clarity that characterises pricing, ownership,
roles and responsibilities and governance also present challenges that the workshop argued
should be addressed. These issues, along with customer choice, service contestability and
planning were all identified as matters for examination.
National Water Commission
157
The urban workshop identified that future urban water development needed to be focused on the
customers and the communities they reside in. The Commission was nominated as having a key
role to play in facilitating discussions among regulators and stakeholders more broadly to ensure
that customer needs and expectations could be met. Regulatory reform was also identified as a
key issue to be addressed, including providing incentives for innovation and efficiency gains,
breaking down planning silos and addressing the tensions between utility owner and regulator
roles (in those cases where they are the same). Other matters raised included liveability, available
benefits from integrated water management, and the roles and responsibilities of different levels of
government (especially in regard to the national reform program).
Consultations with NWI parties
To minimise reporting burdens, jurisdictional input to the 2014 assessment was sought in a
judicious and coordinated manner. As far as possible, the Commission drew on evidence from its
existing work program and publicly available information. Jurisdictions were given the opportunity
to provide comment and undertake fact checking for the report.
Meetings with and submissions from NWI parties
On 30 July 2013 NWI parties were advised that the Commission had begun the 2014 assessment
and invited to meet to discuss the parameters of the assessment and the input required from each
of them.
Meeting dates and representative agencies are set out in the table below.
Table A1: Meetings with state and territory agencies
Organisation
Date
Northern Territory Department of Land and Resource
Management
South Australian Department of Environment, Water and Natural
Resources
Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water &
Environment
Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection
Queensland Department of Energy and Water Supply
Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines
Victorian Department of Environment and Primary Industries
Office of Living Victoria
New South Wales Office of Water
New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet
Western Australian Department of Water
Thursday, 22 August 2013
Australian Capital Territory Environment and Sustainability
Directorate
Commonwealth Department of the Environment
Tuesday, 27 August 2013
Wednesday, 28 August 2013
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
Monday, 9 September 2013
Monday, 9 September 2013
Wednesday,
11 September 2013
Wednesday,
25 September 2013
Wednesday, 20 November
2013
Wednesday, 20 November
2013
Detailed requests for information were sent to all NWI parties between 22 October and 12
November 2013, with responses received in December 2013.
158
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Meetings with water agency directors-general
The Commission met with the directors‑general of the state and territory water agencies or their
representatives on 1 April 2014. This meeting discussed water reform progress and considered
strategic issues faced by agencies in implementing the NWI. Agencies also reflected on the key
messages emerging from the 2014 assessment work to date and shared their views on the key
future water reform priorities.
Consultation draft report
The Commission provided a consultation draft of this report to all NWI parties on 23 May 2014,
and sought comments on the accuracy of factual content, as well as the Commission’s expressed
view of water reform priorities for the future. Comments were received from all parties throughout
June and early July 2014. Senior‑level discussions on the messaging in the draft report were also
held with a number of these agencies during the consultation period.
Regional wellbeing survey
In 2013 the Murray–Darling Basin Futures Collaborative Research Network (MDBfutures)
conducted a survey canvassing the wellbeing of people living in regional and rural communities.
The survey results were published on 18 June 2014 and are available at
http://www.canberra.edu.au/murray‑darling‑crn/ regional‑wellbeing.
The survey focused on how wellbeing is influenced by change, including changes brought about
by water reform. Its findings were used to inform the 2014 assessment, particularly with regard to
the NWI’s economic and social impacts and water reform more broadly. The survey canvassed
the views of more than 9000 respondents, including 900 irrigators and 1600 dryland farmers,
spread across rural and regional Australia (excluding Tasmania).
The sample of irrigators obtained was representative of the distribution of irrigators across
Australia with three exceptions: Tasmanian irrigators were not included in the survey (and hence
none of the data reported includes the views of Tasmanian irrigators), irrigators in South Australia
were over‑sampled and Queensland irrigators located outside the Murray–Darling Basin were
under‑sampled. The weighting process corrected for the identified over‑ and under‑sampling of
these irrigators with the exception of Tasmania.
The main topics examined included personal and community wellbeing, demographic changes,
access to services, and the experience and views of water reform.
Social impact analysis
The Commission engaged Marsden Jacob Associates (MJA) to examine the impact of water
reform on community wellbeing, as well as to develop performance indicators and provide
longitudinal information for the 2014 assessment’s consideration.
MJA selected communities on the basis of how long each had been exposed to key water reform
activities, with this measure used as a proxy for how much each had been affected by water
reform. The study group was further narrowed by other measures – selecting those communities
that had overall been at the centre of the water reform process and finally settling on a group of 20
communities.
Each of these communities was compared with other communities of a similar population size that
were deemed to have been substantially less affected by water reform. These communities were
compared using a variety of measures, ranging from basic comparisons to detailed statistical
modelling.
National Water Commission
159
The results of this study did not identify any negative socio‑economic effects of water reform, with
little difference observed in social outcomes between the case study communities and their
comparators. The results showed that most of the communities had:
•
maintained their population
•
maintained diverse economies showing stability
•
had largely unchanged employment levels
•
reported high levels of personal and community‑level satisfaction.
The results also showed that where socio‑economic conditions had declined there was no causal
link between this and the level of water reform activity, and that the changes were more likely the
result of regional demographic factors such as population migration to larger regional urban
centres.
The study concluded water reform had not negatively affected the communities within the case
study areas in a measurable way, with the overall changes in these communities influenced to a
greater extent by other factors, such as proximity to mining and other extractive industries,
region‑specific economic conditions and demographic migration.
Noting its limitations, the Commission assessment used this work to help measure the impact of
water reform.
160
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Appendix B
Progress against
2011 recommendations
Appendix B: Progress against 2011 recommendations
The National Water Commission’s 2011 assessment identified progress in national water reform to
date under the National Water Initiative (NWI). It also articulated the challenges preventing the NWI
parties from gaining the full benefits of water reform. These included delays and gaps in
implementation, new and emerging issues, less than adequate resourcing and ad hoc
decision‑making. To address these challenges the 2011 assessment identified 12 headline
recommendations and several priority areas for the reform process into the future.
This appendix documents the Commission’s 2014 assessment of progress against the 2011
recommendations.
2011 assessment – recommendation 1
The National Water Commission calls on the Council of Australian Governments
(COAG) to recommit to the National Water Initiative as the guiding blueprint for
sustainable water management in Australia and to task the Standing Council for
Environment and Water to drive these reforms as a priority. COAG leadership is
essential to reinvigorate national water reform.
Summary of progress since 2011
COAG recommitted to the NWI by endorsing the Next Steps in National Water Reform: Preparation
for the future (a report by the Standing Council on Environment and Water), outlining the National
Water Reform Work Plan 2013–2017 as the next stage in the Australian water reform agenda. The
report, included at Attachment E, identifies the water issues in which the greatest benefit from
national progression is expected to be derived over the next 10 years, and lists specific actions for
addressing these issues over the next five years. It also identifies the significant unfinished
business from the NWI.
The key water issues identified for action in the next five years were:
•
National Groundwater Strategic Plan – develop (by the end of 2013) and implement (jurisdictional
action plans by 2014) a National Groundwater Strategic Plan
•
improving certainty and security of access to water – explore the costs and benefits of further
entitlement reform in locations where rights are not explicitly defined within existing water access
and entitlement frameworks
•
urban water – provide evidence to inform national urban water reform initiatives that support
secure, safe, healthy and reliable water‑ related services and which meet community needs in an
efficient and sustainable manner
•
integrating water quality and quantity – better integration between water quality and quantity in
planning, management and regulation frameworks to achieve improved environmental, economic
and social outcomes
•
improved long-term water planning – ensure water resource decision-makers are better able to
plan for likely long-term impacts on water supply and demand, including identifying areas of
critical balance
162
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
•
water resource development – inform decisions on the development of water resources
based on the consistent application of agreed principles.
The Next Steps report includes new approaches to implement these water issues and identifies
unfinished business from previous commitments. These include:
•
fully implement commitments for NWI‑ compliant water planning
•
use best endeavours to introduce and pass legislation to enable implementation of NWIconsistent water access entitlements (Northern Territory and Western Australia) and water
planning (Western Australia)
•
identify and report on water systems where use is not sustainable
•
address stakeholder concerns about water market intermediaries
•
the Commonwealth, Victorian, South Australian and New South Wales governments will
work collaboratively to develop practical measures to overcome impediments to the
consistent application of the four per cent cap and a staged increase in the limit
•
continued implementation of the National Framework for Non‑ Urban Water Metering
•
estimation of rural water use
•
implementation of the National Water Knowledge and Research Platform.
In December 2013 COAG announced its decision to reduce the number of standing councils. The
Standing Council on Environment and Water (SCEW) was disbanded and, consequently, the
committee of senior water officials reporting to it – the Water Thematic Oversight Group (WTOG).
This has left no specific standing council with the responsibility for considering water policy at the
national level.
Following disbanding of the SCEW and its WTOG, an ad hoc committee of senior officials has
been in the process of formation. At the first meeting of this government officials’ water reform
committee a reduction in the work program of future reform activities was proposed, including the
discontinuance of several previously agreed actions, including:
•
identification and reporting on systems where use is in excess of sustainable water
extraction regimes
•
development of a decision framework to guide water resource development
•
preparation of a national plan for estimating rural water use
•
fully implementing the interception commitments in the NWI
•
developing water market service standards for trade approvals for non-Murray–Darling Basin
jurisdictions
•
development of a regulatory framework for water market intermediaries.
The Commission is concerned that this reduction in water reform scope, along with the absence
of incentives for jurisdictions to coordinate their efforts and the lack of national ministerial standing
council oversight, are likely to hinder the progress of nationally significant reforms in the future.
Without a national governance structure, the full benefits of ongoing national water reform are less
likely to be realised and any resiling from the more difficult aspects of reform less likely to be
publicly held to account.
National Water Commission
163
2011 assessment – recommendation 2
All NWI parties must resolve to stay the course on their reform commitments and give priority
to delivering the significant unfinished actions identified by this assessment. This is critical to
reap the full benefits of past efforts and to meet the continuing imperative of increasing the
productive and efficient use of Australia’s water and ensuring the health of river and
groundwater systems.
Summary of progress since 2011
The 2011 assessment identified 11 key areas of unfinished business from the NWI, including both
priorities for improved practice and areas where evidence of the reversal of reform needed to be
arrested. These areas are examined in detail in Chapter 3 of this report.
2011 assessment – recommendation 3
Governments around Australia should engage with their constituents to develop a shared
understanding of why water reform is still vital to build resilient communities, productive
industries and sustainable environments.
Summary of progress since 2011
Since 2011, the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has made considerable effort to engage
with the community and to restore community confidence in the reforms. The Murray–Darling
Basin Plan (the Basin plan) passed through Parliament in November 2012.
A concerted effort to highlight the benefits of water reform more broadly at the jurisdictional or
national level has not generally ensued. While individual (usually funding) announcements are
made and short‑term, often localised benefits are highlighted, a shared understanding of
big‑picture, long‑term benefits has not been widely promoted in most jurisdictions.
The debate on urban water reform has progressed since 2011 with a greater focus on community
and customer engagement across the sector. Mechanisms for reflecting community values in
major policy and planning decisions, and for enabling individual consumers to express
preferences through choice, continue to be improved but further work is required. This
end‑user‑focused engagement has embedded service standards and delivery options within most
utilities, creating more flexible arrangements to meet needs and demand where possible. While
this progress is widespread across the urban water sector, it lacks a unified approach – thus
remaining fragmented with ad hoc implementation.
2011 assessment – recommendation 4
All levels of government should strengthen community involvement in water planning and
management, recognising the value of local knowledge and the importance of regional
implementation, and review institutional arrangements and capacity to enable effective
engagement at the local level.
Summary of progress since 2011
There has been community involvement in the development and review of water plans across all
jurisdictions.
Development of the Basin plan demonstrated what a challenging process this can be when action
to recover from situations of overuse or overallocation needs to be taken. Considerable
164
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
community uncertainty and dissent was expressed during the first attempt at plan development.
Initial missteps and misunderstandings were addressed in order to obtain greater community
acceptance of a final Basin plan in 2012, five years after the Water Act 2007 (Cwth) was passed.
A number of submissions and consultations for this assessment expressed strong ongoing
concern with the new water governance arrangements in the Murray–Darling Basin, and the
underlying basis of the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), and it would be very premature to suggest that
community opposition to the arrangements has been entirely dispelled.
The process to finalise the Basin plan included numerous commitments to ‘localism’, however
tangible mechanisms in the implementation arrangements are yet to be finalised.
2011 assessment – recommendation 5
Australia needs a stronger and more contemporary urban water reform agenda. The
Commission recommends that COAG develops a new set of objectives and actions to provide
national leadership for urban water management.
Summary of progress since 2011
To guide development of the 2011 assessment, the Commission published Urban water in
Australia: future directions (NWC 2011) and a series of related, more detailed analyses of pricing,
competition and water quality regulation. These identified opportunities for further urban water
policy reform, as well as ways to better manage current and future challenges and opportunities to
improve economic, social and environmental outcomes from the urban water sector. Specifically,
the Commission called for COAG to:
•
adopt an agreed set of national objectives for the urban water sector and general principles
to guide reform
•
pursue priority actions for each jurisdiction that contribute materially to national urban water
sector objectives, and use stronger incentives and an improved monitoring and
evaluation framework to drive timely and effective implementation.
In responding to the 2011 recommendations, the SCEW provided COAG with a modestly
enhanced urban water reform agenda in 2012 and identified a range of actions including:
•
review of NWI pricing principles by the end of 2014
•
review of the 2008 COAG National Urban Water Planning Principles by the end of 2014
•
promoting awareness of the outcomes of research and analysis of urban water issues
across governments through existing forums.
Pricing principles
The review of the NWI pricing principles aims to address a variety of issues including pricing the
scarcity value of water, the valuation and recovery of environmental externalities, the feasibility of
multiple tariff options, costs and benefits of postage stamp pricing, and sewerage and trade waste
licensing. The review will consider whether the pricing principles meet the intent of the NWI
best‑practice water pricing arrangements, taking into account changes since the pricing principles
were developed.
Planning principles
The review of the 2008 Urban Water Planning Principles seeks to assess the extent of
implementation and the effect on urban water planning decisions by utilities and local
governments, as well as to examine the role of planning principles in advancing new approaches
National Water Commission
165
to planning, such as adaptive management and integrated urban water management.
Promoting awareness
At a national level, awareness raising is largely limited to activities previously endorsed through
COAG sub‑committee processes and identified in the National Water Knowledge and Research
Platform. At jurisdictional level, interactions between governments, industry and the public have
been associated with reforms to legislation, planning and regulation.
Reforms to legislation, planning and regulation
Although the appetite for urban reform varies across the country, governments and industry
continue to pursue actions to advance water reform outcomes and have embarked on public
consultation and review processes to identify new approaches to urban water legislation,
regulation and planning (Table B1).
Table B1. Jurisdictional urban water reforms undertaken 2011 to 2014
Jurisdiction
New South Wales
Review
Review of urban water regulation: Metropolitan
Water Directorate
Independent Local Government Review –
strengthening the effectiveness of local government
Planning for our Future: NSW Department of Planning and
Infrastructure
Victoria
Victorian Government’s Living Victoria Policy
Melbourne’s Water Future Strategy: Office of Living Victoria
Vic Health Safe Drinking Water Regulatory Review and Review of
the regulatory framework for alternative water supplies: Department
of Health
Water Law Review: Department of Environment and Primary
Industries
Queensland
Queensland’s Water Sector: A 30‑year Strategy
Western Australia
Economic Regulation Authority: Review of water service operating
licences
South Australia
Essential Services Commission: Economic Regulation of SA Water
from 1 July 2016– Draft Framework and Approach
Essential Services Commission Inquiry into Drinking Water and
Sewerage Retail Services Pricing Reform
Tasmania
House of Assembly Select Committee into the Tasmanian Water
and Sewerage Corporations Reform of Tasmania’s water and
sewerage sector: Tasmanian Government
Australian Capital Territory Economic Regulation Authority: Review of water service operating
licences
Northern Territory
Northern Territory Government: Reforms to Power and Water
Corporation
166
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
These reviews explore key issues and options for progressing national water reform directions.
Common features include:
•
long‑term urban water planning that takes account of the variable nature of our climate
•
financial resilience and economic efficiency emphasised
•
‘light handed regulation’ and incentivising innovation to reduce cost pressures and improve
productivity
•
a focus on enhancing liveability and the environment
•
creating greater opportunity for private sector involvement and investment
•
encouraging customers in the smarter use of water and fair pricing signals
•
integration of planning for water and sewerage services in regional planning
•
improved nationally based skills framework and improved coordination of research and
development
•
building certainty into the planning and approval process.
2011 assessment – recommendation 6
Water quality objectives should be more fully integrated into the reform agenda, with better
connections between water quality and quantity in planning, management and regulation to
achieve improved environmental outcomes. There is also a need for a more coordinated and
structured approach to urban water quality regulation at a national level.
Summary of progress since 2011
The Basin plan includes a water quality and salinity management plan, with arrangements to be
incorporated in state water resource plans.
Outside the Murray–Darling Basin progress has been limited. Previously strong bilateral
arrangements that were put in place through the (completed) National Action Plan for Salinity and
Water Quality are weakening.
Emerging issues include potential damage to the Great Barrier Reef and waste discharges
associated with mining and coal seam gas (CSG) extraction activities.
In 2013 a Great Barrier Reef scientific consensus statement highlighted the decline in marine
water quality and associated the decline with excess nutrients, fine sediments and pesticides from
Great Barrier Reef catchments due to diffuse source pollution from agriculture. The Queensland
and federal governments, industry bodies and landholders have developed best‑management
practice programs for cattle grazing and sugar cane growing to reduce this pollution from
agriculture.
More coordinated and structured approach to urban water quality regulation at a national
level
Regulatory arrangements governing urban water quality have served Australia well, with drinking
water generally safe and of a high quality. Since 2011, many utilities have continued with
improvements to the management of water quality – the risk‑management process developed
within the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) framework has become the
central process for water quality regulation across Australia.
National Water Commission
167
The Commission’s 2012–13 urban National Performance Report (NWC 2014) found that the
overwhelming majority of water delivered to consumers is safe. The report found very few
instances of drinking water in Australia not complying with the Australian drinking water standards.
Microbiological compliance has improved from 2011–12 to 2012–13 with only three of more than
80 utilities reporting less than 100 per cent compliance (Ben Lomond Water, 97 per cent;
Clarence Valley, 73 per cent; Tamworth, 99 per cent).
However, some small regional utilities still face particular difficulties in meeting economic,
environmental and public health objectives due to financial viability, water regulation compliance
and skills shortages – as noted by the Productivity Commission (PC 2011).
The supply of safe drinking water for remote Indigenous communities also poses a particular
challenge, with drinking water quality in many small remote Indigenous communities often not
meeting Australian Drinking Water Quality Guidelines (NWC 2012).
Despite developments in managing water quality, challenges remain. Regulatory systems for
urban and wastewater have been tested by changes including new institutional arrangements,
source diversification, interconnectivity and new market participants. A lack of clarity about roles
and responsibilities across water quality and quantity institutions compound these challenges.
The Standing Council on Environment and Water provided COAG with a range of actions for
supporting better integration of water quality and quantity, revising the strategic direction of the
NWQMS. These actions included:
•
revising the policy settings for the NWQMS in line with developments in water reform and
including a focus on integration of water quality and quantity planning and management
•
resetting governance arrangements for NWQMS management
•
rationalising guidance material
•
developing appropriate monitoring and evaluation techniques
•
consider preparing NWI policy guidelines for water planning.
Since 2011, state and territory governments continue to review water quality regulations in order
to reduce regulatory inefficiencies and facilitate more consistent, coordinated and timely regulation
(see Appendix C). Innovative approaches to urban water quality regulation have been enhanced
through collaboration between industry, communities, the research and development sector and
government. The centres of excellence and cooperative research centres have made valuable
contributions to ensure nationally applicable, demand‑driven and goal orientated research and
development.
Urban water quality progress since 2011
Urban water quality arrangements have improved significantly since 2011, including a greater
focus on risk management and the development of new regulatory approaches.
Risk management has been increasingly adopted as the central mechanism for managing water
quality, with regulators mandating the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and Australian
Guidelines for Water Recycling. Utilities have advanced treatment of risk, ensuring the quality and
reliability of drinking water in towns and cities (noting that regional supplies face different
challenges). There has also been significant research and development investment supporting
risk management, with the development of the NatVal—The Map to a National Validation
168
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Framework for Water Recycling Schemes.
The challenges that remain include reforming regulatory inefficiencies, such as duplication and
overlap, the degradation of urban waterways, and the tensions between regulators and utilities
regarding price and community preferences. Utilities are seeking to understand what consumers
are prepared to pay for environmental sustainability, but such assessments are immature.
The value of environmental water is not being adequately quantified as yet, and therefore it is not
driving innovation or efficiency gains. The costs and benefits of waterway health and other
non‑financial impacts are not generally being measured, reducing the comprehensiveness of
urban planning processes.
2011 assessment – recommendation 7
Greater coordination of water management and natural resource management initiatives would
yield significant gains, for example by better aligning the development, implementation and
review of water plans and catchment plans.
Summary of progress since 2011
While little demonstrable progress is being made in this area, jurisdictions continue to view
integrated management and better alignment as an important aspiration. For example in New
South Wales, the recent 10‑year review of the 31 water sharing plans which commenced in 2004
was done within the context of progress towards natural resource management targets. The New
South Wales Natural Resources Commission assessed the contribution of these water sharing
plans to the state natural resource management targets and the relevant regional Catchment
Action Plans and concluded that the contribution was difficult to ascertain given the lack of
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation (NRC 2013).
In South Australia, Water Allocation Plans are developed by Natural Resources Management
(NRM) boards for each prescribed water resource in their particular region and are supported by
their respective Regional NRM Plans (which include goals and strategies for the integrated
management of water and other natural resources). If there are water resources outside
prescribed areas, they are managed in accordance with the provisions of the relevant NRM Plan.
For example, in the Alinytjara Wilurara region the NRM Plan was amended to specifically manage
concerns of the NRM board and the community in relation to water management.
2011 assessment – recommendation 8
The Commission urges states and territories to review their existing mining and petroleum
regulatory arrangements to ensure that water resource impacts are addressed explicitly, and
that those extractive activities are fully integrated into NWI-consistent planning and management
regimes.
Summary of progress since 2011
There has been strong progress in jurisdictional development of policy and regulation to address
water resource impacts from extractive industries, including more recently CSG and large coal
mine operations. Further work is still required to ensure mining and petroleum‑related activities
impacting water are fully aligned with NWI‑consistent planning and management regimes. Both in
Queensland (petroleum and gas) and the Northern Territory (mining and petroleum), water used
in operations remains outside of their respective water planning and entitlements frameworks.
National Water Commission
169
In parallel to the establishment of the Independent Expert Scientific Committee, the
Commonwealth funded the National Partnership Agreement (NPA) on Coal Seam Gas and Large
Coal Mining Development with signatory states New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and
South Australia.
The NPA’s objective is to strengthen regulation of CSG and large coal mining development and
ensure future decisions are informed by substantially improved science and independent expert
advice.
The Commonwealth Department of the Environment’s Office of Water Science has developed a
bioregional assessment program. The program is undertaking scientific analysis of the ecology,
hydrology and geology to assess the potential risks to water resources as a result of the direct
and indirect impacts of CSG development or large coal mining development.
In May 2013, the Standing Council on Energy and Resources released the National Harmonised
Regulatory Framework for Natural Gas from Coal Seams outlining leading practice principles and
providing guidance to regulators of the CSG industry.
Opportunities for more effective and efficient water use still remain where governments can
develop NWI‑consistent planning and entitlement arrangements for extractive industries. These
arrangements should take into account water quality with respect to purpose of use, and
beneficial use of excess or co‑produced water.
2011 assessment – recommendation 9
It would be prudent at this stage to analyse the nature and materiality of potential changes to
water use as a result of climate change adaptation and mitigation initiatives. Water management
policies may need to be elaborated to operate more effectively in the context of these new
initiatives.
Summary of progress since 2011
The NWI Policy Guidelines for Water Planning and Management (the Guidelines) were developed
to support NWI‑consistent water planning and management arrangements. The Guidelines
include some principles and considerations to take account of climate change in water planning. A
Climate Change and Extreme Events module has been proposed to expand and support the
Guidelines and provide further guidance on climate change and extreme events as they relate to
water planning. The Planning Sub‑group of WTOG began drafting this module in 2013. It is
expected to be finalised for WTOG endorsement in 2014.
Western Australia released a position paper for public comment in September 2013 outlining an
updated legislative framework to manage the state’s water resources. Changed climate patterns
and reduced rainfall are key drivers behind development of the proposed reform framework. The
position paper identifies that flexible and adaptive mechanisms are needed to better address
climate change and variability, and improve security for users and the environment (DoW 2013a).
Possible mechanisms for managing variability include the use of variable water entitlements and
annual allocation announcements, coupled with the introduction of statutory allocation plans and
water access entitlements. The Western Australian Department of Water provides a standard
range of climate projections to inform water planning and is developing a guideline on the
application of climate projections for the state’s south‑west (DoW 2013b).
In October 2013 the Northern Territory Government announced that the data used to model water
availability for the Mataranka Water Allocation Plan had been reconsidered. Instead of using the
170
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
past 100 years of historical data, run‑off and recharge data from the past 30 years (which have
been wetter than the longer‑term average) has been used to estimate water availability over the
10‑year life of the plan. This change was based on advice from the Bureau of Meteorology that
the plan area’s future climate was most likely to be similar to recent climatic conditions. This
increases the annual volume of water available for allocation from 19.5 GL to 36 GL.
2011 assessment – recommendation 10
Evidence-based decision-making and good stewardship of Australia’s water assets rely on
robust science and socio-economic information. The Commission reiterates its call for a national
water science strategy, backed by sufficient investment to deliver the required capacity. To
support improved water management, the Commission also recommends that water service
providers and governments state publicly their commitment to resource adequately and
implement fully the National Water Skills Strategy.
Summary of progress since 2011
In November 2008, COAG agreed to the development of a National Water Knowledge and
Research Strategy to establish priority research areas, ensure coordinated research effort, and
improve the returns from investment. The outcome of that process was the National Water
Knowledge and Research Platform, which all NWI governments agreed to in September 2012
through the SCEW. SCEW had directed that implementation of the platform, within the resources
available, be progressed under the guidance of the WTOG with the then Commonwealth
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities as lead agency.
Governance arrangements for this work are now uncertain following changes to COAG Council
arrangements.
The platform’s objective is for key decisions on water policy, management and use in Australia to
be based on best‑available and continuously improving knowledge and information. The platform
identifies national priority water knowledge and research needs for the next five years. It does not
seek to describe governance models, funding options or budget for the supply of research
services, rather it focuses on identifying priorities and establishing consistent approaches for
obtaining and using research in priority areas.
The platform identifies eight priority research themes:
•
environmental water
•
water quality
•
social, economic and institutional reforms
•
future water availability
•
irrigation water use efficiency
•
hydrology and hydrological modelling
•
urban water systems
•
groundwater.
Focal groups, comprising representatives from each jurisdiction, will continue to monitor research
and development relating to each research theme, consulting with relevant research and industry
communities1.
1
Department of the Environment website, accessed 28 July 2014, http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/water/
water‑information/national‑water‑knowledge‑and‑research‑platform
National Water Commission
171
The National Water Skills Strategy was released in 2009 to focus attention on skills shortages in
the water industry. Three initiatives were funded, including:
Initiative 1: up to $500,000 for a pilot program to trial development of training in water
management skills for remote and Indigenous communities. To date, a series of capacity building
workshops aimed at developing Indigenous community skills to develop drinking water
management plans have been undertaken in north Queensland using the Community Water
Planner template. In addition, community water management plans were implemented throughout
the Northern Territory, Western Australia and South Australia.
Initiative 2: up to $250,000 for the development of skills and training standards for operators of
potable water treatment facilities. During 2014 a pilot of the National Certification Framework:
Operators within Drinking Water Treatment Systems is being run in Queensland and New South
Wales. The framework is being led and managed by industry.
Initiative 3: funding on a 3‑for‑1 matching basis of up to $250,000 to support the H2Oz water
industry marketing campaign (the water industry’s own initiative aimed at addressing the skills
shortage); and funding of up to $100,000 to enable the Australian Water Association on behalf of
the Water Industry Skills Taskforce to develop a business plan to implement the COAG National
Water Skills Strategy2.
At present the H2Oz water industry marketing campaign continues to focus mostly on the H2Oz
website which promotes careers and jobs in the water sector. The Water Industry Skills Taskforce
remains hosted by the Australian Water Association and continues to provide a forum to promote
and oversee a nationally coordinated effort to address the skills shortage in the water sector.
While there has been limited commitment from service providers or governments for the National
Water Skills Strategy, industry groups have shown strong support. A lack of government funding
for some of the strategy’s initiatives has hampered progress which presents a challenge to
jurisdictions.
2011 assessment – Recommendation 11
Renewed political commitment will require a refreshing of the approach to national reform.
The Commission proposes that each of Australia’s governments commits to a program of
specific actions every three years, based on agreed national priorities and jurisdictional priorities
underpinned by the NWI commitments, together with explicit levels of resourcing to implement
the program. In the interests of accountability and transparency, the Commission calls on COAG
to recommit to oversight of water reform progress by an independent assessment body.
Summary of progress since 2011
Individual jurisdictions have progressed areas of reform, although no jurisdiction has publicly
committed to a specific program of reform actions to be progressed into the future in accordance
with this recommendation.
Following the 2011 assessment, COAG endorsed the Next Steps in National Water Reform:
Preparation for the future (a report by the Standing Council on Environment and Water), outlining
the National Water Reform Work Plan 2013–2017 as the next stage in the Australian water reform
agenda.
2
172
Department of the Environment website, accessed 08 May 2014, http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/water/
rural‑water/sustainable‑rural‑water‑use‑and‑infrastructure/non‑urban‑water‑metering
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
The report identified the water issues in which the greatest benefit from national progression is
expected to be derived over the next 10 years, and lists specific actions for addressing these
issues over the next five years. It also identifies the significant unfinished business from the NWI.
In December 2013 COAG announced its decision to reduce the number of standing councils. The
Standing Council on Environment and Water (SCEW) was disbanded and, consequently, the
committee of senior water officials reporting to it – the WTOG.
COAG commissioned an independent review of the Commission in 2011, as was required to
inform a proposed sunset clause in the National Water Commission Act 2004 (Cwth). The COAG
review afforded an opportunity to take stock of the need for continued national leadership and
cross‑jurisdictional cooperation in water management, and the Commission’s roles and functions
in the reform process.
The review concluded: ‘the elements of the NWI still to be implemented are, by their nature, the
more difficult ones and the role that can be played by a specialist and independent body like the
Commission is likely to be even more important in the future’ (Rosalky, D 2012).
This review underpinned the subsequent renewal of the Commission’s national water reform role
with the Australian Government’s decision to ‘renew’ the Commission, leading to an amended
National Water Commission Act effective from 1 July 2012, without a sunset clause.
However, the Australian Government has recently decided to close the Commission at the end of
2014. Some functions will be transferred to other agencies. With the splitting of functions across
agencies and the loss of some activities, there is a risk that independent oversight of water reform
as a whole will be reduced, increasing the likelihood of backsliding on current progress and a
retreat from public accountability.
2011 assessment – Recommendation 12
The Commission urges COAG to consider a new approach to incentives to encourage the
delivery of nationally significant water reforms.
Summary of progress since 2011
No new incentive arrangements have been put in place outside of the Murray–Darling Basin.
Within the Murray–Darling Basin, the Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water
Reform in the Murray–Darling Basin (IGA) is an undertaking by the Australian Government and
participating Basin state governments to build on existing achievements by implementing the next
tranche of water reforms to further improve the health of the Basin and secure a future for its
communities. The IGA’s objective is to ‘ensure that the Commonwealth led Murray–Darling Basin
water reforms, including the Basin plan, are implemented in a cost‑effective manner to support
the national interest of improving river and wetland health, putting water use on a sustainable
footing, enhancing irrigation productivity, providing water for critical human needs, and providing
farmers and communities with more confidence to plan for a future with less water’. Part 7 of the
IGA commits the Australian Government to providing funding support to the Basin states via the
National Partnership Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray–Darling Basin
(NPA).
National Water Commission
173
References
DOW (Department of Water) 2013a, Securing Western Australia’s Water Future –
Position paper– reforming water resource management, Government of Western
Australia, Perth.
DoW (Department of Water) 2013b, Triennial Assessment submission, Government of
Western Australia, Perth.
NRC 2013, Review of 2004 water sharing plans, NRC, Sydney.
NWC (National Water Commission) 2011, Urban water in Australia: future directions,
NWC, Canberra. NWC (National Water Commission) 2012, Position Statement:
Indigenous access to water resources, 2012, accessed 20 May 2014,
<http://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/22869/Indigenous‑Position‑State
ment‑June‑2012.pdf>.
NWC (National Water Commission) 2013, National Performance Report 2012–13 Urban
water utilities, NWC, Canberra.
NWC (National Water Commission) 2014, National Water Planning Report Card 2013,
NWC, Canberra.
Rosalky, D, 2012, COAG Review of the National Water Commission.
174
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Appendix C
Progress against National
Water Initiative actions
176
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Appendix C: Progress against National Water Initiative actions
Australian Government
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlements and planning framework
Implementation of the
framework:
26
• substantial completion of
plans to address any existing
overallocation for all river
systems and groundwater
resources in accordance with
commitments under the 1994
COAG Water Reform
Framework
26 – At the commencement of the National Water Initiative (NWI), the Commonwealth had no
National Competition Council (NCC) commitments in relation to addressing overallocation through
water plans under the 1994 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Water Reform Framework.
The Commonwealth, through the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), has developed the
Murray–Darling Basin Plan (the Basin plan), finalised in 2012. The Basin plan sets Sustainable
Diversion Limits (SDLs) for each jurisdiction on both ground and surface water sources. The SDLs
are implemented through jurisdictional water planning. The Basin plan requires SDLs to be in effect
by 1 July 2019 and jurisdictions are in the process of managing their water planning to move
towards these limits.
• legislative and administrative
regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of the
entitlements and allocation
framework in this agreement.
Water access entitlements to be
28–34
28–33 – Noted as a state and territory only action in the NWI.
defined and implemented.
COAG endorsed the Next Steps in National Water Reform: Preparation for the future (a report by
the Standing Council on Environment and Water), outlining the National Water Reform Work Plan
2013–2017. Action 2 in this work plan commits governments to exploring the costs and benefits of
improving certainty and security of access to sources of water where rights are not explicitly defined
within the existing water access and entitlement framework by 2015.
34 – Amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cwth) in
June 2013 known as the ‘water trigger’ currently empower the Commonwealth to assess coal seam
gas (CSG) and large coal mining developments that have, or are likely to have, a significant impact
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
on a water resource and decide whether or not to approve and impose conditions of approvals
for these developments. Recent proposed amendments to the Act would enable each state
and territory to undertake this assessment and approval process under ‘one‑stop‑shop’
bilateral agreements and Commonwealth accreditation processes forthcoming closure of the
Commission, it is unclear at the time of writing what arrangements will be put in place
regarding future audits.
Water to meet environmental and
other public benefit outcomes
identified in water plans to be
defined, provided and managed.
35
35 – The Basin plan includes an environmental watering plan (EWP) which provides a
framework for planning and coordinating environmental water management, including
environmental objectives for water‑dependent ecosystems, targets for measuring progress
towards achieving the objectives, and principles to be applied in environmental watering. It does
not stipulate when and where specific sites should be watered. The EWP also requires the
development of:
•
a Murray–Darling Basin environmental watering strategy by the MDBA (to be completed by
November 2014)
•
long‑term watering plans for each water resource plan area by Murray–Darling Basin
states
•
annual environmental watering priorities by Murray–Darling Basin states (provided to the
MDBA by 31 May each year)
•
Murray–Darling Basin annual environmental watering priorities by the MDBA (to be
published by 30 June each year).
The principles to be applied in environmental watering require environmental watering in the
Basin to be undertaken consistent with the objectives and having regard to the Basin’s annual
environmental watering priorities.
National
Water
Commission
National
Water
Commission
The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) has responsibility under the Water
Act 2007 (Cwth) to manage its water to meet environmental outcomes. The CEWH’s functions
are to be performed for the purpose of protecting or restoring the environmental assets of the
Murray–Darling Basin, and other areas outside the Basin where the Commonwealth holds
water. The CEWH must manage the holdings in accordance with relevant EWPs, the Water
Minister’s operating rules and the environmental watering schedules to which the CEWH is
party.
177
177
178
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
One of the CEWH’s functions is to work in partnership with water operators in the Basin
jurisdictions. The CEWH must perform its functions and exercise its powers consistent with and in
a manner that gives effect to the Basin plan, and must manage the water holdings in accordance
with the Basin plan’s EWP. The MDBA must also consult with the CEWH and other environmental
water managers in implementing its responsibilities under the EWP.
The Basin plan requires jurisdictional water resource plans to identify planned environmental water
and associated rules and arrangements relating to that water, to establish and maintain a register
of held environment water, and to implement management arrangements for these consistent with
the Basin plan.
Water plans to be prepared
along the lines of the
characteristics and components
at Schedule E based on the
following priorities:
• plans for systems that are
overallocated, fully
allocated or approaching
full allocation
• plans for systems that are
not yet approaching full
allocation
39–40
39 – The Water Act 2007 (Cwth) requires the Minister and the MDBA to have regard to the NWI
when preparing and making the Basin plan. Chapter 10 of the Basin plan sets out requirements
that must be met by states when preparing water resource plans that achieve the SDLs. These
requirements are largely consistent with the NWI. Water resource plans accredited by the
Commonwealth Minister for Water must be in place by 1 July 2019.
40 – The MDBA coordinates the monitoring and reporting of the Basin’s condition, using the Basin
Plan Monitoring and Evaluation Program’s framework and principles. The program includes
provisions for:
•
compliance audits
•
review of the water quality and salinity targets and the EWP
•
periodically assessing the condition of the Murray–Darling Basin to inform changes to the
Basin plan.
Under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), the Commission is required to undertake audits of the
effectiveness of the implementation of the Basin Plan. An initial report was provided in March
2013. With the forthcoming closure of the Commission, it is unclear at the time of writing what
arrangements will be put in place regarding future audits
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Substantially complete
addressing overallocation as
per NCC commitments.
41, 43–45
41 – See NWI paragraph 26 for detail on progress.
Substantial progress towards
adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems.
43–45 – The Australian Government has established a number of cross‑jurisdictional initiatives to
assist with the management of highly developed water systems. The initiatives have been led or
coordinated by the Australian Government, are state or territory government initiatives supported
by Commonwealth funding, or co‑funded programs implemented by jurisdictions.
The Living Murray (TLM) initiative was established in 2004 between the Australian Government
and the partner governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Australian Capital
Territory to restore the health of the River Murray system by recovering an annual average of up
to 500 GL and constructing major water management structures at six icon sites. On behalf of
relevant MDB jurisdictions, the MDBA manages the portfolio of environmental water that has been
secured by TLM river restoration program. To date a long‑term average of 479 GL has been
recovered for TLM portfolio and the program is due to be completed in 2014.
While the Commonwealth’s water recovery program has focused mainly on the Murray–Darling
Basin, other projects are being undertaken including the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability
Initiative (GABSI), a 15‑year program funded by jurisdictions, Commonwealth contributions
matching those of the jurisdictions, and eligible landholders. The GABSI involves the capping and
piping of bores for the purpose of stopping, and where necessary reversing, the decline in
groundwater pressure resulting from uncontrolled water extractions. It is due for completion by
2014.
The Commonwealth also contributed part funding for development of the Gnangara groundwater
areas allocation plan in Western Australia, and provided $140 million towards efficient irrigation
infrastructure in Tasmania.
National Water Commission
179
180
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Risk assignment framework to
be implemented immediately for
all changes in allocation not
provided for in overallocation
pathways in water plans.
46–51
46–51 – Schedule 3A of the Water Act 2007 (Cwth) sets out the Commonwealth’s risk‑assignment
Water plans to address
Indigenous water issues.
framework in line with paragraphs 48–51 of the NWI.
The Basin plan sets out the allocation of risks for reductions in the availability of water for
consumptive use arising from Basin Plan implementation. This includes specifying the
Commonwealth’s share of the risks of any reductions to the consumptive pool arising from
changes in government policy and new knowledge (where the Basin state or territory has applied
the risk‑sharing arrangements in accordance with the NWI). One hundred per cent of the reduction
52–54
to water that may be taken for consumptive use is assigned to changes in Australian Government
policy.
52–54 – The Water Act 2007 (Cwth) requires the Minister and the MDBA to have regard to social,
cultural, Indigenous and other public benefit issues when developing the Basin plan. The MDBA
has established two independent organisations, the Murray Lower Darling River Indigenous
Nations (MLDRIN) and the Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN), to advise on Indigenous
issues in the MDB.
The Basin plan requires jurisdictional water resource plans to identify objectives in consultation
with relevant Indigenous organisations. Plans must also be prepared having regard to the views of
Indigenous people on cultural flows. Water resource plans must consider native title rights and
claims, Indigenous Land Use Agreements, Indigenous heritage, and risks to the protection of
Indigenous values and uses arising from the use and management of water. Indigenous
representation in the preparation and implementation of the plan is required. In assessing a water
resource plan for accreditation the MDBA will consult with MLDRIN and NBAN.
The National Cultural Flows Research Project, funded by the Australian Government, is
developing an evidence base to help secure a future where Indigenous water allocations are
embedded in Australia’s water planning and management framework. The project is managed by
the National Native Title Council and due for completion in 2016. It will define Indigenous cultural
values and water needs and measure the cultural, social and ecological benefits of watering trials.
Governments have agreed through a COAG committee to develop a new module for the NWI
Policy Guidelines for Water Planning and Management 2010 to assist water planners improve
engagement of Indigenous people in water planning and management. This module is intended to
be provided for approval in late 2014.
NWI actions
Implementation of measures to
address water interception by
land use change activities on a
priority basis in accordance with
water plans.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
55–57
55–57 – The Water Act 2007 (Cwth) requires the MDBA to have regard to interception activities
when developing the Basin plan. The Basin plan requires water resource plans to manage
interception and details how interception is to be included in water resource plans, which are to be
developed and implemented by 2019.
The Commission engaged Barma Water Resources to conduct a synthesis and analysis of
methods for quantifying the impacts of interception activities in Australia. The report, Synthesis
and analysis of methods for quantifying the impact of interception activities in Australia (2013),
investigated the various quantification models and methods, their accuracy, resourcing
requirements and impediments to using them.
The MDBA undertook a project on the technical robustness and accuracy of methods used to
estimate interception take and how they could be improved. Interception estimates were calculated
and used to establish Basin plan SDLs.
Water markets and trading
Adoption of publicly accessible,
compatible systems for
registering water access
entitlements and trades
consistent with Schedule F:
•
•
pathways leading to full
implementation
full implementation.
59
59 – The Commonwealth, together with the state and territory governments, worked on the
development of a National Water Market System (NWMS). The project was coordinated by the
Commonwealth Department of the Environment and overseen by a project group involving
jurisdictional representatives and the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). The Commission was an
observer.
The objective of the NWMS was to strengthen Australia’s water market through the development
and implementation of a common registry system for all states except Victoria, where
complementing enhancements were proposed to be made to its register. The project was funded
by the Commonwealth and had three elements:
National Water Commission
•
development of the NWMS
•
development of high‑performance state and territory water registers (Common Registry
Solution (CRS))
•
data transfer between water registers (interoperability).
The project began in 2009 with an intended delivery date of 2012, however it experienced delays
and was not completed. A CRS design was finalised but not assessed or built. The project has
now been cancelled, and it is unclear how the completed or partially completed components will be
181
182
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
used.
NWI actions
Establish compatible institutional
and regulatory arrangements
that facilitate trade, consistent
with principles in Schedule G:
•
remove institutional barriers
to trade
•
remove barriers to
temporary trade
•
remove barriers to
permanent trade
•
no imposition of new
barriers to trade
NWI paragraph
60
Commentary 2014
60 – The Commonwealth is working in collaboration with jurisdictions to remove remaining
institutional barriers to trade. See comments against NWI paragraph 60 in other jurisdiction tables
for details of individual jurisdiction progress.
In accordance with the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), the Basin plan includes water trading rules. Before
making these trading rules the MDBA was required to obtain and have regard to the advice of the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). The Basin plan water trading rules
are not intended to duplicate or replace state or territory water trading rules, but rather to ensure
consistent operation of the water markets through the Murray–Darling Basin.
The water trading rules apply to individuals who buy and sell water and irrigation infrastructure
operators within the Basin. The rules commenced on 1 July 2014 and will be enforced by the
MDBA.
See also NWI paragraph 59 for further information
Relevant parties
(Commonwealth, NSW, Victoria
and SA) agree to:
•
take necessary steps to
enable the use of exchange
rates and/or tagging for
interstate trade
•
reduce barriers to trade in
southern Murray–Darling
Basin
•
review actions to assess
whether relevant parties
have removed barriers
•
NWC monitor impacts of
trade
63
63 – Under the 2013 Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray–
Darling Basin (signed initially by South Australia, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory in
2013, and then by New South Wales and Queensland in February 2014), governments reaffirmed
their continuing commitment to remove restrictions on trade in water in accordance with Basin plan
requirements and clause 4(16) of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), and committed to not
introduce any measures that inhibited the Commonwealth’s ability to ‘bridge the gap’.
The Commission has coordinated a number of reviews and evaluations of the effectiveness of the
Australian water market. For example, 63 (vi) is specifically addressed by the Commission’s
Impacts of trade reports, and 63 (vii) is considered to have been satisfied by the 2009 Biennial
Assessment.
The Commission published Water markets in Australia: a short history in December 2011,
Understanding the Victorian decision to suspend intervalley water allocation trading 2010–11 in
November 2011, Strengthening Australia’s water markets in June 2011 and Current issues
influencing Australian water markets in 2013.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
Complete commitments under
the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect
pricing policies
for water storage and delivery in
rural and urban systems.
65
65 – The NWI pricing principles were endorsed by the Natural Resource Management (NRMMC)
on 23 April 2010.
The 2008–11 COAG Work Program on Water included a commitment to review the pricing
principles, which was reaffirmed in the National Water Reform Work Plan 2013–17.
The Commonwealth is undertaking this review with input from jurisdictions. The review aims to
assess the usefulness of the pricing principles in providing guidance to jurisdictions on
implementing best‑practice water pricing arrangements for urban and rural water services, as set
out in paragraphs 64 to 67 of the NWI. The review will consider whether the pricing principles meet
the intent of the NWI best‑practice water pricing arrangements, taking into account changes since
Metropolitan:
• continued movement towards
upper‑bound pricing
• development of pricing
policies for recycled water
and stormwater
• review and development of
pricing policies for trade
wastes
• development of national
guidelines for water accounts.
the pricing principles were developed. It may make findings and recommendations on pricing
issues that are currently outside the scope of NWI pricing principles, such as sewerage pricing and
multiple customer tariff options for urban water services
66 – The 2010 NWI pricing principles address metropolitan and rural water pricing including the
movement towards upper‑bound pricing, cost recovery for rural systems, and recycled water and
stormwater.
Within the MDB, the Australian Government has made the Water Charge (Infrastructure) Rules
2010, which came into effect on 12 January 2011. The rules were developed with wide public
consultation and advice from the ACCC.
National Guidelines for Residential Customers’ Water Accounts were endorsed at the 11th
meeting of the NRMMC and released on 24 November 2006 by Australian Government, state and
territory water ministers.
National Water Commission
183
184
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Rural and regional:
•
Commentary 2014
The ACCC has regulatory responsibility for the rules and provides guidance material to assist
infrastructure operators, irrigators and Basin state governments and agencies to understand and
comply with the rules.
full cost recovery for all rural
surface and groundwater‑
based systems
•
achievement of
lower‑bound pricing for all
rural systems in line with
existing NCC commitments
•
continued movement
towards upper‑bound
pricing for all rural systems,
where practicable
•
where full cost recovery is
unlikely to be achieved in
the long term and a
Community Service
Obligation (CSO) is deemed
necessary, the size of the
subsidy is to be reported
publicly and, where
practicable, jurisdictions to
consider alternative
management arrangements
aimed at removing the need
for an ongoing CSO.
Consistent approaches to pricing
and attributing costs of water
planning and management.
Public reporting of cost recovery
for water planning and
management.
67-68
67 – The 2010 NWI pricing principles set out the commitment to recover water management and
planning charges on a cost‑effectiveness and transparent basis. The pricing principles are
currently under review.
68 – The Water Charge (Planning and Management Information) Rules 2010, made under the
Water Act 2007 (Cwth), seek to improve the availability of information about water planning and
water management activities funded by government and apply in the Murray–Darling Basin.
Government entities responsible for determining water planning and management charges have
published information on the charges since July 2011. Information about the arrangements outside
the Basin in regard to water charge rules was not provided.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Investment in new or
refurbished water
infrastructure to continue to
be assessed as
economically and
ecologically sustainable
before being approved.
69
69 – The Commonwealth has developed and published frameworks and criteria for the
assessment of funding applications to various infrastructure programs.
The Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program (SRWUIP) invests in rural water use,
management and efficiency projects. Project proposals are assessed in accordance with
Schedule E of the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling Basin Reform and a
National Irrigation Efficiency Stakeholder Reference Panel has been appointed to provide a
consultation forum on investments. Program guidelines require cost‑effectiveness, value for
money, economic, environmental, and technical and other criteria to be satisfied.
Business cases for large programs funded through SRWUIP are assessed against criteria that
include economic and ecological sustainability. Other programs funded through SRWUIP, such as
the On‑Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program, are assessed on a competitive grants model basis
against merit criteria outlined in the program guidelines to ensure the best applications are
selected for funding.
Release of unallocated water
70-72
70–72 – COAG has endorsed the Next Steps in National Water Reform: Preparation for the future
(a report by the Standing Council on Environment and Water), outlining the National Water Reform
Work Plan 2013–2017 as the next stage in the Australian water reform agenda. Action 6 in this
work plan commits all jurisdictions to developing a national framework for guiding decisions on
water resource development proposals by 2017.
National Water Commission
185
186
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Environmental externalities:
73
73 – In 2011 the Australian Government stated it had commissioned studies into market
mechanisms to address environmental externalities. The outcomes of this study were not
provided.
•
•
manage environmental
externalities through a
range of regulatory
measures (such as through
setting extraction limits in
water management plans
and by specifying the
conditions for the use of
water in water use licences)
The management of environmental externalities in the Murray–Darling Basin is being addressed
through the Basin plan.
examine the feasibility of
using market‑based
mechanisms such as
pricing to account for
positive and negative
environmental externalities
associated with water use
•
implement pricing that
includes externalities where
found to be feasible
Benchmarking efficient
performance:
• independent, public, annual
reporting of performance
benchmarking for all
metropolitan,
non‑metropolitan and rural
•
water delivery agencies
develop nationally consistent
report framework.
75-76
75 – The Commission undertakes annual National Performance Reports for all urban and rural water
service providers over a particular size across Australia. At the time of writing the future of reporting
is uncertain.
76 – The National Performance Reports provide a nationally consistent framework for the public
reporting of performance benchmarking for water service providers.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Independent pricing regulator:
77
• independent pricing bodies to
set and review prices or
pricing processes for water
storage and delivery and
publicly report
Commentary 2014
77 – Under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth) and the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cwth) (the
CC Act), the ACCC has six independent functions in relation to water:
• enforce water market rules and water charge rules under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth)
• enforce the CC Act with water brokers, exchanges and irrigation infrastructure operators
• monitor and report on regulated charges and compliance with water market and water charge
rules
• determine regulated charges
• provide advice to the Commonwealth Minister responsible for water on the development of
water market rules and water charge rules
• advise the MDBA on the development of water trading rules.
At present the ACCC independently determines the regulated charges imposed within the Murray–
Darling Basin by the State Water Corporation of NSW. The ACCC has also accredited the
Essential Services Commission of Victoria to determine the regulated charges of infrastructure
operators in Victoria.
Under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), the ACCC’s role does not relate to urban water supplies, or
water resources outside the Basin.
Integrated management of environmental water
National Water Commission
Recognising the different types
of surface water and
groundwater systems:
• effective and efficient
management and
institutional arrangements
• to ensure the achievement
of environmental outcomes;
and
79
79 (i) a) – See NWI paragraph 35 for further detail.
79 (i) b) – The Commonwealth, in conjunction with relevant jurisdictions, has established
institutional and management arrangements to ensure the achievement of environmental and
other public benefit outcomes for shared resources, including the:
• Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling Basin Reform 2008
• Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray–Darling Basin
2013
• Murray–Darling Basin Agreement 2008
• Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement Act 2001
• Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative
• NWI 2004.
187
188
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
•
where it is necessary to
recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to
adopt the principles for
determining the most
effective and efficient mix of
water recovery measures.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The Murray–Darling Basin Plan Implementation Agreement (2013) made between the MDBA,
Basin state governments and the CEWH (under section 1.12 of the Basin plan) establishes the
Basin Plan Implementation Committee, an inter‑jurisdictional high‑level forum to monitor, review
and make decisions relevant to implementing the plan. Several subsidiary working groups have
been established including water resource planning and environmental water.
The Environmental Water Holders and River Operators Forum, jointly hosted by the MDBA and the
Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO), is held at the start of each water year to
support operational coordination of environmental water delivery in the southern‑connected
Murray–Darling Basin.
The CEWO undertakes its annual planning in consultation and cooperation with the MDBA (as the
delegate for TLM and the river operator for the River Murray), state government agencies,
catchment environmental water advisory groups and landholders. The delivery of Commonwealth
environmental water is coordinated with and undertaken (in the main) by state government agency
delivery partners. CEWO staff also participate in environmental watering operational advisory
groups as necessary.
79 (i) c) – The Basin plan requires water resource plans to be prepared having regard to the need
for rules to ensure that environmental water requirements are not compromised; that is, baseflows
where there is a significant connection between surface and groundwater resources.
79 (i) d) – The progress of water buybacks under the Commonwealth’s Restoring the Balance
program is reported online, and outcomes from tenders are regularly updated. Information about
total water recovery progress towards environmental water requirements in the Basin plan is also
reported online.
The Water Act 2007 (Cwth) requires that the Commonwealth Water Minister be given various
reports each financial year on the management of Commonwealth environmental water including:
• a report on the achievement of the objectives and priorities of the Water for the Environment
Special Account (to enhance the environmental outcomes that can be achieved by the Basin
plan by protecting and restoring environmental assets and protecting biodiversity dependent
on the Basin water resources)
• a report on the CEWH’s operations during that year, which must include, among other
matters, achievements against the objectives of the environmental watering plan.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The Basin plan requires the CEWH to provide the MDBA with a report by 31 October each year
(beginning in 2014) on the previous water year, which includes the identification of environmental
water and the monitoring of its use, the implementation of the environmental management
framework and a statement of reasons why any environmental watering has been undertaken that
is not in accordance with the Basin annual environmental watering priorities.
Every five years, the CEWH must also report to the MDBA on the achievement of environmental
outcomes at a Basin scale, by reference to the targets in Schedule 7 of the Basin plan. The first
report is due by October 2017.
To support these reporting requirements, the CEWH is establishing a long‑term monitoring
program to monitor the response to Commonwealth environmental water at a number of locations
across the Basin between 2014–15 and 2018–19.
Information published on the CEWO website includes:
• volumes of Commonwealth environmental water in each catchment (including both entitlement
quantities, reliability and security and annual allocations and carryover)
• annual water use options plans
• decisions to use environmental water
• all monitoring reports
• the Commonwealth environmental water annual report and outcomes report
79 (i) e) – The Water Act 2007 (Cwth) provides for the CEWO to trade allocations or entitlements
under certain conditions. It provides for the CEWH to enter into contracts or other arrangements in
relation to the taking or use of water under rights or interests that form part of the holding.
National Water Commission
79 (i) f) – The Australian Government has committed $200 million through the Water for the
Environment Special Account to remove priority constraints that currently limit the volume of
environmental water that can be efficiently conveyed through rivers.
The CEWH is also working with relevant jurisdictions to investigate the opportunities to establish
water shepherding and return flow arrangements to support the efficient and effective use of
environmental water.
189
190
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
79 (ii) – Water recovery options to ‘bridge the gap’ to the SDLs in the Basin plan have considered
all available options, including investment in more efficient infrastructure, the purchase of water
on the markets and improved management of practices such as measurement through the
non‑urban water metering framework. See also comments against NWI paragraph 97
Water resource accounting
Benchmarking of
accounting systems
81
188
Consolidated water
82-83
accounts:
• develop and implement
robust water accounting
• identify situations where
close interaction
between surface and
groundwater exist to
integrate the accounting
of groundwater and
surface water use.
Environmental water
85
accounting:
• develop an
environmental water
register and annual
reporting arrangements
• apply the environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements.
81 – The Water Act 2007 (Cwth) assigns BoM the role of compiling and maintaining water
accounts for Australia, including a set of water accounts to be known as the National Water
Account. The Director of Meteorology is required to publish this National Water Account annually
in a form readily accessible by the public. Four accounts have been published: in 2010 and 2011
for the Murray–Darling Basin, Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne, Ord, Perth, South East
Queensland and Sydney, with the addition of Daly for the 2012 and 2013 accounts.
The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) produces the Water Account Australia, which uses
different collection methods and reports by jurisdiction.
82 – The Commonwealth through the BoM Water Accounting Standards Board worked with other
NWI parties to develop the Australian Water Accounting Standard 1 (ED‑AWAS 1): Preparation
and Presentation of General Purpose Water Accounting Reports, which has been used to produce
the BoM’s National Water Accounts to date. The Australian Water Accounting Standard 2:
Assurance Engagements on General Purpose Water Accounting Reports was released in 2014.
83 – The Basin plan requires water resource plans to be prepared having regard to the
management and use of any water resources which have a significant hydrological connection to
those within the plan area. The plan must also set out a method for determining annual permitted
take that accounts for significant hydrological connections.
85 (i) – Development of standards for environmental water accounting began in 2011 through the
national water accounting activities under the direction of the BoM and the Water Accounting
Standards Board (see NWI paragraph 81 above). The standards are still under development and
no national standard for the reporting of environmental water is in place.
The Commission released the Australian environmental water management: 2012 review that
provides an update on the 2010 overview of environmental watering arrangements around
Australia.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The Water Act 2007 (Cwth) requires the MDBA to annually identify and account for all held
environmental water.
85 (ii) – The CEWH has developed an internal Environmental Watering Management System to
manage its portfolio of water assets. The accounting and management system includes
information on the present register of holdings and water trades and tracks environmental
watering actions. The system will be used to record watering decisions and link to and report on
watering at icon sites.
See also NWI paragraph 79 (i) d) for further information.
Implement information
measures
86
National Water Commission
Metering and measuring
actions:
• develop metering and
measuring actions
• implement metering and
measuring actions.
87-88
National guidelines on water
reporting:
• develop and apply
national guidelines on
water reporting covering
the application, scale,
detail and frequency for
open reporting.
89
86 – BOM has a role to develop standards for and collect, store, manage, interpret and report
information under s.120 (a) of the Water Act 2007 (Cwth).
The Water Information Standards Business Forum is a national committee chaired by BoM to
coordinate and foster development of water information standards and guidelines in Australia. Its
membership comprises more than 25 industry organisations. BOM is working through the forum
to develop National Industry Guidelines for water quality metadata, groundwater monitoring and
water data quality. Information on the status of these guidelines was not provided.
87–88 – COAG agreed to a National Framework for Non-Urban Water Metering in December
2009, with a 10‑year implementation period.
Commonwealth progress to date has included the development of new metering standards (ATS
4747), funding the accreditation and upgrading of two meter test facilities and the development
of a national implementation plan.
89 – The Commonwealth through the BOM Water Accounting Standards Board worked with other
NWI parties to develop the ED‑AWAS 1: Preparation and Presentation of General Purpose Water
Accounting Reports, which was used to produce the BOM’s National Water Accounts to date. The
development of AWAS 2 is now underway.
The Water Act 2007 (Cwth) establishes a range of obligations relating to the Basin plan’s
provisions and water resource plans (Part 2) and provision of information to the MDBA. The
Commission produced the Australian Water Markets Report covering a summary of trading activity
and an overview of water markets across Australia. See also NWI paragraphs 81 and 85.
191
192
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
91
91 (i) – The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme is a joint initiative of the
Commonwealth, state, and territory governments. The Commonwealth provides the legal
framework for the scheme and the states and territories have enacted complementary
legislation.
Urban water reform
Implementation of demand
management measures,
including:
• implementation and
compliance monitoring of
WELS, including
mandatory labelling and
minimum standards for
agreed appliances
• develop and implement
‘Smart Approved
WaterMark’ for garden
activities
• review effectiveness of
temporary water
restrictions and
associated public
education strategies, and
consider extending
low‑level restrictions to
•
standard practice
implement management
responses to water supply
and discharge system
losses including leakage,
excess pressure,
overflows and other
maintenance needs
An independent review of the scheme was conducted in 2010 which found it had saved more
water than originally anticipated, but had issues including governance and the level and source
of funding. Changes implemented following the review include more flexible registration
arrangements and improved cost recovery. More than 21,000 products are currently registered
in the scheme.
91 (ii) – The Smart Approved WaterMark is a not‑for‑profit organisation established by four
associations: the Australian Water Association, Irrigation Australia, the Nursery and Garden
Industry, Australia and the Water Services Association of Australia. It is overseen by a steering
committee with representation from the Australian and state and territory governments, water
utilities, the four governing associations, and the chair of the Technical Expert Panel (an
independent panel which assesses applications to the scheme). The Commonwealth
supported the scheme with a grant from the Water Smart Australia program administered by
the Department of the Environment.
The project provided a simple identification label which is applied to water efficient outdoor
products to assist consumers to make informed choices.
91 (iii) – (iv) not relevant to the Commonwealth.
NWI actions
Encourage further innovation in
urban water use including:
• develop and apply national
health and environmental
guidelines for water
sensitive urban designs for
recycled water and
stormwater
• develop national guidelines
for evaluating options for
water sensitive urban
developments in both new
urban sub‑divisions and
•
•
•
high rises
evaluate existing water
sensitive urban icon
developments
review institutional and
regulatory models for
integrated urban water cycle
planning and management
and develop best‑practice
guidelines
review incentives to
stimulate innovation.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
92
92 – The 2009 national guide Evaluating Options for Water Sensitive Urban Design was
developed jointly by the Australian and state and territory governments to support the evaluation of
options for water sensitive urban developments. The CRC for Water Sensitive Cities works with
more than 70 research, industry and government partners to find better ways to use and reuse
Australia’s water resources. The CRC is developing tools and resources to improve urban
planning and design and construction processes, as well as wastewater management. For an
update on progress see <watersensitivecities.org.au>.
The National Water Quality Management Strategy is supported by the Australian, state and
territory governments and implemented through relevant legislation and policies. It includes a
range of guiding documents to improve water quality and reduce pollution including drinking water,
groundwater, fresh and marine water, recreation, primary industries and recycled water. Several
guidelines were developed to guide the management of health and environmental risks associated
with recycled water and stormwater.
The concept of a national validation framework for water treatment technologies to reduce the
regulatory burden on recycled scheme proponents has been investigated by the Australian Water
Recycling Centre of Excellence, funded by the Australian Government. This has received
in‑principle support from jurisdictions through the Water Quality Policy Sub‑Group. The centre is
exploring arrangements to introduce a validation framework. The Commonwealth has provided
funding of $680 million through the National Urban Water and Desalination Plan to urban water
infrastructure and research, improving the security of water supplies in Australia’s larger cities.
Project activities comprise stormwater harvesting and reuse, including managed aquifer recharge,
water recycling and desalination.
National Water Commission
193
194
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Community partnerships and adjustment
Open and timely consultation
with all relevant stakeholders
in relation to:
• pathways for returning
overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction
levels, periodic review of
water plans, and other
significant decisions
affecting the security of
water access entitlements.
95
95 – Criticism of the MDBA’s consultation process for the Guide to the Basin Plan led to an
increase in engagement during the Basin plan’s development. The MDBA consulted across
jurisdictions and the community by way of community, roundtable and technical meetings with
community leaders and key stakeholder groups. During the 20‑week consultation period on the
proposed Basin plan, the MDBA held about 175 meetings with a broad range of stakeholders and
received more than 11,000 submissions on the draft plan. The MDBA also travelled to 30 towns
and Aboriginal communities across the Basin to talk with Aboriginal people about the proposed
plan and record their submissions.
Since November 2012 when the Basin plan was made, the MDBA has held more than 100
community meetings throughout the Murray–Darling Basin to provide an overview of the plan and
its implementation, as well as targeted meetings of a more technical nature.
In developing the Constraints Management Strategy (CMS) through 2013, the MDBA undertook
extensive consultation with jurisdictions and communities. Community consultation concentrated
on areas identified as key focus areas (geographic locations adjacent to key constraints). This
included nine meetings with communities specifically addressing the CMS, and a further six
meetings to provide updates on Basin plan implementation. The MDBA released a draft CMS for
public comment in October 2013 to seek further input from stakeholders on addressing the types
of constraints to the delivery of environmental water worthy of examination in the coming years.
The CMS was finalised in November 2013.
The Basin plan’s environmental watering plan sets out consultation requirements for the
development of the Basin‑wide environmental watering strategy, long‑term watering plans for
each water resource and annual environmental watering priorities, which include environmental
water holders and managers, river operators, local communities, and persons materially affected
by the management of environmental water.
NWI actions
Provision of accurate and
timely information to all relevant
stakeholders in relation to the
progress of water plan
implementation and other
issues relevant to the security
of water access entitlements.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
96
96 – Information about total water recovery progress towards environmental water requirements in
the Basin plan is reported on the Department of the Environment’s website.
MDBA reporting includes:
• the Basin Salinity Management Strategy annual implementation reports to the Murray–Darling
Basin Ministerial Council
• the River Murray Water Quality Monitoring Program, which measures water quality in the
Murray and its tributaries, establishing baseline and series data so that environmental
outcomes can be measured, monitored and reported
• TLM environmental monitoring program, which provides information on the responses to
environmental watering and the environmental condition of the icon sites and River Murray
system (see the MDBA’s Knowledge and Information Directory for access).
Under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), BoM is responsible for producing regular reports on the status
of Australia’s water resources and how they are used. See NWI paragraphs 81, 86 and 89 for
further information on BoM’s role.
National Water Commission
Address significant adjustment
issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and
communities that may arise
from reductions in water
availability as a result of
implementing the NWI.
97
In June 2014 the Department of the Environment released the Water Recovery Strategy for the
Murray–Darling Basin, following public consultation on a draft strategy released in November
2012. The strategy outlines the Australian Government’s progress and proposed approach for
future environmental water recovery in the Basin.
97 – The Basin plan requires that recovery of additional water under the SDL adjustment
mechanism must avoid detrimental impacts to communities. The Australian Government has
committed to ‘bridge the gap’ to the new SDLs in the Basin plan. Both water purchasing and
infrastructure investment are being used to this end, including the Commonwealth’s $3.1 billion
Restoring the Balance program.
The Australian Government is working with Basin jurisdictions on a package of constraint, supply
and efficiency measures for ministers to consider by mid‑2016. The SDL adjustment mechanism
allows the Basin plan recovery target to be reduced by up to 650 GL without diminishing
environmental outcomes in ways that entail a neutral or beneficial socio‑economic impact (such as
environmental works and measures)
195
196
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The Commonwealth has committed $5.8 billion to the Sustainable Rural Water Use and
Infrastructure Program, which is investing in rural water use, management and farm irrigation
efficiency. At least 600 GL per year on average over the long‑term is expected to contribute to
‘bridging the gap’, with $3.2 billion provided for state priority projects.
See also responses to this NWI paragraph for other jurisdictions for further Commonwealth funded
adjustment programs.
Knowledge and capacity building
Science priorities and research:
• identify the key science
priorities to support
implementation of the NWI
and where this work is
being undertaken
• implement any necessary
measures to ensure the
research effort is well
coordinated and publicised,
and any gaps are
addressed.
101
101 – In November 2008, COAG agreed to the development of a National Water Knowledge and
Research Platform to establish priority research themes and ensure a coordinated research effort.
The COAG National Water Knowledge and Research Strategy was released in 2012. The
high‑level objective of the platform is to develop a targeted water research and knowledge
platform so that key decisions on water policy, management and use in Australia can be based on
best‑available and continuously improving knowledge and information. Focal groups, comprised of
representatives from each jurisdiction, are working to implement the platform’s research themes.
The Raising National Water Standards (RNWS) program was a $250 million Australian
Government initiative that supported projects to advance NWI reforms by improving water
management, capacity, knowledge, skills and innovation. The program supported 178 projects
over the period June 2006 to June 2012.
Administered by the Commission, program funds were directed at activities across three strategic
investment areas:
• advancing implementation of the NWI
• improving integrated water management across Australia
• improving knowledge and understanding of our water resources.
An independent evaluation noted that the substantial pool of technical knowledge and information
created from projects will serve future research and development, water planning and
management well.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The National Atlas of Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems was one project funded through the
RNWS program. The atlas presents the current knowledge of groundwater‑dependent ecosystems
across Australia and displays ecological and hydrogeological information on known
groundwater‑dependent ecosystems and ecosystems that potentially use groundwater. The atlas
is a tool to assist the consideration of ecosystem groundwater requirements in natural resource
management, including water planning and environmental impact assessment. Subject to licensing
arrangements, data and analysis produced through these programs will be made publicly available
through an information portal.
The CEWH has produced a long‑term framework for the prioritisation of environmental water
allocations. The framework includes ecological objectives that will change under different water
availability scenarios (extreme dry, dry, moderate, wet, very wet). The CEWH has also developed
broad criteria on the ecological outcomes sought from proposed watering actions and criteria to
assess the ecological significance of assets to be the subject of potential watering actions.
The National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development
(NPA) was established in 2012 between the Australian, Queensland, New South Wales and
Victorian governments. The objective of the NPA is to strengthen the regulation of coal seam gas
(CSG) and large coal mining development by ensuring that future decisions are informed by
substantially improved science and independent expert scientific advice.
The Commonwealth is strengthening the science underpinning regulatory decisions on the
water‑related impacts of CSG and large coal mining development through the Independent Expert
Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Mining Development (established in 2012)
which provides advice to Commonwealth and state regulators, and by funding bioregional
assessments and other research.
National Water Commission
Bioregional assessments will be undertaken in up to 15 subregions within New South Wales,
Queensland, South Australia and Victoria. Four subregions have been selected as a time priority:
Galilee, Gloucester, Namoi and Clarence‑Moreton. Bioregional assessments are science‑based
studies that will develop detailed, multi‑layered records of the ecology, hydrology, geology and
hydrogeology in a particular geographic region. They will provide baseline information and an
assessment of the cumulative impacts of CSG and large coal mining developments on
water‑related assets.
197
198
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Research projects will address key knowledge gaps in the consideration of water‑related impacts
from CSG and coal mining. The priority areas of research are hydrology, ecology, chemicals and
cumulative impacts. The research includes a project which is assessing the risks to human and
environmental health from chemicals used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing in CSG extraction in
Australia.
New South Wales
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlement and planning framework
Implementation of the
26-27
framework:
• substantial completion of
plans to address any
existing overallocation for all
river systems and
groundwater resources in
accordance with
commitments under the
1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework
• legislative and administrative
regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of
the entitlements and
allocation framework in this
agreement.
26 – At the commencement of the NWI, New South Wales’s remaining commitments to address
overallocated systems under the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework included water sharing
plans (WSPs) for 31 surface water systems and six for inland groundwater sources. New South
Wales has completed all water plans identified under the COAG framework. Around 98 per cent
of water extracted in New South Wales is now covered by WSPs.
The 31 WSPs identified at the commencement of the NWI are due to expire in 2014. Independent
reviews of the WSPs were conducted by the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) and New
South Wales Office of Water (NOW), which provided their final reports to the New South Wales
Minister for Primary Industries in mid‑2013. The Minister has determined that the 31 WSPs due to
expire in 2014 must be replaced before July 2015. See NWI paragraph 39 for more detail.
For unregulated areas or groundwater systems where there is less intensive use, New South
Wales has been developing ‘macro’ WSPs. These plans are designed to cover most of the
remaining water extracted in New South Wales.
A number of the plans that cover single‑catchment unregulated river water sources and
groundwater aquifers are being merged into the larger macro WSP for that area, as the first plans
start to expire and are due for replacement/extension.
27 – New South Wales has implemented NWI‑consistent legislation.
Water access entitlements to be
defined and implemented.
28-34
28–33 – The Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) provides the statutory basis for NWI‑consistent
National
National
Water
Water
Commission
Commission
water access entitlements in NSW. Water access entitlements are defined and implemented
through WSPs.
34 – Section 60I of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) requires any activity, including
mining and unconventional gas operations, in WSP areas to hold a licence for any water taken
regardless of its quality unless an exemption applies. An exemption for less than 3 ML of water
extracted yearly during the exploration phase is in the Water Management (General) Regulation
2011. The Water Act 1912 (NSW) applies to water sources outside of WSP areas and also
requires operations to hold a water licence.
185
189
193
199
200
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
If unassigned water is provided for in a water plan, then an aquifer access licence may be acquired
by auction, tender, or other means under section 65 of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW).
The Water Act 1912 (NSW) applies to water sources outside of water planning areas.
Water to meet environmental and 35
other public benefit outcomes
identified in water plans to be
defined, provided and managed.
35 – As per the last assessment, licensed environmental water in NSW has the same level of
security as water access licences for consumptive purposes.
The New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment manages both environmental
water allowances (established under WSPs) and New South Wales Environmental Water
Holdings. The Department of Planning and Environment also delivers environmental water held by
the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office and non‑government organisations. The
Department of Planning and Environment activity is focused in five valleys where there are
significant wetlands along with substantial environmental water allocations and New South Wales
Environmental Water Holdings.
NOW is responsible for managing access to water and ensuring water is shared between the
environment, towns and cities, farmers and industry, and Aboriginal cultural and community
development activities.
Where licensed environmental water has been purchased from the consumptive pool, the security
of supply remains the same as under the consumptive licence from which it was purchased. For
rules‑based environmental water, the security may be higher than consumptive water depending
on the rules in the individual WSPs.
In the New South Wales portion of the Murray–Darling Basin, however, environmental water is less
secure at times of extremely low water availability (as with the other Basin states). The 2008
Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling Basin Reform states that Critical Human Water
Needs (CHWN) are the highest‑priority water use for communities dependent on the water of the
Murray–Darling Basin. Hence during periods of ‘extremely low water availability’, where there is
an extreme risk of not being able to supply water for CHWN in the next 12 months, Tier 3 water
sharing is triggered and the Ministerial Council must intervene to ensure the supply of conveyance
water and the delivery of CHWN. In these conditions, no priority would be given to environmental
water.
The Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) provides for planned and adaptive environmental water.
Only adaptive environmental water, which is granted under a water allocation licence for specific
environmental purposes, can be traded or converted to a consumptive use by the Minister.
NWI actions
Water plans to be prepared
along the lines of the
characteristics and components
at Schedule E based on the
following priorities:
• plans for systems that are
overallocated, fully
allocated or approaching
full allocation
• plans for systems that are
not yet approaching full
allocation
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
39–40
39 – New South Wales has implemented a water planning process that is NWI consistent. New
South Wales prioritises the development of WSPs to those water resources that are most intensely
used and developed.
The 31 WSPs identified at the commencement of the NWI are now nearing the end of their
10‑year term. The 10‑year assessment process is complete and audit reports on the
implementation activities of the WSPs have recently been published by NOW (2004–09, 2009–12).
The NRC also reviewed each plan in relation to its contribution to the natural resource
management statewide standards and targets, and NOW evaluated each plan’s appropriateness,
efficiency and effectiveness.
The NRC and NOW delivered their reports to the Minister for Primary Industries in mid‑2013 and
the reports are available online. The plans are to be replaced before July 2015. See NWI
paragraph 26 for more detail.
For coastal plans, changes will be made to ensure consistency with the current legislative
framework and the inclusion of post‑2004 policy initiatives. Additional changes will also be
considered.
Changes to inland plans during this replacement will be limited, in anticipation of further changes
required under the Basin plan by 2019. As part of plan replacement, changes will be made to
ensure consistency with the current legislative framework and the inclusion of post‑2004 policy
initiatives. In most cases, no change to the intent of the WSP rules is proposed.
40 (i) – The Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) provides for the monitoring and evaluation of
WSPs via five‑yearly audits that focus on implementation, and a 10‑year review which considers
the extent to which a WSP has contributed to the relevant state standards and targets, as well as
the plan’s effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness.
National Water Commission
40 (ii) – Monitoring of water flow and level is undertaken regularly and used to update and improve
the hydrological models that provide the basis for available water determinations under each plan.
Data collection is based on an extensive network of surface water level and flow stations and
groundwater monitoring bores, together with models for the regulated rivers and major aquifers. In
comparison, knowledge of the hydrology and water extraction in unregulated systems is limited.
NOW uses the macro WSP risk‑assessment approach in unregulated rivers as a tool for
prioritisation of management actions and for the stratification of monitoring effort.
201
202
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
New and revised WSPs include provisions to change the plan rules should new information
become available. In some of these WSPs there is explicit recognition of specific studies being
undertaken, which may alter the WSP in the future (e.g. inland major alluvial groundwater
systems).
Funded through the Australian Government’s ‘Closing the Gap’ strategy, NSW has committed to
the Aboriginal Water Initiative to support monitoring and evaluation of the commercial, cultural and
environmental outcomes for Aboriginal people from water planning
40 (iii) – NOW has prepared Environmental flow response and socio-economic monitoring reports
for water sharing areas in New South Wales. These contain updates on the monitoring and
evaluation activities undertaken in the previous water year to assess the ecological and
socio‑economic performance of WSPs.
NOW prepares progress reports that summarise key implementation activities and water
management under WSPs. Progress reports have been prepared for those plans that commenced
in 2004, and for those covering the major inland alluvial groundwater sources. The reports are
available on the NOW website with the last report published in 2011.
The Department of Planning and Environment, as environmental water holder in New South
Wales, provides annual reporting on environmental water management performance, including
both planned and adaptive environmental water.
All relevant New South Wales agencies report on performance of water management and planning
activities in their annual reports.
Substantially complete
addressing overallocation as
per NCC commitments.
Substantial progress towards
adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems.
41, 43–45
41 – See actions against NWI paragraph 26 for detail on progress.
43–44 – Within high‑competition systems in the MDB major water recovery pathways have
generally been facilitated by mechanisms outside of WSPs, for example New South Wales and
Australian Government investment through the Water for the Future programs (including for
off‑farm works, on‑farm irrigation efficiency and environmental works and measures), and through
the RiverBank program (for voluntary entitlement purchases for environmental purposes). State
priority projects have also been agreed in‑principle under the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement
on Murray–Darling Basin Reform, including the NSW Private Irrigation Infrastructure Operators
Program (led by the Commonwealth).
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
New South Wales signed the intergovernmental agreement regarding the Basin plan’s Sustainable
Diversion Limits (SDLs) on 27 February 2014. SDLs are required to take effect by 1 July 2019,
aiming to assist progress in adjusting overallocated and overused systems. The Australian
Government has committed to ‘bridge the gap’ to the SDLs in the Basin plan to avoid affecting
individuals’ water entitlements by the recovery of water for the environment.
There are several high‑competition groundwater systems where overuse has been identified and
progress has been made in establishing pathways that implement water recovery mechanisms
through WSPs (e.g. Upper and Lower Namoi, Lower Macquarie, Lower Lachlan, Lower Murray,
Lower Gwydir and Lower Murrumbidgee). These mechanisms include the reduction of entitlements
over a 10‑year period supported by the $135 million joint NSW and Australian Government
program, Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements, which offers financial assistance to
eligible licence holders to help them adjust to the changes.
The Hawkesbury-Nepean River Recovery project, jointly funded by the Australian and New South
Wales governments, is a package of efficiency projects and Commonwealth water purchases to
reduce entitlements and provide water to the environment.
A range of urban water supply augmentation measures are included in the Sydney metropolitan
water plan to ensure that water use does not exceed the identified sustainable extraction limits due
to future urban growth. These measures include desalination, recycling, groundwater, transfers
from the Shoalhaven, accessing of deep water in storages, stormwater harvesting and improved
water efficiency.
Adjustment issues for groundwater systems continue to be addressed in the development of
groundwater WSPs via compensation payments to entitlement holders through the Achieving
Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements program.
National Water Commission
45 – All New South Wales systems previously recognised as overallocated are currently being
managed through WSPs that include pathways to manage extraction within limits. See actions
associated with NWI paragraph 97 for more detail.
Risk assignment framework to
be implemented immediately for
all changes in allocation not
provided for in overallocation
pathways in water plans.
46–51
46–51 – For areas outside of the Murray–Darling Basin, New South Wales legislated for the NWI
risk‑assignment framework to apply from 2014.
For areas of New South Wales within the Murray–Darling Basin, the Commonwealth risk‑sharing
framework will apply to WSPs that expire after the Basin plan takes effect.
203
204
NWI actions
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Water plans to address
Indigenous water issues.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
52–54
52 (i) Indigenous representation on water advisory committees is mandatory under the Water
Management Act 2000 (NSW). An Interagency Regional Panel is used to support development of
macro WSPs.
An Aboriginal Water Initiative (AWI) was established in June 2012 to improve Indigenous
involvement in water planning and management within New South Wales. Its main objectives are
to ensure ongoing and effective statewide and regional engagement with Indigenous communities
in WSPs and to achieve and report on measurable Indigenous water outcomes for both
environmental and commercial use. NOW uses the information provided by AWI staff to provide
Indigenous information related to water management to the Interagency Regional Panel for
consideration in the development of WSPs.
52 (ii) Two types of Indigenous Specific Purpose licences are available under the Water
Management Act 2000 (NSW): cultural access licences for uses such as manufacturing traditional
artefacts, hunting, fishing, gathering, recreation and ceremonial purposes and licences for
drinking, food preparation, washing and watering domestic gardens. All WSPs in New South
Wales allow Indigenous communities to apply for both types of licence. Community development
licences are also available under WSPs to support commercial enterprises owned by Indigenous
people in coastal unregulated water or groundwater areas.
Cultural access licences, active for the life of the cultural purpose, are capped at 10 ML per year
per application and cannot be traded. There are two cultural access licences in New South Wales.
The Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon-Darling Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources 2012 also
allows supplementary (Aboriginal environmental) water access licences to be granted to
Indigenous people or communities in the Barwon‑Darling unregulated river water source. These
access licences allow Indigenous people and communities to extract water to fill lagoons and
billabongs to improve or restore their cultural and environmental value.
53 – Under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) a native title holder is entitled, without the
need for an access licence, water supply work approval or water use approval, to take and use
water in the exercise of native title rights.
Most water plans have no allocation for Indigenous people or native title. Two New South Wales
WSPs have provided an entitlement for native title. Under these plans native title rights’ security is
equal to or less than human domestic and pastoral stock use.
NWI actions
Implementation of measures to
address water interception by
land use change activities on a
priority basis in accordance with
water plans.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
55–57
55–57 – The New South Wales water management planning process identifies priority interception
activities.
The priorities identified have largely been regulated through statewide policies. Stock and domestic
bores require a water supply works approval under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) and
use should conform to the Reasonable Use Guidelines for Stock and Domestic Water.
Farm dams are a significant issue in peri‑urban areas. These are regulated by the Farm Dams
Policy 1999 (NSW) under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW). This restricts the volume of
dam storage which can be developed to the property’s harvestable right, based on 10 per cent of
the rainfall run‑off.
Plantation forestry water use has been estimated as part of preparing WSPs in MDB areas in
NSW. The Plantation and Reafforestation Act 1999 (NSW) (plantations greater than 30 ha)
regulates interception associated with plantations. Licences for water extraction are not required
for plantation forestry in New South Wales.
Mining and coal seam gas (CSG) have been recognised as potentially significant interception
activities and are regulated through the Aquifer Interference Policy (2012). The policy covers the
potential impact of activities that interact with groundwater resources such as mining. The policy
applies across the state and clarifies water licence and impact assessment requirements for
aquifer interference activities. Water taken by aquifer interference activities must be licensed and
accounted for in accordance with the water sharing arrangements. Proponents are required to
establish the baseline condition of resource; strategy for complying with water access rules; details
of potential risks to water level, quality or pressure drawdown impacts on nearby third parties;
details of potential to cause enhanced hydraulic connectivity between aquifers; and details of the
method for disposal of co‑produced water through an environmental impact statement (EIS).
Decisions on water allocation take into account the available water within a WSP and potential
impacts identified through the EIS process.
National Water Commission
Under the New South Wales Aquifer Interference Policy (2012), NOW uses the assessment criteria
‘minimal impact considerations’ to assess aquifer interference projects and determine their
potential impacts on water resources. This assessment includes a consideration of potential
impacts on connected systems, water‑dependent assets and groundwater‑dependent culturally
significant sites. Both impacts of individual activities and cumulative impacts are considered.
205
206
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
An additional ‘gateway process’ is applied to significant development applications for mining or
CSG extraction on strategic agricultural land (defined in the relevant Strategic Regional Land Use
Plan). This process involves an independent panel of experts examining individual projects to
ensure they satisfy specified criteria on their agricultural and aquifer impacts. The project may then
be certified to proceed to the development application stage or be issued with a conditional
certificate containing a list of requirements to address potential agricultural and/or aquifer impacts.
See NWI paragraph 34 for more detail.
New South Wales completed a Floodplain Harvesting Policy in 2013 to manage the capture and
use of overland flows. Under the policy, floodplain harvesting licences are issued with similar
characteristics to water licences. These enable licence holders to access compensation rights
under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW), carryover and trading (once methods for
monitoring and accounting of floodplain harvesting extractions are in place).
The policy notes that ‘existing WSPs will be amended to set the floodplain harvesting long‑term
average annual extraction limit, establish rules for the management of floodplain harvesting, and
provide that floodplain harvesting access licences will be exercised in accordance with those rules.
For new plans, these actions will be taken as necessary at the time the plan is made’.
Water markets and trading
Adoption of publicly accessible,
compatible systems for
registering water access
entitlements and trades
consistent with Schedule F:
•
pathways leading to full
implementation
•
full implementation.
59
59 – The Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) requires information on water trading to be made
publicly available to promote informed and efficient water markets and improve administrative
transparency.
New South Wales has a number of registers that provide publicly accessible water information
online. These include:
• the Water Access Licence Register, which is a statutory register for title of ownership of water
access entitlements and encumbrances on those licences. This register is managed by the
Land and Property Management Authority and is publicly available, including online
• the Environmental Water Register, which provides information for water users and the general
public on the types of environmental water held
• a range of other registers managed by NOW that provide information on allocation trade,
status of applications for water approvals, the approvals, water access licence conditions,
available water determinations and water access licence statistics.
NWI actions
Establish compatible institutional
and regulatory arrangements
that facilitate trade, consistent
with principles in Schedule G:
•
remove institutional barriers
to trade
•
remove barriers to
temporary trade
•
remove barriers to
permanent trade
•
no imposition of new
barriers to trade
NWI paragraph
60
Commentary 2014
60 – New South Wales has implemented compatible institutional and regulatory arrangements that
facilitate intra and interstate trade.
Ministerial decisions to suspend a WSP are instated if the Minister is satisfied there is a severe
water shortage in relation to a particular water management area or water source.
The Water Sharing Plan for the Wybong Creek Water Source (Wybong Creek WSP), which
commenced in 2004, was suspended two years later and remains suspended. The initial rules for
the WSP were based on a cease‑to‑pump at the 95th percentile of days of flow at the end of the
water source. New South Wales advises that the contemporary geomorphology of the catchment is
such that most low flows are subsurface at the lower end of the system, but flows are reliable from
the lower system to near the headwaters.
As a result, the original cease‑to‑pump rules were triggered not long after the WSP had
commenced, and stayed in place in excess of 100 days. In 2011 NOW reviewed the Wybong
Creek WSP in consultation with the Hunter Interagency Regional Panel, in response to community
concerns about the plan’s cease‑to‑pump rules. The Wybong water source is currently operating
under the water sharing rules negotiated through this consultation period, and it is expected that
new rules for the water source will be incorporated in the WSP for the Hunter Unregulated and
Alluvial Water Sources.
The current review of WSPs will consider additional flexibility for management in regulated rivers
during drought periods, although amended rules may not be finalised within the timeframe for
replacement.
National Water Commission
New South Wales suspended water allocation trade (temporary trade) from the NSW Murray and
Lower Darling Rivers into South Australia from 1 April to 30 June 2012. New South Wales advises
that trade was suspended to protect third parties from potential impacts. Under protocols to the
Murray–Darling Basin Agreement, water traded from New South Wales to South Australia from 1
April each year is to be held over in the New South Wales share of storage and delivered the
following year. If the storage refills over this period, the traded water would continue to occupy
space in the New South Wales storage, and therefore limit the amount of water that could be
captured for allocation to New South Wales water users.
207
208
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
In January 2013, New South Wales announced a 10‑year, three per cent per valley limit on further
buybacks of New South Wales water licences for environmental purposes in the MDB. As a result
of the Commonwealth agreeing to limit buybacks to 1500 GL across the Murray–Darling Basin, the
order was repealed on 24 February 2014.
The commencement of a WSP gives effect to the licensing provisions of the Water Management
Act 2000 (NSW), which means licences under the Water Act 1912 (NSW) (attached to land) are
converted to Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) water access licences and water supply works
and use approvals. The water access licences are separated from land, perpetual and fully
tradeable, subject to rules defined in relevant WSPs. New South Wales continues to pursue
opportunities to deal with inefficient infrastructure or unsustainable irrigation schemes.
Relevant parties
(Commonwealth, NSW, Victoria
and SA) agree to:
•
•
•
•
take necessary steps to
enable the use of exchange
rates and/or tagging for
interstate trade
reduce barriers to trade in
southern Murray–Darling
Basin
review actions to assess
whether relevant parties
have removed barriers
NWC monitor impacts of
trade
63
63 (i) – The Basin states have collaborated on interstate water trading issues such as exchange
rate trading and tagged trade. The tagged trade method has been adopted to facilitate interstate
entitlement trading.
63 (ii) – A number of recent ad hoc barriers to trade have occurred including:
• In 2009, allocation trading out of the New South Wales Murrumbidgee was suspended to
prevent possible third‑party impacts caused by potentially high trade volumes during drought.
• In 2011, allocation trading from New South Wales into the Victorian Murray was suspended to
•
•
prevent impacts on the rights of other entitlement holders.
During one week in March 2012, interstate allocation trading between New South Wales,
Victoria and South Australia was suspended.
On the 15 January 2013, the NSW Government announced an immediate 10‑year, three per
cent per valley limit to apply on further buybacks of NSW water licences for environmental
purposes in the MDB. This limit was lifted on the 24 February 2014.
The Commission’s Current issues influencing water markets in Australia (2013) report states that
the series of ad hoc allocation trading suspensions reduced confidence in the market, prevented
trades by some water users (including irrigators) and hindered their water management decisions.
With regard to the three per cent limit on buybacks for environmental purposes, the report notes
that although not yet reached, the limit constitutes a departure from commitments to remove
impediments to trading in order to promote more open and efficient water markets.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
63 (iii), (iv), (v) (vi), (vii) – The Commission has coordinated a number of reviews and evaluations
on the effectiveness of the Australian water market. For example, 63 (vi) is specifically addressed
by the Commission’s 2007 and 2010 Impacts of trade reports; 63 (vii) is considered to have been
satisfied by the 2009 Biennial Assessment.
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
Complete commitments under
the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect
pricing policies for water storage
and delivery in rural and urban
systems.
65
Metropolitan:
66
65 (i) – New South Wales has implemented consumption‑based pricing in both rural and urban
systems.
65 (ii)–(iii) – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 66.
66 (i) – See NWI paragraph 66 (v).
• continued movement towards
upper‑bound pricing
• development of pricing
policies for recycled water
and stormwater
• review and development of
pricing policies for trade
wastes
• development of national
guidelines for water accounts.
Rural and regional:
•
full cost recovery for all rural
surface and groundwater‑
66 (ii) – Urban water supply and sewerage services are provided by 101 regional urban water
utilities (mostly local governments). These utilities are required to undertake strategic planning and
to set their prices for recycled water and stormwater in accordance with the requirements of the
New South Wales Government’s Best-Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage
Framework (2014), which is based on the Best-Practice Management of Water Supply and
Sewerage Guidelines, 2007.
66 (iii) – The Liquid Trade Waste Regulation Guidelines (2009) – a subset of the NSW BestPractice Management Framework (2013) – set the framework for the regulation of sewerage and
trade waste in New South Wales. The guidelines require compliance with a number of measures,
including full cost recovery with an appropriate sewer usage charge, trade waste fees and charges
and a trade waste regulation policy. The guidelines also require a noncompliance trade waste
usage charge and non‑compliance excess mass charges to provide a strong financial incentive for
each discharger to comply consistently with the conditions of their approval.
National Water Commission
based systems
•
achievement of
lower‑bound pricing for all
rural systems in line with
existing NCC commitments
66 (iv) – National Guidelines for Residential Customers’ Water Accounts were endorsed at the
11th meeting of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) and released on
24 November 2006 by Australian Government, state and territory water ministers.
209
210
NWI actions
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
•
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
66 (v) – For the utilities regulated by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW
(IPART):
• there is a return on capital expenditure
• capital expenditure undertaken since the legacy date is depreciated annually and its
depreciated value increased in line with inflation each year
• contributed assets are not included.
continued movement
towards upper‑bound
pricing for all rural systems,
where practicable
For the other utilities in regional New South Wales, each utility is required to achieve at least
lower‑bound pricing on the basis of MEERA (Modern Engineering Equivalent Replacement Asset)
asset valuation and current replacement cost depreciation.
Utilities which have met the requirements of the NSW Best-Practice Management Framework
(2013) are encouraged to pay a dividend from the surplus of their water supply or sewerage
businesses to the Council’s general revenue. Such dividend payments would move the utility
towards upper‑bound pricing. In New South Wales, 98 per cent of regional utilities are achieving
full cost recovery for water supply on the basis of lower‑bound pricing, and 97 per cent of utilities
Consistent approaches to pricing
and attributing costs of water
planning and management.
Public reporting of cost recovery
for water planning and
management.
67-68
are achieving full cost recovery for sewerage.
67 – In New South Wales, charges for water planning and management activities are set on a cost
recovery and transparent basis. IPART sets three categories of fees and charges, one being the
‘water management charge’. This charge recovers the cost of NOW’s resource management
activities, predominantly undertaken to manage the impacts of water extraction. Charges are
linked to water planning and management activities and are transparent and independently
reviewed.
The costs of undertaking each water planning and management activity are shared between
licensed water users and government on an impactor pays basis. Charges are set for each water
system (valley and water source) based on the water user’s share of water planning and
management costs for each system. Consequently, charges are linked closely to the costs of
activities concerned.
Transition to full cost recovery for water planning and management activities was nearing
completion by the end of IPART’s 2010 determination in 2013–14. Actual cost recovery for water
planning and management for all water sources in 2009–10 was 88 per cent.
68 – The proportion of costs attributed to water users for each water management activity is
specified on NOW’s website.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has
responsibility for reporting on, monitoring and publishing information on charges (but not setting
charges) for water planning and management services in the Murray–Darling Basin. This includes
NOW’s water management services that fall within the Basin.
Investment in new or
refurbished water
infrastructure to continue to
be assessed as
economically and
ecologically sustainable
before being approved.
69
69 – For regional urban water supply and sewerage systems in New South Wales, all proposed
capital and recurrent investments in a utility’s total asset management plan are required to be
soundly based and affordable (as per the NSW Water and Sewerage Strategic Business Plan
Guidelines 2011). In non‑metropolitan New South Wales, the New South Wales Government’s
2007 Best Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Guidelines require the
development and implementation of a 30‑year Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM)
strategy by each water utility. Water utilities are required to evaluate each scenario in a utility’s
30‑year IWCM strategy on a triple bottom line basis. This involves identifying the scenario that
provides the best value for money after taking account of the social, environmental and economic
considerations, which enables the utility to make informed investment decisions for new water
supply, sewerage and stormwater infrastructure and activities.
Under the New South Wales Government’s Metropolitan Water Plan for Greater Sydney (MWP)
and the new Lower Hunter Water Plan, investment in new or refurbished water infrastructure is
subject to hydrological and economic assessment, taking account of financial, social and
environment factors. For example, as part of the review of the 2010 MWP, an assessment is being
undertaken into the potential modification of Warragamba Dam to allow the release of new variable
environmental flows into the Hawkesbury‑Nepean River. This includes ecological and economic
modelling and analysis.
Release of unallocated water
70-72
70–72 – Controlled allocation orders can be made where there is unassigned water in a process
under section 65 of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW). A controlled allocation process can
involve an auction, tender or other process specified in the order.
National Water Commission
The New South Wales Minister for Primary Industries made a controlled allocation order for 20
groundwater sources on 31 May 2013. The order allowed up to five per cent of the unassigned
water to be released in these groundwater sources so that new or expanding enterprises could
obtain new water entitlements. These aquifer access licences were acquired through a tender
process run by NOW.
211
212
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Environmental externalities:
73
73 – New South Wales manages environmental externalities through a range of regulatory
measures, including water extraction limits specified under WSPs, WSP rules, mandatory water
access licence rules and the environmental protection licensing regime.
•
•
manage environmental
externalities through a
range of regulatory
measures (such as through
setting extraction limits in
water management plans
and by specifying the
conditions for the use of
water in water use licences)
examine the feasibility of
Environmental externalities are included in the environmental approvals provided to the water
utilities in New South Wales and the costs of addressing environmental requirements are included
in each utility’s service provision costs, which are recovered from the users of the services.
Costs incurred by major water utilities to meet regulatory measures are passed on through IPART
determinations. Where water providers are required to invest in major infrastructure, the WSPs
give the water provider sufficient time to seek cost recovery and to construct infrastructure.
using market‑based
mechanisms such as pricing
to account for positive and
negative environmental
externalities associated with
water use
•
implement pricing that
includes externalities where
found to be feasible
The prices charged by the major metropolitan water utilities are determined by IPART through a
transparent pricing process. This takes into account the efficient costs incurred by the utilities in
addressing environmental matters in their planning and operations.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Benchmarking efficient
performance:
• independent, public, annual
reporting of performance
benchmarking for all
metropolitan,
75-76
75 – New South Wales has provided benchmarking information and data for the National
Performance Reports for 32 urban water service providers and four rural water service providers.
At the time of writing the future of reporting is uncertain.
non‑metropolitan and rural
•
water delivery agencies
develop nationally consistent
report framework.
76 – Costs for preparation of National Performance Reporting are considered to be overheads in
New South Wales State Water’s cost structure for rural reporting entities, so they are incorporated
into the ‘operating expenditure’ used by IPART for pricing determinations.
NOW included the costs related to Commonwealth water reform actions (including water
consumption reporting and compliance with national standards) in its submission to the IPART
review of bulk water pricing. While these were costed at 57 FTE, most were subsequently rejected
by IPART on the basis that they were not appropriate to be considered for bulk water pricing.
The IPART 2010 determination for NOW’s water planning and management charges rejected
proposals for cost recovery relating to the national water reforms. Each New South Wales urban
water utility meets the cost of reporting in the National Performance Report, including the cost of
obtaining an independent audit of the data provided.
Independent pricing regulator:
77
• independent pricing bodies to
set and review prices or
pricing processes for water
storage and delivery and
publicly report
77 (i) – In New South Wales, IPART determines prices for the metropolitan utilities, bulk water
services provided by State Water, Sydney Catchment Authority, Sydney Desalination Plant Pty
Ltd, and water planning and management charges. This includes price‑setting policy and
processes for government water service providers.
Under the New South Wales Water Industry and Competition Act 2006, private entities licensed to
provide water and wastewater services can be price regulated by IPART if the Minister declares
the services to be a monopoly. To date the Sydney Desalination Plant Pty Ltd is the only utility
licensed under the Water Industry and Competition Act 2006 (NSW) subject to price regulation by
IPART.
National Water Commission
77 (ii) – Through its pricing determinations, and related submissions, IPART ensures that water
pricing by New South Wales Government water service providers and private water service
providers is reported.
Non‑declared water utility reporting is coordinated through NOW. The 101 New South Wales
regional urban water utilities are required to undertake long‑term planning and to price their
services in accordance with the NSW Best- Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage
Framework (2014). NOW independently reviews each utility’s strategic business plan.
213
214
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Integrated management of environmental water
Recognising the different types
of surface water and
groundwater systems:
• effective and efficient
management and
institutional arrangements
• to ensure the achievement
of environmental outcomes;
and
where it is necessary to
recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to
adopt the principles for
determining the most
effective and efficient mix of
water recovery measures.
79
79 (i) a) – The Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) and the Water Act 1912 (NSW) provides the
statutory framework for the environmental water in New South Wales. These arrangements give
NOW and the Department of Planning and Environment responsibility for the management of
environmental water. The Department of Planning and Environment is responsible for the delivery
of discretionary water (planned environmental water allocations and water access licences held by
the New South Wales Government for an environmental purpose), while NOW is responsible for
the implementation of WSPs including the implementation of non‑discretionary rules‑based
environmental water.
79 (i) b) – New South Wales has established management and institutional arrangements to
ensure achievement of environmental and other public benefit outcomes for shared resources with
other jurisdictions, including:
• the New South Wales–Queensland Border Rivers Intergovernmental Agreement 2008
• the Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling Basin Reform 2008
• the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2008 (NSW), which refers NSW state powers to the
Commonwealth in order to implement the Basin‑focused Water Act 2007 (Cwth), the Snowy
•
•
•
•
Water Inquiry Outcomes Implementation Deed, the Snowy Water Licence, the Snowy Scheme
Long Term Arrangements Deed, and the Snowy Bilateral Deed
Memorandum of understanding with the Commonwealth on environmental water (2009)
Memorandum of understanding between NSW and the Commonwealth on water shepherding
(2010)
Intergovernmental Agreement for the Paroo River between New South Wales and
Queensland 2003
Heads of Agreement – the agreed outcome from the Snowy water inquiry.
79 (i) c) – In New South Wales, surface water and groundwater are defined in the Water
Management Act 2000 (NSW). Provisions for the integrated management of surface water and
groundwater resources vary between WSPs. In general integrated plans are developed where
connectivity is high. Where lower connectivity is assessed, separate surface water and
groundwater plans are put in place, but provision is made in each plan to address connectivity.
More recent macro water planning has placed greater emphasis on integrating surface water and
groundwater management. Based on the degree on connectivity, recent plans may include surface
water and their associated alluvial aquifers, while other groundwater resources are managed by
groundwater‑specific plans.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
79 (i) d) – Managers of adaptive environmental water are not compelled under legislation or the WSPs
to monitor and report on environmental watering outcomes; however, regular reports are published on
the Department of Planning and Environment’s website. The New South Wales Government’s
Environmental water use in NSW annual report series provides an overview of the department’s
environmental watering actions and their ecological outcomes, including water:
• held under licences (adaptive environmental water)
• held in prescribed allocations under WSPs
• provided by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office
• provided through programs such as The Living Murray.
The Commission funded the development of the New South Wales River Condition Index (RCI) which
allows the spatial reporting of long‑term river health and helps integrate water allocation and
catchment planning. The RCI assists with WSP development, reporting on statewide targets for rivers,
and catchment action plan evaluation and development by Local Land Services (formerly catchment
management authorities). The RCI is currently being updated to be consistent with the national
approach for the identification of high ecological value aquatic ecosystems.
The New South Wales Department of Planning and Environment produces the Water for the
Environment News, which outlines environmental releases, actions and outcomes for held
environmental water.
New South Wales contributes to the annual Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH)
outcomes report which documents environmental outcomes where watering actions were implemented
in the MDB.
79 (i) e) – Environmental water in New South Wales is provided for in WSPs as ‘planned’
environmental water and ‘adaptive’ environmental water. Only adaptive environmental water can be
traded. See NWI paragraph 35 (iii) for more detail.
National Water Commission
79 (i) f) – Water‑dependent ecosystems are identified and described in assessments associated with
the development of WSPs. Objectives are fairly general, for example that the condition of all
water‑dependent ecosystems is to be maintained or recovered. In more recent macro plans, risks to
the water resources and dependent ecosystems associated with the current water regime are an
explicit element.
215
Adaptive environmental water use plans and annual environmental watering plans set out outcomes
that specifically identify ecosystems and attributes of ecosystems that are targeted, as well as risks.
Annual watering plans also identify key water‑dependent assets and their condition and identify
ecological objectives and watering priorities.
216
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
79 (ii) – New South Wales runs or participates in a diverse range of water recovery measures and
initiatives including:
• the NSW Murray–Darling Basin Environmental Works and Measures Feasibility Project
• Cap and Pipe the Bores
• The Living Murray
• Snowy Initiative
• Darling River Water Savings Project
• Sustaining the Murray–Darling Basin
• The Hawkesbury‑Nepean River Recovery Program
• Pipeline NSW
• Wetland Recovery Program
• Rivers Environmental Restoration Program.
•
Within the Murray–Darling Basin, NSW has stated that water recovery measures should focus on
environmental works and measures, infrastructure and strategic purchases to manage the
socio‑economic impacts on rural communities.
Water resource accounting
Benchmarking of accounting
systems
81
81 – New South Wales has participated at the national level in the development of a range of national
water accounting standards and reporting frameworks, including the General Purpose Water
Accounting Reports and the Australian Water Accounting Standards (AWAS 1 and AWAS 2).
New South Wales uses AWAS 1 and the Water Accounting Conceptual Framework in providing data to
the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for the general purpose water account.
Consolidated water accounts:
• develop and implement
robust water accounting
• identify situations where
close interaction
between surface and
groundwater exist to
integrate the accounting
of groundwater and
surface water use.
82-83
82 – NOW has adopted AWAS 1 and is using it to produce its General Purpose Water Accounting
Reports. NOW published these reports online for all Murray–Darling Basin regulated river catchments
within NSW for 2011–12 and 2012–13.
83 – NOW uses the General Purpose Water Accounting Reports – Groundwater Methodologies (2011)
to include groundwater data in their General Purpose Water Accounting Reports. New South Wales
states that its reports published to date have all included some level of surface/groundwater interaction.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Environmental water accounting:
• develop an environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements
• apply the environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements.
85
85 (i) – New South Wales has an Environmental Water Register in place. See NWI paragraph 59
for more detail.
188
NWI actions
85 (ii) – In New South Wales, managers of adaptive environmental water are not compelled under
legislation or WSPs to monitor and report on environmental water outcomes outside of the
legislated 10‑year review of WSP objectives and the five‑year audit of implementation of a WSP.
However, a range of regular reports are published by relevant agencies including:
• the Environmental Water Register, which produces periodic reports on the assignment of
water allocations to and from adaptive environmental water access licences and changes in
the share component of adaptive environmental water access licences over time
• environmental water use in New South Wales Annual Report, which reports on discretionary
environmental water holdings, actions, events and outcomes
• regular updates of environmental water holdings recovered through water recovery programs
on the Department of Planning and Environment website.
• general water plan audit and review reporting, which is the only formal arrangement for
reporting on activity and compliance with the environmental water rules.
Detailed annual water accounting information on held environmental water (including entitlements,
carryover, water availability and water trading) is made publicly available via NOW’s General
Purpose Water Accounting Reports
National Water Commission
Implement information measures
86
86 – New South Wales has continued to participate in nationally coordinated efforts in the
development of national water accounting standards and reporting frameworks that facilitate data
collection and storage at the national level
Metering and measuring actions:
• develop metering and
measuring actions
• implement metering and
measuring actions.
87-88
87–88 – New South Wales contributed to the development of the Australian Government’s
National Framework for Non-Urban Water Metering (2010). NSW released its NSW metering
implementation plan to guide implementation of the national framework in New South Wales in
September 2013.
The New South Wales Metering Scheme is being funded by the Australian Government’s Water for
the Future initiative, and implemented by the New South Wales State Water Corporation and
NOW. It includes updating and/or installing meters on all groundwater, regulated and unregulated
rivers in the New South Wales Murray–Darling Basin. Two pilots are underway, with the installation
of 1200 meters as part of the Murray Pilot Project, and 600 meters as part of the Murrumbidgee
Computer Aided River Management (CARM) project.
217
218
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
89 – New South Wales has participated in the development of a range of national reporting
requirements for water management. New South Wales provides data and information for the
production of the National Performance Reports for rural and urban water utilities, the Australian
water markets (89 (ii)) and environmental water management report series (89 (iii)), and is
working with other NWI parties on compliance and reporting arrangements for water metering
(89 (i)). New South Wales has also participated in the development of the National Water Market
System, although this project has now been terminated.
National guidelines on water
reporting:
develop and apply national
guidelines on water reporting
covering the application, scale,
detail and frequency for open
reporting
Urban water reform
Implementation of demand
management measures,
including:
• implementation and
compliance monitoring of
WELS, including mandatory
labelling and minimum
standards for agreed
appliances
• develop and implement
‘Smart Approved WaterMark’
for garden activities
• review effectiveness of
temporary water restrictions
and associated public
education strategies, and
consider extending low‑level
•
restrictions to standard
practice
implement management
responses to water supply
and discharge system losses
including leakage, excess
pressure, overflows and
other maintenance needs
91
91 (i) – The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme is a joint initiative of the
Australian Government and the state and territory governments. The Water Efficiency Labelling
and Standards Act 2005 (Cwth) provides the legal framework for the scheme. New South Wales
has enacted complementary legislation through the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards
(New South Wales) Act 2005.
91 (ii) – The Smart Approved WaterMark is a not‑for‑profit organisation established by four
associations: the Australian Water Association, Irrigation Australia, the Nursery and Garden
Industry, Australia and the Water Services Association of Australia. It is overseen by a steering
committee with representation from the Australian and state and territory governments, water
utilities, the four governing associations, and the chair of the Technical Expert Panel (an
independent panel which assesses applications to the scheme). Project establishment was
finalised in 2011 and a report on the delivery of the Smart Approved WaterMark was provided to
the Department of the Environment. The program continues to provide product efficiency ratings
to consumers.
91 (iii) – Water supply in New South Wales is mostly managed by councils, with Sydney Water
providing water and water services to residents of Sydney, Illawarra and the Blue Mountains. For
customers of Sydney Water, water wise rules were introduced in June 2009 after dam storage
levels had remained steady at around 60 per cent for 12 months and drought restrictions were
lifted. Water wise rules replace water restrictions.
91 (iv) The Regional NSW Water Loss Management Program conducted by the New South
Wales Local Government and Shires Association and the NSW Water Directorate has resulted in
reductions in the average water losses for the 68 participating local water utilities from 154 to 92
litres/connection/day, or from 16 to 10 per cent of the potable water supplied – a total saving of
5500 ML/year.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Under its current operating licence, Sydney Water must ensure that the level of water leakage from
its drinking water supply system (the water leakage level) does not exceed 105 ML/day. When
calculating the water leakage level each year, Sydney Water must use assumptions and
methodology approved by IPART.
Under its operating licence, Hunter Water is required to submit a report to IPART on the economic
level of leakage from its drinking water network.
Encourage further innovation in
urban water use including:
• develop and apply national
health and environmental
guidelines for water
sensitive urban designs for
recycled water and
stormwater
• develop national guidelines
for evaluating options for
water sensitive urban
developments in both new
urban sub‑divisions and
•
•
National Water Commission
•
high rises
evaluate existing water
sensitive urban icon
developments
review institutional and
regulatory models for
integrated urban water
cycle planning and
management and develop
best‑practice guidelines
review incentives to
stimulate innovation.
92
92 – New South Wales has participated in national level working groups and committees to
develop the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks
(2009) which address water quality guidelines for recycled and stormwater use.
Water sensitive urban design principles have been built in to land use planning guidelines in New
South Wales, including through the Building Sustainability Index (BASIX) scheme of development
assessment and the Draft Metropolitan Strategy for Sydney, released for community consultation in
2013. A range of guideline documents also deal with managing urban stormwater, including
harvesting and reuse, and guidance for erosion and sediment control for a range of activities.
A BASIX five‑year outcomes review and cost‑benefit analysis showed there was scope to review
the BASIX targets to achieve additional benefits. The New South Wales Government is consulting
with the community and stakeholders on new targets to reflect changes in construction design and
new technology and align more closely with national building standards. The review also includes
new compliance measures aimed at reducing consumption of mains‑supplied potable water and
energy for heating, cooling and hot water.
In 2008, New South Wales held an independent inquiry that comprehensively reviewed institutional
and regulatory models for non‑metropolitan New South Wales, including the delivery and
implementation of integrated water cycle management. The recommendations were broadly
supported for 30 regional water utilities by the 2012 Infrastructure NSW report.
The NSW Independent Local Government Review Panel examined urban water utilities in regional
New South Wales, recommending retention of water supply and sewerage service provision by
local government in its final report released in October 2013 for public comment.
The New South Wales Best-Practice Management of Water Supply and Sewerage Management
Guidelines (2007) require each non‑metropolitan utility to identify the most cost‑effective demand
management initiatives and to subsidise and promote at least two of these initiatives.
219
220
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
The Central Coast Water Savings Fund was established in partnership with the Gosford/Wyong
Councils’ Water Authority in 2006 to encourage investment in water savings on the Central Coast.
The fund’s aim is to stimulate investment in innovative water conservation and recycling
technologies and practices, and improve water efficiency across all sectors. The fund provides up
to $2 million a year for saving water in the Central Coast region.
Further incentive programs across New South Wales have included rebates for rainwater tanks,
policy concessions on greywater use requirements, and stormwater harvesting and use projects.
In metropolitan Sydney some incentive programs included subsidies for both the installation of
water efficient measures, and for the preparation of water efficiency plans for major water users.
Community partnerships and adjustment
Open and timely consultation
with all relevant stakeholders in
relation to:
• pathways for returning
overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction
levels, periodic review of
water plans, and other
significant decisions
affecting the security of
water access entitlements.
95
95 (i) – In groundwater WSPs with water recovery objectives, New South Wales advises that
significant discussions take place with stakeholders and ongoing consultation occurs through written
correspondence or individual enquiries to staff. In addition, NOW manages the Achieving
Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements program, which defines the rules for recovering water in
these groundwater systems.
Water planning is the main way of managing overallocated systems. This consultation addresses
issues related to significant decisions which will affect the security of entitlement holders and
sustainable water use.
New South Wales has statutory requirements for stakeholder consultation during WSP development.
Management committees were established to prepare the initial high‑priority WSPs for public
exhibition and eventual approval by the state Minister. These committees were generally made up of
representatives from the environment sector, water users, local councils, catchment management
authorities, Indigenous groups and government departments. However the recent ‘macro’ planning
process has used interagency panels for aggregated water sources with Local Land Services (LLSs
– previously catchment management authorities) as observers. The Act requires the exhibition of
draft WSPs for the purpose of receiving public submissions.
95 (ii) – An audit of implementation of WSPs that commenced in 2004 has been completed and is
available NOW’s website. This was undertaken by an audit group appointed by the Minister, and
was a requirement under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW).
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The NRC published a discussion paper its 10‑year review of the 2004 WSPs and invited
submissions from relevant stakeholders on whether implementation of WSPs had contributed better
social, economic, cultural and environmental regional outcomes, and on how WSPs could be
improved to better contribute to regional objectives in the future.
NOW requested submissions through the same process as the NRC, however it specifically focused
on WSP rules, implementation of the plans and water to improve WSP outcomes.
NOW advised that as per the development of WSPs, the review process used Interagency Regional
Panels to consider the outcomes of the review and make recommendations to the Minister. These
panels included government representatives from NOW, New South Wales Office of the
Environment and Heritage and New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, as well as
catchment management authorities and State Water in an observer role.
Submissions received through both processes informed the reviews, which were provided to the
Minister for Primary Industries to inform the decision on whether a WSP should be replaced or
extended under the provisions of section 43.A of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW).
The Department of Planning and Environment uses a variety of tools to support its decision‑making
in the management of environmental water, including expert advice from research organisations,
environmental water advisory groups and other government agencies, such as catchment
management authorities, NOW and the State Water Corporation.
95 (iii) – New South Wales has statutory requirements for stakeholder consultation during the
development of a WSP. This consultation addresses issues related to significant decisions which will
affect the security of entitlement holders and sustainable water use.
National Water Commission
Provision of accurate and timely
information to all relevant
stakeholders in relation to the
progress of water plan
implementation and other issues
relevant to the security of water
access entitlements.
96
96 (i) – New South Wales undertakes audits to determine whether the provisions of the WSPs are
being implemented every five years.
New South Wales also publishes ‘valley progress reports’ (environmental flow response and
socio‑economic monitoring reports) which summarise key implementation and water management
activities undertaken through the WSPs. The reports provide a snapshot of the monitoring and
evaluation activities undertaken to assess the ecological and socio‑economic performance of
WSPs.
221
222
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
In dry years NOW produces an indicative water availability outlook for the regulated rivers in the
southern Murray–Darling Basin to assist irrigators with forward planning.
96 (ii) – New South Wales has three government bodies involved in water access licence dealings:
• NSW Office of Water
• Land and Property Information (LPI)
• State Water Corporation (State Water).
Information relevant to the security of water access entitlements are hosted on a number of public
registers such as NOW’s water allocations summary and status of applications for approvals.
General water dealings under the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW) include the trading of water
access licences, as well as any changes to water access licences, and are registered on the Water
Access Licence Register hosted by Land and Property Information NSW.
Address significant adjustment
issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and
communities that may arise
from reductions in water
availability as a result of
implementing the NWI.
97
97 – New South Wales has addressed adjustment issues in a number of water systems where
water recovery activities have taken place. For example, the New South Wales and Australian
governments have invested in the Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements program,
which outlines the rules for water recovery activities under the WSPs and provides financial
assistance to licence holders to adjust to the changes across the six major inland groundwater
systems.
The $650 million Private Irrigation Infrastructure Operators Program (PIIOP) aims to acquire water
entitlements via water savings generated from eligible projects by private irrigation infrastructure
operators in New South Wales that improve the efficiency and productivity of water use and
management, both off and on‑farm.
Sustaining the Basin: Irrigated Farm Modernisation (STBIFM) is a program funded by the
Australian Government and delivered by the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries
(DPI). STBIFM aims to achieve water savings by improving on‑farm water use efficiency and
reducing the direct extraction of water from the regulated river water sources from each valley.
STBIFM will be implemented up to October 2017 with annual reviews of the uptake of the
infrastructure incentives to guide the ongoing availability of funding and continuation of the project.
DPI will also develop and deliver a capacity building and skills development program to
complement the infrastructure incentives.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Knowledge and capacity building
Science priorities and research:
• identify the key science
priorities to support
implementation of the NWI
and where this work is
being undertaken
• implement any necessary
measures to ensure the
research effort is well
coordinated and publicised,
and any gaps are
addressed.
101
101 (i) – The Department of Planning and Environment has developed a knowledge strategy to set
knowledge priorities for itself and its cluster partners. The strategy has six themes, each with a
goal to achieve priority knowledge needs:
• biodiversity
• climate change impacts and adaptation
• coastal, estuarine and marine environments
• landscape management
• pollution
• water and wetlands.
New South Wales advises that it has developed a science program that links current research,
ecological objectives and management objectives for surface water and groundwater plans.
Several projects have been developed including:
• conducting a pilot project to examine the impact of climate variability on water supply security
for 11 urban water supplies in regional NSW
• participation in the Urban Water Policy Sub‑Group and National Urban Water Partnership
•
Forum
research through the Environmental Evaluation and Performance Branch of NOW – which has
developed a research prospectus that identifies a range of critical knowledge needs where
collaboration with external agencies can help improve resource allocation decisions.
101 (ii) – New South Wales developed the Strategic Water Information and Monitoring Plan 2009
(a requirement under the Australian Water Resources Information Service project) to assist both
the Commonwealth and its own jurisdiction by:
• outlining current data inventory
• specifying any strategic gaps in data and information systems
• prioritising data gaps relative to BoM’s data delivery requirements.
National Water Commission
WI actions
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
223
224
198
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Victoria
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlement and planning framework
Implementation of the
26-27
framework:
• substantial completion of
plans to address any
existing overallocation for all
river systems and
groundwater resources in
accordance with
commitments under the
1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework
• legislative and administrative
regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of
the entitlements and
allocation framework in this
agreement.
26 – In 2004, Victoria identified water management plans for 10 river systems to complete its
commitments on overallocation under the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework. Management of
these systems has included flow rehabilitation plans, a bulk entitlement conversion process and
creating environmental entitlements with water recovered through a range of infrastructure
projects. In general the bulk entitlements specify a requirement to develop a program to manage
the environmental effects of extraction.
Water access entitlements to be
defined and implemented.
28–33 – The Water Act 1989 (Vic) establishes the statutory basis and mechanisms for managing
Victoria’s water entitlement framework. The framework is generally NWI consistent.
28-34
The Water Act 1989 (Vic) specifies the creation of sustainable water strategies (SWSs), bulk
entitlements, groundwater and streamflow management plans (GMPs and SFMPs) and regional
waterway strategies (RWSs). These apply depending on the particular circumstances of the
resource. At the regional level, four regional SWSs were produced between 2006 and 2011. At a
catchment level, all surface water resources are covered by regional river health strategies, and
currently Victoria has eight SFMPs and 10 GWMPs.
27 – The Water Act 1989 (Vic) provides the statutory basis for water access entitlements and
allocations. It sets rules for the trading of water shares and bulk entitlements. SWSs provide an
overview of the water trading framework and rules, and localised restrictions and rules to trading
are stipulated in SFMPs, GMPs and bulk entitlements. The Water Act 1989 (Vic) is currently under
review with a Water Bill Exposure Draft released in December 2013.
National Water Commission
Surface water and groundwater used for irrigation, commercial or intensive purposes requires a
water entitlement. The four different types of entitlement are bulk entitlements, environmental
entitlements, water shares and water licences.
197
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
In groundwater systems and unregulated river systems the Victorian Government allocates water
by issuing individuals with a section 51 licence to take and use water from waterways; on‑stream
and off‑stream dams; springs and soaks; works of an authority; and groundwater.
Surface water and groundwater made available for domestic and stock purposes are not managed
through formally issued entitlements but exist as statutory rights under the Water Act 1989 (Vic) by
virtue of an individual’s private ownership of, or access to, land. A licence provides for the
maximum volume of water that can be extracted from a defined source of water, and includes a
range of conditions. Licences may be issued for up to 15 years and the Water Act 1989 (Vic)
permits new or changed licence conditions set by the Minister to be included. The Water Act 1989
(Vic) requires the Minister to renew section 51 licences unless there are good reasons not to. The
current review of the Water Act 1989 (Vic) has proposed an amendment to include rights to
alternative water sources (i.e. stormwater), as well as extending the maximum licence tenure to 20
years.
Bulk entitlements provide a right to use and supply water which may be granted to water
corporations, the Victorian Environmental Water Holder (VEWH) and other specified bodies (e.g.
electricity companies). Bulk entitlements, environmental entitlements and water shares are all
permanent.
Entitlements are unbundled in the major regulated systems in Victoria with two exceptions: the
Coliban and Wimmera systems. Coliban system entitlements are held by individuals and
companies in the form of ‘take and use’ licences. The licences are tradeable. Victoria has stated
that the Coliban regulated water system is currently being remodelled and there is no plan to
unbundle entitlements due to its relatively small size. Following the sale of the Wimmera irrigation
entitlement to the Commonwealth in December 2012, the Wimmera irrigation system will be
decommissioned and therefore unbundling does not apply.
National Water Commission
Unbundling does not apply in Victoria to groundwater, unregulated waterways, recycled water, or
bulk entitlements and environmental entitlements to regulated waterways; however these
entitlements are tradeable in some areas subject to trading rules or Ministerial approval.
Allocations against water shares are determined by the relevant water corporation, usually as a
percentage of the entitlement volume. Seasonal determinations are based on system‑specific
rules for allocating water to entitlement holders as water becomes or is expected to become
available.
225
226
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
34 – Mining, emerging and developing industries must secure water access by obtaining a section
51 licence under the Water Act 1989 (Vic). Victoria has signed the National Partnership Agreement
on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development. Under the Agreement, Victoria must
refer a coal seam gas (CSG) or coal mining proposal to the Independent Expert Scientific
Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Developments (IESC) for advice if the
proposal is likely to have a significant impact on water resources, either in its own right or
cumulatively with other actions. Advice from the IESC informs decision‑making on approvals and
conditions.
Water to meet environmental and 35
other public benefit outcomes
identified in water plans to be
defined, provided and managed.
35 – The Water (Resource Management) Act 2005 and Water Act 1989 (Vic) establish the
Environmental Water Reserve (EWR). The Water Act 1989 (Vic) provides the legal foundation for
the independent VEWH. The EWR comprises:
• entitlements for the environment which are called either environmental bulk entitlements or
environmental entitlements
• rules‑based environmental flows through obligations on consumptive entitlements, licences
•
and permits, as set out in management plans
where specified in a bulk entitlement, ‘above‑cap’ water (water left over after limits on
diversion have been reached) or unregulated flows that cannot be kept in storage.
In regulated systems, the EWR is set aside mainly through environmental water entitlements. In
unregulated rivers, the EWR is provided primarily through management of existing diversions via
caps on issuing new entitlements, licence conditions, rostering and restriction rules in statutory
water management plans and local management rules. Water corporations are responsible for
ensuring that these conditions for the EWR are met. It is intended that environmental provisions
embedded in existing bulk entitlements will be converted into environmental entitlements.
The environmental entitlements and environmental bulk entitlements refer to water usually held in
and released from storages. Environmental entitlements are issued by the Minister for Water under
the Water Act 1989 (Vic). This may be done following an application by the VEWH. Under the
Victorian Water Entitlement Framework, environmental entitlements are afforded the same surety
and subject to the same properties as bulk entitlements. They are held by the VEWH, which was
established on 1 July 2011 as an independent statutory body responsible for making decisions on
the most efficient and effective use of Victoria’s environmental water entitlements. The VEWH may
trade its water entitlements and allocations if it believes the objectives of the Environmental Water
Reserve would benefit. It requires the approval of the Minister for Water, and in the case of
permanent trade, also the Minister for Environment. As with any consumptive entitlements,
environmental entitlements can also specify a range of conditions and obligations.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
SWSs are the enabling mechanism through which the Victorian Government, in partnership with
regional communities, decides whether additional water is required for environmental needs.
Waterway managers must prepare environmental water management plans for each priority
system identified in regional waterway strategies, outlining long‑term environmental objectives,
desired flow regimes and management arrangements. The environmental water management
plans form the basis of seasonal watering proposals that will inform the development of a
Seasonal Watering Plan by the VEWH. Responsibility for delivery of the Seasonal
Watering Plan is delegated by the VEWH to partners including storage operators and waterway
managers (catchment management authorities and Melbourne Water). The current statement of
obligations for waterway managers under the Water Act 1989 (Vic) requires them to integrate the
management of the EWR into the development of their regional waterway action plans and
integrated river works programs, and to liaise with the storage operator or licensing authorities to
negotiate the most effective release pattern for the EWR or extraction regime.
Water plans to be prepared
along the lines of the
characteristics and components
at Schedule E based on the
following priorities:
• plans for systems that are
overallocated, fully
allocated or approaching
full allocation
• plans for systems that are
not yet approaching full
allocation
39–40
39 – Victoria’s water planning process is generally NWI consistent. Water extraction is limited
through caps on levels of take in the form of sustainable diversion limits and permissible
consumptive volumes, and in some cases by specifying triggers for rosters, bans or restrictions.
Caps have historically been set based on current use of the water resource entitlements, or in a
few cases using a precautionary approach.
National Water Commission
Victoria does not have a single statutory instrument which fulfils all NWI criteria as a water plan.
Several instruments are used in conjunction to meet water planning and management
requirements for systems including those where water supply is under stress:
• SWSs identify key risks to water resources and set out actions to address these risks. The
Water Act 1989 (Vic) also requires SWSs to identify actions and set priorities to improve the
Environmental Water Reserve in accordance with objectives.
• Bulk entitlements provide a statutory right to use and supply water in declared regulated water
systems and specify water sharing arrangements and operating rules.
• Environmental entitlements are also issued on regulated systems and hold similar statutory
characteristics as consumptive bulk entitlements.
• SFMPs and GMPs are statutory water plans developed for declared water supply protection
areas (WSPAs).
• Management plans are local in scale and are in place for a small number of unregulated
systems and aquifers.
227
228
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
•
•
Water supply protection areas are declared where there is a risk to the resource and stricter
management of use is required.
The current regional river health strategies (RRHSs) were developed under the Water Act
1989 (Vic) and are statements of obligations for waterway managers at the surface water
catchment scale. They establish priorities for the protection and restoration of river systems
but are now beyond their intended date of use.
40 – Water regime monitoring is based on an extensive network of surface water level and flow
stations and groundwater bores across the state. A statement of obligations under the Water Act
1989 (Vic) requires waterway managers to report annually to the Minister for Water on the
implementation of RRHSs, related action plans and resource condition. The Catchment and Land
Protection Act 1994 (Vic) requires catchment management authorities to report on the condition
and management of land and water resources in their region in their annual reports.
Under the Water Act 1989 (Vic), the Department of Environment and Primary Industries (DEPI) is
required to include an update on any SWSs in its annual report, reporting on strategy
implementation and the prioritisation of actions.
For bulk entitlements, all water businesses produce annual reports that cover the amount of water
returned to waterways, storage inflows, volumes in storage, passing flows and compliance with
environmental flow provisions, if applicable.
The Victorian River Health Program report cards have tracked progress against targets set in the
Victorian River Health Strategy in 2005 and 2010 and were publicly released but are no longer
available online. The Victorian Waterway Management Strategy (VWMS), released in October
2013, replaces the Victorian River Health Strategy. Statewide aspirational targets are outlined in
the VWMS, which specifies that report cards on progress against targets will be produced in 2016
and 2020.
Licensing authorities are also required to report on the implementation of management plans for
WSPAs, including groundwater and streamflow management plans, in their annual reports
covering compliance with entitlements and monitoring of streamflow at specific sites.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
For groundwater management plans, urban groundwater licence holders are required under the
Water Act 1989 (Vic) to report to their licensing corporations against their licence conditions. This
requires reporting on the groundwater level, extraction volumes, salinity, and the surface water and
riverine environment connected to the groundwater resource.
For all other groundwater entitlements, there is no monitoring and reporting on the implementation
of a groundwater management plan, but the metered use for each groundwater management unit
is reported publicly on DEPI’s Groundwater Online website.
The Water Act 1989 (Vic) currently requires long‑term water resources assessment every 15 years
to establish whether any decline in the long‑term availability of surface water or groundwater has
occurred. Where such a decline has been demonstrated, the legislation requires a review to be
undertaken to identify ways to restore river or aquifer sustainability. This 15‑year resource
assessment is under consideration as part of Victoria’s review of the Water Act 1989 (Vic).
The Victorian Catchment Management Council (VCMC) also reports every five years on the
environmental condition and management of Victoria’s land and water resources, through the
VCMC Catchment Condition Report.
Substantially complete
addressing overallocation as
per NCC commitments.
Substantial progress towards
adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems.
41, 43–45
41— See NWI paragraph 26 for detail on progress.
43 – Victoria has advised that it does not explicitly identify water systems as being overallocated or
overused, however the water or flow stress of systems is assessed (e.g. in SWSs).
National Water Commission
The Water Act 1989 (Vic) currently specifies the creation of SWSs, bulk entitlements, waterway
management plans and groundwater and streamflow management plans. All high competition areas
in Victoria have water planning arrangements to manage extractions for returning the volume of
extraction to environmentally sustainable levels. For most groundwater and surface water systems a
cap has been put in place which limits how much water can be allocated for use. Extraction limits, or
permissible consumptive volumes, are limits that have been set for those systems by the Minister for
Water. Sustainable diversion limits are applied to water use in Victorian unregulated systems.
229
230
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
For groundwater and unregulated river systems, WSPAs were established where there is
considerable use and the potential for water stress. The Water Act 1989 (Vic) requires
management plans to be prepared to protect the groundwater or surface water resources in the
WSPA. Several WSPAs have no final statutory management plan prepared, and in some cases
where they exist the development process has taken several years. In the absence of a statutory
management plan, rural water corporations use licence conditions to manage the resource and will
develop local management rules which cover management and trading arrangements. Local
management rules are also used in groundwater management areas (GMAs) where groundwater
has been intensively developed or has the potential to be. Groundwater levels in GMAs are
monitored quarterly via the DEPI State Observation Bore Network.
The Western Region and Gippsland Region SWSs considered the need and benefit of preparing a
statutory management plan in existing WSPAs that do not currently have a plan. The abolition of
some WSPAs was flagged in these SWSs and a number have been abolished or are
recommended to be abolished on the basis that they were not highly stressed and did not meet the
criteria for declaring or continuing a WSPA. There are also WSPAs proposed for abolition which
under the SWSs were to be maintained. The process to identify these additional WSPAs is
unclear. Around half of the WSPAs created are now abolished or proposed to be abolished. Any
WSPA without a management plan will be abolished on commencement of the new Water Act
1989 (Vic). Where a management plan exists, it will be reviewed in accordance with the review
period specified in the plan. If the review recommends continuation of a statutory plan this will be
in the form of the Water Resource Management Order. Victoria intends to use local management
plans where licensed extraction is not the main cause of stress and Water Resource Management
Orders where licensed extraction is the issue.
Local management plans (LMPs) have been prepared for all groundwater areas in southern
Victoria that do not have a statutory management plan. These are contained within Groundwater
Catchment Statements and are a documentation of current policies and powers under the Water
Act 1989 (Vic). They do not contain all elements set out in the Western SWS policy, but are to be
reviewed in five years.
44 – Since December 2011 a range of water recovery projects have resulted in the creation of
101.7 GL/year in environmental entitlements held by the VEWH (includes 3.8 GL/year in the
Murray system from modernisation programs undertaken by NSW under The Living Murray
program). This water is in addition to the measures undertaken by the Australian Government to
recover Commonwealth environmental water.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
A range of on‑farm water savings projects have been undertaken with investment from both the
Australian and Victorian governments, in conjunction with irrigators. Through implementation of
projects funded by the Commonwealth’s On‑Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program (OFIEP) (rounds 1
and 2) and the Northern Victorian Irrigation Renewal Project (now the G‑MW Connections Project)
(stages 1 and 2), it is estimated that 104,900 ML of water used on‑farm has been saved. Of this
55,400 ML has been transferred to the relevant investing government. Further on‑farm projects
are due to be funded over 2013–18 by the $100 million Victorian Farm Modernisation Project.
Private service delivery agents have also been granted funding through the Commonwealth OFIEP
to deliver water savings projects in Victoria.
45 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 97 for more detail.
Risk assignment framework to
be implemented immediately for
all changes in allocation not
provided for in overallocation
pathways in water plans.
46–51
46– 51 – As allowed for under NWI paragraph 51, Victoria has opted not to apply the
Commonwealth risk‑assignment framework and the Water Act 1989 (Vic) does not assign risk.
Principles in the Western SWS state that as far as possible risk will be assigned to those best
equipped to manage it.
Currently, under section 33AAB of the Water Act 1989 (Vic) water rights can be permanently
qualified following a 15‑year water resource assessment to identify if any long‑term reduction in
water availability has occurred, and whether this has fallen disproportionately on water users or the
environment. The draft water bill does not contain this requirement.
While risks are not assigned and compensation is not set in the Water Act 1989 (Vic), water users
are provided with mechanisms which assist them to manage their own risk to a degree, including
carryover rules, a well‑established trading framework, and the provision of information about
seasonal outlooks, water levels and other data that assists with planning water resource use.
National Water Commission
Water plans to address
Indigenous water issues.
52–54
52–54 – Victoria does not have specific cultural water entitlements. The legislative provision for
Indigenous water occurs through section 8A (Rights) of the Water Act 1989 (Vic), which recognises
the right to take water under the Traditional Owner Settlement Act 2010 (Vic). Where a natural
resource agreement has been entered into, traditional owner groups can take and use water from
a waterway or bore for traditional purposes, being the purposes of providing for any personal,
domestic or non‑commercial communal needs of the members of the traditional owner group
entity.
231
232
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
In March 2013 the Dja Dja Wurrung Recognition and Settlement Agreement was made and
includes a Water Authorisation Order which lasts for a five‑year term and provides for members of
the Dja Dja Wurrung to take and use water from a waterway or bore for any traditional purposes as
noted above.
Victoria also has settlement agreements under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwth) with the following
traditional owner groups which provide for access to water as a recognised right from a waterway
or bore for traditional purposes:
• Gunditjmara (2007) – NTA
• Gunaikurnai (2010) – NTA
• Gunditjmara (Part B) and Eastern Maar (2011) – NTA.
Indigenous stakeholders were consulted in the development of the SWSs and the VWMS. The
VWMS’s overarching management objective is to provide the level of environmental condition
needed to sustain key environmental, economic and social values (including Indigenous cultural
values). It includes a chapter on Indigenous involvement in waterway management and recognises
Aboriginal cultural values in regional planning processes for waterways. It also includes a
requirement for traditional owners to be involved in the development of future regional Waterway
Strategies and research to identify Indigenous values associated with waterways and incorporate
them into regional planning processes.
In the development of seasonal environmental watering proposals for priority waterways,
catchment management authority consultation can include traditional owner group representation.
While the primary purpose of environmental entitlements is to achieve environmental benefits, the
VWMS states that where consistent with achieving environmental benefit, environmental water
managers must also consider whether economic, social and cultural benefits can be achieved.
DEPI, Parks Victoria and several catchment management authorities have Indigenous reference
groups to provide input and advice towards their decision‑making processes.
NWI actions
Implementation of measures to
address water interception by
land use change activities on a
priority basis in accordance with
water plans.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
55–57
55–57 – In Victoria the water planning framework identifies and takes into account interception
activities.
Interception is identified as a risk to water availability in SWSs and addressed to some extent in
streamflow management plans and groundwater management plans. The Northern Region SWS
states that interception activities, such as plantations, are a possible threat to water resources. The
Western Region and Gippsland Region SWSs set out community and stakeholder consultation
options for managing the water impacts of land use change activities.
Victoria’s draft water bill contains several proposals to manage interception activities. These include:
• enabling the Minister for Water to declare and manage ‘intensive management’ areas where
more active management is required to protect other water users and the environment
• recognising the rights to existing use in declared areas but controlling expansion of forestry
developments covering at least 20 ha or more than 10 per cent of a property, whichever is
greater.
The Western SWS proposes intensive management areas for some locations in western Victoria.
Proposals in the draft bill do not apply to existing plantation activities.
Farm dams used for irrigation require a water access entitlement and recent changes to the Water
(Irrigation Farm Dams) Act 2002 require new or altered domestic and stock dams to be registered in
rural residential areas, which assists with usage estimation and monitoring of changes in use (to
inform decisions about the need for changed management in future). A ‘take and use’ licence is
required for all farm dams supplying water for irrigation and commercial uses and for all domestic
and stock dams that are built on waterways. A licence is required for the construction of any bore,
however there is no requirement to licence use from a bore if it is only for stock and domestic
purposes.
National Water Commission
233
234
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlement and planning framework
Adoption of publicly accessible,
compatible systems for
registering water access
entitlements and trades
consistent with Schedule F:
•
pathways leading to full
implementation
•
full implementation.
59
59 – The Water Register provides public online information about water entitlements and their
ownership, and the prices and volumes traded on the water market.
The Water Register:
• holds water shares recorded by the Victorian Water Registrar, together with mortgages and
limited‑term transfers (leases) relevant to these water shares
• holds records of licences to take and use surface water and groundwater
• holds records of works‑related licences
• records water allocations that are available in the current season
• tracks and reconciles volumes of water entitlements by water system and trading zone
• holds water use licences and delivery shares that are managed by water corporations
• includes workflows to process water dealings, and keeps audit trails
• generates statistics and reports on levels of use, directions of trade, and prices paid.
Responsibility for the register is shared between an independent Victorian Water Registrar, DEPI,
and rural water corporations.
Establish compatible institutional
and regulatory arrangements
that facilitate trade, consistent
with principles in Schedule G:
•
remove institutional barriers
to trade
•
remove barriers to
temporary trade
•
remove barriers to
permanent trade
•
no imposition of new
barriers to trade
60
60 – Nineteen surface water hydrological zones have been established in Victoria for regulated
and unregulated systems. Trading rules exist to limit trade into or out of an irrigation district in
response to hydrological constraints, to avoid detrimental impacts on third parties, the
environment, or both.
From 11 April to 1 July 2011, allocation trade was suspended on trades between NSW and
Victoria and from the Loddon, Goulburn and Campaspe systems to the Murray or interstate, due to
storage capacity issues and state entitlement flow considerations. This was considered in a 2012
review of the carryover rules that apply on the Murray, Goulburn and Campaspe systems. The
review was undertaken with the aim of avoiding sudden trade suspensions and new trading rules
have been introduced which will manage storages to achieve this aim.
In unregulated systems, surface water take and use licences are attached to land and remain so,
even if the licence is traded, however these licences can be traded within the same catchment
subject to certain restrictions.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Once a catchment is declared a WSPA, all water trading into and out of it is suspended until the
approval of a draft management plan. A number of WSPAs remain without management plans,
allowing only for temporary trade in those areas.
Victoria’s 2012 Groundwater Management Framework aligns groundwater management
boundaries with groundwater catchments and covers all of the state. It allows for all users in a
connected groundwater resource to be managed consistently and for water trading where
groundwater is connected.
Relevant parties
(Commonwealth, NSW, Victoria
and SA) agree to:
•
•
63
take necessary steps to
enable the use of exchange
rates and/or tagging for
interstate trade
Tagged interstate entitlement trade is possible in all trading zones in northern Victoria, with the
exception of the Broken River, Ovens and King trading zones.
reduce barriers to trade in
southern Murray–Darling
Basin
•
review actions to assess
whether relevant parties
have removed barriers
•
NWC monitor impacts of
trade
63 – The Basin states have collaborated on interstate water trading issues such as exchange rate
trading and tagged trade. The tagged trade method has been adopted to facilitate interstate
entitlement trading. In Victoria, interstate tagged entitlement trading to and from Victoria has so far
been limited, while interstate allocation trading has increased significantly due to its flexibility and
also as a result of environmental water trades.
Victoria removed the 4 per cent limit on trade out of irrigation areas in July 2014.
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
National Water Commission
Complete commitments under
the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect
pricing policies for water storage
and delivery in rural and urban
systems.
65
65 – Victoria uses consumption‑based pricing in compliance with the NWI pricing principles
agreed by COAG in 2010. Water authorities carry out key ‘on‑the‑ground activities’ required for
issuing and managing licences. The Water Act 1989 (Vic) enables water authorities to charge for
these activities. Fees are designed to recoup the costs associated with the provision of the service
provided. Where direct expenses are incurred to provide the service, these expenses are allocated
directly to the cost of the service. Indirect expenses such as office facilities and utilities, corporate
services such as human resources and finance, as well as executive and board costs, generally
cannot be directly attributed to particular customer groups or services. These costs are allocated
based on factors such as number of assessments, causal drivers or in proportion to direct
expenditure.
235
236
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Fees can vary by catchment/water system (commensurate with the nature and cost of the activities
undertaken). Water authorities are required to ensure prices are efficient, which aims to eliminate
cross‑subsidies.
The Water Amendment (Governance and Other Reforms) Act 2012 (Vic) (Governance Act)
converted the three Melbourne water retailers – City West Water Limited, South East Water
Limited and Yarra Valley Water Limited – from Corporations Act companies operating under the
Water Industry Act 1994 (Vic) into statutory water corporations that will all operate under the same
legislation.
Metropolitan:
• continued movement towards
upper‑bound pricing
• development of pricing
policies for recycled water
and stormwater
66
66 (i) – All Victorian urban water authorities recover at least lower‑bound and the majority are
moving towards upper‑bound pricing.
66 (ii) – The Water Industry Regulatory Order 2012 (Vic) does not have pricing principles specific
to recycled water, therefore the Essential Services Commission (ESC) has regard to the NWI
pricing principles. Dual‑pipe service providers are required to publish prices. Recycled water
prices have risen over time to reflect higher levels of cost recovery.
• review and development of
pricing policies for trade
wastes
66 (iii) – Since NWC’s 2011 assessment, individual water corporation trade waste price
adjustments, managed within the ESC framework, have been made. No sector‑wide review of
• development of national
trade waste policies has been carried out.
guidelines for water accounts.
Rural and regional:
•
full cost recovery for all rural
surface and groundwater‑
based systems
•
achievement of
66 (iv) – The National Guidelines for Residential Customers Water Accounts were endorsed at the
11th meeting of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) and released on
24 November 2006 by Australian Government, state and territory water ministers.
66 (v) – Victoria has not provided information on cost recovery for rural surface and
groundwater‑based systems.
lower‑bound pricing for all
rural systems in line with
existing NCC commitments
•
continued movement
Water charges levied in Victorian areas of the Basin by water corporations are regulated by the
ESC as an accredited regulator for the ACCC, according to Water Charge (Infrastructure) Rules
2010 (Cwth).
towards upper‑bound
pricing for all rural systems,
where practicable
The ACCC requires regulation according to pricing principles, including pricing transparency and
ensuring sufficient revenue for the efficient delivery of the required services, be used by the ESC in
its 2013 Price Review.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Consistent approaches to pricing
and attributing costs of water
planning and management.
67-68
67 — For northern Victorian water authorities, water planning and management information
charges are regulated according to the Water Charge (Planning and Management Information)
Rules 2010 (Cwth).
Public reporting of cost recovery
for water planning and
management.
Victoria does not have a specific water resource planning and management charge; however,
funding is allocated from the environmental contribution charge for some water planning and
management information activities. Certain water resource planning and management functions
are delegated to water corporations, which recover their costs through water pricing.
In the Victorian water industry, water planning and management costs include:
• management of resource aspects of bulk entitlements
• administration of licences
• development and administration of SFMPs and GMPs
• development of SWSs.
All costs associated with broader water reform, policy development, strategy and regulation are
generally borne by the Victorian Government (through DEPI).
68 – Victorian water planning and management information charges applied in the Basin, and the
activities funded by them, are published on the websites of delegated authorities (including DEPI)
and are monitored by the ACCC. The Victorian Environmental Contribution is subject to its own
legislative requirements and is reported annually in the DEPI annual report.
National Water Commission
Investment in new or
refurbished water
infrastructure to continue to
be assessed as
economically and
ecologically sustainable
before being approved.
69
69 – The ESC assesses proposed capital expenditures of Victorian water businesses for efficiency
and prudence when determining the revenue requirements of those businesses.
Major investment decisions about the water infrastructure network are made within the context of
guidelines set out by the Victorian Department of Treasury and Finance under its lifecycle guidance
materials and under the Water Act 1989 (Vic). For significant investments, public non‑financial
corporation (PNFC) entities which include water corporations are required to submit a detailed
business case for the Treasurer’s approval. These business cases are reviewed and evaluated by
the Department of Treasury and Finance.
DEPI has developed a Water Savings Protocol for Irrigation Modernisation Projects as a means of
calculating, auditing and allocating water savings generated from major irrigation modernisation
projects in Victoria.
237
238
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Release of unallocated water
70-72
70–72 – No new entitlements can be issued in fully developed surface and groundwater systems.
If there is unallocated water available for either surface or groundwater, under the Water Act 1989
(Vic) the Minister may grant new water shares subject to the requirements of the Act. For
significant new allocations the government will establish an auction or tender process by public
advertisement of the sale, and setting of a reserve price. Water savings through infrastructure
investment are auctioned as high and low reliability water shares.
A small number of surface water systems in southern Victoria have unallocated entitlements
available for users.
Environmental externalities:
•
•
manage environmental
externalities through a
range of regulatory
measures (such as through
setting extraction limits in
water management plans
and by specifying the
conditions for the use of
water in water use licences)
examine the feasibility of
using market‑based
mechanisms such as pricing
to account for positive and
negative environmental
externalities associated with
water use
•
implement pricing that
includes externalities where
found to be feasible
73
73 – Victoria manages environmental externalities through a range of regulatory measures
including setting extraction limits and setting conditions in water use licences, including an annual
use limit to manage salinity and the maximum volume of water in an irrigation season that may be
used on the land described in a water use licence or water use registration.
The Minister of Water determines an environmental contribution which is levied on all Victorian
water businesses under the Water Industry (Environmental Contributions) Act 2004 (Vic) and paid
into the Victorian Government’s consolidated fund. These charges are levied to fund various water
planning and management activities captured by the rules, including water‑related initiatives that
seek to promote the sustainable management of water and address the consequential adverse
impacts to the environment associated with the provision of water‑based services.
The authorities pass costs onto customers through water charges, which are regulated by the
Essential Services Commission (ESC). The Minister must prepare a report setting out details of the
expenditure of all money paid as environmental contributions by water supply authorities in that
financial year, provided in DEPI’s annual report.
The Mallee irrigation region has salinity protocols which originated in the Nyah to SA Border
Salinity Management Plan 1993. Developers of new, although not existing, irrigation pay a levy
based on the magnitude of impact on river salinity, which covers the cost of management. In
Salinity Impact Zones, ministerial determinations can also require a levy to offset salinity impacts
generated on land not previously irrigated.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Benchmarking efficient
performance:
• independent, public, annual
reporting of performance
benchmarking for all
metropolitan,
non‑metropolitan and rural
75-76
75 – Victoria has provided benchmarking information for inclusion in the National Performance
Reports on urban water utilities and rural water service providers. At the time of writing, the future
of this reporting is uncertain.
•
76 – The ESC recovers all its annual operating costs through licence fees paid by the water
utilities. The fees include Victoria’s share of costs for the production of the National Performance
Reports. The cost of performance data audits is borne by the water utilities.
water delivery agencies
develop nationally consistent
report framework.
Independent pricing regulator:
77
• independent pricing bodies to
set and review prices or
pricing processes for water
storage and delivery and
publicly report
77 – The ESC is Victoria’s independent economic regulator. The ESC regulates prices and fees
charged by water corporations for issuing and managing licences, and monitors service standards
and market conduct.
The Water Industry Regulatory Order (WIRO) sets out the regulatory approach that the ESC is
required to adopt in assessing the prices and revenues proposed by the water businesses. The
WIRO does not apply to pricing determinations made by the ESC with respect to Murray–Darling
Basin water charges levied by Goulburn‑Murray Water (G‑MW) and Lower Murray Water.
Water corporations are required to prepare a five‑year water plan which, among other things,
outlines pricing for surface water and groundwater. The plans must be approved by the ESC which
assesses revenue required over that period, and approves or determines the manner in which
prices will be set.
National Water Commission
239
240
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Integrated management of environmental water
Recognising the different types
of surface water and
groundwater systems:
• effective and efficient
management and
institutional arrangements
• to ensure the achievement
of environmental outcomes;
and
• where it is necessary to
recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to
adopt the principles for
determining the most
effective and efficient mix of
water recovery measures.
79
79 (i) a) – The VEWH manages the state’s environmental entitlements (created via projects to
recover additional water for the environment), but not the entire EWR (i.e. not passing flows or
above‑cap water). The VEWH decides on the most effective use of the Water Holdings, including
use, trade and carryover.
Victorian sites may also be allocated environmental water from other sources, including The Living
Murray (TLM) program, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) and through
donations from individuals, community groups and other organisations. The VEWH coordinates the
use of TLM and CEWH water entitlements in Victoria to maximise environmental outcomes.
Victoria’s waterway managers are responsible for local planning and the delivery of environmental
water holdings. They also have a role in planning for the broader EWR. Catchment management
authorities undertake flow studies for regulated rivers identified as a priority in their particular
RRHS. They are also preparing long‑term environmental water management plans and seasonal
watering proposals, which are considered by the VEWH in the development of the seasonal
watering plan. Watering is implemented through catchment management authorities and other
partners such as water corporations.
79 (i) b) – Victoria has established management and institutional arrangements to ensure the
achievement of environmental and other public benefit outcomes for resources shared with other
jurisdictions, including:
• Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling Basin Reform 2008
• Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray–Darling Basin
2013
• the Water (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2008 (Vic), which refers powers to the Australian
Government in order to implement the MDB‑focused Water Act 2007 (Cwth)
• the Further Agreement on Addressing Water Overallocation and Achieving Environmental
•
•
•
Objectives in the Murray–Darling Basin: Control and Management of Living Murray Assets
2009.
the Intergovernmental Agreement on Addressing Water Overallocation and Achieving
Environmental Objectives in the Murray–Darling Basin 2004 and the Supplementary
Agreement 2006
the Snowy Water Inquiry Outcomes Implementation Deed, the Snowy Water Licence, the
Snowy Scheme Long Term Arrangements Deed and the Snowy Bilateral Deed
the 1985 Border Groundwaters Agreement (updated 2005).
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
79 (i) c) – Surface water and groundwater are defined in the Water Act 1989 (Vic) and their
connectivity is explicitly recognised. Connectivity must be taken into account in the assessment of
individual licence applications. SWSs recognise the importance of managing groundwater/surface
water interactions.
The Upper Ovens River Water Supply Protection Area Water Management Plan (2012) is the first
conjunctive management plan in Victoria and explicitly integrates surface and groundwater
management.
National Water Commission
79 (i) d) – There are a number of requirements to report on the achievement of environmental and
other public benefit outcomes, including the following:
• Environmental watering in Victoria, an annual report prepared by the VEWH, details the
outcomes of environmental watering programs across the state that use environmental water
from Victorian water entitlements, TLM, the CEWH and donated water. Details of
environmental watering activities are also provided on an annual basis in the Victorian
Environmental Watering Booklets which are available in hard copy and online. The latest
report produced covers 2012–13. Delivery partners, including Melbourne Water and
catchment management authorities, also provide information on environmental watering
activities through their annual reports.
• The Victorian Environmental Flows Monitoring and Assessment Program (VEFMAP) provides
a method for relevant waterway managers to monitor and report on environmental flow
outcomes over the long term for eight major regulated river systems in Victoria. Victoria has
reported that the analysis stage in the development of VEFMAP is close to completion, and
outcomes on the assumptions underlying environmental watering will soon be made available.
Public reporting of VEFMAP is not mandatory.
• For unregulated systems, streamflow is monitored under SFMPs, which are required to be
reviewed against their objectives at a frequency of not less than five years. However, the
plans do not monitor stream health, and state that they ‘will not attempt to demonstrate any
environmental improvements from implementation of environmental flows’. Rather, water
resource health is monitored through state and CMA processes (eg Index of Stream
Condition). Since the initial SFMPs were put in place in 2003, there have now been six
reviews completed and reported as part of their annual reports. Reviews have identified
issues, however changes are not always recommended in response to findings due to the
need for a statutory process to amend the plans, for example addressing small volumes of
overallocation in Stringybark Creek, the adequacy of existing plans to achieve environmental
objectives, and the ability to address minor issues over time.
241
See also actions associated with NWI paragraph 40 for more detail.
242
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
79 (i) e) – Under the Water Act 1989 (Vic), environmental water held as an entitlement can be
traded on the temporary water market if it is not required to achieve environmental or other public
benefit outcomes. Rules‑based environmental water cannot be traded.
79 (i) f) – Victoria has participated in the development of the draft national high ecological value
aquatic ecosystems (HEVAE) framework and has adopted the framework’s approach. HEVAEs are
included in priority setting processes for catchment management authority waterway management.
79 (ii) – Victoria has adopted a mix of water recovery measures to achieve modified environmental
and other public benefit outcomes in surface water systems that are fully utilised. The measures
include specific initiatives (TLM), efficiency gains through improved infrastructure (Wimmera
Mallee Pipeline and the G‑MW Connections Project), water buybacks and the management of
existing entitlements.
Waterway managers participate in the various planning processes (such as sustainable water
strategies and water management plans) regarding water sharing and any additional water
recovery that might be required for the environment. This includes investigating ways to achieve
environmental water outcomes without additional water (e.g. the use of structural works). The
program of river restoration activities undertaken by waterway managers seeks to improve the
environmental condition of waterways via non‑water related on‑ground activities including the
construction of fishways, riparian and in‑stream works.
Victoria is not employing water recovery measures in any groundwater system, but has advised
that groundwater systems have limits placed on allocation through a range of processes, including
qualifications specified in groundwater management plans, water shortage declarations or
allocation determinations by water authorities as part of licence conditions. Victoria is currently
embarking on a program to identify and prioritise groundwater‑dependent ecosystems that may be
affected by groundwater use.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
81
81 – Victoria has participated at a national level in the development of national water accounting
standards and reporting frameworks, including the Water Accounting Conceptual Framework, the
General Purpose Water Accounting Reports and the Australian Water Accounting Standards 1
(AWAS 1).
Water resource accounting
Benchmarking of accounting
systems
Victoria uses AWAS 1 and the Water Accounting Conceptual Framework in providing data to the
Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for the general purpose water account.
Victoria participated in the development of the AWAS 2.
Consolidated water accounts:
• develop and implement
robust water accounting
• identify situations where
close interaction between
surface and groundwater
exist to integrate the
accounting of groundwater
and surface water use.
82-83
82 – DEPI produces the Victorian Water Accounts (VWA) which provide an annual overview of
water availability and use across Victoria at bulk supply level, including a detailed water account
for each of the state’s 29 river basins. The accounts also provide information on water set aside for
environmental purposes from the Victorian water entitlement and allocation framework. Published
in hard copy and on the DEPI website, the VWA also provides assessments of rainfall, streamflow
and groundwater levels, as well as water storage information.
83 – The Water Register is the public register of all water‑related entitlements in Victoria. It
records:
• who has been issued with water shares and the reliability, tenure, location and holding in
megalitres for each water share
• how much water has been allocated against water shares, how much has been used, and
where it was used
• registered interests in water shares, such as mortgages and leases.
National Water Commission
It also provides summary reports on volume of water shares in each water system, annual
allocation, use and the trading history, including average prices for each water system. A water
share transaction can be lodged online with a trading rules engine.
The register allows for trading between groundwater and surface water systems where trading is
permitted by a management plan.
243
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Environmental water accounting:
• develop an environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements
• apply the environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements.
85
85 (i) – The VEWH is required to report on the volume of water released, delivered and used at
each of the environmental watering sites. As water is allocated to, or delivered from the
entitlements, these amounts are recorded on the Victorian Water Register.
Implement information measures
86
86 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 81.
87-88
87–88 – Victoria’s 2010 Implementation Plan for Non‑urban Water Metering identified agency
188
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
Metering and measuring actions:
• develop metering and
measuring actions
• implement metering and
measuring actions.
85 (ii) – DEPI reports annually on the environmental watering program in the Victorian Water
Accounts, which include water set aside through entitlements, passing flow requirements, SFMPs,
GMPs, and water leaving the Murray-Darling Basin.
metering responsibilities and the dates by which the actions are required. Under the
implementation plan, an estimated 18,924 meters are to be upgraded and a further 7523 meters
installed. Victoria’s business case for the program is pending Commonwealth approval. Without
funding, meter upgrades will not occur before the end of their useful life.
A draft policy which seeks to clarify existing obligations and support the rural water corporations in
non‑urban metering implementation was released for comment in March 2014.
National guidelines on water
reporting:
• develop and apply national
guidelines on water reporting
covering the application,
scale, detail and frequency
for open reporting.
89
89 – Victoria is participating in the development of the Environmental Water Accounting Standards
through the National Water Accounting Committee.
In conjunction with other jurisdictions, Victoria has agreed the framework and arrangements for the
National Framework for Non-urban Water Metering (2010).
Also see actions associated with NWI paragraph 81.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
91
91 (i) – The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme is a joint initiative of the
Australian and state and territory governments. The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards
Act 2005 (Cwth) provides the legal framework for the scheme. Victoria has enacted
complementary legislation (the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Victoria) Act 2005).
Urban water reform
Implementation of demand
management measures, including:
• implementation and
compliance monitoring of
WELS, including mandatory
labelling and minimum
standards for agreed
appliances
• develop and implement ‘Smart
Approved WaterMark’ for
garden activities
• review effectiveness of
temporary water restrictions
and associated public
education strategies, and
consider extending low‑level
•
restrictions to standard
practice
implement management
responses to water supply and
discharge system losses
including leakage, excess
pressure, overflows and other
maintenance needs
91 (ii) – The Smart Approved WaterMark is a not‑for‑profit organisation established by four
associations: the Australian Water Association, Irrigation Australia, the Nursery and Garden
Industry, Australia and the Water Services Association of Australia. It is overseen by a steering
committee with representation from the Australian and state and territory governments, water
utilities, the four governing associations, and the chair of the Technical Expert Panel (an
independent panel which assesses applications to the scheme). Project establishment was
finalised in 2011 and a report on the delivery of the Smart Approved WaterMark was provided
to the Department of the Environment. The program continues to provide product efficiency
ratings to consumers.
91 (iii) – Water restrictions are managed by Victoria’s urban water corporation and are only
applicable to customers on a reticulated supply. These restrictions do not apply to the use of
recycled, reclaimed, rain or grey water except where it is supplemented in any way by drinking
water.
National Water Commission
The Victorian Government’s revised permanent water saving rules took effect on 16 December
2011 following a statewide review of Victoria’s Uniform Water Restriction and Permanent
Water Saving Rules, instigated as a result of the extended drought. These apply across
Victoria and form part of each water corporation’s permanent water saving plan. The rules do
not preclude water restrictions during drought periods, but are intended to assist with efficient
water use in the long term. The updated restrictions will be used when required to balance
demand during times of water shortage.
Each urban water corporation is required to prepare a drought response plan for urban
systems under their statement of obligations. The drought response plan is intended to govern
the management of the supply of water in a drought or when water is limited. The plan may
include regulating water use via a by‑law for water restrictions.
245
246
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
Encourage further innovation in
urban water use including:
• develop and apply national
health and environmental
guidelines for water sensitive
urban designs for recycled
water and stormwater
• develop national guidelines for
evaluating options for water
sensitive urban developments
in both new urban
sub‑divisions and high rises
• evaluate existing water
•
•
sensitive urban icon
developments
review institutional and
regulatory models for
integrated urban water cycle
planning and management
and develop best‑practice
guidelines
review incentives to stimulate
innovation.
NWI paragraph
92
Commentary 2014
92 – Victoria has participated in national level working groups and committees to develop the
Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (2009)
which address water quality guidelines for recycled and stormwater use. Victoria also
participated in the production of the Commission’s national review of water restrictions.
The Office of Living Victoria (OLV) was established in 2012 to deliver Victoria’s next iteration
of urban water reform. It administers the $50 million Living Victoria Fund to support the
development of Integrated Water Cycle Management (IWCM) projects across Victoria. The
fund is not designed to support large‑scale capital projects, or operational or recurrent project
needs.
OLV recently released the draft Melbourne’s Water Future Strategy which aims to develop ‘an
integrated and resilient water system, which is planned and managed to support liveable and
sustainable communities, protect the environmental health of urban waterways and bays,
provide secure water supplies efficiently, protect public health and deliver affordable essential
water services’. The draft proposes a number of actions, for example the development of local
and regional water cycle plans for Melbourne by 2014, a regulatory impact statement that
considers the net community costs and benefits of implementing new controls to improve new
building water performance, establishing new objectives for the water authorities and adopting
a statewide approach to valuing the non‑financial benefits of innovative water projects.
OLV’s Living Victoria Water Rebate Program, launched in 2012, expanded previous rebates
to include a range of water efficient appliances, plumbing retrofits, and water efficiency items.
OLV is currently undertaking a review of knowledge, research and innovation in the water
sector, and is partnering with research agencies and institutions, such as the CRC for Water
Sensitive Cities.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Community partnerships and adjustment
Open and timely consultation with
all relevant stakeholders in
relation to:
• pathways for returning
overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction levels,
periodic review of water
plans, and other significant
decisions affecting the
security of water access
entitlements.
95
95 – Victoria consulted stakeholders widely as part of the development of its SWSs,
Melbourne’s Water Future Strategy and the new Victorian Waterway Management Strategy.
Community consultation is required under the Water Act 1989 (Vic) during periodic reviews of
SWSs, long‑term resource assessments and management plans for WSPAs. For WSPA
management plans, the Minister appoints a consultative committee of stakeholder
representatives to develop the plans. The committee must consult the community, including
Indigenous communities, during development. In WSPAs where local management rules are
being implemented, stakeholder consultation is not required to the same extent as for water
management plans; for example, rules are not developed through stakeholder representative
groups and do not require public consultation.
Bulk entitlements are established through an engagement process and include hydrological
and environmental assessments.
Requests to allocate new environmental entitlements or amend existing entitlements are
advertised in local newspapers and on DEPI’s website. The process may involve consultation
with stakeholders and local communities and submissions to DEPI to identify all the potential
impacts of the proposal. The Minister for Water may call for submissions when a request is
received, and will consider any submissions before making a decision.
Environmental Watering Advisory Groups or equivalent processes were used by relevant
waterway managers to provide input into environmental water planning and implementation
processes.
National Water Commission
Stakeholders with an interest or role in environmental watering in the relevant regulated
catchments are consulted in the development of annual environmental watering priorities for
the waterway manager’s seasonal watering proposals. These include water authorities, the
CEWH, land managers and the Murray–Darling Basin Authority.
The Victorian Government convened a 33‑member group to provide input and advice on the
development of the Basin plan. The Basin Plan Advisory Group included community, industry,
environment, local government and Indigenous representatives.
247
248
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
Provision of accurate and timely
information to all relevant
stakeholders in relation to the
progress of water plan
implementation and other issues
relevant to the security of water
access entitlements.
NWI paragraph
96
Commentary 2014
96 – SWS implementation and prioritisation of actions is reported through DEPI’s annual report
and on its website. Overall progress of the SWS actions is not clear from these reports as they
do not contain specifics on all actions completed or if timeframes have been met.
The Water Act 1989 (Vic) requires annual reports for each SFMP and GMP to be prepared by
the authority responsible. The reports detail activities in administering and enforcing each
management plan.
DEPI’s online Monthly Water Report provides a summary of the status of Victoria’s water
resources and water supplies at the end of the reporting month. It provides information on
rainfall, streamflow, water storage levels, irrigation allocations, restrictions on unregulated
streams, the EWR and seasonal outlooks. Information on groundwater levels for the report is
updated on a quarterly basis.
The Victorian Water Resources Data Warehouse provides online access to information on
water quality and quantity throughout the state.
DEPI produces Victorian Water Accounts which provide an annual overview of water
availability and use across Victoria at bulk supply level, including a detailed water account for
each of Victoria’s 29 river basins.
Some water corporations produce publicly available annual local water reports at a basin level,
which provide information on rainfall, river flow and groundwater level trends, restrictions, the
number of irrigation licences and their use and emerging local water issues.
See also NWI paragraph 79 (i) d) for further details.
NWI actions
Address significant adjustment
issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and
communities that may arise
from reductions in water
availability as a result of
implementing the NWI.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
97
97 – Both the Australian and Victorian governments have invested in on‑farm water savings
projects.
The Australian Government has begun Round 2 of the Strategic Water Purchase Initiative in
Victoria with a budget of up to $5 million. The initiative aims to pursue environmental water
purchase opportunities arising from the decommissioning of channels involved in the roll‑out of the
G‑MW Connections Project.
Victoria provides support for adjustment processes through incentives for whole farm plans under
the Linking Farms and Catchments to Modernisation Stage 2 initiative ($5.5 million over four
years). As part of this, DEPI provides support to irrigators in relation to the modernisation and
reconfiguration of their supply system to improve irrigation efficiency and work towards bridging the
gap to Basin plan SDLs.
The G‑MW Connections Project to modernise irrigation systems in the region began in 2007 as
the Northern Victoria Irrigation Renewal Project (NVIRP). In October 2011, the Australian and
Victorian governments signed an agreement for $1.216 billion investment from the
Commonwealth, building on the $1 billion first stage of the project, which was funded by the
Victorian Government, Melbourne Water and irrigators. Each investor receives a defined share of
the water savings achieved from improving the efficiency of the channel delivery network. Of these,
the Australian and Victorian governments’ shares of the water savings become environmental
entitlements. When complete, 214 GL of water savings will be transferred to the Commonwealth as
environmental entitlements.
Further on‑farm projects are due to be funded over 2013–18 by the Commonwealth through the
National Water Commission
Victorian Farm Modernisation Project under which 55 per cent of water savings are provided to the
Commonwealth for the environment and the remaining 45 per cent to participating
Goulburn‑Murray irrigators.
Other private service delivery agents have also been successful in gaining funding through the
Commonwealth On‑Farm Irrigation Efficiency Program, to deliver water savings projects in
Victoria.
249
250
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Knowledge and capacity building
Science priorities and research:
• identify the key science
priorities to support
implementation of the NWI
and where this work is
being undertaken
• implement any necessary
measures to ensure the
research effort is well
coordinated and publicised,
and any gaps are
addressed.
101
101 – A range of environmental monitoring and research programs is coordinated through DEPI,
including the Index of Stream Condition, the Index of Wetland Condition, the pilot Index of Estuary
Condition and Victorian contributions to the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council’s Sustainable
Rivers Audit. Research projects are also conducted via catchment management authorities
through the Victorian Investment Framework and TLM program.
Since 2005, Victoria has invested more than $6 million in VEFMAP, which aims to monitor
ecosystem response to environmental flows. VEFMAP aims to establish a statewide framework for
environmental flows monitoring in nine high‑priority regulated rivers.
Queensland
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlement and planning framework
Implementation of the
26-27
framework:
• substantial completion of
plans to address any
existing overallocation for all
river systems and
groundwater resources in
accordance with
commitments under the
1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework
• legislative and administrative
regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of
the entitlements and
allocation framework in this
agreement.
26 – At the commencement of the NWI, Queensland did not have any overallocated systems to
address under the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework, however undertook to complete 23
water resource plans (WRPs) to provide for the allocation and sustainable management of water in
priority catchment areas. Queensland has finalised all 23 WRPs, with resource operations plans
(ROPs) in place to implement the WRPs in all but the latest plan area, the Wet Tropics. ROPs
specify water sharing arrangements, trading rules, infrastructure operating rules (including
environmental flow releases) and monitoring and reporting requirements. Queensland has also
signalled its intention to develop a Cape York WRP, with a draft strategy available for public
consultation.
The Queensland Government has announced a strategic review of the Water Act 2000 (Qld), one
aim of which is to review the water resource planning process to remove duplication and
rationalise timeframes associated with the current two plan process.
The inclusion of groundwater resources into WRPs is in progress based on risk. Overallocation for
identified groundwater systems is being progressively addressed (see comments against NWI
paragraphs 43–45).
27 – The Water Act 2000 (Qld) establishes an NWI‑consistent statutory planning framework.
National Water Commission
Water access entitlements to be
defined and implemented.
28-34
28–33 – Under the Water Act 2000 (Qld) Queensland’s water resources are allocated and
managed through water access entitlements in areas where there is a WRP and associated ROP.
ROPs are in place for all WRPs except the Wet Tropics. The water resource planning process
provides for water entitlements to convert to water allocations which are separate from land and
are tradeable.
Recent amendments have been made to the Water Act 2000 (Qld), which extend the expiry date
of existing licences and new licences to 30 June 2111, unless otherwise specified in a WRP or a
ROP.
251
252
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
34 – Water extraction for petroleum and gas production is authorised under the Petroleum and
Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld) and the Petroleum Act 1923 (Qld). Water rights under
the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act 2004 (Qld) for coal seam gas (CSG) activities
are non‑volumetric, non‑perpetual, not tradeable and are connected to the land (a petroleum
tenement). Water extraction rights for petroleum and gas production are outside of Queensland’s
water planning and entitlement system.
Queensland has signed the National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal
Mining Development (2012). Under the Agreement, Queensland must refer a CSG or coal mining
proposal to the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal
Mining Developments (IESC) for advice if the proposal is likely to have a significant impact on
water resources, either in its own right or cumulatively with other actions. Advice from the IESC
informs decision‑making on state and Commonwealth approvals and conditions.
The Queensland Government does not support the proposition that water management for
unconventional gas should be fully integrated with states’ water planning and entitlement
arrangements for other uses.
Queensland is of the view that NWI paragraph 34 is applicable to ‘associated water’ use for the
resources sector. NWI paragraph 34 recognises that ‘there are special circumstances facing the
minerals and petroleum sectors that will need to be addressed by policies and measures beyond
the scope of the NWI’.
Water to meet environmental and 35
other public benefit outcomes
identified in water plans to be
defined, provided and managed.
35 (i) and (ii) – In Queensland environmental water provisions are predominantly provided through
a rules‑based framework with planned water embedded into sharing rules contained in WRPs and
ROPs.
As required by the Water Act 2000 (Qld) ecological outcomes are included in WRPs with strategies
intended to achieve these outcomes included in WRPs and ROPs. ROPs specify water sharing
arrangements including environmental flow releases.
The Water Act 2000 (Qld) was amended through the Water and Other Legislation Amendment Bill
2011 (assent date 24 November 2011) and allowed the Commonwealth Environmental Water
Holder (CEWH) to acquire and hold water licences (e.g. groundwater and overland flow) separate
to land.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The CEWH now holds water entitlements for several rivers in the Queensland Murray–Darling
Basin.
During 2012–13, Queensland established administrative and operational pathways for the
Commonwealth to start recovering groundwater and overland flow licences for environmental
purposes separate to land.
A water management plan was declared for the Upper Condamine Alluvium in August 2012, and is
recognised as an Interim WRP under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth). The plan provides for trading of
relocatable groundwater licences in this area. The plan allows groundwater licence holders to be
eligible to participate in the Commonwealth’s water purchasing program Restoring the Balance in
the Murray–Darling Basin.
Additionally, engagement with the Commonwealth during 2012–13 led to Queensland expanding
the scope of the eligibility criteria for its Healthy HeadWaters Water Use Efficiency program (for
water recovery) in order to improve participation.
35 (iii) – Rules‑based water is not held as an entitlement and cannot be traded. Water entitlements
can be purchased and used for environmental purposes.
Water plans to be prepared
along the lines of the
characteristics and components
at Schedule E based on the
following priorities:
39–40
39 – Queensland water planning processes are NWI consistent. In preparing WRPs, technical
assessments are prepared on relevant social, economic and environmental factors. Community
submissions are invited during development of the WRP and ROP and a publicly available report
records the outcomes of issues raised and the reasons for the decisions taken.
National Water Commission
• plans for systems that are
overallocated, fully
allocated or approaching
full allocation
40 – In accordance with the requirements of the Water Act 2000 (Qld), the Minister is required to
prepare a report periodically on the performance and implementation of each WRP, with each plan
specifying the reporting period.
• plans for systems that are
not yet approaching full
allocation
The Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) collects, manages and reports data on
the quantity and quality of surface water and groundwater in the state’s rivers and aquifers. For
example, streamflow data and historical monitoring data services are available via the Water
Monitoring Data Portal.
253
254
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Science on the water requirements of natural ecosystems is collected through the Environmental
Flows Assessment Program (EFAP), a statewide monitoring and assessment program that aims to
evaluate the effectiveness of each WRP in achieving its stated ecological outcomes. Brief reports
of EFAP projects and results in each WRP area are published by DNRM.
The Water Act 2000 (Qld) has been amended to allow the Minister to approve an extension of the
term of a WRP from 10 years up to a maximum of 20 years. The Minister’s decision is subject to a
public submissions process. Furthermore, a risk assessment and review process is also
undertaken, in each case, to assess the effectiveness of the current plan and the appropriateness
of extending it. This extension process is currently being considered for the Barron, Pioneer and
Georgina‑Diamantina WRPs.
The Minister may still amend a plan at any time, and must act to amend a plan if satisfied that the
plan outcomes are not being achieved, or the objectives or strategies are no longer appropriate.
Substantially complete
addressing overallocation as
per NCC commitments.
Substantial progress towards
adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems.
41, 43–45
41 – See NWI paragraph 26 for detail on progress.
43 – Priority groundwater areas, where resources are most at risk, are being progressively
incorporated into WRPs. The Minister has announced a review of the Border Rivers, Moonie River
and Condamine‑Balonne WRPs to include groundwater. Queensland advises that the plans will be
finalised by the end of 2014.
Overuse has been identified in three groundwater systems incorporated into WRPs outside of the
Murray–Darling Basin. Reductions in extractions are being managed under the annual announced
allocation process while final arrangements will be given effect through ROP amendments.
For systems within the Murray–Darling Basin, sustainable extraction limits and timeframes for their
implementation have been set by the Murray–Darling Basin Plan (the Basin plan). For surface
water systems these extraction limits will replace those in current WRPs to meet the Basin plan’s
Sustainable Diversion Limits (SDLs). Commonwealth water recovery measures to meet these
extraction limits are underway in the Condamine‑Balonne and Queensland Border Rivers
catchments. The Commonwealth has not yet commenced acquisition of groundwater entitlements
in the Upper Condamine Alluviums.
45 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 97.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Risk assignment framework to
be implemented immediately for
all changes in allocation not
provided for in overallocation
pathways in water plans.
46–51
46–51 – On 26 November 2012, following an amendment of Queensland’s water management
legislation, the Water Minister made a determination that recognised Queensland’s provisions as
applying the risk‑assignment framework.
Water plans to address
Indigenous water issues.
52–54
52–54 – The Cape York Peninsula Heritage Act 2007 (Qld) provides for the protection of
Indigenous cultural and heritage values in water where areas of international conservation
significance are declared. The Act establishes a requirement for an Indigenous water reserve or
allocation in a WRP in the Cape York Peninsula region.
In other areas of Queensland, Indigenous water reserves have been included in a number of
WRPs to provide access to water for Indigenous economic or social benefit.
The Water Act 2000 (Qld) was amended in 2013 to allow Indigenous people to take or interfere
with water for traditional activities or cultural purposes as a right under the Act.
Implementation of measures to
address water interception by
land use change activities on a
priority basis in accordance with
water plans.
55–57
55–57 – Queensland recognises interception activities in the Water Act 2000 (Qld). Overland flow
water is vested in the state in accordance with section 19 of the Water Act 2000 (QLD). A person
may take overland flow for any purpose unless there is a moratorium notice or a WRP that limits or
alters the water that may be taken.
National Water Commission
Queensland has undertaken risk assessments as part of WRP planning processes. Where
necessary, a regulatory and management regime for overland flow water is specified in the
relevant WRP and ROP. Estimates of water for stock and domestic purposes are allowed for in
water allocation decisions. Water for mining operations generally requires a licence, however
water to support CSG operations is licensed under the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety)
Act 2004 (Qld) rather than the Water Act 2000 (Qld). Although these rights may contain restrictions
intended to minimise adverse impacts, they are not volumetrically controlled.
In addition, Queensland has recently introduced the Regional Planning Interests Act 2014 (Qld)
and Regional Planning Interests Regulation 2014 (Qld) which seeks to strike an appropriate
balance between protecting priority land uses (priority living areas, priority agricultural areas,
strategic environmental areas and strategic cropping areas) and economic development. Approval
is required when a resource activity or regulated activity – such as broadacre cropping or water
storage (dam) – is proposed in an area of regional interest.
255
256
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water markets and trading
Adoption of publicly accessible,
compatible systems for
registering water access
entitlements and trades
consistent with Schedule F:
•
pathways leading to full
implementation
•
full implementation.
Establish compatible
institutional and regulatory
arrangements that facilitate
trade, consistent with principles
in Schedule G:
•
remove institutional barriers
to trade
•
remove barriers to
temporary trade
•
remove barriers to
permanent trade
•
no imposition of new
barriers to trade
59
59 – Queensland’s Water Allocations Register (WAR) has operated since 2003, recording water
access entitlements and associated dealings. It provides for transfers, leases and
registration/protection of third‑party security interests and encumbrances over water titles.
Permanent trade prices are extracted from the WAR with summaries published on the DNRM
website.
60
60 – Queensland’s water market allows for trade subject to environmental objectives and the
entitlement security of other water users. The trade of water is administered under defined and
public rules. Queensland has reported that approximately 75 per cent of the volume of water
allocated in Queensland is held as tradeable water allocations.
Queensland is continuing to create tradeable water allocations through the completion of ROPs.
There are currently 22 ROPs in place. Trading in Queensland is generally limited to
intra‑catchment trading because most catchments are not hydrologically connected.
NWI actions
Relevant parties
(Commonwealth, NSW, Victoria
and SA) agree to:
•
take necessary steps to
enable the use of exchange
rates and/or tagging for
interstate trade
•
reduce barriers to trade in
southern Murray–Darling
Basin
•
review actions to assess
whether relevant parties
have removed barriers
•
NWC monitor impacts of
trade
NWI paragraph
63
Commentary 2014
63 – Not applicable to Queensland.
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
Complete commitments under
the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect
pricing policies for water storage
and delivery in rural and urban
systems.
65
65 – In South East Queensland (SEQ), household water and sewerage bills include water
distribution and sewerage charges set by the SEQ service providers, and a volumetric bulk water
price set by the Queensland Government.
Service providers’ charges reflect the costs of operating and maintaining the water distribution
network, the costs of operating and maintaining the sewerage network, and the costs of retailing
services such as billing systems and printing. These charges usually take the form of a fixed water
access charge, a fixed sewerage access charge and volumetric water usage charges (using tiered
charging arrangements). Unitywater introduced a volumetric sewerage charge on 1 July 2013.
National Water Commission
Service providers set their own prices with price monitoring undertaken by the Queensland
Competition Authority (QCA). Water prices are determined annually by each SEQ service provider
with price monitoring being undertaken by the QCA for a two‑year period, starting in 2013. The
QCA ‘s final report on price monitoring of SEQ service providers for 2013–15 (released in March
2014) found no evidence of the exercise of monopoly power by Unitywater, Queensland Urban
Utilities, Logan Water and Gold Coast Water, but was unable to establish whether Redland Water
is exercising its monopoly power.
257
258
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Outside SEQ, Queensland’s Local Government Act 2009 outlines the framework for charging for
water, but the setting of actual prices is a matter for each local government. The Local
Government Act 2009 (Qld) expands the requirement for consumption‑based water pricing to all
local governments. Consumption‑based pricing is based either on a full consumption charge on
the volume of water used, or on a two‑part tariff with fixed and variable charges.
For local governments that operate water and sewerage businesses that exceed specified
expenditure thresholds, the businesses must apply full cost recovery for water and sewerage
services at a minimum and set a positive rate of return.
There is consistency in pricing policy across SunWater’s irrigation schemes. Permanent
allocations can be traded within SunWater irrigation schemes. Most interstate water trade in the
Border Rivers area results in water being traded from New South Wales into Queensland. The
water that is traded into Queensland maintains the charges that are applied by New South Wales.
Metropolitan:
• continued movement towards
upper‑bound pricing
• development of pricing
policies for recycled water
and stormwater
• review and development of
pricing policies for trade
wastes
• development of national
guidelines for water
accounts.
Rural and regional:
•
full cost recovery for all
rural surface and
groundwater‑ based
systems
66
66 (i) – Bulk water prices paid by SEQ service providers to Seqwater are set by government –
most recently for the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2015. The prices are based on a 10‑year price
path, ending in 2017–18. From that time, Seqwater’s urban bulk water prices for SEQ service
providers are set to recover the costs of the bulk water supply system including an allowance for
capital expenditure and a return on capital.
66 (ii) – The QCA monitors the costs and revenues of the SEQ service providers where their
activities include producing recycled water.
66 (iii) – Trade waste pricing is the responsibility of individual service providers, not the state
government. In most cases, this will be the local council.
66 (iv) – The National Guidelines for Residential Customers Water Accounts were endorsed at the
11th meeting of the NRMMC and released on 24 November 2006 by Australian Government, state
and territory water ministers.
66 (v) Queensland adopted lower‑bound pricing for SunWater’s 22 bulk water supply schemes for
the period 2012–13 to 2016–17.
NWI actions
•
NWI paragraph
In 2012, the QCA recommended irrigation prices apply to 22 of SunWater’s water supply schemes
for the period 2012–13 to 2016–17, and in 2013, the QCA recommended irrigation prices to apply
to seven of Seqwater’s water supply schemes for the period 2013–14 to 2016–17. The
Queensland Government’s policy was that irrigation prices should at least cover the efficient
lower‑bound costs of supplying water and, where irrigation prices were below lower‑bound pricing,
a price path to move towards lower‑bound cost recovery should be implemented. The QCA was
achievement of
lower‑bound pricing for all
rural systems in line with
existing NCC commitments
•
Commentary 2014
continued movement
towards upper‑bound
directed to make its recommendations consistent with this policy. In 2012, the government directed
SunWater to implement all of the QCA’s recommendations in regard to the 2012–13 to 2016–17
SunWater irrigation price path.
pricing for all rural systems,
where practicable
In 2013, the government directed Seqwater to implement all of the QCA’s recommendations in
regard to the 2013–14 to 2016–17 Seqwater irrigation price path.
Consistent approaches to pricing 67-68
and attributing costs of water
planning and management.
Public reporting of cost recovery
for water planning and
management.
Investment in new or
refurbished water
infrastructure to continue to
be assessed as
economically and
ecologically sustainable
before being approved.
National Water Commission
Release of unallocated water
67 – Water planning and management costs in Queensland are partially funded by a range of
transaction‑based water fees and usage charges.
68 – As Queensland does not have full cost recovery water planning and management charges in
place, there is no public reporting of these charges.
69
70-72
69 – The QCA final report recommended that any future bulk water storage facilities be developed
by the private sector, unless there were compelling public good or market failure reasons not to do
so. The government accepted this recommendation and noted it had already moved to implement
alternative delivery models for infrastructure projects wherever possible.
70–72 – Any unallocated water identified through the water resource planning process can be
made available when there is sufficient demand and other mechanisms are not available to
potential water users.
Water licences for unallocated water are granted through a competitive tender process for the
release of general reserve unallocated water. Three general reserve unallocated water processes
have been undertaken.
259
260
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Under the Water Resource (Great Artesian Basin) Plan 2006 (Qld), 7200 ML of water was made
available from the Surat, Surat East and Surat North management areas. In early 2014 785 ML
was granted through this process. Under the Water Resource (Baffle Creek Basin) Plan 2010
(Qld), 11,600 ML of water was made available, while 33 ML was granted through this process in
early 2014.
State or strategic reserve unallocated water is granted through a non‑competitive process. In the
Water Resource (Great Artesian Basin) Plan 2006 (Qld), a total of 10,000 ML of state reserve is
available. To date 2183 ML of state reserve has been granted. In the Water Resource (Gulf) Plan
2007 (Qld) area, 58,000 ML of strategic reserve is available with 2266 ML granted so far.
An unallocated water release process was completed for general reserve unallocated water in the
Water Resource (Gulf) Plan 2007 (Qld) area in mid‑2013. Water licences totalling 94,200 ML
were granted following a competitive tender process.
Environmental externalities:
•
•
manage environmental
externalities through a
range of regulatory
measures (such as through
setting extraction limits in
water management plans
and by specifying the
conditions for the use of
water in water use licences)
examine the feasibility of
using market‑based
mechanisms such as
pricing to account for
positive and negative
environmental externalities
associated with water use
•
implement pricing that
includes externalities where
found to be feasible
73
73 – Queensland manages environmental externalities through setting extraction limits in WRPs
and specifying conditions for the use of water in water use licences where used.
Queensland has developed a voluntary mechanism for nutrient management that offers an
alternative investment option for regulated point source operators to manage their water emission
requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld), while delivering an improvement
in water quality.
The mechanism provides guidance to environmental authority holders in using alternative nutrient
reduction actions to counterbalance nitrogen and phosphorous loads contained in water
emissions. Alternative nutrient reduction actions may come from another point source, or may be
achieved through catchment‑based solutions that address diffuse actions such as bank
stabilisation, improved fertiliser application and constructed wetlands. This mechanism is a first
step in trialling the application of market‑based instruments to improve waterway health in
Queensland.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Benchmarking efficient
performance:
• independent, public, annual
reporting of performance
benchmarking for all
metropolitan,
non‑metropolitan and rural
75-76
75 – Queensland has provided benchmarking information and data to the National Performance
Reports on urban water utilities, however rural water utilities did not report in 2011–12 or 2012–13.
At the time of writing the future of the national reporting is uncertain.
•
Queensland has reformed the regulation of urban water service providers by introducing
outcomes‑based legislation that will require mandatory annual reporting by service providers on a
range of key performance indicators from 2014. For providers of requisite size, this will include
reporting on National Performance Report indicators. Some urban utilities that have met the
threshold for the first time in 2012–13 have indicated they will not report until required to by
legislation.
water delivery agencies
develop nationally consistent
report framework.
An annual comparative performance report will also be published by the Department of Energy
and Water Supply in collaboration with industry.
76 – The costs associated with performance and benchmarking systems are not met through
recovery of water management costs.
Independent pricing regulator:
• independent pricing bodies
to set and review prices or
pricing processes for water
storage and delivery and
publicly report
77
77 – The QCA is an independent authority set up under the Queensland Competition Authority Act
1997 (Qld). Its roles in relation to the water industry are to:
• investigate and report on the pricing practices of certain declared monopoly or near monopoly
business activities of state and local governments
• receive, investigate and report on competitive neutrality complaints
• mediate and/or arbitrate access disputes and water supply disputes
• investigate and report on matters relevant to implementation of competition policy (section
10(e) of the Queensland Competition Authority Act 1997).
National Water Commission
261
262
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Integrated management of environmental water
Recognising the different types
of surface water and
groundwater systems:
• effective and efficient
management and
institutional arrangements
• to ensure the achievement
of environmental outcomes;
and
• where it is necessary to
recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to
adopt the principles for
determining the most
effective and efficient mix of
water recovery measures
79
79 (i) a) – Environmental outcomes and strategies to meet those are specified in WRPs. WRP
annual reports report against the achievement of WRP outcomes, including environmental
outcomes where sufficient information is available. A more complete assessment of the
achievement of environmental outcomes is undertaken as part of the WRP review and
replacement process through the EFAP.
79 (i) b) – Queensland consulted directly with the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office
(CEWO), NSW Government and MDBA in the preparation of its annual environmental watering
priorities for 2013–14 and 2014–15.
Condition and trend is assessed through the Sustainable Rivers Audit process for the MDB.
79 (i) c) – Following the implementation of national water reforms through new state water
planning processes, the New South Wales–Queensland Border Rivers Intergovernmental
Agreement 2008 was reached on a range of water management issues in the Border Rivers
catchment.
The agreement for the Paroo River between the NSW and Queensland governments has recently
expired in 2013 with issues previously covered by this agreement now coming within the ambit of
the Basin plan.
79 (i) d) – The Water Act 2000 (Qld) requires an annual report for each WRP on implementation
and the outcomes of any monitoring and evaluation activities. Ecological monitoring occurs in
targeted locations under the EFAP.
The findings of the review are then incorporated into the development of a replacement WRP.
The Minister may amend a plan at any time, and must act to amend a plan if satisfied that the plan
outcomes are not being achieved, or the objectives or strategies are no longer appropriate.
Queensland’s WRPs and ROPs establish water markets to promote the efficient and innovative
use of water resources. For example, water trading promotes the movement of water to high‑value
uses. Water markets also can incentivise water service providers to operate schemes and
associated infrastructure more efficiently. See NWI paragraphs 91 to 92 for further information.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
81
81 – Queensland has participated at a national level in the development of national water
accounting standards and reporting frameworks, including the Water Accounting Conceptual
Framework, the General Purpose Water Accounting Reports and the Australian Water Accounting
Standards (AWAS 1 and AWAS 2).
Water resource accounting
Benchmarking of accounting
systems
Queensland uses AWAS 1 and the Water Accounting Conceptual Framework in providing data to
the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for the general purpose water account.
Consolidated water accounts:
• develop and implement
robust water accounting
• identify situations where
close interaction between
surface and groundwater
exist to integrate the
accounting of groundwater
and surface water use.
82-83
Environmental water accounting:
• develop an environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements
• apply the environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements.
85
Implement information
measures
86
82 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 81.
83 – Queensland’s water accounting systems recognise connectivity between groundwater and
surface water systems.
188
85 (i) – Queensland does not have a register of new and existing environmental water as
environmental water in Queensland is largely rules based rather than incorporated into the
entitlement framework. Environmental flow objectives in WRPs and environmental management
rules specified in ROPs provide the framework for ensuring environmental water requirements are
met.
85 (ii) – Queensland does not produce consolidated environmental water accounts. The EFAP is
used to assess the effectiveness of the rules and strategies specified in WRPs in achieving
ecological and community outcomes.
National Water Commission
86 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 81.
263
264
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
Metering and measuring actions:
• develop metering and
measuring actions
• implement metering and
measuring actions.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
87-88
87–88 – Queensland revised its non‑urban water metering policy in 2012. For unsupplemented
extractions, the policy assigns responsibility to the water entitlement holder to purchase a meter,
arrange for its installation and certification, and arrange for maintenance of the meter (for all
metered entitlements as defined by the Water Regulation 2002 (Qld)).
For supplemented extractions, water service providers and their clients’ metering provisions are
a requirement as specified under the relevant WRP and ROP. However, it is open to the water
service provider as to whether it fulfils this requirement by ownership of the water meter or by
imposing a contractual obligation on its customer to install an appropriate water meter.
National guidelines on water
reporting:
• develop and apply national
guidelines on water reporting
covering the application,
scale, detail and frequency for
open reporting.
89
89 – Queensland is participating in the development of the Environmental Water Accounting
Standards through the National Water Accounting Committee.
91
91 (i) – The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme is a joint initiative of the
Australian and state and territory governments. The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards
Act 2005 (Cwth) provides the legal framework for the scheme. Queensland has enacted
complementary legislation, namely the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (Queensland)
Act 2005.
Urban water reform
Implementation of demand
management measures, including:
• implementation and
compliance monitoring of
WELS, including mandatory
labelling and minimum
standards for agreed
appliances
• develop and implement ‘Smart
Approved WaterMark’ for
garden activities
91 (ii) – The Smart Approved WaterMark is a not‑for‑profit organisation established by four
associations: the Australian Water Association, Irrigation Australia, the Nursery and Garden
Industry, Australia and the Water Services Association of Australia. It is overseen by a steering
committee with representation from the Australian and state and territory governments, water
utilities, the four governing associations, and the chair of the Technical Expert Panel (an
independent panel which assesses applications to the scheme). Project establishment was
finalised in 2011 and a report on the delivery of the Smart Approved WaterMark was provided to
the Department of the Environment. The program continues to provide product efficiency ratings
to consumers.
NWI actions
• review effectiveness of
temporary water restrictions
and associated public
education strategies, and
consider extending
low‑level restrictions to
standard practice
• implement management
responses to water supply
and discharge system
losses including leakage,
excess pressure, overflows
and other maintenance
needs
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
91 (iii) – The Queensland Water Commission ceased operations on 1 January 2013. Its policy
functions moved to the Department of Energy and Water Supply (DEWS) and its planning and
regulatory functions (including setting water restrictions) are now the responsibility of the new bulk
water supply authority, Seqwater, and the SEQ council water businesses (distributor‑retailers).
Water restrictions in place in Queensland during the previous drought period were lifted on 1
January 2013, including low‑level restrictions known as ‘permanent water conservation measures’
and the requirement for large water‑using businesses to develop water efficiency management
plans (WEMPs).
The amended Water Supply (Safety and Reliability) Act 2008 (Qld) allows water service providers
to impose water restrictions or require WEMPs. The Act specifies the circumstances in which
these may be imposed. The regulator may also direct that restrictions be imposed if a significant
threat to sustainable and secure water supply exists or if it is necessary or desirable to impose a
restriction.
On 1 February 2013, laws mandating energy efficient hot water systems, rainwater tanks and other
water savings measures were repealed. This followed an independent cost‑benefit analysis of
rainwater tanks and water savings laws carried out by QCA which concluded that the costs
associated with mandating rainwater tanks for new houses generally outweighed the overall
benefit to the community.
The QCA analysis recognised the net benefit of compulsory rainwater tanks for new houses would
vary depending on the location and current and future water demand and augmentation needs of
these houses. Therefore, the QCA recommended that local governments be able to seek approval
to ‘opt in’ to the laws where they could demonstrate that opting in would result in a net benefit to
the community.
National Water Commission
91 (iv) – Management of system losses is a water service provider responsibility. The government
proposes to address system losses through a performance monitoring framework to be introduced
in late 2014.
265
266
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
Encourage further innovation in
urban water use including:
• develop and apply national
health and environmental
guidelines for water
sensitive urban designs for
recycled water and
stormwater
• develop national guidelines
for evaluating options for
water sensitive urban
developments in both new
urban sub‑divisions and
high rises
• evaluate existing water
sensitive urban icon
developments
• review institutional and
regulatory models for
integrated urban water cycle
planning and management
and develop best‑practice
guidelines
• review incentives to
stimulate innovation.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
92
92 – The single State Planning Policy under the Sustainable Planning Act 2009 (Qld), effective
December 2013, includes water quality among the state interests to be reflected in local planning
instruments when making and amending local planning schemes and assessing development
applications.
The state interest in water quality includes urban stormwater management, protection of water
supply catchments and protection of the natural and built environment from the adverse impacts of
acid sulphate soils. The state interest seeks to ensure that urban land development is planned,
designed, constructed and operated to protect the environmental values of Queensland waters.
The total water cycle management (TWCM) plan guideline was published under the Environmental
Protection (Water) Policy 2009 and provides important contextual information, the statutory
framework and roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders. Local governments in South East
Queensland have prepared TWCM plans.
The following are examples of urban TWCM principles being put into practice:
• Fitzgibbon Chase in Brisbane and Coolum Ridges on the Sunshine Coast are urban
•
•
development’s using stormwater and harvested rainwater
Rain Bank, irrigating South Bank parklands and gardens in Brisbane with captured stormwater
Mitchell EcoEnterprise Park on the Gold Coast, Australia’s first industrial estate that is 100 per
cent self‑sustaining and carbon neutral (harvests stormwater and rainwater).
The requirement for local governments to prepare TWCM and trade waste plans under
environmental legislation – Environmental Protection (Water) Policy 2009 – ceased on 6
December 2013. The legislative amendment reduces regulatory burden and advances local
governments’ self‑determination, accountability and transparency.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Community partnerships and adjustment
95 – The Queensland water planning framework involves stakeholder and community consultation
in the development and review of WRPs and ROPs, although changes to the Water Act 2000 (Qld)
removed the requirement for compulsory formation of community advisory committees. However, a
committee (or some other community consultation mechanism or group) is still formed as the
Minister considers appropriate. This allows for more tailored consultation relevant to the particular
WRP area. Developing a WRP and ROP involves extensive formal and informal consultation. Draft
plans are published as the basis for further community input. Consultation reports provide
feedback on the issues raised and decisions taken.
National Water Commission
Open and timely consultation
with all relevant stakeholders
in relation to:
• pathways for returning
overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction
levels, periodic review of
water plans, and other
significant decisions
affecting the security of
water access entitlements.
95
Provision of accurate and
timely information to all
relevant stakeholders in
relation to the progress of
water plan implementation and
other issues relevant to the
security of water access
entitlements.
96
96 – Periodic reports are published to detail the implementation of each of the state’s WRPs and
assess the effectiveness of their implementation, through the ROPs, in achieving the general
outcomes and specific ecological outcomes of the plans. This includes whether each plan’s
outcomes are being achieved. For each WRP, the report includes information about changes to
the plan, the number of water entitlements and figures on water use, water operations (including
the impact of storage operations on downstream ecosystems), a summary of research and
monitoring undertaken under the plan, and emerging compliance and operational issues. The
document reports on all WRPs across the state with a ROP in place.
Address significant adjustment
issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and
communities that may arise
from reductions in water
availability as a result of
implementing the NWI.
97
97 – Structural adjustment funding assistance is provided in Queensland by several programs. The
Queensland Government is implementing the Healthy HeadWaters Water Use Efficiency project
with eligible Queensland MDB irrigators with funding from the Australian Government as part of the
Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program under the Water for the Future initiative.
Extensive consultation has been undertaken to develop pathways to return identified systems to
sustainable levels of extraction.
In return for government funding of water infrastructure and other water saving projects, irrigators
must transfer at least 50 per cent of the water savings by permanent trade of water allocation to
the Australian Government for environmental use. The funding programs run until June 2017.
Funding of $4.5 million over four years from July 2009 to June 2013 was provided to fund activities
under the ClimateQ: toward a greener Queensland strategy. The program was delivered statewide
except in the South East, where the South East Queensland Irrigation Futures program operated
to assist irrigators improve on‑farm water efficiencies. From July 1 2014, the Queensland
Government began to implement a $2 million per year four‑year program, Rural Water Use
Efficiency for irrigation Futures, to assist irrigators to improve productivity and efficiencies.
267
268
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Knowledge and capacity building
Science priorities and
research:
• identify the key science
priorities to support
implementation of the NWI
and where this work is
being undertaken
• implement any necessary
measures to ensure the
research effort is well
coordinated and publicised,
and any gaps are
addressed.
101
101 – Queensland supports national water science initiatives including the National Groundwater
Action Plan and the National Groundwater Assessment Initiative, and is a funding partner in the
National Hydrological Modelling Strategy. It provided $20 million over five years (2007–13) for the
Urban Water Security Research Alliance to address emerging urban water issues in South East
Queensland with a focus on water security, reuse and recycling.
The Queensland Government managed delivery of the three‑year Commonwealth‑funded Healthy
HeadWaters Coal Seam Gas Water Feasibility Study examining the opportunities and risks of
using CSG water in the Queensland MDB.
Western Australia
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlement and planning framework
Implementation of the
26-27
framework:
• substantial completion of
plans to address any
existing overallocation for all
river systems and
groundwater resources in
accordance with
commitments under the
1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework
• legislative and administrative
regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of
the entitlements and
allocation framework in this
agreement.
26 – In its 2007 NWI implementation plan, Western Australia identified 24 areas for management
under water allocation plans (WAPs). A number of these systems included some management
units identified as overallocated, which required WAPs to be completed as part of Western
Australia’s commitments under the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework.
Western Australia uses a risk‑based approach to develop WAPs, whereby resources are focused
in areas considered to be most at risk (see NWI paragraph 39–40 for more detail). WAPs are
currently non‑statutory and are developed to guide licensing decisions and ongoing management
of the water resources. As of June 2014, there were 22 WAPs, including two draft plans released
for public comment.
Since the 2011 Biennial Assessment, the Middle Canning surface water allocation plan (2012),
Murray groundwater allocation plan (2012), Warren Donnelly surface water allocation plan (2012),
Pilbara groundwater allocation plan (2013) and Ord surface water allocation plan (2013) have
been finalised.
Western Australia intends to release the South West Coastal groundwater allocation plan for public
comment, as well as the final Gingin groundwater allocation plan in the second half of 2014.
27 – Western Australia has not implemented fully NWI‑compliant legislation to provide the
statutory basis for water access entitlements. Currently the right to take (and store) water is
licensed under the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA).
National Water Commission
In September 2013 the Department of Water released Securing Western Australia’s water future:
Position paper – reforming water resource management. Proposed legislative amendments plan to
provide for statutory WAPs and an NWI‑consistent entitlement regime. The paper sets out
proposed frameworks for legislative and policy changes to water management across the state,
including consolidation and revision of out‑dated legislation, and the introduction of statutory
WAPs.
269
270
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlements to be
defined and implemented.
28-34
28–33 – Water licences in Western Australia are issued under section 5C of the Rights in Water
and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA). Water licences can be issued for the take of water from proclaimed
water resources, from artesian aquifers, and in areas where the allocation limit has not been
reached. Licences can be issued above the allocation limit under some circumstances (e.g. for
short‑term take) and under current policy a fully utilised licence in an overallocated system must
be renewed if the licensee meets all other criteria. Water licences are not perpetual, and have a
10‑year tenure. Although they are unbundled from land, the licence components managing
impacts of abstraction, works and allocation are not unbundled. Water allocation is on a volumetric
basis, and is made consistent with the WAP
Western Australia’s Securing Western Australia’s water future: Position paper – reforming water
resource management (2013) proposes the introduction of NWI‑consistent water access
entitlements where a statutory WAP is in place. The paper notes that as these statutory allocation
plans take time to develop, it is likely that it will be several years before water access entitlements
are introduced.
The position paper also proposes an improved licensing regime for areas where a system of water
access entitlements (WAEs) consistent with the NWI is not possible or practical to implement. The
improved licensing regime is intended to meet the principles of WAEs as far is possible. For
example longer‑term licenses with fewer hindrances on trading are proposed.
270
34 – The Western Australian water in mining guideline (2013) addresses the application of NWI
paragraph 34. It cites heterogeneous fractured rock aquifers, isolation, and lack of competition for
water resources as being applicable to large mineral provinces in Western Australia, such as in the
Pilbara. The key principles and processes outlined in the mining guideline also apply to petroleum
and gas projects.
Western Australia has implemented a water planning process which is not fully consistent with
Schedule E of the NWI, but is as far as possible within existing legislation. It addresses the take
and use of water by the mineral and petroleum sectors through water licences, WAPs, water
supply planning and environmental regulation. The water taken by mining and petroleum concerns
is within the water licensing framework. For licence applicants requiring large water volumes such
as mining companies, the Department of Water requires the applicants to undertake
hydrogeological investigations and develop operating strategies (which may include water
monitoring requirements) to assess and manage any potential impacts on the water resource,
other water users and the environment. Statewide policies provide further guidance on specific
licensing requirements. Licensing decisions consider the allocation limits and policies set out in a
WAP.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water use by mining and petroleum industries is addressed through water licences, WAPs and
water supply planning within the licensing framework. Applicants requesting large volumes of
water are required to undertake drilling investigations to assess the likely impact of their proposed
operations on the environment.
Major mining projects may be facilitated under State Agreements, which are contracts between the
state government and proponents of major resource projects ratified by an Act of the state
parliament. An Agreement Act provides the framework for an ongoing relationship between the
proponent and the state and can override any other state legislation, except for the Environment
Protection Act 1986 (WA)
Water to meet environmental and 35
other public benefit outcomes
identified in water plans to be
defined, provided and managed.
35 – The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) provides for the identification and
management of water for environmental and other public benefit outcomes. Water for the
environment is considered a non‑consumptive use and is not included in the allocation limit.
Environmental water is not held as an entitlement, but is defined as in situ water left in the system,
or water that is put back in the system through dam releases or pumping.
All 22 WAPs set allocation limits. Environmental water is managed through the implementation of
volumetric allocation limits and rules relating to the location of licences, trading, dam water
releases and cease‑to‑pump arrangements. There are no actively managed held environmental
Water plans to be prepared
along the lines of the
characteristics and components
at Schedule E based on the
following priorities:
National Water Commission
• plans for systems that are
overallocated, fully
allocated or approaching
full allocation
• plans for systems that are
not yet approaching full
allocation
39–40
water entitlements in Western Australia
39 – Western Australia has implemented a water planning process that is consistent with
Schedule E of the NWI as far as possible within existing legislation.
Western Australia uses a risk‑based approach to develop WAPs, whereby resources are focused
in areas considered to be most at risk. Generally Western Australia develops allocation plans for
resources where 30 per cent or more of the allocation limit is already committed. Standard plans
are developed for water resources where abstraction is between 30 and 70 per cent, and intensive
plans where abstraction is more than 70 per cent.
40 (i) – Monitoring in areas where intensive water plans have been developed is much more
extensive than in areas where the competition for the resource is lower.
Monitoring programs in water plans form the basis of annual plan evaluations using performance
indicators and specific indicator triggers (in high value/risk areas).
271
272
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
40 (ii) – Knowledge improvements are able to be incorporated into the water plans through the
annual evaluation cycle. Where an evaluation shows that the plan is not meeting its objectives
(through assessment of performance indicators), an adjustment of the management approach or a
new planning activity may be undertaken.
40 (iii) – The Commission’s 2013 Water Planning Report Card notes that since 2012, the
Department of Water has shifted to internal annual evaluations and has indicated that statements
will only be published every three years unless there is significant change in water availability or
management arrangements. The statements report on resource condition, achievement of
objectives, progress of investigations, actions that are needed for the implementation of future
planning, and any changes to the management arrangements necessary to improve plan
performance. As of June 2014, 13 evaluation statements have been published online, with most
statements covering several years of plan implementation.
Substantially complete
addressing overallocation as
per NCC commitments.
Substantial progress towards
adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems.
41, 43–45
Technical reports such as hydrological assessments, environmental water assessments and social
and cultural reports to support future planning are also prepared and are publicly available on the
Department of Water’s website.
41 – See NWI paragraph 26 for details on progress.
43–44 – Through water planning, Western Australia assesses overallocation and overuse of its
water resources and then, if necessary, implements recovery pathways so as to achieve
environmental and other public benefit outcomes.
Water resources are categorised from 1 to 4 based on the percentage of the allocation limit that
has been allocated through the issuing of licensed entitlements and estimated exempt use.
Category 4 resources are considered to be overallocated, and water plans developed for these
systems have provisions to return systems to a sustainable extraction regime, including increased
licence compliance, water use efficiency measures and recovery of unused or under‑used
allocations. Although the current Western Australian legislation does not provide for statutory
allocation limits, the introduction of statutory allocation limits has been identified as a key feature of
the water planning framework proposed in the Securing Western Australia’s water future: Position
paper – reforming water resource management (2013).
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The Western Australian Government recognises that additional licensing tools are needed to
effectively manage overallocation. Under current legislation, the Department of Water has limited
ability to readily vary entitlements within short timeframes. Metering is generally not widely
required (with the exception of Gnangara), although some progress has been made in addressing
overallocation through the recovery of unused water entitlements. Achieving the outcomes of the
identified allocation and extraction regimes is still at risk, particularly in the state’s south‑west, due
to the pace of the drying climate trend and the lack of a timeframe for recovery.
‘Use it or lose it’ provisions under Statewide policy no. 11 (WA) have been applied (e.g. in the
Lower Gascoyne) and through this mechanism progress is being made in some areas in reducing
overallocation, and the potential for future overuse, by bringing entitlement levels closer to usage
levels.
To help deal with stress to the Gnangara groundwater system, reductions in urban entitlements
have been made by the Western Australian Government, facilitated by supply supplementation
through large‑scale seawater desalination. Further reductions to urban entitlements in the
Gnangara groundwater system may also be achieved through managed aquifer recharge using
recycled urban water, which is currently being trialled in the area.
National Water Commission
Risk assignment framework to
be implemented immediately for
all changes in allocation not
provided for in overallocation
pathways in water plans.
46–51
Water plans to address
Indigenous water issues.
52–54
45 – see NWI paragraph 97 for more detail
46–51 – At present the Western Australian Government is liable to pay compensation where
licensed allocations are permanently reduced, unless the reductions are ‘fair and reasonable’ in
respect of other licence holders in the area. This current arrangement means that the Western
Australian Government may also be liable to pay compensation to water users for permanent cuts
that may be outside its control, such as those due to climate and natural events
52–54 – The Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA) does not expressly recognise
Indigenous issues or engagement, and except through Local Water Resource Management
Committees, provides no additional measures for Indigenous engagement.
Stakeholder engagement varies from plan to plan and is guided by the document Water allocation
planning – a guide to our process (2011). The Department of Water previously had an Indigenous
Support Unit tasked with the role of (among others) undertaking Indigenous engagement, however
the unit no longer exists.
273
274
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water plans consider non‑consumptive water needs for Indigenous cultural benefit where relevant.
This water is that which is not allocated and therefore left in situ to meet cultural needs. No plans
provide specifically for Indigenous commercial interests, but these may be met through the
licensing process or if there is a native title provision.
Western Australia advises that in most cases the protection of in situ environmental water needs
protects cultural values. However, in some instances there is a need to conduct more detailed
consultation with Indigenous groups. Traditional owner groups were consulted widely with regard
to groundwater‑dependent cultural values, proposed allocation limits and management
arrangements when developing the Pilbara groundwater allocation plan (2013). Abstraction from
the Millstream aquifer for the West Pilbara Water Supply Scheme, located in the culturally
important Millstream‑Chichester National Park, is managed by the Millstream‑Harding
Consultative Committee. This group includes representatives of the Yindjibarndi community.
Implementation of measures to
address water interception by
land use change activities on a
priority basis in accordance with
water plans.
55–57
55–57 – Major intercepting activities are considered and accounted for in surface water and
groundwater modelling, and incorporated into the setting of allocation limits. Interception through
stock and domestic use is sometimes determined to be minimal, but where relevant is estimated
for inclusion in allocation limit decisions. Mine dewatering is also licensed and included in
allocation decisions.
Types of interception and their management are outlined below:
•
On‑stream farm dams: in proclaimed areas, dams for commercial purposes are licensed. In
•
•
•
unproclaimed areas, dams are mapped and the potential interception is estimated. The
potential interception from dams for stock and domestic purposes is also estimated.
Domestic garden bores: interception from shallow groundwater can be significant, particularly
in urban areas.
Garden bores are not licensed, but the water use is estimated and accounted for in all plans.
The Department of Water reports that it has recently completed a project to improve estimates
of urban garden bore use.
Plantation forestry: where interception is significant, the Department of Water accounts for its
water take. In other areas, plantations are mapped and potential water take is considered.
Western Australia cannot license plantations under existing legislation, but the Department of
Water advises shires where water availability is limited and plantations may affect other water
users and the environment
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
59
59 – Western Australia has a water register (The Water Register) that records both licence and
water availability information. The register is online and publicly available. Information regarding
water trading is not publicly available.
Water markets and trading
Adoption of publicly accessible,
compatible systems for
registering water access
entitlements and trades
consistent with Schedule F:
•
pathways leading to full
implementation
•
full implementation.
Establish compatible institutional
and regulatory arrangements
that facilitate trade, consistent
with principles in Schedule G:
•
Western Australia has participated in all stages of the development of the Common Registry
Solution (CRS) which will deliver the function of recording details of water rights, market
information and individual water accounts, as well as transactions and dealings in relation to water
rights. Western Australia is investigating its options without the completion of the CRS.
60
(delegated to the Department of Water) regardless of the level of risk created by the trade.
remove institutional barriers
to trade
•
remove barriers to
temporary trade
•
remove barriers to
permanent trade
•
no imposition of new
barriers to trade
Southern MDB trade actions
60 – Demand for water trading in Western Australia is increasing as water resources reach full
allocation. Current trading arrangements are cumbersome, with Western Australia noting the two
main restrictions as non‑statutory trading rules, and each trade requiring Ministerial approval
Proposed amendments will remove some of the administrative barriers to licence transfers and
water trades and simplify the process. Generic, statewide trading rules are intended to be included
in the new legislation with more specific trading rules to be included in individual WAPs. To simplify
increased efficiency in water trades, trades that are deemed to represent a low risk to the water
resource will not require a full assessment – as is the case under the current Rights in Water and
Irrigation Act 1914 (WA).
63
Not applicable to WA.
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
National Water Commission
Complete commitments under
the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect
pricing policies for water storage
and delivery in rural and urban
systems.
65
65 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 66 below for more detail.
275
276
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Metropolitan:
66
66 (i) – Pricing in metropolitan areas is substantially compliant with upper‑bound pricing.
• continued movement towards
upper‑bound pricing
• development of pricing
policies for recycled water
and stormwater
• review and development of
pricing policies for trade
wastes
• development of national
guidelines for water accounts.
Rural and regional:
•
full cost recovery for all rural
surface and groundwater‑
based systems
•
achievement of
lower‑bound pricing for all
rural systems in line with
existing NCC commitments
• continued movement towards
upper‑bound pricing for all
rural systems, where
practicable
66 (ii) – The Water Corporation has released an information sheet on recycled water, including
pricing principles which are aligned with the NWI.
66 (iii) – The Water Corporation’s industrial waste charges (which vary by the type and load of
contaminant into sewers) are set by the Western Australian Government. These charges were
reviewed by the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA) in the 2009 pricing inquiry. The ERA
considered that these charges were cost reflective and therefore appropriate. These charges are
routinely reviewed by the water utilities who may recommend annual changes to the government
for consideration. The ERA is also able to review these charges as part of their periodic pricing
reviews.
66 (iv) – This reform action has been met prior to 2011. National Guidelines for Residential
Customers Water Accounts were endorsed at the 11th meeting of the Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) and released on 24 November 2006 by Australian
Government, state and territory water ministers.
66 (v) – The price of bulk water sold to major mining and industrial companies and some irrigation
cooperatives is a contractual matter. However, ERA pricing inquiries have established principles
for efficient bulk water storage charges, including dam safety expenditure, and make
recommendations on the amount of these charges. Bulk water charges supplied to the Ord
irrigation district were set by the government.
Western Australia’s four rural irrigation cooperatives pay the Water Corporation for bulk water; the
prices are lower‑ bound and based on renewals. Calculation of these charges is moving towards
upper‑bound for capital expenditure (e.g. dam safety expenditure) after the legacy date, however
some operating subsidies are paid where charges do not fully recoup these costs. The total
operating subsidy for rural irrigation is included in the state budget papers.
Western Australia does not impose reporting or regulation on cooperatives with regard to the
charges paid to them by members.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Consistent approaches to pricing
and attributing costs of water
planning and management.
67-68
67–68 – Western Australia does not generally pass on costs associated with water resource
planning and management activities, and water resource management is therefore funded by the
state government.
Public reporting of cost recovery
for water planning and
management.
Investment in new or
refurbished water
infrastructure to continue to
be assessed as
economically and
ecologically sustainable
before being approved.
Some responsibility for water resource management activities is transferred to licensees through
licence conditions. Although the existing legislation (Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914)
provides the power to levy annual licence charges to recover a proportion of the costs of water
allocation planning and management, the recent position paper Securing Western Australia’s
water future (2013) indicates the government will not introduce cost recovery for water licences.
69
69 – Significant capital expenditure proposals continue to be reviewed by the Department of
Treasury and are subject to sign‑off by government. The ERA examines the capital expenditure of
the Water Corporation, Aqwest and Busselton Water as part of three‑yearly tariff inquiries.
The Water Corporations Act 1995 (WA) requires the Water Corporation, Aqwest and Busselton
Water (which were recently added to the Act) to produce strategic plans that include
considerations on capital expenditure.
The Water Corporations Act 1995 (WA) has a process to develop and approve investment in new
and refurbished water infrastructure. All projects require a business case with economic, ecological
and social factors evaluated. Projects are subject to a risk‑based prioritisation process to formulate
the capital program. The board oversees the approval of the program, within the constraints of the
state budget process and informed by pricing considerations.
In 2013 the ERA reviewed the Water Corporation’s expenditure and found it to be efficient. The
consultants appointed by ERA concluded that the Corporation is relatively efficient compared with
other water utilities.
National Water Commission
Release of unallocated water
70-72
70–72 – The allocation mechanism for the release of unallocated water is by first‑in‑first‑served
(FIFS), which means that applications to take water from a particular water resource are assessed
in the order in which they are received.
277
The position paper Securing Western Australia’s water future (2013) proposes new legislation to
allow for unallocated water to be granted by various mechanisms, including FIFS, competitive
submission according to certain criteria which may not involve payment for the water, market
mechanisms or other suitable means. The method of releasing unallocated water is intended to
vary across the state, taking into account the resource characteristics, the level of demand, and
community and industry requirements. The paper proposes that the community will play a role in
determining suitable mechanisms (e.g. through local advisory groups).
278
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Environmental externalities:
73
73 – In Western Australia, licensing of take from rivers and groundwater is the main method to
minimise the negative environmental externalities of using the water. Similarly, pollution licensing
and environmental approvals for treatment facilities are the main means of minimising the negative
environmental externalities of wastewater treatment.
•
•
manage environmental
externalities through a
range of regulatory
measures (such as through
setting extraction limits in
water management plans
and by specifying the
conditions for the use of
water in water use licences)
As stated in the 2011 Biennial Assessment, the ERA has considered inclusion of environmental
externalities in pricing and conducted inquiries into both Recycled Water Pricing and Tariffs of the
Water Corporation, Aqwest and Busselton Water. While these inquiries discussed the use of price
adjustments to reflect the value of externalities, it was not explicitly recommended and hence the
government response to the inquiries did not comment on externality pricing.
examine the feasibility of
using market‑based
However, Western Australia has advised that if evidence emerged that regulatory measures were
an ineffective or inefficient means of capturing significant externalities, there could be a case for
different pricing measures for recycled water or competing sources. There are currently no
recycled water projects in Western Australia with significant known water resources or wastewater
discharge externalities that are not addressed by the existing regulatory regime
mechanisms such as pricing
to account for positive and
negative environmental
externalities associated with
water use
•
implement pricing that
includes externalities where
found to be feasible
Benchmarking efficient
performance:
• independent, public, annual
reporting of performance
benchmarking for all
metropolitan,
non‑metropolitan and rural
•
water delivery agencies
develop nationally consistent
report framework.
75-76
75–76 – Western Australia provides benchmarking information for inclusion in National
Performance Report for urban and rural utilities. At the time of writing the future of reporting is
uncertain.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Independent pricing regulator:
77
• independent pricing bodies to
set and review prices or
pricing processes for water
storage and delivery and
publicly report.
Commentary 2014
77 – The ERA is Western Australia’s independent economic regulator. The ERA reviews prices
and pricing processes and provides recommendations on a periodic basis (usually every three
years) to the state government, but does not have a mandate to set water or wastewater charges.
The Western Australian Government sets charges for water, sewerage and drainage services.
Integrated management of environmental water
Recognising the different types
of surface water and
groundwater systems:
• effective and efficient
management and
institutional arrangements
• to ensure the achievement
of environmental outcomes;
and
• where it is necessary to
recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to
adopt the principles for
determining the most
effective and efficient mix of
water recovery measures
79
79 (i) a) – In Western Australia, the framework for managing environmental water is spread across
a number of pieces of legislation. These include the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act 1914 (WA),
Statewide policy no.5 – Environmental water provisions policy for Western Australia,
Environmental Protection Act 1986 (WA) and the Waterways Conservation Act 1976 (WA). These
arrangements make the Minister for Water responsible for the delivery of environmental water and
the Department of Water the lead agency responsible for its management.
Allocation limits define the amount of water that can be taken for consumptive use after in situ
environmental water needs are met. Additional management mechanisms to achieve water
regimes that meet environmental water objectives are established in WAPs. For proclaimed water
resources that are not managed under a plan, environmental water provisions can be specified
through licences and their associated operating strategies.
The Commission’s 2013 Water Planning Report Card notes that the longer‑term security for
environmental water provision is at risk given the non‑statutory nature of WAPs and the limitations
of the tools available to recover overallocated resources under the current legislation and policy
framework.
National Water Commission
79 (i) b) – Through its water allocation planning and licensing processes, the Department of Water
has established the following arrangements for the shared resources in the Ord system:
• an environmental flow regime in the lower Ord River
• set limits on the water entitlements to be granted from Lake Kununurra and the lower Ord
River
• limited further regulation of the Dunham River tributary to maintain the remaining natural
variability of wet season flows in the lower Ord River
• operating rules for the Ord River and Kununurra Diversion dams
279
280
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
79 (i) c) – In Western Australia, most of the current WAPs have separately addressed surface
water and groundwater due to the geographical extent of the plans and the complexity of
resources within the plan areas.
Where relevant, WAPs acknowledge that groundwater and surface water are linked, and that
groundwater systems are linked. Connectivity can be calculated or estimated depending on the
level of knowledge available.
Groundwater‑to‑groundwater connectivity between different aquifers is often a significant
consideration in establishing appropriate allocation limits and monitoring impacts. All groundwater
WAPs treat connected aquifers as integrated systems.
79 (i) d) – Although there is no specific reporting on the achievement of environmental outcomes,
evaluation statements for water plans report on performance against the objectives of the WAPs.
These are internal annual evaluations which will be published every three years unless there are
significant changes in water availability or management arrangements.
Technical reports such as hydrological assessments, environmental water assessments and social
and cultural reports to support future planning are also prepared and are publicly available on the
Department of Water’s website.
79 (i) e) –In Western Australia, environmental water held by the government is rules-based and
therefore cannot be traded on the water market.
79 (i) f) – Western Australia has not undertaken a systematic statewide survey to identify high
ecological value aquatic ecosystems, but relies on the development of WAPs to identify them and
take into account their water requirements. It uses existing data to identify ecological values of
local, regional, national and interaction significance and then assesses the potential impacts on
them from water extraction when developing a WAP.
As part of the Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment, a University of Western Australia-led
project aimed to assess the likely impacts of possible development and climate change on
northern Australian aquatic ecosystems. The project focused on three catchments in Western
Australia: the Cape Leveque Coast, Fitzroy River and King Edward River. The project’s intent was
to provide new knowledge to be incorporated in the decision-making process for future water
management plans.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
79 (ii) – Western Australia uses a planned approach to environmental water, where water is left in
the resource to maintain important in situ values. To reduce overallocation on the Gnangara
Mound – in particular to protect its high-value groundwater-dependent wetlands – the largest
groundwater user, the Water Corporation, has had its entitlements reduced. The reductions have
been prioritised in areas of high risk to wetlands. Reductions to the public water supply component
of abstraction on the Gnangara Mound were facilitated by the Western Australian Government’s
decision to invest in desalination.
There are a number of water resources where groundwater and surface water are being recovered
through the recouping of unused water entitlements. In overallocated resources, the water is
returned to the system for the environment rather than being re-released through the granting of
entitlements.
Water resource accounting
Benchmarking of accounting
systems
81
81 – Western Australia has participated at a national level in the development of national water
accounting standards and reporting frameworks, including the Water Accounting Conceptual
Framework, the General Purpose Water Accounting Reports and the Australian Water Accounting
Standards (AWAS 1 and AWAS 2).
Western Australia uses AWAS 1 and the Water Accounting Conceptual Framework in providing
data to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for the general purpose water account.
National Water Commission
Consolidated water accounts:
• develop and implement
robust water accounting
• identify situations where
close interaction between
surface and groundwater
exist to integrate the
accounting of groundwater
and surface water use.
82-83
82 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 81.
83 – In Western Australia, water accounting systems recognise connectivity between groundwater
and surface water systems.
Water accounting conducted by the Department of Water relies mostly on its own Perth Regional
Groundwater Model. This model is based on the water cycle and recognises that regional
groundwater is primarily derived from surface interaction.
281
282
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Environmental water accounting:
• develop an environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements
• apply the environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements.
85
85 (i) – Western Australia has not yet developed an environmental water register.
Environmental water in Western Australia is rules‑based and managed through the individual
188
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
WAPs.
85 (ii) – In Western Australia, where environmental rules are documented in a plan, they are
reported on as part of the plan evaluation process (compiled internally each year and published
at least every three years).
Western Australia also provides and publishes an annual compliance report to the Western
Australian Office of the Environment Protection Authority, containing information of the
compliance and performance against commitments and conditions in Ministerial Statements
819 and 688 for environmental water management on the Gnangara and Jandakot mounds.
Implement information measures
Metering and measuring actions:
• develop metering and
measuring actions
• implement metering and
measuring actions.
86
87-88
86 – As per the last assessment Western Australia has participated with other NWI parties and
BOM in the development of national water accounting standards and reporting frameworks that
facilitate the implementation of nationally coordinated approach to data collection and storage.
Western Australia has also participated in the development of the National Groundwater
Information System.
Under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), BOM has been mandated to undertake a national water
data and information role.
87–88 – Western Australia has contributed to the development of the National Framework for
Non-Urban Water Metering (2010).
Metering is managed through Western Australia’s Strategic policy 5.03 – Metering the taking of
water (2009), the state’s Metering implementation plan, and the Guidelines for water meter
installation 2009. Across the state, current licensing policy requires that privately owned meters
be fitted to drawpoints associated with licences with annual water entitlements of 500 ML and
over unless otherwise assessed as required. Different thresholds may apply for trading
entitlements and in other special cases and these are determined by the Department of Water.
NWI actions
National guidelines on water
reporting:
• develop and apply national
guidelines on water reporting
covering the application,
scale, detail and frequency
for open reporting.
NWI paragraph
89
Commentary 2014
89 (i) – The Commission’s 2013 Water Planning Report Card notes limited progress with
metering, except in the Gnangara Mound.
Compliance and enforcement provisions are set out in the Rights in Water and Irrigation Act
1914 (WA) and Regulations. Where local conditions dictate, additional compliance and
enforcement measures are specified in the plan.
89 (ii) and (iv) – Western Australia has participated in the development of the National Water
Market System (NWMS), which was designed to support water accounting and resource
management by providing market information and assisting with the accurate recording of
water entitlements and management of transactions. A major element of the NWMS was the
development of a Common Registry System (CRS), a standardised national water register that
was planned to replace existing water registers in Western Australia. The Australian
Government has recently decided to discontinue funding for the NWMS, however Western
Australia continues to work with other jurisdictions to evaluate where collaboration can benefit
the building of a registry system in Western Australia.
Urban water reform
National Water Commission
Implementation of demand
management measures, including:
• implementation and
compliance monitoring of
WELS, including mandatory
labelling and minimum
standards for agreed
appliances
• develop and implement ‘Smart
Approved WaterMark’ for
garden activities
91
91 (i) – The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme is a joint initiative of the
Australian and state and territory governments. The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards
Act 2005 (Cwth) provides the legal framework for the scheme. Western Australia has enacted
complimentary legislation, the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2006.
91 (ii) – The Smart Approved WaterMark is a not‑for‑profit organisation established by four
associations: the Australian Water Association, Irrigation Australia, the Nursery and Garden
Industry, Australia and the Water Services Association of Australia. It is overseen by a steering
committee with representation from the Australian and state and territory governments, water
utilities, the four governing associations, and the chair of the Technical Expert Panel (an
independent panel which assesses applications to the scheme). Project establishment was
finalised in 2011 and a report on the delivery of the Smart Approved WaterMark was provided
to the Department of the Environment. The program continues to provide product efficiency
ratings to consumers.
283
284
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
•
•
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
review effectiveness of
temporary water restrictions
and associated public
education strategies, and
consider extending low‑level
91 (iii) – Western Australia participated in the production of the Commission’s national review
of water restrictions. Restrictions are in place throughout the state and they prescribe how
water can be used outside, including allocated watering days for lawns and gardens and the
restriction of water use for outdoor cleaning purposes.
restrictions to standard
practice
implement management
responses to water supply and
discharge system losses
including leakage, excess
pressure, overflows and other
maintenance needs
The restrictions include permanent water efficiency measures, an annual winter sprinkler ban
that applies to domestic sprinkler use and some non‑domestic use, and can also include extra
efficiency measures and restrictions from time to time such as extensions of the winter
sprinkler ban period or other restrictions.
Domestic garden bore restrictions and scheme water restrictions are imposed by the Water
Agencies (Water Use) By Laws 2010. These by‑laws are made by the Minister for Water, with
advice from the Department of Water, under the Water Agencies (Powers) Act 1984 (WA).
The Water Corporation is on target to meet its objective of reducing water use from the 2007–
08 level of 147 kL per person per year to 125 kL per person per year by 2030. Observed
reductions in residential consumption during the 2000s are largely due to a combination of a
two‑day‑per‑week sprinkler roster and conservation campaigns. Increases in the volumetric
price for water and reduced residential block sizes also played a role in influencing demand.
91 (iv) Service providers prepare asset management plans for their ERA licences which
identify system losses – including leakages, pressure and flow and maintenance activities.
Western Australia reports that service providers have their own maintenance programs in place
and undertake regular monitoring and implement leak detection procedures
NWI actions
Encourage further innovation in
urban water use including:
• develop and apply national
health and environmental
guidelines for water sensitive
urban designs for recycled
water and stormwater
• develop national guidelines for
evaluating options for water
sensitive urban developments
in both new urban
sub‑divisions and high rises.
• evaluate existing water
•
•
sensitive urban icon
developments
review institutional and
regulatory models for
integrated urban water cycle
planning and management
and develop best‑practice
guidelines
review incentives to stimulate
innovation.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
92
92 – Western Australia has participated in national level working groups and committees to
develop the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental
Risks which address quality guidelines for recycled and stormwater use. Western Australia
applied these guidelines through the Better Urban Water Management Manual (WAPC 2008).
It also participated in the production of the Commission’s national review of water restrictions
(ISF and ACIL 2009).
New WAter Ways is a partnership between the Department of Water, Department of Planning,
WA Local Government Association, Water Corporation and Urban Development Institute of
Australia. The program is a communication and capacity building vehicle for promotion of water
sensitive urban design (WSUD), integrated water cycle management and water sensitive cities
in Western Australia.
The objectives of the New WAter Ways program are to deliver outcomes in the areas of
knowledge sharing; education, science and training; advocacy and leadership; and
partnerships and bridging.
The objectives are to:
• provide easy access to best‑practice and supporting WSUD information including trusted
•
•
•
science, technical tools, current policy and existing programs
make WSUD ‘normal practice’ by facilitating the upskilling of WSUD practitioners to deliver
best‑practice for Western Australia based on trusted and reliable science
provide leadership and advocacy for the adoption of best management and planning
practices for WSUD in Western Australia
promote effective partnerships by acting as a bridging organisation for the Western
Australian water sector.
National Water Commission
285
286
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Community partnerships and adjustment
Open and timely consultation
with all relevant stakeholders in
relation to:
• pathways for returning
overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction
levels, periodic review of
water plans, and other
significant decisions
affecting the security of
water access entitlements.
95
95 – Stakeholder engagement is undertaken through a variety of formats including press
releases, statements of intent, method reports, newsletters, the public release of draft plans,
involvement in committees, public forums and targeted consultation.
Draft WAPs are released for public comment for a period of two to three months and formal
submissions are invited. All submissions and responses are summarised in a statement of
response. Development of the draft WAPs also contains targeted engagement of the
Indigenous community.
Provision of accurate and timely
information to all relevant
stakeholders in relation to the
progress of water plan
implementation and other issues
relevant to the security of water
access entitlements.
96
96 – WAPs undergo regular plan evaluation to assess the effectiveness of plan implementation
against its objectives. Evaluations are generally undertaken annually and are published at least
every three years. They contain updates on allocation status, an evaluation of the status of the
resource, and an assessment of how well the plan is meeting the objectives, performance
indicators and actions specified in the plan.
Address significant adjustment
issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and
communities that may arise from
reductions in water availability as
a result of implementing the NWI.
97
97 – While Western Australia considers that the establishment of special government programs for
monitoring or managing adjustment as a result of the NWI are not justified at this stage, it states
that any need for structural adjustment will be considered on its merits, and that the merits of any
case for intervention and the design of any measures will be screened through a consistent
framework to ensure they do not impede the reforms.
Western Australia advises, however, that recent science indicates a continued reduction in rainfall
over time which may result in reductions in water availability. In this case adjustments to existing
allocations may be required in some areas
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Knowledge and capacity building
Science priorities and research:
• identify the key science
priorities to support
implementation of the NWI
and where this work is
being undertaken
• implement any necessary
measures to ensure the
research effort is well
coordinated and publicised,
and any gaps are
addressed.
101
101 – The Department of Water has taken several steps to address key knowledge and capacity
building priorities needed to support the implementation of the NWI including:
• participating in the development of the National Water Knowledge Platform and its
implementation
• helping with the National Groundwater Sub‑Group work plan including development of the
draft National Groundwater Strategic Plan and draft Guidelines for Groundwater Quality
Protection
The Department of Water is an active funding partner in the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities and is
actively progressing initiatives such as the Science‑Policy partnership.
To set out a vision for managing and conducting the Department of Water’s science, applied
research and innovation, in 2008 it published a Science, research and innovation plan: 2008–
2012.
In 2011 the Department of Water developed a water supply planning unit and has staffed and
resourced this area with the intention of supporting decision‑making and reform on water resource
and supply options.
288
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
South Australia
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlement and planning framework
Implementation of the framework:
• substantial completion of
plans to address any existing
overallocation for all river
systems and groundwater
resources in accordance with
commitments under the 1994
COAG Water Reform
Framework
• legislative and administrative
regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of
the entitlements and
allocation framework in this
agreement.
26-27
26 – At the commencement of the NWI, South Australia identified six areas where a water
allocation plan was required to complete its remaining commitments on overallocated systems
under the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework (COAG 1994). Each of these areas now has a
water allocation plan (WAP).
At present 19 WAPs are in operation and South Australia advises that four are under development
or revision.
27 – South Australia has implemented NWI‑consistent legislation. The Natural Resources
Management (Review) Amendment Act 2013 (SA) came into effect on 16 August 2013 and
introduced a number of amendments to the water resource management process. These
amendments include increasing the maximum review period of WAPs from five to 10 years, no
longer requiring concept statements to be included in the development of WAPs, and requiring
additional information on water provided for the environment and intended environmental
outcomes.
South Australia published a new State Natural Resources Management Plan in 2012. The plan is
a statutory plan under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) and provides high‑level
guidance for both Regional Natural Resource Management (NRM) Plans and WAPs.
Water access entitlements to be
defined and implemented.
28-34
28–33 – The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) provides the statutory basis for
NWI‑consistent water access entitlements in prescribed water resources. See NWI paragraph 26
for further information on the NRM (Review) Amendment Act 2013 (SA).
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) provides for the ability to unbundle water
rights, with transitional arrangements for prescribed water resources to not explicitly reflect
unbundling until the relevant WAP has been amended. The existing water licence will be
unbundled into four components: the water access entitlement (water licence), water allocation,
water resource works approval, and site use approval. For certain prescribed water resources an
exemption from the need for separate water resource works approvals and/or site use approvals
will be considered, to avoid duplication or inconsistency between the water licence and/or water
allocations and the approvals.
Water licences have been unbundled in the River Murray Prescribed Water Course. Water
licences for all other prescribed resources remain bundled, but are separate from land and
tradeable under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA). South Australia advises that
unbundling will be done for surface water, watercourses and groundwater systems where
demonstrated to be feasible and of overall net benefit, in consultation with stakeholders on a
case‑by‑case basis. A feasibility and benefit assessment will be undertaken to determine the
extent and timing of unbundling water rights for each prescribed water resource. The process to
implement unbundling will be undertaken as part of the normal WAP review and amendment
cycle, subject to the outcome of a feasibility assessment.
The South Australian Government has committed to developing an accredited South Australian
Murray Region Water Resources Plan by 2017 as part of the Murray–Darling Basin Plan (the
Basin plan) implementation process. This includes the introduction of unbundled WAPs for the
prescribed wells areas of Mallee, Noora, Peake, Roby and Sherlock by the end of 2017.
34 – Mining and petroleum operations require a water licence where they take water from a
prescribed resource. However, in South Australia a large proportion of mines are outside of
prescribed water resource areas. Although Regional NRM Plans manage some aspects of water
interception and extraction through water‑affecting activity permits, permits do not directly control
National Water Commission
volume. Indentures also operate, for example Roxby Downs Indenture (Olympic Dam Expansion),
but these are uncommon.
In March 2012, South Australia signed the National Partnership Agreement on Coal Seam Gas
and Large Coal Mining Development. Under the agreement, South Australia must refer a coal
seam gas (CSG) or coal mining proposal to the Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal
Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Developments (IESC) for advice if the proposal is likely to have
a significant impact on water resources, either in its own right or cumulatively with other actions.
Advice from the IESC informs decision‑making on licences and conditions.
289
290
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water to meet environmental and
other public benefit outcomes
identified in water plans to be
defined, provided and managed.
35
35 (i) – The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) requires WAPs to achieve an
equitable balance between social, economic and environmental needs for water.
Under section 76 of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA), WAPs must include
information such as quantity and quality, expected availability, and the type and extent of
ecosystems for which environmental water will be provided.
The Natural Resources Management (Review) Amendment Act 2013 (SA), which came into effect
on 16 August 2013, expands the requirements for WAPs to include:
• an assessment of the capacity of the resource to meet environmental water requirements
• where practicable, information about the quantity, quality and timing of when water is expected
to be made available, as well as the type and extent of ecosystems to which it is to be
provided.
WAPs are required to provide a statement of environmental outcomes expected to be delivered on
account of the provision of environmental water under the plan.
35 (ii) – Environmental water needs are provided for through rules, limits on extraction or
managed allocations. The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) requires that WAPs
include a statement of the environmental outcomes expected based on the provision of the
environmental water allocated under the plan.
Environmental water in the South Australian Murray–Darling Basin region is made up of water:
• allocated to South Australia through The Living Murray (TLM)
• allocated to South Australia by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH)
• designated as Class 7 and 9 water in the WAP for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse
• from private donations
• from unregulated flows.
The Basin plan sets new requirements for water resource planning, including environmental water,
for Murray–Darling Basin resources. South Australia has advised it is in the process of
implementing these requirements, including identifying annual environmental watering priorities for
the 2014–15 water year and commencing long‑term work on the Basin‑wide environmental water
strategy with the other Murray–Darling Basin jurisdictions and the Murray–Darling Basin Authority
(MDBA).
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
In the South Australian portion of the Murray–Darling Basin, as with other Murray–Darling Basin
states, environmental water is less secure at times of extremely low water availability. Other types
of environmental water, including water held under programs such as TLM, share the same level
of security as consumptive uses, but are also subject to the CEWH requirements of the 2008
Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling Basin Reform.
35 (iii) – In South Australia, environmental water takes two forms: planned environmental water
which is water set aside outside of the consumptive pool established within a WAP, and licensed
environmental water which is set within the consumptive pool established within a WAP and is
statutory based.
Only licensed environmental water is tradeable in South Australia. Licensed environmental water
can be traded on a temporary or permanent basis, subject to the provisions of the relevant WAP.
Water plans to be prepared
along the lines of the
characteristics and components
at Schedule E based on the
following priorities:
• plans for systems that are
overallocated, fully
allocated or approaching
full allocation
• plans for systems that are
not yet approaching full
allocation
39–40
39 – South Australia has implemented a water planning process that is NWI consistent. See NWI
paragraph 26 for details on progress.
In South Australia prescription of a resource under the Natural Resources Management Act 2004
(SA) triggers a series of actions leading to the regulation of water extraction by a licensing regime,
and the development and implementation of a statutory WAP, which sets out the extraction limits
and management regimes for the prescribed water resource. The Natural Resources
Management Act 2004 (SA) is administered by the Department of Environment, Water and
Natural Resources (DEWNR).
WAPs are developed by NRM boards for each prescribed water resource in their regions. The
WAPs are supported by Regional NRM plans that include goals and strategies for the integrated
management of water and other natural resources.
National Water Commission
Water resources outside prescribed areas are managed in accordance with the provisions of the
relevant NRM Plan. For example, South Australia advises that in the Alinytjara Wilurana (AW)
region, the AW NRM plan was amended (July 2013) to specifically manage the issues raised by
the NRM board and the community in relation to water management.
291
292
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
South Australia has developed a Risk Management Framework for Water Planning and
Management (2012) that introduces a process for risk management that applies to all of the
state’s water planning and management activities. Its associated policy – Risk Management
Policy and Guidelines for Water Allocation Plans (2012) – makes operational the framework for
the management of WAP development processes.
40 – South Australia has developed the statewide Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and
improvement guidelines for water allocation plans, which guide the development and review of
plan objectives.
NRM boards produce annual reports that provide a general update on progress with WAP
development or implementation as part of a broader Regional NRM Plan.
Substantially complete
addressing overallocation as per
NCC commitments.
Substantial progress towards
adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems.
41, 43–45
41 – South Australia has completed WAPs for all 15 stressed water systems identified in South
Australia’s National Competition Council commitments. See NWI paragraph 26 for further details.
43–44 – South Australia’s Overallocation Policy and Decision Support Framework (2013) sets out
processes and prioritisation to address overuse or overallocation, including issues relating to
unbundling, community engagement and interception.
Water recovery has occurred in several local areas with high competition for water. The South
Australian process for conversion from area‑based to volumetric‑based licences has been used to
provide information to irrigators about their use levels and encourage more efficient methods of
irrigation. This process is addressing potential allocation and usage issues while maintaining
existing or, in some cases, enabling increased levels of production. The conversion process has
now been largely completed, reducing the possibilities of future unsustainable use.
The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) includes a number of powers to permanently
reduce water allocations depending on the circumstances. Sections 155 and 164N allow the
Minister to take immediate action to reduce entitlements or allocations as an issue is identified.
Section 76 provides power for a WAP to effect reductions when the WAP is adopted or at a later
stage depending on, for example, resource condition triggers. A WAP also determines or provides
a mechanism for determining the consumptive pool from time to time, and a change in this
determination or mechanism can be a tool to address overallocation. The Minister does not have
to wait until a review of the WAP occurs to reduce allocations.
45 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 97.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Risk assignment framework to
be implemented immediately for
all changes in allocation not
provided for in overallocation
pathways in water plans.
46–51
46–51 – South Australia has adopted an alternative risk‑assignment framework in accordance
Water plans to address
Indigenous water issues.
52–54
with NWI paragraph 51. The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) enables the Minister
to make reductions to water licences under certain circumstances, primarily when a WAP is
revised and less water is available for consumptive use under this revised plan. Licences can be
altered to be consistent with the current WAP.
52–54 – The South Australian water allocation planning framework engages Indigenous
communities, along with other stakeholders, to identify their water values and requirements
through the WAP consultation process. Section 79 (6)(a) of the Natural Resources Management
(Review) Amendment Act 2013 (SA) requires that anybody who represents the interests of
Aboriginal people, as identified by the Minister, must be consulted during WAP preparation.
The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) states that regional NRM board members
should have experience and knowledge of Indigenous heritage and interests in land and water.
One NRM board in South Australia (Alinytjara Wilurara) is wholly made up of nine Indigenous
members, reflecting the fact that more the half the region is held as dedicated Indigenous lands.
Several WAPs (including the Mallee, Tatiara and Padthaway prescribed wells areas) allow
unlicensed access and use for social, cultural and spiritual purposes, provided the flow of water is
not diverted or impeded for collection.
In September 2012, a Notice of Authorisation to Take Water for Native Title Purposes was
published in the South Australian Government Gazette. This provides for the taking of water for
the purpose of satisfying personal, domestic, cultural, spiritual or non‑commercial communal
needs and occurs in the exercise or enjoyment of native title rights and interests. This Notice of
Authorisation is in effect an expression of section 207 of the Natural Resources Management Act
2004 (SA) which states that ‘Nothing done under this Act will be taken to affect native title in any
land or water’
National Water Commission
293
294
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
Implementation of measures to
address water interception by
land use change activities on a
priority basis in accordance with
water plans.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
55–57
55–57 – The South Australian system is based on prioritisation then regulation through the water
planning process for priority interception activities. The system is a regulatory approach to major
interception activities and is supported by policy instruments which recognise interception activities
as ‘water affecting activities’. Assessment of the risk to resource of relevant interception activities
is undertaken in WAP development. Sustainable extraction limits are set under the WAP’s water
account for current and projected volumetric impacts of interception activities.
High‑impact plantation forestry expansion in the lower south‑east is currently managed under
development regulation, which broadly takes account of forestry impacts on water resources. The
interception risk of plantation expansion is identified in WAPs. An amendment to the Natural
Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) (Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests)
Amendment Act 2011 (SA)) in 2011 provides for commercial scale plantations to acquire either a
licence or permit for groundwater interception volumes, depending on the significance of the
impact to the water resource, and consistent with the relevant NRM Plan or WAP. Forest water
licensing has been incorporated in the Lower Limestone Coast WAP, while forestry permits are
incorporated in the Western and Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges WAPs and the Kangaroo Island
Regional NRM Plan.
The impact of dams and bores is managed in non‑prescribed water resources under the policy for
managing water‑affecting activities in NRM Plans. Where a surface water system is prescribed,
the impacts of dams are accounted for in the relevant WAP. Farm dam development is subject to
management zone sustainable capacities which drive dam density and consumptive use
restrictions. Farm dam development is subject to consumptive use limits and diversion limits at the
local or catchment scale, which drives dam density and consumptive use restrictions. Farm dams
can require construction permits including capacity and management provisions.
Stock and domestic water is taken into account, but impacts are estimated because stock and
domestic use is generally not metered (although extraction in some high‑demand areas is
licensed). Stock and domestic bores require a permit for construction and can also require
licensing in prescribed areas. Other diversions and extractions are metered where possible, or
estimated through land use and water use surveys and modelling.
Managed aquifer recharge from the capture, storage and reuse of stormwater has significantly
increased and will be managed as part of the licensing system in prescribed resources.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water markets and trading
Adoption of publicly accessible,
compatible systems for
registering water access
entitlements and trades
consistent with Schedule F:
•
•
59
pathways leading to full
implementation
59 – In South Australia, DEWNR manages the registration and administration of water access
entitlements and water trades through the Water Information and Licensing Management
Application (WILMA). WILMA records information about water access entitlements, allocations and
site use approvals, work approvals and usage. Information about water permits, licences,
allocations and approvals is publicly available through the South Australian Water Register.
South Australia is continuing with the development of the Common Registry Solution which will
deliver the function of recording details of water rights, market information and individual water
accounts, as well as transactions and dealings in relation to water rights.
full implementation.
Inter‑operability has been established to provide the automated exchange of information between
South Australia and other states for allocation trades. With the termination of the National Water
Market System (NWMS) project, South Australia has advised that it is investigating the potential
for inter‑operability of systems for other trades.
Establish compatible institutional
and regulatory arrangements
that facilitate trade, consistent
with principles in Schedule G:
National Water Commission
•
remove institutional barriers
to trade
•
remove barriers to
temporary trade
•
remove barriers to
permanent trade
•
no imposition of new
barriers to trade
60
60 – South Australia temporarily suspended water allocation trading for a week at the end of
March 2012 to protect its entitlement flow for the following year in response to carryover
arrangements introduced in Victoria and Victoria’s suspension of allocation trade in late 2011–12.
South Australia states that the need for states to suspend River Murray water allocation trade
arises partly from the provisions of the 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling
Basin Reform. These limit the water storage space available to each state, and for South
Australia, require water allocation trades processed and accounted for between 1 April and 30
June in one water year to be delivered in the following water year.
No restrictions on interstate trade have been imposed since 2012, however South Australia
advises that the suspension of water allocation trade into or out of South Australia, or a volumetric
limit on trade, will be considered if South Australia identifies an unacceptable risk to their
entitlement flow.
295
296
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
Relevant parties
(Commonwealth, NSW, Victoria
and SA) agree to:
•
take necessary steps to
enable the use of exchange
rates and/or tagging for
interstate trade
•
reduce barriers to trade in
southern Murray–Darling
Basin
•
review actions to assess
whether relevant parties
have removed barriers
•
NWI paragraph
63
Commentary 2014
63 – Interstate entitlement trade using tagging is available in South Australia, although take‑up
continues to be slow. Interstate allocation trade continues to be active between the various
connected trading zones in NSW, Victoria and South Australia. In 2012–13, 79,519 ML of water
allocation was traded out of the state, and 1,004,098 ML was traded into South Australia
(representing an increase of 98 per cent compared with 2011–12).
The 4 per cent limit, or any other limit on trade out of an irrigation district, is not applied in South
Australia. The Irrigation Act 2009 (SA) and the Renmark Irrigation Act 2009 (SA) provide that an
irrigation trust is not able to restrict permanent trade of water out of its network and must facilitate
trade both in and out of a trust network at the request of its members in accordance with the Water
Act 2007 (Cwth).
The Commission has coordinated a number of reviews and evaluations of the effectiveness of the
Australian water market. For example, 63 (vi) is specifically addressed by the Commission’s
Impacts of trade reports, and 63 (vii) is considered to have been satisfied by the 2009 Biennial
Assessment.
NWC monitor impacts of
trade
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
Complete commitments under
the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect
pricing policies
for water storage and delivery in
rural and urban systems.
65
65 (i) – South Australia has implemented consumption‑based pricing in both rural and urban
systems. See NWI paragraph 66 below for further detail.
65 (ii) – See discussion for NWI paragraph 66.
65 (iii) – Progress has been made towards achieving more consistent pricing practices across
jurisdictions in the Murray–Darling Basin to promote efficient water trade through the ACCC’s
regulatory functions under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth). The Essential Services Commission of
South Australia (ESCOSA) is conducting an inquiry into pricing reform for the water and
wastewater services sector.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Metropolitan:
66
continued movement
66 (i) – SA Water uses a two‑part tariff system with prices consisting of a fixed (supply) charge
and a volumetric (water usage) charge, which rises with consumption under a three‑tier inclining
towards upper‑bound
block structure.
pricing
66 (ii) – SA Water has developed a Pricing Policy Statement Recycled Water and Stormwater for
2014–15. SA Water sets prices for its recycled water and stormwater schemes consistent with
ESCOSA’s principles and the NWI pricing principles. A water use charge for dual reticulation
(residential) is applied which is 90 per cent of the first‑tier drinking water price.
•
•
development of pricing
policies for recycled water
and stormwater
•
review and development of
pricing policies for trade
wastes
•
development of national
guidelines for water
accounts.
Rural and regional:
•
full cost recovery for all rural
surface and groundwater‑
based systems
•
achievement of lower‑bound
pricing for all rural systems
in line with existing NCC
commitments
•
continued movement
towards upper‑bound pricing
for all rural systems, where
practicable
66 (iii) – SA Water has developed a Trade Waste General Policy (2013) which outlines the system
SA Water uses to regulate, accept and manage trade waste. The policy states that SA Water
applies charges on a user‑pays basis to companies that exceed certain minimum standards.
66 (iv) – This reform action was completed prior to 2011. National Guidelines for Residential
Customers Water Accounts were endorsed at the 11th meeting of the Natural Resource
Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) and released on 24 November 2006 by Australian
Government, state and territory water ministers.
66 (v) (a) and (b) – ESCOSA, the state’s independent industry regulator, is conducting an inquiry
into water pricing reform, which includes an examination of statewide pricing. The South
Australian Government will consider any recommendations on statewide pricing when ESCOSA
presents its final report, which is due by the end of 2014.
66 (v) (c) – SA Water receives a Community Service Obligation (CSO) from the South Australian
Government for the provision of water services in regional areas at metropolitan water prices. The
CSO subsidy is reported publicly on SA Water’s website.
National Water Commission
297
298
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Consistent approaches to pricing
and attributing costs of water
planning and management.
67-68
67–68 – South Australia reports there are no specific licensing arrangements to recover water
planning and management costs, however water planning and management costs are recovered
partially by:
• The NRM water levy – legislated and governed under the Natural Resources Management Act
2004 (SA), this levy is applicable to all water entitlement holders and some authorised users.
The levy is directly attributable to the relevant Regional NRM Plan and the funds are spent in
the region in which they are raised. The levy is based on quantity of water allocated, and
activities supported by the charge are clearly articulated on DEWNR’s website
• The Save the River Murray levy – payable by SA Water customers (excluding those entitled to
concessions) as part of water rates. The amount a customer is required to pay is determined
based on property type, and all levy amounts are paid into the Save the River Murray Fund
held by the Minister (SA). Annual reports are tabled in Parliament and are publicly available on
the DEWNR’s website
• Water licence fees.
Public reporting of cost recovery
for water planning and
management.
These water charges are identified and listed on the DEWNR’s website. However, the approach is
not systematic and not all charges are clearly linked to specific water planning and management
activities.
The South Australian Minister for Water and the River Murray has directed SA Water to continue to
contribute to water planning and management charges under section 6 of the Public Corporations
Act 1993 (SA). The Initial Pricing Order requires that any determination of the ESCOSA must allow
SA Water to recover the cost of water planning and management charges.
The Commission’s Cost recovery for groundwater planning and management in Australia,
Waterlines report no. 88 (2012) notes that in South Australia, the government funds a large
proportion (if not all) of groundwater planning and management costs and there is limited reliance
on user charges.
Investment in new or
refurbished water
infrastructure to continue to
be assessed as
economically and
ecologically sustainable
before being approved.
69
69 – Investment decisions by South Australian Government agencies are guided by the
Treasurer’s Instructions and the Guidelines for the evaluation of public sector initiatives (1998).
Under the South Australian Government’s financial management framework, all projects over $4
million must be scrutinised by the Public Works Committee of the South Australian Parliament.
Future investments and capital projects are assessed by both SA Water and ESCOSA as part of
South Australia’s three‑yearly revenue determination under the Water Industry Act 2012 (SA).
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Release of unallocated water
70-72
70–72 – South Australia’s Unallocated Water Policy was endorsed by the Minister for
Sustainability, Environment and Conservation in July 2013. The policy sets out a preferred process
for issuing water licences to access unallocated water and seeks to ensure unallocated water is
made available for consumption in a fair and equitable manner. It provides a definition of
unallocated water and a process for its identification, and outlines a preferred process for issuing
licences to access unallocated water.
Environmental externalities:
73
73 – South Australia uses a regulatory approach to manage environmental externalities. For
example, under the Lower Limestone Coast Water Allocation Plan (2013), water licences will be
introduced to address both direct extraction and interception of recharge by forestry plantations.
•
•
manage environmental
externalities through a range
of regulatory measures
(such as through setting
extraction limits in water
management plans and by
specifying the conditions for
the use of water in water
use licences)
South Australia continues to manage environmental externalities through salinity management
zoning in the River Murray region. Through the River Murray Salinity Zoning Policy (2005), the
potential for further irrigated agriculture is maintained by limiting the level of water use in
high‑salinity impact areas. It also promotes development in areas where the impact on salinity is
less or where it can be negated by salt interception schemes.
examine the feasibility of
Refer to NWI paragraphs 67–68 for a discussion on pricing mechanisms for the South Australian
Murray-Darling Basin.
using market‑based
mechanisms such as pricing
to account for positive and
negative environmental
externalities associated with
water use
•
implement pricing that
includes externalities where
found to be feasible
National Water Commission
Benchmarking efficient
performance:
• independent, public, annual
reporting of performance
benchmarking for all
metropolitan,
non‑metropolitan and rural
•
299
water delivery agencies
develop nationally consistent
report framework.
75-76
75 – South Australia has provided benchmarking information for inclusion in National Performance
Report for urban and rural utilities. At the time of writing the future of this reporting is uncertain.
76 – Costs associated with operating performance and benchmarking systems are funded by SA
Water.
300
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Independent pricing regulator:
77
• independent pricing bodies to
set and review prices or
pricing processes for water
storage and delivery and
publicly report
Commentary 2014
77 – ESCOSA is the independent economic regulator for water and wastewater services across
the state. Under the Water Industry Act 2012 (SA), the South Australian Government has
conferred additional functions to the ESCOSA such as licensing and price regulation.
ESCOSA made its first pricing determination in May 2013, setting maximum allowed revenues for
drinking water and sewerage retail services for the three‑year period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June
2016.
On the 24 September 2012, the Treasurer of South Australia tasked ESCOSA to undertake an
inquiry into pricing reform for drinking water and sewerage retail services provided by SA Water.
ESCOSA is due to submit its final report by 31 December 2014.
Integrated management of environmental water
Recognising the different types
of surface water and
groundwater systems:
• effective and efficient
management and
institutional arrangements
• to ensure the achievement
of environmental outcomes;
and
• where it is necessary to
recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to
adopt the principles for
determining the most
effective and efficient mix of
water recovery measures.
79
79 (i) a) – The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) provides the statutory framework for
managing environmental water in South Australia. Regional NRM boards are responsible for
developing statutory WAPs that include environmental water provisions.
79 (i) b) – The Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) requires both WAPs and Regional
NRM plans to address and be consistent with intergovernmental agreements.
South Australia is party to a number of joint arrangements where resources are shared between
jurisdictions including:
• Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement 2000
• Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray–Darling Basin
2013
• the 1985 Border Groundwaters Agreement (updated 2005).
79 (i) c) – South Australia reports that resources have not historically been managed conjunctively
due to the limited understanding of the connectivity between key surface and groundwater
resources.
However, more recently WAPs have begun to adopt an integrated management approach as
understanding of the resource develops. The WAPs prepared for Eastern and Western Mount
Lofty Ranges show greater consideration of surface and groundwater connectivity, including
placing minimum caps on available recharge required to provide for environmental water
requirements.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Section 76(4)(a.ii) of the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) also requires
consideration of connectivity in WAPs, whereby the plan must assess whether taking or using
water from the resource will have a detrimental effect on the quality or quantity of water that is
available from any other water resource.
South Australia reports that all WAPs identify connectivity between surface water and groundwater
systems, even if the focus of the individual plan is on one resource.
79 (i) d) – Although some WAPs outline extensive monitoring and reporting programs, most
generally focus on baseline monitoring for ecological values. Water quantity and quality are often
measured in conjunction with these monitoring programs, aiming to assess the upper and lower
limits required to maintain ecological function.
The Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting and Improvement (MERI) guidelines for South Australian
WAPs were released in December 2012. The guidelines identify risk‑based approaches to water
planning to enable a focus on where it is most needed.
The 10‑year review cycle for WAPs is the mechanism for evaluating and reviewing environmental
water arrangements. Adaptively managed environmental water is reviewed more frequently as part
of the TLM program
No periodic independent audit is currently undertaken.
National Water Commission
79 (i) e) – In South Australia, environmental water takes two forms: planned environmental water
which is water set aside outside of the consumptive pool established within a WAP, and licensed
environmental water which is set within the consumptive pool established within a WAP and is
statutory based. Only licensed environmental water is tradeable in South Australia. Licensed
environmental water can be traded on a temporary or permanent basis, subject to the provisions of
the relevant water allocation plan.
79 (i) f) – South Australia has identified priority high ecological value aquatic ecosystems
(HEVAEs) across the state. The WAP is the mechanism for providing specific arrangements for
the maintenance of HEVAE values. Environmental watering requirements for those ecosystems
are considered during the development of related water allocation plans.
301
79 (ii) – South Australia has adopted a mix of approaches to achieve environmental and other
public benefit outcomes in stressed areas. See NWI paragraphs 43–44 for more detail on water
recovery measures.
302
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
81
81 – South Australia has participated at a national level in the development of national water
accounting standards and reporting frameworks, including the Water Accounting Conceptual
Framework, the General Purpose Water Accounting Reports and the Australian Water
Accounting Standards (AWAS 1 and AWAS 2).
Water resource accounting
Benchmarking of accounting
systems
South Australia uses AWAS 1 and the Water Accounting Conceptual Framework in providing
data to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for the general purpose water account.
82-83
Environmental water accounting:
• develop an environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements
• apply the environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements.
85
188
Consolidated water accounts:
• develop and implement
robust water accounting
• identify situations where
close interaction between
surface and groundwater
exist to integrate the
accounting of groundwater
and surface water use.
82 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 81 above.
83 – South Australia’s water accounting systems recognise connectivity between groundwater
and surface water systems.
85 – In South Australia a water account has been established for the management of
environmental water trades within and into South Australia from TLM, CEWH and
non‑government organisations. A water licence and account has also been established for
management of South Australian Government held environmental and wetland water.
The Riverine Recovery Program is providing funding to develop a Management Action Database
with the capacity to record all trades and accounting of environmental water. The database is
expected to be operational in late 2014. It allows for the recording of water accounting
transactions, as well as planned and actual environmental water transactions so that allocations
can be planned and tracked.
Use and outcomes of held environmental water for the South Australian River Murray is reported
publicly through the River Murray Environmental Watering Report, produced annually by the
South Australian Government.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Outside of the Murray–Darling Basin, only some sections of rivers below major reservoirs
report environmental water. Other types of environmental water provisions are reported in
disclosure notes as part of the National Water Account for BOM. Environmental water
provision notes have been provided for several areas in the Adelaide region for the National
Water Account.
South Australia is participating in the development of the Environmental Water Accounting
Standards through the Australian Water Accounting Committee.
86
86 – South Australia has participated with other NWI parties in the development and
implementation of BOM’s AWAS 1 (see NWI paragraph 81 for more detail).
Metering and measuring actions:
• develop metering and
measuring actions
• implement metering and
measuring actions.
87-88
87–88 – South Australia has contributed to the development of the National Framework for
Non‑Urban Water Metering (2010).
National guidelines on water
reporting:
• develop and apply national
guidelines on water reporting
covering the application,
scale, detail and frequency for
open reporting.
89
Implement information measures
South Australia has developed the South Australian Licensed Water Use Metering Policy
(2012), which sets out the statewide policy for metering licensed water in South Australia. It
includes the South Australian Licensed Water Use Meter Specification (2012).
89 – South Australia participated in the development of the NWMS, which was designed to
support water accounting and resource management by providing market information and
assisting with the accurate recording of water entitlements and management of transactions.
This project has now ceased. A major element of the NWMS was the development of a
Common Registry System (CRS), a standardised national water register that was planned to
replace existing water registers in South Australia. South Australia contributed to and was fully
supportive of the final system architecture developed by the CRS project.
National Water Commission
Funding for the build and the implementation of the CRS ceased on 1 July 2014. South
Australia is currently investigating options to progress the design and implementation of the
CRS.
303
304
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
91
91 (i) – The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme is a joint initiative of the
Australian and state and territory governments. The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards
Act 2005 (Cwth) provides the legal framework for the scheme. In 2006 South Australia enacted
complimentary legislation, and in 2013 the updated legislation, the Water Efficiency Labelling
and Standards Act 2013 (SA).
Urban water reform
Implementation of demand
management measures, including:
• implementation and
compliance monitoring of
WELS, including mandatory
labelling and minimum
standards for agreed
appliances
• develop and implement ‘Smart
Approved WaterMark’ for
garden activities
• review effectiveness of
temporary water restrictions
and associated public
education strategies, and
consider extending low‑level
•
restrictions to standard
practice
implement management
responses to water supply and
discharge system losses
including leakage, excess
pressure, overflows and other
maintenance needs
91 (ii) – The Smart Approved WaterMark is a not‑for‑profit organisation established by four
associations: the Australian Water Association, Irrigation Australia, the Nursery and Garden
Industry, Australia and the Water Services Association of Australia. It is overseen by a steering
committee with representation from the Australian and state and territory governments, water
utilities, the four governing associations, and the chair of the Technical Expert Panel (an
independent panel which assesses applications to the scheme). Project establishment was
finalised in 2011 and a report on the delivery of the Smart Approved WaterMark was provided
to the Department of the Environment. The program continues to provide product efficiency
ratings to consumers.
91 (iii) – South Australia participated in the production of the Commission’s national review of
water restrictions, published in 2008. Water conservation, demand management and improved
water availability throughout South Australia have resulted in water restrictions being eased for
most of the state from 1 December 2010 and Water Wise Measures coming into place. Areas
previously subject to permanent water conservation measures, including the state’s
south‑east and Kangaroo Island, are now covered by Water Wise Measures. The new
measures also apply to customers in Whyalla and Port Pirie. Penalties apply for
non‑compliance.
91 (iv) – The South Australian Water for Good Action Plan contains Action 29, for SA Water to
include leak detection in the water auditing process of the Business Water Saver Program, and
Action 38, for SA Water to continue its program of leak detection and repair in its metropolitan
and major country town networks and report annually on progress.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
A major leak detection and repair program covering Adelaide and a number of regional
areas was completed in 2011. South Australia reports that during 2012, SA Water continued
to refine the quality and coverage of its leakage measurement methodology and
commenced a research project with the University of Adelaide and the Goyder Institute to
assess the contribution of on‑property leakage to the overall water balance calculation. In
2012 SA Water finalised a Leak Analysis and Water Profiling Service, which is available for
customers to access for a fee.
Encourage further innovation in
urban water use including:
• develop and apply national
health and environmental
guidelines for water sensitive
urban designs for recycled
water and stormwater
• develop national guidelines for
evaluating options for water
sensitive urban developments
in both new urban sub‑divisions
•
•
National Water Commission
•
and high rises
evaluate existing water sensitive
urban icon developments
review institutional and
regulatory models for integrated
urban water cycle planning and
management and develop
best‑practice guidelines
review incentives to stimulate
innovation.
92
92 – South Australia has participated in national level working groups and committees to
develop the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental
Risks (2009) which address water quality guidelines for recycled and stormwater use.
South Australia has developed the South Australian Recycled Water Guidelines (2012)
which adopt the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling (2009) for scientific guidance. The
guidelines provide information on the approval process in South Australia, including
appropriate agencies, legislative requirements and the steps involved in obtaining approval.
The South Australian guidelines cover various recycled water sources including sewage,
greywater, roof run‑off and stormwater.
In November 2012, South Australia published the Water Sensitive Urban Design – Creating
more liveable and water sensitive cities in South Australia. The policy outlines statewide
water sensitive urban design (WSUD) targets, details the South Australian Government’s
role in supporting the uptake of WSUD, provides a pathway for supporting WSUD within
South Australia’s planning and environmental protection legislation and details other state
commitments to support WSUD.
South Australia is also supporting current research by the Goyder Institute to better
understand issues and impediments to WSUD uptake in South Australia, and is a partner in
the CRC for Water Sensitive Cities’ research program.
305
306
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Community partnerships and adjustment
Open and timely consultation with
all relevant stakeholders in relation
to:
• pathways for returning
overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction levels,
periodic review of water plans,
and other significant decisions
affecting the security of water
access entitlements.
95
95 – South Australia has statutory consultation requirements as part of the review and
subsequent amendment process for WAPs under the Natural Resources Management Act
2004 (SA).
Amendments to the Natural Resources Management Act 2004 (SA) in 2012 require regional
NRM boards to give public notice of any decision to proceed to prepare a draft WAP. In
addition, non‑statutory consultation processes are undertaken with specific stakeholder and
industry groups across regions. Regional NRM boards are responsible for managing the
consultation processes within the particular region.
South Australia’s Water for Good requires the preparation of regional water demand and
supply plans to assess the state of a region’s water resources and the extent of supplies
available within that region, as well as to assess current and future demand for water in the
region. Demand and supply plans have recently been prepared for the Eyre Peninsula,
Northern and Yorke Peninsula, Alinytjara Wilurara and the South Australian Arid Lands NRM
regions.
The manner of engagement and consultation with the community and industry varies from
region to region, including the need to take into account concurrent or previous consultation
processes. Regional NRM boards have the autonomy to determine the appropriate level of
community engagement and consultation required for their particular region.
Provision of accurate and timely
information to all relevant
stakeholders in relation to the
progress of water plan
implementation and other
issues relevant to the security of
water access entitlements.
96
96 – South Australia’s Water Connect is an online, publicly accessible resource which provides
communities and industry with contemporary and real‑time water information on a number of
issues including water licences, permits, allocations, wells and water trade.
In addition, information is made available through fact sheets, reports, and technical and scientific
documents such as:
• Water for Good annual report and progress reports
• regional supply and demand statements
• groundwater and surface water status reports
NWI actions
Address significant adjustment
issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and
communities that may arise
from reductions in water
availability as a result of
implementing the NWI.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
97
97 – The South Australian Government has invested $20 million in the Riverland Sustainable
Futures Fund to deliver structural changes, investment and employment outcomes in the
region.
The Private Irrigation Infrastructure Program for South Australia funds irrigation infrastructure
efficiency improvements for MDB operators in South Australia, with a share of the water
savings achieved from those projects to be used for environmental water purposes. The
program is part of the Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure component of the
Australian Government’s Water for the Future. In exchange for funding, successful applicants
transfer water entitlements to the CEWH to use for environmental water purposes.
The South Australian River Murray Sustainability program was launched in 2013 and is a $265
million funding package to support regional economic and environmental sustainability
through two programs – the Irrigation Industry Improvement Program ($240 million) and the
Regional Economic Development Program ($25 million). The programs are being delivered by
Primary Industries and Regions South Australia.
The Regional Economic Development Program will invest in specific programs to support
regional and industry related research and development.
Knowledge and capacity building
National Water Commission 307
Science priorities and research:
• identify the key science
priorities to support
implementation of the NWI
and where this work is being
undertaken
• implement any necessary
measures to ensure the
research effort is well
coordinated and publicised,
and any gaps are
addressed.
101
101 – In South Australia, the Goyder Institute for Water Research provides water research
and expert advice to support priority state government water policy development and water
security needs for South Australia. Through its research themes of Urban Water,
Environmental Water, Water for Industry and Climate Change, it is working in partnership
with CSIRO, Adelaide University, Flinders University, the University of South Australia,
SARDI and the Australian Water Quality Centre (SA Water) to deliver science capacity.
South Australia is participating in the National Knowledge and Research Platform to prioritise
research programs and to coordinate cost‑effective research across jurisdictions, to facilitate
access to research outcomes to support NWI implementation.
South Australia is also participating in the National Hydrological Modelling Strategy to
standardise its surface water hydrologic models in the ‘Source’ platform to be consistent with
the national water modelling platform. The aim is to provide model compatibility and
consistency across jurisdictions, which provides underpinning science for the preparation and
implementation of statutory water management plans consistent with the NWI principles.
308
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Tasmania
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlement and planning framework
Implementation of the
26-27
framework:
• substantial completion of
plans to address any
existing overallocation for all
river systems and
groundwater resources in
accordance with
commitments under the
1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework
• legislative and administrative
regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of
the entitlements and
allocation framework in this
agreement.
26 – Tasmania has not identified any systems as overallocated. In its 2006 NWI implementation
plan Tasmania committed to developing plans for the Meander River including the Liffey River; the
Macquarie River including the Elizabeth and Tooms rivers; the Jordan River; and Coal River. Of
these, one plan is currently in draft, the Macquarie River Catchment Water Management Plan
(WMP) and the other rivers are not covered by plans. Tasmania has advised that water planning
activities will be progressed in 2013–14 in the state’s north‑west, including the Duck, Welcome
and Montague river catchments. In addition, Tasmania intends to develop management
frameworks for a range of catchments including the Meander, Jordan, Coal and Forth rivers.
WMPs are prepared under the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) and are the responsibility of the
Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (DPIPWE). DPIPWE prepares
WMPs where an area has been identified as requiring a higher level of management due to
greater resource development. At present nine WMPs are operational with a 10th, the South Esk
plan, to be implemented following the 2013–14 irrigation season. WMPs are currently in draft for
the Macquarie River and Ringarooma River catchments. DPIPWE expects approximately 15
WMPs will be required and it is not intended the whole of Tasmania be covered by plans. Areas
not yet covered by WMPs are managed under the provisions of the Water Management Act 1999
(Tas).
27 – The Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) provides for the planning, regulation, management,
protection and allocation of Tasmania’s freshwater resources. It provides the statutory basis for
water access entitlements.
Water access entitlements to be
defined and implemented.
28-34
28–33 – The Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) provides for NWI‑consistent water entitlements.
Entitlements to water are provided through water licences, upon which water allocations are
endorsed. Water licences are valid for 40 years and may specify the surety with which a water
allocation can be expected to be available for taking.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
WMPs establish allocation limits in accordance with a determination of the catchment’s sustainable
yield. In most instances, Tasmania uses a rule of thumb allocating a 20 per cent proportion of the
yield for consumptive purposes. Most plans define allocation limits for both the summer/direct‑take
and winter/storage‑take periods.
WMPs establish rules of access to water resources in the plan area. These provisions include
allocation limits, restriction measures for surface water and groundwater, minimum lake levels and
triggers for review of licensing arrangements if use reaches what the plans’ term as unsustainable
levels (e.g. groundwater, stock and domestic).
Under Part 5 of the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas), owners and occupiers of land may take
dispersed surface water and groundwater from the land for any purpose without a water licence,
except where this will cause environmental harm or contravenes licensing provisions specified in a
WMP or under an appointed Groundwater Area
Groundwater is considered in the development of WMPs through a hydrological assessment of
groundwater and associated risks in the plan area. New plans make allowance for a review to
determine the need for groundwater licensing should significant growth in extraction occur.
The Minister for Primary Industries and Water (Tas) may appoint an area as a Groundwater Area
as a mechanism to bring groundwater extraction under a regulatory regime. The purpose of a
Groundwater Area is to define specific areas where groundwater resources are intensively used
and commercial groundwater licensing is required to equitably and sustainably manage the water
resource. DPIPWE has developed a regulatory framework for groundwater management and a
system for the licensing of groundwater extraction to be implemented in high‑priority areas and
situations.
National Water Commission
Tasmania’s first Groundwater Area, the Sassafras Wesley Vale, was appointed in 2012 as part of
the Sassafras Wesley Vale Water Management Plan (2012). It requires that all commercially
extracted groundwater be licensed. The Great Forester Water Management Plan (2003) states
that the department will implement a groundwater licensing system within the first five years of the
plan (by 2008) with licence conditions covering reporting of water usage and drilling records,
however this has not been done and Tasmania advises of no plans to do so in the near future.
309
310
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Hydro Tasmania holds a special licence which grants it the right to all water resources in
hydro‑electric districts, with the exception of water for town use, stock and domestic,
resource‑dependent ecosystems and allocated under water licences to other users. While under
section 112 of the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) Hydro Tasmania must comply with a WMP
only if its licence conditions are amended to state this, the development of WMPs by DPIPWE
is undertaken is consultation with Hydro Tasmania to ensure alignment between special licences
and WMPs.
Licensed water access entitlements under the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) are property
rights, separated from land titles and able to be mortgaged and traded. Water entitlements in
irrigation districts, including those managed by Tasmanian Irrigation, are issued as irrigation rights
under the Irrigation Clauses Act 1973 and are tradeable within the district in which they are issued.
34 – As with any other party, mines are required to have a licence under the Water Management
Act 1999 (Tas) to take water from a water resource. All water licences in Tasmania are issued for a
period of 40 years with provision for reassessment of licence conditions every five years. These
licences are tradeable. Groundwater take does not require a licence unless specified under a
WMP or a Groundwater Area.
Water to meet environmental and 35
other public benefit outcomes
identified in water plans to be
defined, provided and managed.
35 – The Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) requires water plans to include a statement of
environmental (and other) objectives, a description of the water regime that best gives effect to
environmental (and other) objectives and an assessment of the ability of the regime to achieve
those objectives.
Environmental water is provided through allocation limits (annual maximum volumes available for
extraction) and rules under which flows can be accessed. Mechanisms such as cease‑to‑take
provisions are used to maintain baseflows under low‑flow conditions.
Environmental water has a higher level of surety than all consumptive uses other than critical
human needs and stock and domestic, however there are no licences held for environmental
purposes.
The Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) requires WMPs to identify ecosystem water requirements,
water management rules and any likely detrimental effects resulting from water extraction.
Important freshwater ecosystem values are identified through the state’s Conservation of
Freshwater Ecosystems Values (CFEV) project and new water plans are supported by a range of
detailed environmental studies.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
In some cases, Hydro Tasmania undertakes voluntary releases of environmental flows, which are
overseen by DPIPWE to integrate with water management of the plan area.
Even though the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) makes specific provision for both entitlement
and rules‑based environmental water, water resources in Tasmania are largely unregulated and
environmental water is rules‑based. Provisions in WMPs establish the amount of water that can be
allocated at various surety levels, taking into account the plan’s objectives and the water regime
necessary to achieve them, existing water use and the sustainable allocation limits derived for the
plan area. Limiting allocation to a 20 per cent proportion of the yield is considered by Tasmania
to provide a conservative ‘rule of thumb’ approach.
WMPs contain rules‑based restriction levels to ensure minimum lake levels and maintain healthy
ecosystem function. Thresholds are also set that trigger a requirement for in‑stream dams to pass
inflows and cease‑to‑take measures to maintain minimum environmental flows during drought or
low‑flow periods. In appointed Groundwater Areas, groundwater thresholds trigger restriction
management actions to preserve levels to sustainable limits.
The Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) allows for the trade of environmental water allocations, but
because environmental water in Tasmania is currently rules based, trade is not possible.
Water plans to be prepared
along the lines of the
characteristics and components
at Schedule E based on the
following priorities:
National Water Commission
• plans for systems that are
overallocated, fully
allocated or approaching
full allocation
• plans for systems that are
not yet approaching full
allocation
39–40
39 – Tasmania has implemented a water planning process which is NWI consistent. Plans are
prepared in accordance with the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) using the Standard Operating
Procedures for the Development of Statutory Water Management Plans in Tasmania (SOPs),
which were revised in March 2010 and guided by Tasmania’s Generic Principles for Water
Management Planning (2009).
40 – Specific performance indicators for WMP objectives are not defined, however plans specify
that their performance will be assessed and reported on annually. The annual reporting is to be
based on whether a plan’s provisions include the intended streamflow conditions in relation to its
objectives or, in the more recent plans, the effectiveness of its water management provisions in
achieving its environmental and water usage and development objectives. Some plans specify an
annual report to the Minister while others specify only that the department will report annually.
Data in relation to flow, groundwater monitoring and compliance is publicly available through the
online Water Information System Tasmania (WIST), which offers limited interpretive ability against
plan objectives
311
312
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Substantially complete
addressing overallocation as
per NCC commitments.
41, 43–45
41 – See NWI paragraph 26 for detail on progress.
Substantial progress towards
adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems.
43–44 – At present no water systems in Tasmania are considered overallocated. Several plans
indicate that catchments are approaching full allocation or are fully allocated for the direct‑take
season. A number of plans, such as that for Ansons River, indicate that if and when allocation
limits are approached in the future, further assessment work will be undertaken to review allocation
limits in light of new scientific, environmental and climate knowledge.
The key mechanisms in Tasmanian WMPs for managing water resources within sustainable levels
are setting annual extraction limits and daily access rules. The draft Ringarooma River Catchment
WMP includes a trigger for implementation of irrigator water sharing arrangements, in which
irrigators self‑manage temporary sharing arrangements for their licensed water to avoid the need
for system‑level cease‑to‑take provisions.
Although no water recovery is undertaken in Tasmania, management mechanisms are being
implemented in some systems with medium levels of competition. The focus of water management
is to identify and set appropriate limits and hydrologic regimes to preserve catchment condition,
provide for further development and ensure systems do not become overused in the future.
Several WMPs have identified the availability of further water allocations after setting a sustainable
extraction limit and a hydrologic water regime. New allocations are mostly designated as potential
winter take when higher flows are available, to minimise environmental risk to the water resource
during the summer‑take period (e.g. in the Tomahawk River Catchment WMP).
Groundwater use is prevalent and increasing in some areas (e.g. north and north‑west). The
extraction of groundwater for commercial purposes is currently only licensed in the Sassafras
Wesley Vale appointed Groundwater Area. As noted at NWI paragraphs 28–34, the statement
included in the Great Forester Water Management Plan (2003) that groundwater for uses other
than stock and domestic will require a licence by 2006 has not been implemented. Groundwater
levels are monitored in most catchments and several plans make allowance for the status of
groundwater to be reviewed if extraction increases to unacceptable levels (i.e. draft Ringarooma
and Macquarie WMPs, and South Esk, Tomahawk, Lakes Sorrel and Crescent, Little Swanport
and Clyde WMPs).
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Reduced rainfall and surface water flows experienced in recent years, together with increased
demand for irrigation water, has led to a greater reliance on groundwater extraction in the
Sassafras Wesley Vale system. This led to the appointment in 2012 of the Sassafras Wesley Vale
Groundwater Area as part of the Sassafras Wesley Vale Water Management Plan (2012).
Licences have now been issued for taking groundwater in this area.
45 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 97 for more detail.
Risk assignment framework to
be implemented immediately for
all changes in allocation not
provided for in overallocation
pathways in water plans.
46–51
46–51 – The Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) notes that allocations may be reduced and that
compensation may be paid to licence holders. Tasmania advises that it is working towards
implementing updated risk‑assignment arrangements from 1 January 2015, which would specify
the risk‑sharing provision between licence holder and government.
Water plans to address
Indigenous water issues.
52–54
52–54 – Tasmania has neither legislative provisions that require Indigenous water access issues
to be dealt with in its water planning processes, nor any provisions for the recognition of native title
rights to water. No water plans in Tasmania identify water requirements for Indigenous customary,
social or spiritual needs or provide water specifically to Indigenous people for any purpose. There
are no specific requirements for Indigenous engagement in the development of WMPs, beyond
general stakeholder engagement.
55–57
55–57 – Farm dams are regulated, with all dams greater than 1 ML and all watercourse dams
requiring a dam works permit.
Implementation of measures to
address water interception by
land use change activities on a
priority basis in accordance with
water plans.
A permit is required for well development, along with a well driller’s licence – which provides the
ability to estimate stock and domestic use of groundwater more accurately.
National Water Commission
A Water Availability and Forest Landuse Planning Tool (WAFL) was developed by DPIPWE in
partnership with the Forest Practices Authority. It provides a tool for assessing the potential impact
of plantation forestry on catchment water yield and contributes modelled interception data to new
water plans. The CSIRO Tasmania Sustainable Yields Project, undertaken in 2009, assessed a
range of regions on current and likely future extent and variability of surface water and
groundwater resources.
313
314
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water markets and trading
Adoption of publicly accessible,
compatible systems for
registering water access
entitlements and trades
consistent with Schedule F:
•
pathways leading to full
implementation
•
full implementation.
Establish compatible institutional
and regulatory arrangements
that facilitate trade, consistent
with principles in Schedule G:
•
remove institutional barriers
to trade
•
remove barriers to
temporary trade
•
remove barriers to
permanent trade
•
no imposition of new
barriers to trade
Southern MDB trade actions
59
59 – Under the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) the Minister must keep a register of all licences
and permits granted. Where a licence is transferred, or a water allocation of a licence is
transferred, the Minister must record in the register such particulars as he or she thinks fit relating
to the transfer.
Water access entitlement information is currently available through WIST, an online graphical
search that allows customers to use a map of Tasmania to find basic water licence information
within a catchment. Detailed licence information can be requested from the DPIPWE through a
manual process for a nominal fee.
60
60 – The current development of irrigation schemes will result in more areas which are able to
trade entitlements and allocations.
63
63 – Not applicable to Tasmania
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
Complete commitments under
the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect
pricing policies
for water storage and delivery in
rural and urban systems.
65
65 – Consumption based pricing is in place for metropolitan and rural customers, however the lack
of metering in some locations means that not all consumers are charged on a usage basis (see
comments against NWI paragraph 88). All urban water is metered and priced according to a
regulated two‑part tariff system. Prices are set in accordance with state legislation and are
consistent with the NWI pricing principles. Tariff reform arrangements aim to achieve full cost
recovery in 2020.
There is little trading across sectors in Tasmania. Where urban water is used for irrigation, it is
purchased at the water service provider’s commercial tariff. Similarly, where urban water is
sourced from a non‑price‑regulated commercial water user, it is likely to be priced at the supplier’s
opportunity cost.
Metropolitan:
• continued movement towards
upper‑bound pricing
• development of pricing
policies for recycled water
and stormwater
• review and development of
pricing policies for trade
wastes
• development of national
guidelines for water accounts.
Rural and regional:
National Water Commission
•
full cost recovery for all rural
surface and groundwater‑
based systems
•
achievement of
lower‑bound pricing for all
rural systems in line with
existing NCC commitments
66 (i) – TasWater commenced operating on 1 July 2013 and was formed through the
amalgamation of the three Tasmanian regional water and sewerage corporations. TasWater
committed through the Price and Services Plan 2012–2015 to transition customers receiving a
regulated service onto a pricing structure which ultimately recovers the cost for providing the
service. The Tasmanian Economic Regulator identified the need to start the price reform process
as a priority to transition customers to defined target tariffs and ensure appropriate recovery of
capital expenditure. For the first regulatory period, 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2015, ‘target tariffs’
(prices) were set that will begin to move customers towards the real cost of providing the services.
The Tasmanian water and sewerage sector has recently adopted two‑part tariffs (comprising a
service availability charge and a service usage charge) that meet the sustainability threshold, but
significant legacy issues remain and thus upper‑bound pricing has not been achieved to date. It is
intended that cost‑reflective upper‑bound pricing will be fully implemented by the end of the
transition period, in 2020.
The Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008 (Tas) enables price and service plans and price
determinations not to apply some of the pricing principles during the transition period. The Water
and Sewerage Industry Act 2008 (Tas) also provides for an additional revenue limit to those
prescribed under the NWI, the statutory revenue limit. The statutory revenue limit is the amount of
revenue required to achieve the level of cost recovery stipulated in the Water and Sewerage
Industry Act 2008 (Tas). Prices may be charged to the extent that it is commercially and technically
reasonable, to reflect at least the costs that are directly attributable to the provision of the
regulated service.
315
316
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
•
continued movement
towards upper‑bound pricing
for all rural systems, where
practicable
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
66 (ii) – Recycled water customers are required to enter into a formal Recycled Water
Agreement with TasWater. The agreement details legal arrangements such as infrastructure
ownership and recycled water pricing. Each recycled water property must also have a
site‑specific Irrigation and Environmental Management Plan detailing recycled water
management, and how the recycled water will be used in a manner that is safe and sustainable.
Pricing of recycled water varies between each scheme. Tasmania advises that future pricing
strategies will reflect the principles of least‑cost effluent disposal.
Stormwater services are the responsibility of local government. Rates to fund the provision of
these services are set by each local government council.
66 (iii) – The Price and Services Plan 2012–2015 includes pricing for the provision of trade waste
services. Trade waste charges reflect the costs for management of trade waste including
collection, transportation and treatment. Charges are based on the discharge category and the
level of risk associated with the acceptance of a customer’s trade waste to the wastewater
network.
66 (iv) – The National Guidelines for Residential Customers Water Accounts were endorsed at
the 11th meeting of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) and
released on 24 November 2006 by Australian Government, state and territory water ministers.
66 (v) – Water charges for some of the existing Tasmanian irrigation schemes include an asset
renewal levy to maintain the continuing service capacity of the schemes for the foreseeable
future. It is unclear how this approach is linked to lower‑bound pricing calculations.
Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd was established on 1 July 2011. Its ongoing operating costs,
including provision for asset renewal, are met by annual charges levied on water entitlement
holders.
A Community Service Obligation (CSO) exists in the urban water and sewerage sector to avoid
perverse pricing outcomes and fees are subsidised in the rural sector to encourage
development. Any shortfall between the revenue required to achieve cost recovery from water
users and the total costs recovered through water charges is reported.
Urban water CSO amounts are reported publicly in the Tasmanian Economic Regulator’s annual
report on the state of the urban water and sewerage industry and also in the urban utilities’
National Performance Reports.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Consistent approaches to pricing
and attributing costs of water
planning and management.
67-68
67 – The urban water sector does not directly recover water planning and management costs but
Tasmania applies specific fees and charges under the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) and
related regulations. Fees and charges are independently assessed under the Subordinate
Legislation Act 1992 (Tas) to determine whether or not a regulatory impact statement is required in
relation to the costs of the proposed fees. These fees and charges typically increase in line with
the Consumer Price Index.
Public reporting of cost recovery
for water planning and
management.
A review of the costs of water planning and management activities under the Water Management
Act 1999 (Tas) has recently been undertaken, in line with the NWI pricing principles and the
Tasmanian Government’s pricing policies. The Minister for Primary Industries and Water is
considering the findings of the review, which includes an analysis of the full costs borne by
DPIPWE, the attribution of costs to the government and water users on a beneficiary‑pays
principle, and the costs currently recouped in undertaking water planning and management
activities in Tasmania.
68 – Cost recovery is not yet reported for planning and management.
Investment in new or
refurbished water
infrastructure to continue to
be assessed as
economically and
ecologically sustainable
before being approved.
69
Release of unallocated water
70-72
69 – As part of the due diligence assessment process for Commonwealth Water for the Future
funding for the development of modern and efficient irrigation in Tasmania, the Australian
Government assesses each business case submitted for funding to ensure it is technically feasible
and financially viable and complies with both Tasmanian and Australian Government
environmental legislation.
Tasmanian Irrigation Pty Ltd requires that all schemes it constructs are economically viable and
environmentally sustainable
70–72 – Generally, WMPs identify additional volumes of water available for further allocation,
primarily during the winter period.
National Water Commission
Hydro Tasmania holds a special licence which grants it the right to all water resources in
hydro‑electric districts, not including any rights to water held by other parties (e.g. Part 5 rights and
rights under a water licence). Under these arrangements the water rights in several catchments
are fully committed. To enable further allocations for consumptive uses, Hydro Tasmania may
agree to transfer the rights to discrete volumes of water to other users which become part of the
allocation framework.
Unallocated water in irrigation areas is released through market mechanisms.
317
318
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Environmental externalities:
73
73 – There has been little progress in implementing externality pricing in Tasmania. Tasmania
notes such pricing is not appropriate at present, given the absence of fully developed pricing
regulatory arrangements. Instead, Tasmania uses regulatory mechanisms to address externalities.
In irrigation schemes, for example, water rights’ holders must have a farm water access plan as
condition of water use.
•
•
manage environmental
externalities through a
range of regulatory
measures (such as through
setting extraction limits in
water management plans
and by specifying the
conditions for the use of
water in water use licences)
TasWater sources water through the same licensing system as other water users in Tasmania,
and is subject to the same regulatory mechanisms that are in place to address environmental
externalities.
examine the feasibility of
Environmental externalities are not specifically considered in the Tasmanian Economic Regulator’s
price determination
using market‑based
mechanisms such as pricing
to account for positive and
negative environmental
externalities associated with
water use
•
implement pricing that
includes externalities where
found to be feasible
Benchmarking efficient
performance:
• independent, public, annual
reporting of performance
benchmarking for all
metropolitan,
non‑metropolitan and rural
•
water delivery agencies
develop nationally consistent
report framework.
75-76
75 – Tasmania had provided benchmarking information for inclusion in the National Performance
Report for urban water service providers. At the time of writing the future of this reporting is
uncertain.
The Tasmanian Economic Regulator is also required to report annually on the performance of the
Tasmanian urban water and sewerage sector.
76 – Tasmania has not been required to report on rural (irrigation) service provision to date.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Independent pricing regulator:
77
• independent pricing bodies to
set and review prices or
pricing processes for water
storage and delivery and
publicly report
Commentary 2014
77 – Tasmania has one urban water and sewerage service provider, TasWater. It is subject to
price regulation in the delivery of urban reticulated water and sewerage services by the Tasmanian
Economic Regulator under the provisions of the Water and Sewerage Industry Act 2008 (Tas) and
associated regulations. In 2012 the Tasmanian Economic Regulator produced the 2012 Water and
Sewerage Price Determination Investigation – Final Report which contains the regulator’s
decisions on pricing, customer service standards and cost recovery.
TasWater also provides some services that are not subject to price regulation. These include water
for irrigation, re‑used water and stormwater services provided via a combined
sewerage/stormwater system.
In the rural sector there is one state‑owned irrigation company that supplies irrigation water in a
non‑price regulated environment. Other irrigation ventures operate on a collective basis.
Integrated management of environmental water
National Water Commission
Recognising the different types
of surface water and
groundwater systems:
• effective and efficient
management and
institutional arrangements
• to ensure the achievement
of environmental outcomes;
and
• where it is necessary to
recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to
adopt the principles for
determining the most
effective and efficient mix of
water recovery measures.
79
79 (i) a) – The Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) provides the statutory framework for
environmental water in Tasmania. These arrangements give DPIPWE responsibility for the
delivery of environmental water.
Under the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas), water can be allocated to the environment as an
entitlement or under a rules‑based system. Through managing consumptive use under WMPs or
licence conditions, water is provided for the environment.
79 (i) b) – Does not apply to Tasmania.
79 (i) c) – Surface water and groundwater are defined in the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas)
and their connectivity is explicitly recognised. WMPs are required to identify interconnectivity and
dependencies between surface water and groundwater in a catchment. In the absence of data,
surface water and groundwater are considered to be highly connected. A Draft Framework for
Integrated Management of Groundwater and Surface Water in Tasmania (Discussion Paper) was
released in 2011 but has not been finalised.
319
320
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
79 (i) d) – Tasmania does not currently undertake periodic independent audit, review or public
reporting of the achievement of environmental and other public benefit outcomes.
79 (i) e) – Environmental water in Tasmania is provided for in WMPs as planned environmental
water. In Tasmania, planned environmental water is not tradeable on the temporary market.
79 (i) f) – In Tasmania, high conservation value freshwater ecosystems are those considered
especially representative of their type while also demonstrating high degrees of naturalness.
Tasmania employs the Conservation of Freshwater Ecosystems Values (CFEV) assessment to
determine environmental values and identify the conservation management priorities of those
values – as part of developing WMPs. This provides information on the water needs of high‑value
ecosystem assets. The CFEV assessment is also used by DPIPWE to determine areas of interest
for environmental flow studies, dam assessment reports and natural value assessments.
DPIPWE has also developed the Tasmanian Environmental Flows Framework to provide
information on the environmental water requirements for particular catchments to inform WMP
development.
79 (ii) – Tasmania has not identified overallocation within the state and so does not employ any
measures for water recovery, though the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) provides for reduction
in allocations under a WMP in order to meet environmental objectives.
Water resource accounting
Benchmarking of accounting
systems
81
Consolidated water accounts:
82-83
• develop and implement robust
water accounting
• identify situations where close
interaction between surface and
groundwater exist to integrate the
accounting of groundwater and
surface water use.
81 – Tasmania has participated at a national level in the development of national water
accounting standards and reporting frameworks, including the Water Accounting Conceptual
Framework, the General Purpose Water Accounting Reports and the Australian Water
Accounting Standards (AWAS 1 and AWAS 2). Hydro Tasmania implemented a pilot project to
trial the AWAS.
82–83 – Tasmania does not currently prepare water accounts.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Environmental water accounting:
• develop an environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements
• apply the environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements.
85
85 (i) – Environmental water in Tasmania is rules based and therefore Tasmania does not have an
environmental water register. Under the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) the Minister may
determine that a water allocation of a licence is to be used only for a specified purpose, which can
be environmental (although none have been created at this stage). If created, the details of the
licence would be entered onto the WIST register.
188
NWI actions
85 (ii) – Given the unregulated nature of most Tasmanian catchments, Tasmania uses a rules
based approach to achieve environmental outcomes, rather than providing a specific water
access entitlement for the environment. Environmental outcomes are not reported on, although
ongoing streamflow, groundwater levels and some water quality data are available on WIST.
Tasmania has advised that it intends to commence publicly available reporting on water regime
outcomes.
Tasmania has not progressed development of a framework for reporting on significant rules‑based
environmental water.
Implement information measures
Metering and measuring
actions:
• develop metering and
measuring actions
• implement metering and
measuring actions.
86
86 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 81.
87-88
87–88 – Tasmania has participated in the development of national water metering standards and
reporting framework.
The Tasmanian Metering Project, partially funded by the Australian Government, achieved
practical completion at the end of June 2012. Reticulated urban water supply to customers that is
regulated under the Water and Sewerage Industry Act is fully metered.
National Water Commission
In rural areas to date, extraction has generally not been metered except in specific circumstances
(e.g. for transitional allocations in the draft Ringarooma WMP area, where metering is required for
at least two years to make decisions about ongoing allocations). Some WMPs mandate the use of
meters for specified types of extraction. The level of metering is determined by DPIPWE, but more
developed catchments generally have the highest levels of metering.
A draft policy for rural water metering is being progressed for consideration by the Tasmanian
Government during 2014.
321
322
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
National guidelines on water
89
reporting:
• develop and apply national
guidelines on water reporting
covering the application, scale,
detail and frequency for open
reporting.
Commentary 2014
89 – Tasmania is participating in the development of the Environmental Water Accounting
Standards through the National Water Accounting Committee.
Tasmania has agreed to implement the National Framework for Non-urban Water Metering
(2010).
Urban water reform
Implementation of demand
91
management measures, including:
• implementation and compliance
monitoring of WELS, including
mandatory labelling and
minimum standards for agreed
appliances
• develop and implement ‘Smart
Approved WaterMark’ for
garden activities
• review effectiveness of
temporary water restrictions
and associated public
education strategies, and
consider extending low‑level
•
restrictions to standard practice
implement management
responses to water supply and
discharge system losses
including leakage, excess
pressure, overflows and other
maintenance needs
91 (i)—The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme is a joint initiative of the
Australian and state and territory governments. The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards
Act 2005 (Cwth) provides the legal framework for the scheme. Tasmania has enacted
complementary legislation.
91 (ii) – The Smart Approved WaterMark is a not‑for‑profit organisation established by four
associations: the Australian Water Association, Irrigation Australia, the Nursery and Garden
Industry, Australia and the Water Services Association of Australia. It is overseen by a steering
committee with representation from the Australian and state and territory governments, water
utilities, the four governing associations, and the chair of the Technical Expert Panel (an
independent panel which assesses applications to the scheme). Project establishment was
finalised in 2011 and a report on the delivery of the Smart Approved WaterMark was provided to
the Department of the Environment. The program continues to provide product efficiency ratings
to consumers.
91 (iii) – Tasmania participated in the production of the Commission’s national review of water
restrictions. The state’s single water and sewerage corporation, TasWater, is responsible for the
management of water and wastewater services, including the enforcement of water restrictions.
Usually there are no water restrictions for domestic consumption in Tasmania. TasWater
reserves the option to enact water restrictions when storages become critically low due to
unforeseen operational issues or due to drought conditions. Restriction management is based on
flow‑volume triggers and lake levels. When in force restrictions can include limiting garden
watering times and equipment, car washing etc.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Encourage further innovation in
urban water use including:
• develop and apply national
health and environmental
guidelines for water sensitive
urban designs for recycled
water and stormwater
• develop national guidelines
for evaluating options for
water sensitive urban
developments in both new
urban sub‑divisions and high
92
92 – Tasmania has participated in national level working groups and committees to develop the
Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling: Managing Health and Environmental Risks (2009)
which address water quality guidelines for recycled and stormwater use.
•
•
A stormwater harvesting and reuse project has been implemented at Derwent Park. This has the
capacity to replace more than 1.5 billion litres of reticulated drinking water a year by supplying
industrial and urban irrigation needs from harvested stormwater supplemented with
groundwater.
rises
evaluate existing water
sensitive urban icon
developments
review institutional and
regulatory models for
integrated urban water cycle
planning and management
and develop best‑practice
guidelines
review incentives to stimulate
innovation.
Community partnerships and adjustment
•
National Water Commission
Open and timely consultation with
all relevant stakeholders in
relation to:
• pathways for returning
overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction levels,
periodic review of water plans,
and other significant decisions
affecting the security of water
access entitlements.
95
95 – The Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) requires WMPs to be developed in collaboration
with stakeholders. This includes public notification of plan development and public release of the
draft plan for comment for at least 60 days. Consultation for most plans has included public
forums to explain planning aspects and scientific reports. The consultation process also includes
the establishment of a consultation group to contribute to plan development. A secretary’s report
responds to all public submissions on draft plans, indicating the adoption of amendments.
Review of the secretary’s report is undertaken by the Tasmanian Planning Commission to
determine whether a hearing is required and to prepare a public report of recommendation.
Standard operating procedures for the development of WMPs set out guidelines for the
consultation process.
323
324
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Provision of accurate and
timely information to all relevant
stakeholders in relation to the
progress of water plan
implementation and other
issues relevant to the security
of water access entitlements.
96
Address significant adjustment
issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and
communities that may arise
from reductions in water
availability as a result of
implementing the NWI.
97
Commentary 2014
While plans are reviewed and or amended in accordance with the specifications of each individual
plan, the same consultation requirements apply as for developing a new plan. Where the only
amendments to the plan are for consistency with any relevant state policy, the same consultation
is not required. In this circumstance, the secretary must publish a copy of the proposed
amendments in a local newspaper together with a notice inviting members of the public to provide
written representations and considers all written representations received.
96 – Under section 45 of Water Management Act 1999 (Tas), during August in each year and at
any other time when so required by the Minister, a responsible water entity must provide the
Minister with a written report on its administration of a WMP during the preceding period of 12
months. There is no requirement for the reports to be publicly available and the report is not
required to cover progress against meeting plan objectives.
Until 2008, annual waterway monitoring reports provided regular information on catchment
hydrology, water allocations and ecological health. Annual effectiveness reporting is a requirement
of WMPs, however Tasmania advises that annual reports are no longer produced. A range of
monitoring data (e.g. stream flow) is available online through the WIST in real time, although this
provides only limited interpretation against plan objectives.
97 – Under the Water Management Act 1999 (Tas) the holder of a prior right that is abrogated as a
result of the development of a WMP is entitled to compensation for any liability incurred or loss
sustained unless it is necessary to achieve the water objectives in the plan or the holder consents
to the abrogation or reduction.
Most Tasmanian water resources have low to medium levels of development. Consequently, no
active water recovery is required to be undertaken. Tasmania advises that structural adjustment is
not a significant issue, hence little consultation or monitoring in relation to structural adjustment
has occurred.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Knowledge and capacity building
Science priorities and research:
• identify the key science
priorities to support
implementation of the NWI
and where this work is
being undertaken
• implement any necessary
measures to ensure the
research effort is well
coordinated and publicised,
and any gaps are
addressed.
101
101 – Tasmania has participated in national research identification and prioritisation and
knowledge sharing forums in relation to the urban water sector.
To support NWI implementation and recognise the current and future impacts of climate change on
rural and urban sectors, the Tasmanian Government has initiated the Climate Futures for
Tasmania project. Climate Futures interprets climate projections at a local scale between 1961 and
2100, for use by state and local governments, industry and communities. It assesses how water
will flow through Tasmanian water catchments under different climate scenarios and evaluates
specific climate indicators most important for key agricultural productivity.
Tasmania has undertaken two key projects that underpin flow regime and ecosystem decisions in
water planning. One of the key planning tools for provision of environmental water is the CFEV
database. Commencing in 2002, it provided a statewide audit and conservation evaluation of
Tasmania’s freshwater‑dependent values, mapping and categorising rivers, estuaries and
wetlands according to their relative condition and conservation value. Important freshwater
ecosystem values are recorded in the CFEV database, which is used by multiple Tasmanian
organisations as a common basis for prioritising natural resource management activities.
The Tasmanian Environmental Flows (TEFlows) project was designed to allow learnings from one
catchment area to inform management decisions in other similar catchment types. It assessed the
critical flow dependencies of ecological assets in catchments of varied hydrology and improved
confidence that the environmental flow provisions established in WMPs would replicate the natural
flow regime as far as possible.
National Water Commission
325
326
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Australian Capital Territory
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlement and planning framework
Implementation of the
26-27
framework:
• substantial completion of
plans to address any
existing overallocation for all
river systems and
groundwater resources in
accordance with
commitments under the
1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework
• legislative and administrative
regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of
the entitlements and
allocation framework in this
agreement.
26 – At the commencement of the NWI, the Australian Capital Territory was not required to
complete any commitments related to the development of water plans for overallocated systems
under the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework. Currently, the ACT has one water planning area
and the water plan for this area is complete. The Australian Capital Territory reports that it has no
overallocated water systems.
Water access entitlements to be
defined and implemented.
28–33 – The Australian Capital Territory has implemented NWI‑consistent legislation through the
28-34
27 – The Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT) provides the statutory basis for water access
entitlements in the Australian Capital Territory. The Water Sharing Plan is in subordinate
legislation and comprises two disallowable instruments: DI 193 describes water management
areas and DI 191 details the volume of surface water and groundwater that can be taken from
each water management area.
The Australian Capital Territory’s long‑term strategy, the ACT Water Strategy 2014–44: Striking
the Balance, guides development, integration and implementation of management plans prepared
by water service providers and agencies involved in activities and works in the catchment, as well
as planning and development agencies operating within the Australian Capital Territory and region.
It uses a 30‑year planning horizon with provisions for reviews every five years.
Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT), which provides the statutory basis for water access entitlements
in the Australian Capital Territory.
34 – Although the Australian Capital Territory has not defined how it will implement NWI
paragraph 34, there are no major mining activities currently occurring or likely to occur within the
Australian Capital Territory. The Australian Capital Territory has advised that mining activities are
currently prohibited under the Australian Capital Territory’s Territory Plan (2009).
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Water to meet environmental and 35
other public benefit outcomes
identified in water plans to be
defined, provided and managed.
Commentary 2014
35 (i) – The Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT) is the legal basis for managing water in the
Australian Capital Territory. Under the Act, the Environmental Flow Guidelines are a statutory
instrument to determine the water necessary to maintain the health of aquatic ecosystems. The
Australian Capital Territory’s Environmental Flow Guidelines were reviewed in 2011 and
re‑enacted in early 2013.
The Australian Capital Territory provides water for the environment before water for consumptive
use. The Australian Capital Territory reports that it has cooperated with arrangements for the Basin
plan’s environmental watering regime where applicable.
35 (ii) – Water for the environment and other public benefit outcomes is ‘rules based’ and provided
via in‑stream flows. However, in the Australian Capital Territory portion of the Murray–Darling
Basin, as with other Basin states, environmental water is less secure at times of extremely low
water availability. The 2008 Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling Basin Reform states
that Critical Human Water Needs are the highest‑priority water use for communities dependent on
Murray–Darling Basin water.
The Australian Capital Territory reports that more than half the annual historic average amount of
water it has paramount rights to – some 494 GL – is allocated to the environment. The remainder
is available for consumptive uses. ACTEW holds a licence for 65 GL per year, which is 33 per cent
of the available water after environmental flow allocation, and about half of this is returned to the
Murray–Darling Basin via the Molonglo River after treatment at the Lower Molonglo Water Quality
Control Centre (Review of Think water, act water: the ACT’s long term water strategy 2012).
National Water Commission
Water plans to be prepared
along the lines of the
characteristics and components
at Schedule E based on the
following priorities:
• plans for systems that are
overallocated, fully
allocated or approaching
full allocation
327
• plans for systems that are
not yet approaching full
allocation
39–40
35 (iii) Water for the environment in the Australian Capital Territory cannot be traded on the water
market.
39 – The Australian Capital Territory has implemented water planning processes that are NWI
consistent. The Australian Capital Territory reports that it has no overallocated water systems. The
Australian Capital Territory has one water planning area and the plan for this area is complete.
40 (i) and (ii) – The Australian Capital Territory monitors the performance of its water plan and has
adaptive management systems in place.
40 (iii) – The Australian Capital Territory produces an annual ACT Water Report which provides
information on the state of the water resources and water resource management in the Australian
Capital Territory.
328
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Substantially complete
addressing overallocation as
per NCC commitments.
41, 43–45
41, 43–45 – The Australian Capital Territory reported that it has no overallocated water systems.
The Australian Capital Territory has operated within the extraction limits agreed under the Murray–
Darling Basin cap process since 1998, and usage levels to date have been well within the cap. A
new Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL) for the Australian Capital Territory and a timeframe for its
implementation have now been set by the Murray–Darling Basin Plan (the Basin Plan). The new
lower limit also allows for water returned to the system and makes a contribution to the shared
reduction amount designed to improve environmental outcomes in the lower reaches of the Murray
River system.
Risk assignment framework to
be implemented immediately for
all changes in allocation not
provided for in overallocation
pathways in water plans.
46–51
46–51 – Although the Australian Capital Territory has no risk‑assignment policy in place, the
Water plans to address
Indigenous water issues.
52–54
Substantial progress towards
adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems.
Implementation of measures to
address water interception by
land use change activities on a
priority basis in accordance with
water plans.
Australian Capital Territory partially addresses the assignment of risk where reductions to water
allocations arise from seasonal or long‑term changes in climate. The Australian Capital Territory
states that as it provides water for the environment as a priority, any reductions in environmental
flows would be reflected in an increase in water available for water entitlement holders.
55–57
52–54 – The Australian Capital Territory has statutory requirements to consult all stakeholders,
including Indigenous groups, in the development of water plans and to identify their water values
and the water requirements to maintain them. The Australian Capital Territory has actively
engaged Indigenous communities through the development of the Australian Capital Territory’s
water resource plan, currently being prepared as required by the Basin plan.
55–57 – Interception activities, such as unlicensed basic landholders’ rights, are identified in the
Australian Capital Territory water sharing plan and there has been some consideration of the
impact of forest regrowth on water supplies after bushfire. The installation of rainwater tanks and
farm dams is regulated.
The water planning process in the Australian Capital Territory requires estimates of unaccounted
intercepted water within the water plan area, but it does not require the activity or location to be
explicitly identified.
At present the Australian Capital Territory is not undertaking further reform to improve the capacity
to manage interception activities, as current policies and legislation are consistent with managing
existing activities. The Australian Capital Territory generally has limited interception activities as
the region is small and most activities are regulated.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Stock and domestic bores require a licence and are generally metered. Plantation forestry was
previously a potential interception issue, however after the 2003 bushfires the amount of
commercial forestry in the Australian Capital Territory has reduced significantly with no new
plantations being introduced. Farm dams above 2 ML and/or on a waterway require licensing, and
rainwater tanks are regulated under the Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT).
Water markets and trading
Adoption of publicly accessible,
compatible systems for
registering water access
entitlements and trades
consistent with Schedule F:
•
pathways leading to full
implementation
•
full implementation.
Establish compatible institutional
and regulatory arrangements
that facilitate trade, consistent
with principles in Schedule G:
National Water Commission
•
remove institutional barriers
to trade
•
remove barriers to
temporary trade
•
remove barriers to
permanent trade
•
no imposition of new
barriers to trade
Southern MDB trade actions
59
59 – The Australian Capital Territory Government’s Environment and Planning Directorate
maintains an online register of water access entitlements, water allocations and water licences.
60
60 – The Australian Capital Territory has legislative and regulatory frameworks in place for
facilitating water trading both between water management areas in the Australian Capital
Territory and interstate. To permit cross‑border trading of allocations involving the Australian
Capital Territory and New South Wales, an agreement is required between the two jurisdictions,
however such an agreement is still not in place. Therefore water trading in the Australian Capital
Territory is currently restricted to intrastate entitlement trade. The Australian Capital Territory
advises that it is currently working with the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) and New
South Wales to develop and implement these interstate water trading arrangements.
63
This paragraph does not apply to the Australian Capital Territory.
329
330
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
Complete commitments under
the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect
pricing policies
for water storage and delivery in
rural and urban systems.
65
65 – The Australian Capital Territory has implemented its commitments under the 1994 COAG
Water Reform Framework to bring into effect pricing policies for water storage and delivery in rural
and urban systems.
Metropolitan:
66
66 (i) – Upper‑bound pricing of water storage and delivery has been achieved in the ACT.
• continued movement towards
upper‑bound pricing
• development of pricing
policies for recycled water
and stormwater
• review and development of
pricing policies for trade
wastes
• development of national
guidelines for water accounts.
Rural and regional:
•
full cost recovery for all rural
surface and groundwater‑
66 (ii) – The Australian Capital Territory advises that pricing policies for recycled water and
stormwater are in the final stages of development. The number of sites in the Australian Capital
Territory is small with the only stormwater reticulation system a model/demonstration site which
the Australian Capital Territory advises has a limited potential market. The pricing methodology
has been reviewed by the Independent Competition and Regulatory Commission, however the
licensing system is yet to be finalised.
The Australian Capital Territory advises that recycled water is provided by the water utility from the
main treatment plant on a very limited basis, and is priced at a high relative price to potable water
pricing.
Recycled water has also been made available at the Lower Molonglo Water Quality Control Centre
free of charge. The water is available for commercial use and assisting in maintaining public areas
during the Australian Capital Territory’s permanent water conservation measures.
based systems
•
achievement of
lower‑bound pricing for all
rural systems in line with
existing NCC commitments
•
continued movement
towards upper‑bound
pricing for all rural systems,
where practicable
66 (iii) – Pricing policies for trade waste are still being finalised by ACTEW Water. Trade waste in
the Australian Capital Territory is limited and site specific and mainly confined to grease traps
associated with restaurants and food production.
66 (iv) – National Guidelines for Residential Customers’ Water Accounts were endorsed at the
11th meeting of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) and released on
24 November 2006 by Australian Government, state and territory water ministers.
66 (v) – Full cost recovery for the storage and delivery of rural surface and groundwater‑based
systems has been achieved in the Australian Capital Territory.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Consistent approaches to pricing
and attributing costs of water
planning and management.
67-68
67–68 – Water management and planning costs have been recovered since 1995 through the
Australian Capital Territory’s Water Abstraction Charge (WAC).
Investment in new or
refurbished water
infrastructure to continue to
be assessed as
economically and
ecologically sustainable
before being approved.
69
69 – In the Australian Capital Territory all investment in new or refurbished infrastructure is subject
to a triple bottom line analysis and can be referred to the Independent Competition and Regulatory
Commission (ICRC) for an assessment of its economic viability and environmental sustainability.
Release of unallocated water
70-72
70–72 – Unallocated water is only released in the Australian Capital Territory when the water plan
identifies that part of the consumptive pool has not been granted to an entitlement or licence. For
potential new stormwater harvesting and reuse projects, the water must be accounted for and the
proponent will be required to obtain a water licence or an authorised specified exemption from a
licence and pay a WAC.
Public reporting of cost recovery
for water planning and
management.
National Water Commission
331
332
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Environmental externalities:
73
73 – Environmental externalities are generally recovered through the Australian Capital Territory’s
WAC. The WAC has several components, including environmental costs related to provision of the
water supply, environmental management and protection of the aquatic environment and the
riparian zones of the Australian Capital Territory’s streams and lakes.
75-76
75 – The Australian Capital Territory has provided benchmarking information and data for the
National Performance Reports on water utilities. At the time of writing the future of reporting is
uncertain.
•
manage environmental
externalities through a
range of regulatory
measures (such as through
setting extraction limits in
water management plans
and by specifying the
conditions for the use of
water in water use licences)
•
examine the feasibility of
using market‑based
mechanisms such as pricing
to account for positive and
negative environmental
externalities associated with
water use
•
implement pricing that
includes externalities where
found to be feasible
Benchmarking efficient
performance:
• independent, public, annual
reporting of performance
benchmarking for all
metropolitan,
non‑metropolitan and rural
•
water delivery agencies
develop nationally consistent
report framework.
76 – The costs for preparation of the National Performance Reports in the Australian Capital
Territory are borne by the Australian Capital Territory Government and are not passed on the
water utility.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Independent pricing regulator:
77
• independent pricing bodies to
set and review prices or
pricing processes for water
storage and delivery and
publicly report
Commentary 2014
77 – The ICRC is the independent statutory industry and pricing regulator in the Australian
Capital Territory. It includes public consultation and submission processes in its proceedings.
Integrated management of environmental water
Recognising the different types
of surface water and
groundwater systems:
• effective and efficient
management and
institutional arrangements
• to ensure the achievement
of environmental outcomes;
and
where it is necessary to
recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to
adopt the principles for
determining the most
effective and efficient mix of
water recovery measures.
79
79 (i) a) – The statutory framework for environmental water in the Australian Capital Territory is
provided by the:
• Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT)
• Statutory Environmental Flow Guidelines 2013
• Territory Plan 2008 – Planning and Development Act 2007 (ACT)
• ACT Planning Strategy (2012).
These arrangements give the Australian Capital Territory Environment Protection Agency
(EPA) the responsibility to achieve set environmental water objectives.
The environmental flow restrictions in the Australian Capital Territory ensure that 55 per cent of
water that flows through the Australian Capital Territory is not available for consumptive use
and that water is given to the environment before it is taken for consumptive use.
National Water Commission
79 (i) b) – The Australian Capital Territory has established management and institutional
arrangements to contribute to achieving environmental and other public benefit outcomes for
resources shared with other jurisdictions, including the:
• Intergovernmental Agreement on Implementing Water Reform in the Murray–Darling
Basin 2013
• Intergovernmental Agreement on Murray–Darling Basin Reform 2008
• Memorandum of understanding for the planning and management of cross‑border water
•
•
resources 2006
TLM partnership of the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian
and ACT governments (while there are no TLM icon sites within the ACT, the ACT has
provided funding for the initiative)
Lake Burley Griffin Action Plan (Aug 2012) – a joint plan between the Australian Capital
Territory Government, National Capital Authority, Queanbeyan City Council, Palerang
Council and ACTEW Water.
333
334
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
79 (i) c) – The surface water and groundwater systems of the Australian Capital
Territory are considered to be highly connected and as a result surface water and
groundwater are generally managed as one water resource. The Environmental
Flow Guidelines (ACT) recognise the highly connected nature of surface water and
groundwater in the ACT, and the contribution of groundwater to baseflow in drier
conditions.
79 (i) d) – The Australian Capital Territory EPA undertakes compliance and
monitoring of all licensed water extractions, as well ongoing monitoring and
assessment of environmental flows. The EPA also conducts five‑yearly strategic
reviews of the Environmental Flow Guidelines, which establish the components of
flow required to maintain stream health.
79 (i) e) – Environmental water in the Australian Capital Territory is rules based and
cannot be traded.
79 (ii) – The Australian Capital Territory reports that there are no overallocated
systems in the Australian Capital Territory and therefore no water recovery activities
have been required
Water resource accounting
Benchmarking of accounting
systems
81
81 – The Australian Capital Territory has participated at the national level in the
development of a range of national water accounting standards and reporting
frameworks, including the General Purpose Water Accounting Reports and the
Australian Water Accounting Standards (AWAS 1 and AWAS 2).
The Australian Capital Territory uses AWAS 1 and the Water Accounting
Conceptual Framework to provide data to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for
the general purpose water account.
Consolidated water accounts:
• develop and implement
robust water accounting
• identify situations where
close interaction between
surface and groundwater
exist to integrate the
accounting of groundwater
and surface water use.
82-83
82 – The Australian Capital Territory reports that unlike other states, the
Australian Capital Territory uses ‘net’ extractions to account for water use. This
is because the Australian Capital Territory returns 55 per cent of water used
back to the Murray–Darling system, as discussed in NWI paragraph 79 (i) a).
The Australian Capital Territory contributes to the National Water Account and
there is a specific National Water Account for the Canberra region. The
Australian Capital Territory and ACTEW provide relevant data to BOM as
required.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
83 – The Australian Capital Territory recognises groundwater/surface water connectivity in water
planning, management and data collection. It has three connectivity categories for water access
entitlements: surface water, groundwater, and surface water and groundwater (formally ‘mixed’
entitlements). ‘Surface water and groundwater’ entitlements assume 100 per cent
groundwater‑surface water connectivity.
85 (i) – As the Australian Capital Territory does not have environmental water entitlements, an
environmental water register is not required.
85
188
Environmental water
accounting:
• develop an environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements
• apply the environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements.
Implement information
measures
85 (ii) – Under the Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT) compliance with the delivery of environmental
water is undertaken through assessment of compliance and licence conditions by the EPA.
Compliance reports are not publicly accessible, however limited reporting of environmental
watering is included in the annual ACT Water Report.
National Water Commission
86
86 – The Australian Capital Territory has continued to participate in nationally coordinated efforts
in the development
of national water accounting standards and reporting frameworks that facilitate data collection and
storage at the
national level.
Metering and measuring
actions:
• develop metering and
measuring actions
• implement metering and
measuring actions.
87-88
87–88 – The Australian Capital Territory has contributed to the development of the Australian
Government’s National Framework for Non-Urban Water Metering (2010).
National guidelines on water
reporting:
•
89
evelop and apply national
guidelines on water
reporting covering the
application, scale, detail
and frequency for open
reporting.
One hundred per cent of licensed extraction is metered in the Australian Capital Territory. Stock
and domestic use of surface water is not metered.
89 – The Australian Capital Territory has participated in the development of a range of national
reporting requirements for water management.
d
The Australian Capital Territory provides data and information for the production of the National
Performance Reports for rural and urban water utilities, the Australian water markets (89 (ii)) and
environmental water management report series (89 (iii)), and are working with other NWI parties
on compliance and reporting arrangements for water
metering (89 (i)).
335
336
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Urban water reform
Implementation of demand
management measures,
including:
• implementation and
compliance monitoring of
WELS, including
mandatory labelling and
minimum standards for
agreed appliances
• develop and implement
‘Smart Approved
WaterMark’ for garden
activities
• review effectiveness of
temporary water
restrictions and
associated public
education strategies, and
consider extending
low‑level restrictions to
•
standard practice
implement management
responses to water
supply and discharge
system losses including
leakage, excess
pressure, overflows and
other maintenance
needs
91
91 (i) - The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme is a joint initiative of
the Australian Government and the state and territory governments. The Water Efficiency
Labelling and Standards Act 2005 (Cwth) provides the legal framework for the scheme.
The Australian Capital Territory is participating in the amendments to WELS legislation
enacted by the Commonwealth. In 2005 the Australian Capital Territory enacted
complementary legislation, the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005.
91 (ii) - The Smart Approved WaterMark is a not‑for‑profit organisation established by four
associations: the Australian Water Association, Irrigation Australia, the Nursery and
Garden Industry, Australia and the Water Services Association of Australia. It is overseen
by a steering committee with representation from the Australian and state and territory
governments, water utilities, the four governing associations, and the chair of the Technical
Expert Panel (an independent panel which assesses applications to the scheme). The
Commonwealth supported the scheme with a grant from the Water Smart Australia
program administered by the Department of the Environment.
91 (iii) - The Australian Capital Territory has a four‑stage scheme of water restrictions
which is enacted when water supplies are scarce and reductions in water use are required.
Permanent water conservation measures are in place when the ACT is not in a drought
situation as determined by a range of criteria, in particular dam storage levels and pending
weather conditions.
ACTEW finalised a review of the permanent water conservation measures and temporary
water restrictions in 2012. The review included consultation with Canberra residents,
businesses and industry, and a legal and economic analysis of the proposed amendments
to the schemes was also undertaken.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Encourage further innovation in
urban water use including:
• develop and apply national
health and environmental
guidelines for water
sensitive urban designs for
recycled water and
stormwater
• develop national guidelines
for evaluating options for
water sensitive urban
developments in both new
urban sub‑divisions and
92
92 – The Australian Capital Territory Government is reviewing the Water Sensitive Urban Design
Code (WSUD) which was introduced in 2009 under the Territory Plan. The code is designed to
encourage reduced use of mains water, improve water quality and manage stormwater flows in
urban areas. The review is examining current WSUD practice under the code, considering options
to significantly expand available WSUD options and provide maximum flexibility and innovation to
developers for implementing WSUD.
•
high rises
evaluate existing water
sensitive urban icon
developments
review institutional and
regulatory models for
integrated urban water cycle
planning and management
and develop best‑practice
•
guidelines
review incentives to
stimulate innovation.
•
The Environment and Planning Directorate has implemented the Canberra Integrated Urban
Waterways project, which aims to reduce potable water use by providing a reticulation stormwater
use scheme. The project has developed integrated waterway management plans for stormwater
capture and reuse, treated effluent recycling and distribution, aquifer storage potential, water
quality management, and drainage and flood management (which included rehabilitation of
wetland habitats and recreational areas). It is being implemented as a pilot study.
National Water Commission
337
338
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Community partnerships and adjustment
Open and timely consultation
with all relevant stakeholders
in relation to:
• pathways for returning
overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction
levels, periodic review of
water plans, and other
significant decisions
affecting the security of
water access entitlements.
95
95 (i) – There are no reported overallocated systems in the Australian Capital Territory and
therefore no consultation is required for the determination of water recovery activities in the
Australian Capital Territory.
95 (ii) – The Australian Capital Territory produces an annual ACT Water Report, which is available
online. The reports contain information on the status of water resources in the Australian Capital
Territory, water quality, and research and community activities.
The Water Resources Act 2007 (ACT) requires the ACT EPA to consult when developing the
Environmental Flow Guidelines. Consultation was also undertaken in developing ACT Water
Strategy 2014–44: Striking the Balance, and included seven community consultation workshops
across Canberra, meetings with key stakeholders, as well as a public submissions process.
95 (iii) – Ongoing stakeholder input is facilitated by provisions of the Australian Capital Territory’s
Environmental Flow Guidelines and occurs on other issues on an ad hoc basis (e.g. extensive
consultation on the enlarged Cotter Dam project).
Provision of accurate and
timely information to all relevant
stakeholders in relation to the
progress of water plan
implementation and other
issues relevant to the security
of water access entitlements.
96
96 – The effectiveness of water plan implementation is reported annually in the ACT Water Report,
which is publicly available online. See NWI paragraph 95 (ii) for more detail.
Address significant adjustment
issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and
communities that may arise
from reductions in water
availability as a result of
implementing the NWI.
97
97 – There are no reported overallocated systems in the Australian Capital Territory and therefore
significant adjustment issues have not affected water access entitlement holders.
There are mechanisms available to the Minister to amend water access entitlements through
imposing conditions on or amending an existing condition of a water access entitlement. The
Minister is required to provide compensation if an entitlement holder has been adversely affected.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Knowledge and capacity building
Science priorities and research:
• identify the key science
priorities to support
implementation of the NWI
and where this work is
being undertaken
• implement any necessary
measures to ensure the
research effort is well
coordinated and publicised,
and any gaps are
addressed.
101
101 (i) – The Australian Capital Territory advises that its key knowledge and capacity building
priorities in recent years have been focussed on addressing water quality issues in the Australian
Capital Territory’s streams and lakes.
The current ACTEW Applied Research and Development Program supports decision‑making
processes with regard to water quality and delivery, as well as for generating new business,
products, services and interactions for the companies. ACTEW Water also conducts a range of
water and ecological research activities on streams in the Australian Capital Territory region.
Research work has also included:
• collaboration with the NSW Murrumbidgee Catchment Management Authority and
stakeholders to address water management issues
• a study into the aquatic responses of Australian Capital Territory streams from predicted
climate change.
Extensive data collection and ongoing research is undertaken as part of the Environmental Flow
Guidelines’ review process. The Australian Capital Territory Government has been undertaking
groundwater assessments and broadening the extent of monitoring since 2002 to respond to a
substantial increase in the demand for and use of groundwater. A risk‑based approach to
groundwater monitoring has been developed whereby the amount of monitoring in a particular
area is proportional to the risk posed to the groundwater through abstraction, contamination or
land use change.
The ACT Water Strategy 2014–44 – Striking the Balance notes the need for further work to
improve knowledge and building research capacity.
National Water Commission
101 (ii) – The Australian Capital Territory supports national water knowledge by contributing funds
to National Knowledge Platform project. The ACT has links to eWater and the Institute of Applied
Ecology at the University of Canberra to obtain the latest knowledge and access to research on a
variety of issues and projects related to water and the environment.
Australian Capital Territory government staff also participate in intergovernmental forums and
jurisdictional working groups contributing to their development of skills, knowledge and capacity.
339
340
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Northern Territory
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water access entitlement and planning framework
Implementation of the
26-27
framework:
• substantial completion of
plans to address any
existing overallocation for all
river systems and
groundwater resources in
accordance with
commitments under the
1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework
• legislative and administrative
regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of
the entitlements and
allocation framework in this
agreement.
26 – At the time of the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework agreement, no Northern Territory
river systems and groundwater resources were identified as overallocated.
Water access entitlements to be
defined and implemented.
28–33 – The Water Act 1992 (NT) provides for the issuing of water licences, which are the
statutory instrument for managing access to groundwater and surface water resources. Licences
are not a perpetual share of the consumptive pool. Northern Territory water licences are issued for
the point of extraction (bore or river pump). They are usually issued for up to 10 years and can be
renewed.
28-34
As part of its NWI implementation plan, Northern Territory committed to provide an annual public
audit of the level of allocation in all river and groundwater systems, commencing in July 2007, to
confirm that water resource systems were not overallocated. All water extraction licences are
reported in a register on the Department of Land Resource Management’s website, however this
information has not been compiled into an annual audit of take from each groundwater or river
system.
27 – The Water Act 1992 (NT), amended 7 November 2011, provides the legislative framework for
water planning and entitlements for water resources in Northern Territory. While the Water Act
provides for statutory‑based entitlements and the development of water allocation plans (WAPs), it
does not address a number of NWI elements
WAPs ensure that water is allocated within an estimated sustainable yield and the rules for water
trading. Subject to alternative arrangements which may be specified in WAPs, the Northern
Territory has implemented the Water Allocation Planning Framework (WAPF) to define the
consumptive pool.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
The Northern Territory has advised that preliminary drafting instructions have been prepared to
amend the Water Act 1992 (NT) to include clearer specification of water access entitlements.
34 – Under Section 7 of the Water Act 1992 (NT), mining and petroleum activities are exempt from
water licence and permit provisions. However, these sectors are subject to an interagency
memorandum that allows for consistency with the NWI. Northern Territory has advised that its
review of the Water Act 1992 (NT) will include a reconsideration of these exemptions
Water to meet environmental and 35
other public benefit outcomes
identified in water plans to be
defined, provided and managed.
35 – The Water Act 1992 (NT) specifies that WAPs must include an allocation for the environment
within the estimated sustainable yield. There is no provision for specific licences or allocations for
environmental purposes, rather the minimum volume of water to be maintained for environmental
purposes is managed through limits and conditions applied to consumptive use through water
extraction licensing.
Where WAPs have not been declared, the Northern Territory implements the WAPF when making
decisions about whether to issue water extraction licences. In the Top End (northern third of the
Territory), at least 80 per cent of surface water or groundwater recharge is allocated to the
environment. In the arid zone, at least 95 per cent of surface flows are allocated to the
environment and groundwater extraction is not to exceed 80 per of the total aquifer storage over
100 years. This framework has also been implemented in WAPs in the arid zone where there is
limited knowledge about environmental water requirements.
In the Northern Territory environmental water provisions are rules based and cannot be traded.
National Water Commission
Water plans to be prepared
along the lines of the
characteristics and components
at Schedule E based on the
following priorities:
• plans for systems that are
overallocated, fully
allocated or approaching
full allocation
• plans for systems that are
not yet approaching full
allocation
39–40
39 – The Northern Territory has implemented NWI‑consistent water planning processes. WAPs
have been finalised for four areas and draft plans have been released for public comment in
several other areas. The 2007 Alice Springs Water Resource Strategy has been reviewed and a
draft revision released for public comment.
WAPs are under development but not yet completed for areas within the Darwin Rural water
control districts where there are high levels of domestic and horticultural use that have resulted in
resource stress, as well as for three other groundwater areas.
341
342
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
40 – WAPs must be reviewed at least every five years and expire after 10 years. In the Northern
Territory, monitoring, evaluation and adaptive management arrangements are specified in each
water plan. Two annual reports are publicly available for the Katherine (Tindall Limestone Aquifer)
WAP (2009), which include the annual announced allocation and a compilation of monitoring and
evaluation actions that have been undertaken within the previous water accounting year. However,
no publicly available evaluation reports are available to assess the progress of WAPs in meeting
their objectives. A review of the 2007 Alice Springs Water Resource Strategy was produced (not
publicly available) which reports on whether allocations and flows have been achieved but does
not evaluate if these are appropriate.
Substantially complete
addressing overallocation as
per NCC commitments.
41, 43–45
41 – See NWI paragraph 26 for detail on progress.
43–44 – In its NWI implementation plan, Northern Territory committed to avoiding overallocation in
the Katherine/ Daly and Darwin Rural areas. The Katherine (Tindall Limestone Aquifer) WAP was
declared in 2009. The first five‑year review of the WAP is due in 2014, and Northern Territory
Substantial progress towards
adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems.
advises that changes to be considered are inclusion of surface water extractions in annual
announced allocations, revision of restrictive trading rules and the possibility of re‑allocation of
water entitlements from licences not being fully utilised.
In 2011 the Northern Territory advised that the Howard East Aquifer in the Darwin Rural area was
considered to be potentially overallocated. The Howard East and Berry Springs WAPs are
currently under development.
45 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 97 for more detail.
Risk assignment framework to
be implemented immediately for
all changes in allocation not
provided for in overallocation
pathways in water plans.
46–51
46–51 – In the 2011 Biennial Assessment, the Northern Territory advised that drafting instructions
had been prepared for incorporation of the risk‑assignment framework into the Water Act 1992
(NT), however the current Act does not address risk assignment.
Risk assignment is dealt with at the plan level (in some of the more recent plans). The Ti Tree
Water Resource Plan, Katherine (Tindall Limestone Aquifer) WAP, Western Davenport WAP and
Alice Springs Water Resource Strategy all specify that risks to the water resource arising from
reductions to the consumptive pool as a result of changes in climate and periodic natural events
are borne by water licence holders. The risk of any reduction or less reliable water allocation under
a water licence – arising as a result of bona fide improvements in knowledge of the water system’s
capacity to sustain particular extraction levels – are also to be borne by the users for the duration
of these plans.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water plans to address
Indigenous water issues.
52–54
52–54 – Water planning in the Northern Territory includes identifying and maintaining Indigenous
cultural water values. Planning processes have included Indigenous participation, including
through membership of planning advisory groups.
The Northern Territory announced in October 2013 that strategic indigenous reserves would no
longer be considered for inclusion in WAPs, subject to a consultation and review process to take
place over the next two and a half years.
55–57
55–57 – The Northern Territory water planning process identifies and estimates water
requirements of interception via unlicensed stock and domestic use and farm dams. There are also
arrangements for monitoring growth in stock and domestic rights. Monitoring of interception issues
with potential management implications is based on integrated surface and groundwater models
that consider the impact of land use change on catchment yield. Unlicensed stock and domestic
extraction is included in the hydrological modelling in water resource planning.
Implementation of measures to
address water interception by
land use change activities on a
priority basis in accordance with
water plans.
The Northern Territory has advised that stock and domestic bores, particularly in peri‑urban
regions, and related saltwater intrusion into coastal groundwater systems are the priority
interception issue in Northern Territory. WAPs model the take associated with stock and domestic
use. A significance threshold for stock and domestic groundwater take has been established at a
level of 20 per cent of the annual recharge. Stock and domestic bores require construction permits
in all Water Control Districts and the Water Act 1992 (NT) allows refusal of a permit if there is
insufficient water available (i.e. would result in or aggravate overallocation or overuse). Dams may
require construction permits depending on size. The Act allows refusal of a permit if there is risk of
overallocation associated with the proposed dam.
Water markets and trading
National Water Commission
Adoption of publicly accessible,
compatible systems for
registering water access
entitlements and trades
consistent with Schedule F:
•
pathways leading to full
implementation
•
full implementation.
59
59 – The Department of Land Resource Management maintains a groundwater and surface water
licence register that is available through its website. The register provides details pertaining to
current groundwater and surface water licences in relation to water trading under WAPs.
Details of groundwater and surface water licences within Northern Territory are available and
updated on a monthly basis. The registers include licensee information, the amounts of each
licence issued and whether that licence is permitted to trade water.
343
344
NWI actions
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Establish compatible institutional
and regulatory arrangements
that facilitate trade, consistent
with principles in Schedule G:
•
remove institutional barriers
to trade
•
remove barriers to
temporary trade
•
remove barriers to
permanent trade
•
no imposition of new
barriers to trade
Southern MDB trade actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
60
60 – Water trading can occur within declared WAP areas according to trading rules set out in the
relevant WAP. The Northern Territory Water Controller is responsible for approving new licences
reflecting the trade.
63
63 – This NWI paragraph does not apply to the Northern Territory.
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
Complete commitments under
the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect
pricing policies
for water storage and delivery in
rural and urban systems.
65
65 – Current tariff structures for reticulated water supply adopt two‑part tariffs for all customers
except portable meter and stand pipe. This comprises a fixed daily price based on supply pipe
diameter and a volumetric usage charge component.
Northern Territory has advised of a 30 per cent price increase for water supply, but it is unclear to
what extent it has implemented full cost recovery.
Northern Territory pricing policy is consistent across sectors where entitlements are able to be
traded.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Metropolitan:
66
66 (i) – There have been several baseline tariff increases in recent years. The Power and Water
Corporation (PWC) is now achieving lower‑bound pricing and is moving towards upper‑bound
• continued movement towards
pricing. The service availability charge exists but is not directly linked to total revenue requirement
less water usage revenue and developer charges revenue. This is currently under review.
upper‑bound pricing
• development of pricing
policies for recycled water
and stormwater
Water planning and management costs and level of recovery have not been explicitly reported to
date.
• review and development of
pricing policies for trade
wastes
66 (ii)–(iii) – Since 2008, the following policies have been developed by the PWC and are currently
being considered for implementation:
• recycled water pricing policy
• water and sewerage capital contributions policy
• non‑potable water pricing policy.
• development of national
guidelines for water accounts.
Rural and regional:
•
full cost recovery for all rural
surface and groundwater‑
The Northern Territory advised through the Pricing Principles Sub‑group of the WTOG that the
draft policies have adopted the NWI pricing principles where appropriate, however it is unclear how
the policies adopt the pricing principles.
based systems
•
achievement of
lower‑bound pricing for all
66 (iv) – National Guidelines for Residential Customers Water Accounts were endorsed at the 11th
meeting of the Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) and released on 24
November 2006 by Australian Government, state and territory water ministers.
rural systems in line with
existing NCC commitments
•
continued movement
66 (v) – The Northern Territory subsidises water services in rural and regional areas, including in
remote Indigenous communities, through a number of programs which enable the application of
uniform pricing across the Northern Territory to non‑contract customers. In 2013–14, these
towards upper‑bound
pricing for all rural systems,
where practicable
National Water Commission
Consistent approaches to pricing
and attributing costs of water
planning and management.
Public reporting of cost recovery
for water planning and
management.
programs included grants totalling $158.1 million which included subsidies for electricity, sewerage
and water.
67-68
67 – There are currently no water use charges applied in the Northern Territory to assist with cost
recovery for planning and management.
68 – As part of its NWI implementation plan the Northern Territory committed to provide an annual
report that identifies all water planning and management costs, including the costs of underpinning
water markets. No annual reports have been provided to date.
345
346
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Investment in new or
refurbished water
infrastructure to continue to
be assessed as
economically and
ecologically sustainable
before being approved.
69
69 – The Northern Territory advised that investment decision‑making has been improved by
Release of unallocated water
70-72
comprehensive and reliable asset condition data. The Darwin Region Water Supply Strategy 2013
and Alice Water Smart Project (since 2011) are based on planning efforts concerned with
economic and ecological sustainability. PWC’s capital works program is approved by the PWC
board and NT Treasurer on an annual basis through its Statement of Corporate Intent.
70–72 – Market‑based mechanisms are not used for the releases of unallocated water in the
Northern Territory.
Environmental externalities:
•
•
manage environmental
externalities through a
range of regulatory
measures (such as through
setting extraction limits in
water management plans
and by specifying the
conditions for the use of
water in water use licences)
examine the feasibility of
using market‑based
mechanisms such as pricing
to account for positive and
negative environmental
externalities associated with
water use
•
implement pricing that
includes externalities where
found to be feasible
73
73 – The Northern Territory advised that water planning and management decisions are required
to reflect environmental externalities to the extent that environmental and other public benefit
outcomes have been established through planning. Limits are placed on consumptive pools
through water plans to avoid, limit or control environmental externalities.
Despite the consideration of externalities in planning, Northern Territory does not require specific
consideration of environmental externalities through the pricing of urban and regional water
storage and delivery. The Northern Territory advised that future demand management programs
will include the experiences of other water utilities within Australia.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Benchmarking efficient
performance:
• independent, public, annual
reporting of performance
benchmarking for all
metropolitan,
non‑metropolitan and rural
75-76
75 – The PWC has submitted benchmarking information to the National Performance Reports for
urban water service providers. The Northern Territory advised that PWC has a work plan aimed at
improving the information collected and performance against benchmarks. Improved information
collection on asset condition as part of the work program has assisted this. At the time of writing,
the future of reporting is uncertain.
•
76 – PWC’s retail water tariffs do not fully recover its costs of providing current water services. The
costs of operating the performance and benchmarking system are unlikely to be recovered in full
by retail water tariff revenue.
water delivery agencies
develop nationally consistent
report framework.
Independent pricing regulator:
77
• independent pricing bodies to
set and review prices or
pricing processes for water
storage and delivery and
publicly report
77 – Section 60 of the Northern Territory Water Supply and Sewerage Services Act 2009 provides
that the Treasurer, as the Minister responsible for the economic regulation of water supply and
sewerage services, may issue an order regulating prices for the sale of water supply and sewerage
services to a water service provider’s customers.
The Water Supply and Sewerage Services Act 2009 (NT) and its associated regulations require
and allow the Utilities Commission to undertake certain regulatory functions in Northern Territory
water supply and sewerage services industries for the provision of those services within a sole
provider model.
The Commission’s activities in the water and sewerage industries relate mainly to licensing,
however the Minister may assign price and service standard monitoring functions to the
Commission under his regulation powers.
Integrated management of environmental water
National Water Commission
Recognising the different types
of surface water and
groundwater systems:
• effective and efficient
management and
institutional arrangements
79
79 (i) a) – In the Northern Territory the Water Act 1992 (amended 2011) and the Lake Eyre Basin
Intergovernmental Agreement Act 2009 provide the statutory frameworks for the management of
environmental water. Under these, all accountabilities for environmental water management,
compliance and public reporting of the delivery are with the Minister for Land Resource
Management.
347
348
NWI actions
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
•
to ensure the achievement
of environmental outcomes;
and where it is necessary to
recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to
adopt the principles for
determining the most
effective and efficient mix of
water recovery measures.
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
A memorandum of understanding between the Department of Land Resource Management and
the Department of Mines and Energy provides for conjunctive management of water across
different uses.
79 (i) b) – The Northern Territory is a signatory to a number of agreements for shared water
resources, including the Lake Eyre Basin Intergovernmental Agreement 2000 and the National
Partnership Agreement on the Great Artesian Basin Sustainability Initiative (2010).
79 (i) c) – Surface and groundwater connectivity is not explicitly recognised in the Act. Some WAP
rules specifically address connectivity impacts such as the Katherine (Tindall Limestone Aquifer)
WAP (2009) and the plans for Alice Springs, Ti Tree and Western Davenport water resource areas
limit surface water extractions to protect aquifer recharge.
79 (i) d) – To date, there are no ecological monitoring programs being implemented specifically to
assess the effectiveness of environmental water provisions in WAPs. Targeted ecological
monitoring in WAP areas is not yet occurring, however progress has been made in establishing a
river health monitoring program for the Katherine River and other systems in the Daly catchment. If
implemented, this program will provide ecological data to inform assessments as to whether
environmental flow provisions established under WAPs in the Daly catchment have been effective
in achieving the desired ecological outcomes.
While the Northern Territory conducts compliance reporting and reviews on the delivery of
environmental water, there is no explicit public reporting on the implementation of environmental
water management mechanisms or requirement for independent assessments.
79 (i) e) – Environmental water in the Northern Territory is rules based and cannot be traded.
79 (i) f) – Under the Water Act 1992 (NT), water control districts can be declared in regions that
require enhanced water management arrangements to avoid stressing groundwater reserves, river
flows and wetlands. WAPs may be prepared for water resources within declared water control
districts.
79 (ii) No water recovery measures have been deemed necessary in the Northern Territory to date.
Licensing processes have been used in some areas to recoup unused portions of entitlements,
however the associated volumes of water remain available for consumptive use.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Water resource accounting
Benchmarking of accounting
systems
81
81 – The Northern Territory has participated at a national level in the development of national
water accounting standards and reporting frameworks, including the Water Accounting Conceptual
Framework, the General Purpose Water Accounting Reports and the Australian Water Accounting
Standards (AWAS 1 and AWAS 2).
The Northern Territory uses AWAS 1 and the Water Accounting Conceptual Framework in
providing data to the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) for the general purpose water account.
82 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 81.
Consolidated water accounts:
• develop and implement robust
water accounting
• identify situations where close
interaction between surface
and groundwater exist to
integrate the accounting of
groundwater and surface
water use.
82-83
Environmental water accounting:
• develop an environmental
water register and annual
reporting arrangements
• apply the environmental water
register and annual reporting
arrangements.
85
Implement information measures
86
86 – See actions associated with NWI paragraph 81.
87-88
88 – The Northern Territory has agreed to implement the National Framework for Non-urban
Water Metering (2010), but due to staffing constraints the Northern Territory Metering
Implementation Plan has not yet been finalised for implementation.
83 – The Northern Territory under its WAP process fully factors in the linkages between surface
and groundwater to ensure that allocations within both systems are properly accounted to avoid
overallocation. All allocation decisions where appropriate are based on linked surface and
groundwater models due to the linkages between aquifers and river flows.
188
National Water Commission
Metering and measuring actions:
• develop metering and
measuring actions
• implement metering and
measuring actions.
85 (i) – The Northern Territory does not have general purpose environmental water accounts for
environmental water as the Northern Territory’s environmental water is rules based. In the
absence of environmental water entitlements the Northern Territory has not developed an
environmental water register.
85 (ii) – Consistent with the Water Act 1992 (NT), WAPs include measures to ensure compliance
with environmental water commitments, but public reporting is limited.
349
350
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
National guidelines on water reporting: 89
• develop and apply national
guidelines on water reporting
covering the application, scale,
detail and frequency for open
reporting.
Commentary 2014
89 – The Northern Territory is participating in the development of the Environmental Water
Accounting Standards through the National Water Accounting Committee.
Also see actions associated with NWI paragraph 81
Urban water reform
Implementation of demand
91
management measures, including:
• implementation and compliance
monitoring of WELS, including
mandatory labelling and minimum
standards for agreed appliances
• develop and implement ‘Smart
Approved WaterMark’ for garden
activities
• review effectiveness of temporary
water restrictions and associated
public education strategies, and
consider extending low‑level
•
restrictions to standard practice
implement management responses
to water supply and discharge
system losses including leakage,
excess pressure, overflows and
other maintenance needs
91 (i) – The Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (WELS) scheme is a joint initiative of the
Australian Government and the state and territory governments. The Commonwealth Water
Efficiency Labelling and Standards Act 2005 provides the legal framework for the scheme. The
Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2014 (NT) came into
effect on 2 June 2014.
91 (ii) – The Smart Approved WaterMark is a not‑for‑profit organisation established by four
associations: the Australian Water Association, Irrigation Australia, the Nursery and Garden Industry,
Australia and the Water Services Association of Australia. It is overseen by a steering committee
with representation from the Australian and state and territory governments, water utilities, the four
governing associations, and the chair of the Technical Expert Panel (an independent panel which
assesses applications to the scheme). Project establishment was finalised in 2011 and a report on
the delivery of the Smart Approved WaterMark was provided to the Department of the Environment.
The program continues to provide product efficiency ratings to consumers.
91 (iii) – Northern Territory participated in the production of the Commission’s national review of
water restrictions. There are currently no water restrictions in place in the Northern Territory and it
has some of the highest rates of per household water use in Australia.
The Northern Territory has programs in place to reduce water consumption rates in Darwin and Alice
Springs.
The Northern Territory Government, through the PWC, has recently launched Living Water Smart in
the Darwin region. This is a major five‑year water conservation initiative, targeted at residential,
business and government customers, with the objective of reducing Darwin’s water use by 25 per
cent. Alice Water Smart is a collaborative project, comprising several programs to support water
conservation measures within Alice Springs and aiming to save 1.6 GL of water over two years.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
91 (iv) – Living Water Smart (Darwin) will focus on the following areas of PWC’s water supply
network:
• develop and implement leak detection program for Darwin water supply network
• develop and implement pressure management plan for Darwin water supply network
• install monitoring and controlling equipment for permanent leak and pressure management.
Living Water Smart will also provide industry training for leak detection in properties. Alice Water
Smart includes a focus on pressure management and leak reduction in the reticulation system.
Encourage further innovation in
urban water use including:
• develop and apply national
health and environmental
guidelines for water
sensitive urban designs for
recycled water and
stormwater
• develop national guidelines
for evaluating options for
water sensitive urban
developments in both new
urban sub‑divisions and
•
high rises
evaluate existing water
sensitive urban icon
developments
review institutional and
regulatory models for
integrated urban water cycle
planning and management
and develop best‑practice
•
guidelines
review incentives to
stimulate innovation.
•
92
92 – Water sensitive urban design has been incorporated in the new sub‑divisions of Muirhead,
Bellamack, Johnston and Zuccoli in Darwin and Palmerston. In Darwin, the Living Water Smart
program is intended to introduce rebates for homes, businesses, accommodation, hospitals and
schools and the NT is developing a stormwater strategy for the Darwin Harbour region.
In Alice Springs, the Alice Water Smart program is partnering with the Department of Land
Resource Management to temporarily enhance the Central Australia Waterwise Rebate Scheme.
National Water Commission
351
352
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Community partnerships and adjustment
Open and timely consultation
with all relevant stakeholders
in relation to:
• pathways for returning
overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction
levels, periodic review of
water plans, and other
significant decisions
affecting the security of
water access entitlements.
95
95 – Section 23 of the Water Act 1992 (NT) provides for, but does not require the establishment of
water advisory committees to give advice on WAPs. Community advisory committees have been
involved in the development of WAPs in the Territory to date, with members representing
economic, cultural and environmental interests. The Northern Territory Government recommitted
to utilising community advisory committees to support preparation of future WAPs in October 2013.
Provision of accurate and
timely information to all relevant
stakeholders in relation to the
progress of water plan
implementation and other
issues relevant to the security
of water access entitlements.
96
96 – The Water Act 1992 (NT) requires the Minister to specify the period (no longer than 10 years)
that a WAP is to remain in force. The Minister must ensure a review of a WAP is conducted at
intervals no longer than five years.
Address significant adjustment
issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and
communities that may arise
from reductions in water
availability as a result of
implementing the NWI.
97
All WAPs set out monitoring and reporting requirements however no reports have been publicly
released and many objectives require monitoring only at the review stage of the WAP. Annual
announced allocation reports provide some information on monitoring and current conditions. The
Ti Tree WAP and Alice Springs Water Resource Strategy have been reviewed to date with the
reviewed Alice Springs Strategy currently in draft form.
97 – As noted for NWI paragraph 79 (ii), no water recovery measures have been deemed
necessary in the Northern Territory to date.
NWI actions
NWI paragraph
Commentary 2014
Knowledge and capacity building
Science priorities and research:
• identify the key science
priorities to support
implementation of the NWI
and where this work is
being undertaken
• implement any necessary
measures to ensure the
research effort is well
coordinated and publicised,
and any gaps are
addressed.
101
101 – The implementation sections of draft and reviewed WAPs identify key priorities and
knowledge gaps including identification of minimum streamflows and dry season environmental
water requirements, and the establishment of resource condition indicators for various resources.
Key science priorities include:
• assessment of the impact of anthropogenically reduced dry season flows on the ecology of the
•
Daly and Roper rivers (this is also a key knowledge gap, compounded by the lack of
knowledge of the significance of dry season ecology in the wet/dry tropics)
understanding the (minimum) environmental water requirements of wetlands, spring‑fed
•
monsoon vine forests and the estuarine areas of the Daly, Roper etc.
quantification of groundwater recharge, particularly in the arid zone.
The Northern Territory Government advised that it will assess the ecological significance of Roper
River hydraulic environments most vulnerable to reduced flow, both natural and anthropogenically
induced, in 2014. The Northern Territory also intends to commence a partnership with Charles
Darwin University to assess the use by fish of riffle habitats (which are most vulnerable to reduced
flow) in the Katherine River.
National Water Commission
353
Appendix D
Impacts of water reform:
methods, indicators and assessment
Appendix D: Impacts of water reform: methods,
indicators and assessment
330
Methods and indicators
357
Water supports the economy
369
Water supports a healthy environment
411
Water supports people and communities
423
References
446
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Methods and indicators
Rationale
This Appendix provides the analyses that inform Chapter 4 of the Triennial Assessment. This
review of the impacts of the National Water Initiative (NWI) moves beyond the Natural Resources
Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) indicators that underpinned sections of the 2011
Biennial Assessment, which were often found to be lacking in relevance or data availability. The
suite of updated performance indicators for this assessment was developed in consultation with
NWI parties and subject matter experts.
This appendix provides the hierarchy of outcomes sought through national water reform that has
been developed for this assessment. The hierarchy commences with a vision statement distilled
from the NWI and identifies increasingly more detailed outcomes that support this overarching
vision. Performance indicators are provided for each detailed outcome. The appendix includes
analyses of relevant data for each performance indicator in an effort to provide an objective
understanding of the progress made by each of the NWI parties in each of the outcome areas that
can stand as the 2014 benchmark of progress in implementing the NWI.
Methods for identifying outcomes and indicators
The Commission developed a methodology to analyse the progress of reform against the original
objectives of the NWI. The intention is for the methodology to be a legacy from this assessment
that is available in future years to measure progress, if desired. There are two components of this
methodology:


identification of broad, intermediate and detailed outcomes, and performance indicators
linked to the original vision for the NWI, using program logic
analysis of available data against each of the performance indicators.
Identification of outcomes and performance indicators
Using the NWI vision as its starting point, the Commission developed a national water reform
program logic to underpin the impact assessment for the 2014 Triennial Assessment.
Program logic is an established method of illustrating how a project or program is expected to
bring about change and achieve outcomes. It is a useful tool that can create a shared
understanding of a program between stakeholders and illustrate the goals and assumptions that
are embedded within the activity. It does this by showing the chain of reasoning or theory of
change linking activities with results. It shows the ‘if‑then’ relationships that lead to the outcomes
that are being sought.
To demonstrate how something as broad and significant as the NWI vision can be achieved, the
component parts that contribute to the whole have to be identified. Program logic assumes that if
these smaller parts are achieved, it can be concluded that the larger outcome, in this case the
NWI vision, will also be achieved. To develop the national water reform program logic, the
Commission collaborated with a range of water reform stakeholders, including subject matter
experts from NWI partner governments, specialist consultants, National Water Commissioners
and others to identify the outcomes they thought would need to be achieved to deliver the overall
vision.
Each water reform outcome was mapped to determine the factors that would contribute to its
achievement. For each of these subsidiary outcomes the same process was followed, to further
identify the constituent parts required. This meant that it became possible to determine the
National Water Commission
357
outcomes that, if achieved, would lead to attainment of the vision enunciated in the NWI, and the
ability to observe the connection between these lower‑level outcomes and their overall objective.
Overlaying the logic is the understanding that, for any given outcome to be realised, water
management practices would need to be ‘integrated, resilient and adaptive’. This represents a key
theme of the NWI and water reform, and its achievement cuts across every outcome at every
level. It is through this prism that the outcomes were identified and mapped. This demonstrates
the generally hierarchical way that the program logic allows examination of the achievement of
specific outcomes. It should be noted, however, that there may be links between outcomes, with
elements in common, or even at odds, with one another. These tensions have been, as far as is
possible, accounted for in the final form that the logic has taken.
A set of three enabling factors was also identified through the program logic process; these
enabling factors are not outcomes, but necessary conditions for the achievement of the logic
outcomes. These factors are important to all outcomes, whether at the broad, intermediate or
detailed level. If they do not occur with respect to a particular outcome, the outcome may still
occur, however its success may be reduced.
Performance indicators were identified for each of the detailed outcomes. While the indicators
selected are relevant and robust, they were not necessarily chosen on the basis of how easy it
was to collect the requisite information and data. There are cases where it has not been possible
to collect part or all of the desired data relating to specific indicators; but an approach was taken
to measuring each outcome so that there are multiple measures. This redundancy means that
even where one indicator has not been collected, there are others that can provide meaningful
assessment.
Data gathering and analysis
Once the performance indicators were agreed, the next challenge was to identify appropriate data
sources and to analyse these data in a way that gave meaning to each of the indicators. Data
were sought from the previous work of the Commission, reports provided by each of the NWI
partners, commissioned research and publicly available data. Data were analysed using methods
appropriate to the data type, and drawn from the disciplines of economics, mathematics and
statistics, social science and ecology.
Outcomes and enabling factors
The National Water Initiative vision
For the performance assessment to be relevant, it must reflect the overall ambition of the NWI, as
agreed by the Commonwealth and all states and territories. The vision that has been distilled from
the NWI is:
Water use in Australia optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes.
(from paragraph 23, National Water Initiative)
The vision is necessarily broad, requiring the capacity to encompass divergent areas in the water
reform process. Initially it also implies that this vision can be achieved, and that the business of
water reform can be completed. However, as knowledge and technology improves, additional
opportunities will emerge to optimise water use; therefore, water reform is an ongoing and adaptive
process that underpins continual improvements in Australia’s water planning and management.
358
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Identification of broad outcomes
Figure D1 below shows the results of the program logic process to derive a series of broad and
intermediate outcomes from the NWI vision. For each of the six identified intermediate outcomes,
a set of detailed outcomes was then developed, as shown in figures 2 to 4. Each of these
intermediate and detailed outcomes is described in terms of their characteristics – what the
overarching water management system would look like if the outcomes were achieved.
Figure D1: Outcomes derived from the National Water Initiative vision
Three broad outcome areas
Rights of access are secure and
provide investment confidence
Water supports
the economy
Vision
Intermediate outcomes
Water use is economically
efficient
Environmental condition of water
systems is maintained or improved
Future water options aren’t
compromised by today’s decisions
Water
management
arrangements
are integrated,
resilient and
adaptive.
Water supports
a healthy
environment
Water use
in Australia
optimises
economic,
social and
environmental
outcomes
Water supports
community well-being
Water quality is safe
for its intended use
Water supports
people and
communities
ENABLERS
• Best available information is
used in water use & management
• Water users, managers and
stakeholder effectively engage
• Resources are available to
achieve outcomes
National Water Commission
359
Identification of intermediate and detailed outcomes
Figure D2: Water supports the economy – intermediate and detailed outcomes (including
relevant performance indicators (PIs) from Table D1)
Broad outcome
Water supports the economy
Intermediate
outcome
rights of access are secure and
provide investment confidence
Intermediate
outcome
Water use is
economically efficient
Detailed outcome
Detailed outcome
Rights of access are defined, enforced
and recognised as an asset (PI 1–9).
User receives clear
price signals (PI 12–17).
Detailed outcome
Detailed outcome
There is investment in
water assets (PI 10–11).
Water goes to highest
economic value (PI 18–23).
Detailed outcome
Water resource development is
economically sustainable (PI 24–28).
Detailed outcome
Water use is technically
efficient (PI 29–37).
360
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Rights of access are secure and provide
Water use is economically efficient
investment confidence
If this outcome were achieved, we would
If this outcome were achieved, we
expect to see water supply security and
would expect to see water being used
investment confidence that supports
efficiently at all levels of use and
economic and social outcomes.
throughout the system.
This would mean:

entitlements and allocations for water
assets are treated in the same way
encourage innovation and
as other secure asset classes, with
diversification of supply and provide
the expectation that these property
consumers with an informed choice
rights will not be arbitrarily abrogated
about the water products
or removed



viable and economic regulation
entitlements and allocations
provides incentives for innovation
compliance activity is in place to
economically viable and able to
supply and are able to plan
occur where net benefits
accordingly
(economic, social and
water entitlements are accepted as a

environmental) exceed net costs
 water goes to highest economic value
individuals (including banks,
through open markets that are not
superannuation funds and private
distorted by barriers to trading or
investors)

and affordability
 water resource development is
users have confidence in their water
financial asset by institutions and

 water businesses are financially
water plans have clearly defined
ensure asset security

This would mean:
 users receive clear price signals that
financial institutions are willing to lend
unnecessary regulatory constraints
 where water is scarce, improved
against entitlements, and ownership
technical water use efficiency is
is clear and transferable
encouraged through improved
there is sufficient incentive to reward
technology, physical infrastructure,
investment, particularly in research
innovation and research and
and development
development.
and infrastructure.
National Water Commission
335
Figure D3: Water supports a healthy environment – intermediate and detailed outcomes
(including relevant performance indicators (PIs) from Table D1)
Broad outcome
Water supports a healthy environment
Intermediate
outcome
Future water options aren’t
compromised by today’s decisions
Intermediate
outcome
environmental condition of water
systems is maintained or improved
Detailed outcome
Detailed outcome
Water sources are managed
sustainably (PI 38–40).
Water management decisions
are made to improve system
environmental conditions (PI 43–45).
Detailed outcome
Detailed outcome
Sustainable levels of extraction for water
sources are identified (PI 41–42).
The quality of water released
to the environment is not
detrimental to its health (PI 46).
Detailed outcome
Change in environmental conditions
is reported (PI 47–48).
Future water options aren’t compromised by
Environmental condition of water systems is
today’s decisions
maintained or improved
To achieve this outcome water resources need to be
To achieve this outcome we would expect the
managed over the long term in a manner that
environmental condition of water systems, along
ensures quality and quantity is secure for future
with the benefits we obtain from related ecosystems,
generations.
to be maintained or improved.
This would mean:

clearly defining sustainable levels of extraction
This would mean:

for water systems and publicly acknowledging
condition of the water system(s) and associated
and addressing situations where overuse and
overallocation exists

ecosystem services

in water systems where use and allocation is
below the sustainable level of extraction,
NWI‑compliant arrangements are in place to

maintenance or improvement

identification of system requirements for different

community values and priorities
trade‑off decisions between social,
in overallocated or overused systems, pathways
environmental and economic values are
are in place to return water use to sustainable

levels of extraction
long‑term water planning is in place to predict
and prepare for likely future demand and supply
scenarios.
362
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
identification of water systems and their
environmental conditions that require protection,
ensure any growth in use does not exceed those
agreed levels
a practical understanding of the environmental
transparent

environmental aspects of water plans are
implemented and improve the environment.
Figure D4: Water supports people and communities – intermediate and detailed
outcomes (including relevant performance indicators (PIs) from Table D1)
Broad outcome
Water supports people and communities
Intermediate
outcome
Water supports
community wellbeing
Intermediate
outcome
Water quality is safe for
its intended purpose
Detailed outcome
Detailed outcome
Communities provide input on their
priorities and goals (PI 49–52).
Water for human health meets
minimum standards (PI 59–60).
Detailed outcome
Detailed outcome
Water is provided to meet community
priorities where possible (PI 53–55).
Water that is provided is
fit for purpose (PI 61).
Detailed outcome
Water resources provide for Indigenous
requirements (PI 56–58).
National Water Commission
363
Water supports community wellbeing
If this outcome were achieved, we would expect
that water would be available for the things that
people and communities want the most.
This would mean:
 communities identify uses of water that are
most important to them, what their short‑
and long‑term goals are and what they
might change
 communities should be able to participate in
water management decisions so that
outcomes reflect their needs and
aspirations
 all water planning processes clearly
consider the rights and aspirations of, and
engage with, Indigenous Australians
 urban water planning and management
supports liveability outcomes
 clear processes for allocating water
(whether through planning arrangements
or other means) and opportunities for
people to participate in this process, and
make their priorities and aspirations
known
 water is provided to meet community
priorities and social outcomes are
monitored, evaluated and reported.
Water quality is safe for its intended
purpose
If this outcome were achieved, we would expect
to see water use that is fit for purpose; that is,
of a quality that at least matches its intended use.
This would mean:

ri
sks to public health and the
environment are adequately managed

r
eview mechanisms, mitigation
strategies and administrative
integration across all relevant levels of
government are provided

in
novation in supply diversification and
consideration of alternative supplies is
encouraged

u
sers can access water that is fit for
purpose and appropriately priced.
Water reform enabling factors
Three water reform enabling factors were identified. These are not outcomes in their own right,
but rather the contributory inputs or circumstances that facilitate the achievement of the logic
outcomes. These factors are important to all outcomes, whether at the broad, intermediate or
detailed level. These enabling factors, like the outcomes they influence, are made up of a number
of aspects. They were not subject to discrete measurement, but are rather discussed within the
context of outcome areas.
1. Best‑available information is used in water use and management
High quality and readily available information is required for the effective and efficient
management and use of water resources. Information and knowledge of water conditions, water
system needs and impacts and technology efficiency enhancements play a central role in the
water management regime established by the NWI. Knowledge, information and data creation—
including through effective monitoring and evaluation of specific aspects of water management
and use—and the establishment of improved technology and products are therefore key inputs
required for outcomes realisation.
We would expect to see that:

robust knowledge and information informs water management and use

risks are appropriately managed to ensure system resilience
364
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014

timely and effective review and improvement mechanisms are undertaken.
2. Water users, managers and stakeholders can effectively engage
Engagement in the water reform process is a key element of the NWI. The community needs to
have confidence that water management arrangements allow for secure entitlements and
reticulated supplies. This in turn requires arrangements to be established to allow community and
stakeholder input to trade‑off decisions and that roles and accountabilities are clear. Community
confidence is important because without it communities will suffer from a variety of negative
impacts, including damage to economic confidence (with the risk of economic decisions being
made on an irrational basis), social dislocation and environmental degradation. We would expect
to see that:

leadership is provided

water management decisions are transparent and accountable

stakeholders are effectively engaged

skills and capacity needed for the water industry are built.
3. Resources are available to achieve outcomes
To achieve any outcome, sufficient resources must be made available. It is not enough to
understand what must be accomplished, or to assume that outcomes can be achieved through
poorly defined cost savings or gains from the water reform process. We would expect to see:

assessment of resources needed

provision of resources

ongoing monitoring and review.
National Water Commission
339
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Performance indicators
Performance indicators were identified for each of the detailed outcome areas. Table D1 provides a list of the performance
indicators and illustrates the hierarchical relationships between the three outcome levels and the performance indicators.
Table D1: List of performance indicators
Broad outcomes
Intermediate
outcomes
Detailed outcomes
Performance indicators
WATER
SUPPORTS THE
ECONOMY
Rights of
access are
secure and
provide
investment
confidence
Rights of access are 1. Proportion of extracted water from surface and groundwater systems with agreed plans that define how
defined, enforced
water will be shared
and recognised as
an asset
2. Number of plans suspended
3. Number of alleged compliance breaches reported
4. Number of water resources areas assessed as risk category 3 and 3a
5. Number of ‘monitoring events’ conducted
6. Irrigators’ confidence in rights to access water
7. Change in ability to trade water
8. Percentage of licensed extraction metered by region
9. Number of water plans with entitlements fully or partially unbundled to facilitate trade
There is investment
in water assets
10. Treatment of water access entitlements as a financial asset
11. Proportion of regions/households covered by independent regulation
Water use is
economically
efficient
User receives clear
price signals
12. Comparison of operating costs of urban and rural water service providers
13. Market participants have access to timely water price information
14. Comparison of water trade approval times
15. Access to information on water trading
16. Measures of change in economic surplus under efficient urban pricing structures
17. Measures of change in economic surplus under efficient rural pricing structures
Water goes to the
highest economic
value
18. Percentage by volume of entitlements/allocations traded
19. Number of trades
20. Number of Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder trades, purchases and registrations
21. Regulatory barriers to water trade
22. Proportion of market participants reporting not being able to trade because of market restrictions, and the
relative volume excluded from trade
23. Movements of water between states and regions each season
Water resource
development is
economically
sustainable
24. Proportion of water plans including economic objectives
25. Proportion of water plans including an assessment of the economic value of water
26. Proportion of plans and rules which respond to groundwater and surface water connectivity
27. Number of urban centres with defined levels of service
28. Performance of utilities against level of service targets
Water use is
technically efficient
29. Household consumption per capita
30. Households with water conservation devices in the household
31. Conveyance losses (unaccounted water) as a proportion of distributed supply (rural only)
32. Proportion of farms with efficient irrigation infrastructure e.g. drip irrigation, spray irrigation, tile drains,
drainage reuse etc.
33. Infrastructure investment benefits rural water users
34. Investment in increasing on-farm water use efficiency
35. Water application rates for irrigated agriculture by enterprise type, recognising seasonal factors
36. Supply network delivery efficiency: unaccounted water as a proportion of distributed supply
37. Proportion of waste, storm and drainage water that is re-used by the industry sector and households
WATER
SUPPORTS A
HEALTHY
ENVIRONMENT
Future water
options aren’t
compromised
by today’s
decisions
Water sources are
managed
sustainably
39. Proportion of water plans that have established water extraction limits
40. Proportion of water plans with accountable environmental water management arrangements
Sustainable levels
of extraction for
water sources are
identified
Environmental
condition of
water systems
is maintained
38. Robust and transparent risk-assessment practices are used to prioritise water plan development
41. Number of water systems with overallocation or overuse identified
42. Proportion of water plans that address overallocation or overuse
Water management 43. Proportion of water plans including environmental objectives
decisions are made
to improve system
44. Volume of recycled water
environmental
or improved
conditions
45. Proportion of water plans including an assessment of environmental water needs
The quality of water
released to the
environment is not
detrimental to its
health
46. Sewerage discharge into waterways meets licensed conditions
Change in
environmental
conditions is
reported
47. Proportion of water plans where monitoring, evaluation and reporting on progress towards environmental
outcomes has been undertaken
48. Proportion of water plans where monitoring, evaluation and reporting demonstrates progress towards
environmental outcomes
WATER
SUPPORTS
PEOPLE AND
COMMUNITIES
Water supports
community
wellbeing
Communities
provide input on
their priorities and
goals
49. Proportion of water plans developed through an adequate consultation process
50. Community satisfaction with how rural water planning incorporates community views
51. Proportion of water plans including robust social assessment of likely impacts on local and broader
communities
52. Proportion of water plans including social objectives
Water is provided to 53. Proportion of water plans that achieve stated social outcomes
meet community
priorities where
54. Water reform contribution towards social wellbeing
possible
55. Evaluation of changes in community wellbeing, structural change and community measures
Water resources
provide for
Indigenous
requirements
56. Water access provisions of jurisdictional water planning arrangements
57. Environmental water takes account of opportunities to provide for cultural outcomes
58. Indigenous communities realise economic benefits from commercial Indigenous water licences
Water quality
is safe for its
intended use
Water for human
health meets
minimum standards
59. Water for human health meets minimum standards
Water that is
provided is fit for
purpose
61. Choice in water supply options offered
60. Risk to the quality of supplies are managed appropriately
Water supports the economy
This section of Appendix D summarises the findings for each performance indicator under the
broad outcome of Water supports the economy and provides a snapshot of the data used for the
assessment. Major sources of information to support the analyses and interpretation are the
Water Account Australia, the NSW Office of Water (NOW) irrigators’ survey and the Commission’s
water markets reports and National Performance Reports (e.g. NWC 2010; 2013b, c; 2014b), as
well as data from the Regional Wellbeing Survey (e.g. Schirmer 2014).
Rights of access are secure and provide investment confidence
Rights of access are defined, enforced and recognised as an asset
For this outcome to occur, there needs to be robust water planning, with allocations and
entitlements defined; compliance activity needs to take place to ensure its security; users are
confident in the supply, and in their ability to plan accordingly; and water is accepted as a financial
asset by institutions and individuals. This has been assessed against the following performance
indicators.
1. Proportion of extracted water from surface water and groundwater systems with agreed
plans that define how water will be shared
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e).
National Water Commission
By 2013 substantial progress had been made to expand the coverage of water plans, with most
jurisdictions now having greater than 80 per cent of water use managed under water plans. In
general, the development of newer water plans has benefited from lessons learned in previous
planning cycles. In water resources subject to higher levels of competition, decisions are usually
informed by detailed scientific and socio‑economic studies that consider stakeholders’ concerns
from an early stage and reflect trade‑offs between economic, social and environmental outcomes.
A number of the NWI jurisdictions have made progress towards legislative reform with the aim of
streamlining water planning processes and reducing regulation. However, there are noticeable
delays in some jurisdictions in initiating or finalising planning arrangements and in undertaking
scheduled reviews.
341
More broadly, there is a lack of transparency regarding the process of prioritising water planning
activities, such as policy reform, plan development, or plan review. All jurisdictions maintain that
decision‑making is underpinned by robust risk and prioritisation considerations, but these
processes are rarely explicit or systematic.
2. Number of water plans suspended
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e).
Drought places pressure on water resources, and on the planning provisions put in place to cope
with scarcity, and tests planning provisions for low flows. In some instances, the jurisdiction’s
Water Minister may intervene to suspend or limit water planning provisions to protect water
supplies deemed essential for consumptive purposes. As the 2009 biennial assessment noted,
the Commission considers that actions to suspend plans or to qualify entitlements undermine
National Water Commission
369
confidence in water plans and water planning (NWC 2011b).
The Commission has seen improvement in the processes used in water planning decision‑making
since 2004. Presently, only one water plan is suspended nationally (NSW – Water Sharing Plan
for the Wybong Creek Water Source). This is an improvement from the six suspended plans at the
time of the 2011 assessment, all of which were in NSW. NSW has advised that changes are being
made to its plans to ensure they will not require suspension in the future.
Although governments may need to step in where the utility of a water plan breaks down, the
likelihood of this happening can be reduced by widening the scope of scenarios considered when
developing water plans. Plans should be robust enough to cope with a broad range of inflow and
storage scenarios, including those outside the historic record. The Commission suggests that
each water plan should include specific provisions that define the circumstances under which the
plan will be suspended or qualified, and the processes for returning it to full operation.
3. Number of alleged compliance breaches reported
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
biennial assessments of progress in implementing the NWI and information relating to the
National Framework for Compliance and Enforcement Systems for Water Resource Management
(e.g. NWC 2011b, DSEWPaC 2012).
The Commission’s 2009 biennial assessment urged the adoption of national principles on compliance
and enforcement. Subsequent reform activity has included the COAG National Compliance
Framework and the Murray–Darling Basin Plan compliance and enforcement framework. While these
two frameworks are not explicitly linked, the Commission is aware that the Department of the
Environment and the Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) are working to ensure they are
complementary.
The National Compliance Framework implements a December 2009 COAG commitment to
improve compliance and enforcement of water resources. Six major components were agreed to
be met by the jurisdictions in their implementation of the framework, comprising improvements to:






Water laws: each jurisdiction has agreed to ‘use (its) best endeavours to introduce and
pass legislation to adopt consistent offence provisions to minimise unlawful water take’.
Risk assessment: the aim is the codification of all water resources using a consistent
risk profile and to implement minimum levels of compliance monitoring by the
jurisdictions in line with the risk profile. In addition, there will be increased compliance
and enforcement activity of water resources with high risk.
Toolbox: development of new and efficient processes and products to improve the
efficiency of compliance activities and the skills of compliance officers.
Stakeholder education: a structured approach to ‘provide information to educate the
public and the stakeholders on the importance of compliance and enforcement of water
resources management to the environment and other water users’.
Monitoring: more compliance officers in the field to ‘carry out annual monitoring events
equal to 10 per cent of the total number of water entitlement/licence holders of a water
resource, using on‑ground officers’.
Reporting: water agencies publish annual reporting and compliance strategies and statistics.
A mid‑term review was undertaken by the Commonwealth between May and June 2013. The
following table summarises how each of the states and territories is progressing against these
milestones.
370
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Table D2: Traffic light assessment of each jurisdiction’s performance in the delivery of the
six major components of the National Compliance Framework (to May 2013) (unpublished
review data)
Jurisdiction
Water laws Risk
Toolbox
Stakeholder
education
Monitoring
Public
reporting
NSW
100%
100%
80%
50%
50%
50%
VIC
30%
90%
15%
35%
30%
20%
QLD
80%
100%
95%
50%
50%
100%
WA
50%
100%
50%
50%
50%
25%
SA
25%
60%
85%
85%
75%
20%
TAS
50%
80%
15%
30%
10%
See note 4
ACT
80%
100%
50%
50%
30%
See note 4
NT
50%
90%
45%
20%
40%
See note 4
Table notes:
1. Each state or territory is rated according to the timelines agreed in its project plan.
2. The percentage shown is the completion rate compared with the project plan which has been self‑assessed
and reviewed by the Commonwealth. Some states and territories have low completion rates but are green
because the timeframes are not delayed relative to their project plans.
3. Most of the delays experienced for water laws are because states and territories are reviewing their water
laws and the National Compliance Framework changes are bound up with these wider reviews.
4. The three smaller jurisdictions did not identify the reporting milestones separately in their project plans but
are working on delivery of this milestone.
5. In December 2013, Victoria renegotiated its implementation plan by agreement between the state and
Commonwealth water ministers. This was due to early administrative issues impacting on Victoria’s ability to
meet the original timeframes. Victoria’s positive milestone status as per the new plan’s timeframes is therefore
not reflected at the time of compiling this traffic light report.
4. Number of water resources areas assessed as risk category 3 and 3A (categorised in
accordance with the National Framework for Compliance and Enforcement Systems for
Water Resource Management)
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commonwealth review of compliance with the National Compliance Framework.
Risk categories 3 and 3A identify areas in which the competition for resources is considered high.
In these categories, jurisdictions are expected to implement a greater level of monitoring for
compliance. Category 3 and 3A require jurisdictions to carry out annual monitoring events equal to
10 per cent of the total number of water entitlement/licence holders of a water resource using
on‑ground officers (from National Compliance Framework).
Data for assessing performance against this indicator are incomplete. However, for those states/
territories where data are available, they show that Queensland and the Australian Capital
Territory both meet or exceed the minimum requirements for compliance monitoring staff
suggested in the National Compliance Framework.
National Water Commission
371
5. Number of ‘monitoring events’ conducted (monitoring events in accordance with the
monitoring requirements of the National Framework for Compliance and Enforcement
Systems for Water Resource Management)
A ‘monitoring event’ is monitoring conducted in addition to scheduled meter readings by
authorised officers, and may include, for example, random spot checks.
It has not been possible to access relevant data for this performance indicator.
6. Irrigators’ confidence in rights to access water
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator draws on the Regional
Wellbeing Survey (Schirmer 2014).
This indicator measures how confident irrigators feel that they have secure water access rights.
Confidence in rights is considered likely to be correlated with confidence in investing in their farm
enterprise, although it will be one of many factors influencing overall confidence of a farmer to
invest, and the extent to which perceived security of water access rights influences overall
investment confidence is not known.
This indicator is measured using weighted data from the Regional Wellbeing Survey. It is based
on irrigators’ responses to the statement ‘my rights to access water (when it is available) are
better protected than they used to be’. Irrigators were asked to identify the extent to which they
agreed or disagreed with this statement, on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 was ‘strongly disagree’ and
7 was ‘strongly agree’. They could also answer ‘don’t know’. Irrigator responses were weighted to
ensure they were representative of all regions.
This indicator measures perceptions of confidence. Perception measures must be interpreted with
care, as multiple factors may contribute to a person’s level of confidence in the security of their
water access rights. The indicator on its own does not identify the specific causes of either high or
low confidence, although one of these is likely to be the water policies and regulation in place.
However, changes in water policy may need to operate for some time before they result in a
change (positive or negative) in confidence, so when interpreting this indicator, it is critical to
consider when any changes in water access rights occurred in relation to the time at which
irrigators answered the question.
Figure D5: Proportion of irrigators who agree and disagree with the statement ‘my rights to
access water (when it is available) are better protected than they used to be’ by location
within and outside the Murray–Darling Basin (Schirmer 2014)
60
% respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Northern Basin
(n=151)
Disagree
372
Southern Basin
(n=397)
Agree
Outside Basin
(n=264)
Neither agree or disagree
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
All irrigators
(n=817)
Don’t know
7. Change in ability to trade water
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator draws on the Regional
Wellbeing Survey (Schirmer 2014).
This indicator measures the confidence that irrigators feel in their ability to easily trade permanent
and temporary water. Increased ability to trade water is one of the objectives of water reform, and
in particular is considered an outcome of improving security of water rights and reducing barriers
to trade.
This indicator is measured using weighted data from the Regional Wellbeing Survey, based on
analysis of irrigators’ responses to three statements:

overall, changes to rules have made it easier to trade temporary water in the last five
years

overall, changes to rules have made it easier to trade permanent water entitlements in
the last five years

it has become more complicated to trade temporary water in the last five years.
Irrigators were asked to identify the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement,
on a scale of 1 to 7 where 1 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 was ‘strongly agree’. They could also
answer ‘don’t know’. These three indicators of ease of water trade were combined into an index
measuring whether water trading overall has become easier during the last five years.
As this is the first time this indicator has been reported, it is based on irrigators’ self‑assessment
of change in the ease of water trading over time. In future, it would be useful to report their overall
assessment of ease of water trading at a given point in time, and measure this regularly to enable
perceived changes in water trading ability to be reported.
Figure D6: Proportion of irrigators who believed trading of water allocation, water
entitlements, and overall complexity of water trade, had become easier in the last five
years (Schirmer 2014)
40
% respondents
30
20
10
0
Has become easier
to trade temporary water
in last 5 years (n=807)
Disagree
Has become easier
to trade permanent water
in last 5 years (n=802)
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Has become more
complex to trade water
in last 5 years (n=796)
Don’t know
National Water Commission
373
Figure D7: Proportion of irrigators who believed water trade had become easier, by
location within and outside the Murray–Darling Basin (Schirmer 2014)
60
% respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Northern Basin
(n=135)
Southern Basin
(n=406)
Disagree
Agree
Outside Basin
(n=106)
All irrigators
(n=651)
Neither agree or disagree
8. Percentage of licensed extraction metered by region
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s National Performance Reports (NPRs) for urban and rural water service providers
(e.g. NWC 2014c, d).
The urban and rural NPRs show a clear reduction in unmetered use of water during the past few
years, both through improvements in delivery efficiency and associated infrastructure, and also
through the introduction of compliant metering.
The urban NPR 2012–13 reveals that metering of urban water‑use customer service points is now
standard practice throughout Australia. In addition to reporting urban water‑use volumes going
into the system and being delivered, real losses (such as leaks) are calculated and, as a result,
metering errors and unauthorised consumption can be identified and managed.
With respect to rural water use, rural water service providers including irrigation companies
generally require customer service point supply to be measured by compliant or approved
measurement devices. Rural water is provided by government‑owned utilities, such as State
Water and Goulburn–Murray Water (G‑MW), and by cooperatives such as Harvey Water. Many
rural water service providers indicate they still have customer service points with no water
measurement device in place. While this has showed steady improvement, unaccounted volumes
of water are being supplied by rural water service providers to customers.
New South Wales – Coleambally indicated that all customers had a supply measurement device:
98.7 per cent of customer service points with compliant supply measurement devices and the
remaining 1.3 per cent with provider‑approved supply measurement devices in 2012–13. Murray
Irrigation indicated that 35 per cent of its customer service points were without a water supply
measurement device, four per cent had compliant supply measurement devices and the
remaining 61 per cent had provider‑approved supply measurement devices. Murrumbidgee
Irrigation reported that 100 per cent of its customer service points had a provider‑approved water
measurement device. State Water, a NSW‑owned corporation, supplies water to the irrigation
companies and other customers. It reported that 7.9 per cent of the customer service points were
without a supply measurement device. State Water indicated that 15.8 per cent of supply
measurement devices were compliant and the remaining 84.2 per cent were provider‑approved
supply measurement devices.
374
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Victoria – G‑MW, Lower Murray Water (LMW) and Southern Rural Water (SRW) are
state‑owned statutory corporations. All G‑MW customer service points had supply measurement
devices, with 17.4 per cent of those compliant, and the remainder provider‑approved. In 2012–13,
LMW reported 7.6 per cent of customer service points had no supply measurement device, the
remainder with customer provider‑approved supply measurement devices. SRW indicated that
45.5 per cent of customer service points had no supply measurement device, and all
measurement supply devices were provider‑approved. Grampians Wimmera Mallee Water
reported 2.3 per cent of their customer service points had supply measurement devices and, of
the supply measurement devices, 97.5 per cent were compliant devices.
Queensland – Queensland water service providers have not reported data to the rural NPRs for
the past two years. However they have previously reported. In 2010–11 SEQwater indicated that
100 per cent of its customers had supply measurement devices, with 7.2 per cent of those
compliant and the remaining 92.8 per cent provider‑approved supply measurement devices. Both
Fitzroy Water and Sunwater indicated that 100 per cent of customers had compliant supply
measurement devices in 2010–11.
South Australia – In 2012–13 the Central Irrigation Trust reported that 100 per cent of its
customers had provider‑approved supply measurement devices.
Western Australia – Harvey Water reported in 2012–13 that 95.5 per cent of its customer service
points had supply measurement devices, with 100 per cent of those provider‑approved. In the
Ord, only one customer service point had no supply measurement device. Ord Irrigation reports
that 1.5 per cent of customers had compliant supply measurement devices and 98.5 per cent had
provider‑approved supply measurement devices.
Tasmania, Australian Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory – Tasmania, Australian
Capital Territory, and the Northern Territory have not had rural water service providers eligible to
report to the rural NPR to date (volumes too small).
9. Number of water plans with entitlements fully or partially unbundled to facilitate trade
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e). Unbundling refers to the separation of water rights from land rights.
Many water plans have either fully or partially unbundled entitlements where this has been
identified as in the public interest to do so, for example, where there is likely to be demand for
trading. In some jurisdictions, further unbundling has been identified and is scheduled, but this will
represent a relatively small change from the present situation. In general, most water plans
facilitate trade.
Figure D8: Number of water plans assessed as facilitating trade for the National Water
Planning Report Card 2013 (NWC 2014e)
120
Number of plans
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
2011 (157 plans)
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
2013 (172 plans)
National Water Commission
375
There is investment in water assets
For this outcome to occur, water must be treated as an asset by institutions that are willing to lend
against it; ownership must be clear and transferable; there must be a sufficient incentive to reward
investment, particularly in research and development and in infrastructure; and there must be a
stable policy and regulatory environment to underpin any investment that does occur.
10. Treatment of water access entitlements as a financial asset
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator has been drawn
primarily from a survey of irrigators by NOW to examine trends in the economic and social factors
in water plan areas (NOW 2011) and a survey of National Australia Bank (NAB) lending practices
conducted for the Commission.
NWI reforms have resulted in increased security and commercial certainty surrounding water
access entitlements, and in water title being viewed and treated as a financial asset. The NWI
proposed that water access entitlements be mortgageable, having similar status to freehold land
when used as collateral for accessing finance. It is common now for financial institutions to use
water title as security for loans. Typically, financial institutions enter into arrangements subject to
the type of entitlements in question. Financial institutions tend to preference high‑security rather
than low‑security entitlements, to avoid multiple ownership arrangements such as trusts, and to
assign value based on the current market value of the entitlements.
NOW’s recent survey examined the extent of irrigators using water title as security over loans.
The survey found that 35 per cent of 1200 respondents (irrigators) used water title as security
over loans in 2010. The survey data collected also indicated that the practice of utilising water title
as security has generally increased over time.
Table D3: Number and percentage of irrigators using their water title as security for a loan,
classified by region and by volume of water in the entitlement (NOW 2011)
2006 Survey
2010 Survey
count
per cent
valid
samples
count
per cent
valid
samples
Border Rivers‑Gwydir/Namoi
21
28.8
73
34
47.2
72
Central West
24
30.0
80
29
29.3
99
Hunter‑Central Rivers
21
8.8
239
18
8.5
211
Lachlan
38
30.2
126
56
38.4
146
Lower Murray Darling/Murray
124
39.1
317
148
41.6
356
Murrumbidgee
60
33.3
180
93
39.2
237
Northern Rivers
11
13.3
83
17
18.9
90
0
1
2.5
28
8
26.5
31
1–37
19
8.9
215
27
11.8
229
37–200
45
15.8
286
52
18.2
286
201–867
100
36.4
274
121
39.1
309
868 +
162
52.8
307
199
58.8
338
Table Total (weighted)
328
29.5
1,113
424
34.5
1,229
CMAs
Water Entitlement (ML)
Table notes:
1. The question was “Do you have a loan in which your water title has been used as security?”
2. CMA ‑ Catchment Management Authority.
3. For CMA comparisons the percentages are significantly different between survey periods for the Border
Rivers‑Gwydir/ Namoi, p<0.05. For water entitlement groupings the percentages are significantly different
between survey periods for 0 ML p<0.05. The table total percentages are significantly different between survey
periods, P<0.05.
376
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Figure D9: Percentage of irrigators using their water title as security for a loan, classified
by region and the volume of water in the entitlement (NOW 2011)
CMA regions
Border Rivers-Gwydir/Namoi
2006
2010
Central West
Hunter-Central Rivers
Lachlan
Lower Murray–Darling/Murray
Murrumbidgee
Northern Rivers
Entitlement (ML)
0
1–37
38–200
201–867
868+
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Per cent of irrigators
A survey conducted by NAB on behalf of the Commission recently examined the bank’s approach
towards loan assessments involving water entitlements. NAB is one of Australia’s leading rural
lenders with a mature understanding of the complexities in the provision of financial products
against water title. The survey examined approximately 30 rural branches of the NAB which had
exposure in securing finance against water title.
Analysis of survey data revealed that loan arrangements are required to be assessed on a
case‑by‑case basis. Unlike other well‑defined mortgageable assets such as property, the
provision of finance against water title varies across jurisdictions and systems. The NAB noted the
difficulties in lending against water title, including the lack of uniformity and standardisation in the
treatment, management and security of water title across jurisdictions. Such impediments require
lenders to develop specialised knowledge of entitlement structures and allocation processes.
Further in‑depth research is required to better understand the financial sector’s participation in
water. This research should examine interactions and arrangements from both the perspective of
financial institutions and that of water entitlement holders.
11.Proportion of regions/households covered by independent regulation
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator has been drawn from
the Commission’s studies of water pricing and economic reform (NWC 2009, 2011a) and the
assessment of progress with the NWI’s implementation (NWC 2011b).
Overall, jurisdictions have had mixed progress with the introduction of independent economic
regulation across Australia. While all jurisdictions comply with the NWI commitments in a technical
sense, it is clear some have gone further in achieving the underlying objective of the NWI action.
One key difference is the pricing functions among regulators or review bodies. In New South
Wales, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, independent economic regulators determine
water prices that can be charged by water businesses. In contrast, other jurisdictions have
independent bodies with pricing functions that are largely limited to providing advice to
governments (which ultimately set or approve prices), or reviewing the price‑setting processes.
National Water Commission
377
Another key difference between jurisdictions is the coverage of economic regulation. For example,
in New South Wales the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal determines prices for the
metropolitan businesses, bulk water services provided by State Water and water planning and
management charges, but not local water utilities in regional areas. In contrast, the economic
regulator in Victoria—the Essential Services Commission (ESC)—determines prices for all
metropolitan, regional and rural water services.
There has been progress in Tasmania, South Australia and Queensland in recent years to
strengthen independent economic regulation in the water sector as these jurisdictions transition to
new institutional arrangements.
With the expansion of water trade in the Murray–Darling Basin and the commitment to more
consistent pricing practices across water trading regions, the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission (ACCC) has assumed a role in administering water market, water trading
and water charge rules under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth). Of these, the water charge rules are
most relevant in relation to independent economic regulation. The water charge rules include
setting conditions that govern irrigation infrastructure operators, as well as termination fees and
charges for water planning and management activities in the Murray–Darling Basin. Notably, the
new rules apply to both public and private providers of rural water services in the Basin. The
ACCC can accredit state regulators to undertake some regulatory functions on its behalf.
Table D4: Summary of the roles of independent economic regulators (NWC 2011a)
State regulator
Review
pricing
function
Recommend
pricing
function
Determine
pricing
function
Metro urban
coverage
Regional
urban
coverage
Rural
coverage




×

(only State
Water)
Essential Services
Commission (Vic.)






Qld Competition
Authority (Qld)

(monitoring
only)

×



Essential Services
Commission (SA)





(light handed
price
regulation)
×
Economic
Regulation Authority
(WA)

(inquiries as
request)

×


×
Independent
Competition and
Regulatory
Commission (ACT)




×
×
Office of the
Tasmanian
Economic
Regulator(Tas.)





×
Utilities Commission
(NT)


×


×
Independent Pricing
and Regulatory
Tribunal (NSW)
378
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Water use is economically efficient
User receives clear price signals
This outcome occurs when users must pay according to consumption; full costs of supply are
incorporated into pricing; there is open trade; price information is publicly available; and the
conduct of market participants is monitored and regulated.
12. Comparison of operating costs of urban and rural water service providers
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s NPRs for urban and rural water service (e.g. NWC 2014c,d).
Data provided for the NPRs show that operating costs for both rural and urban water service
providers have been steadily increasing but not as rapidly as delivery volumes or revenue. This
may indicate a general improvement in business efficiency.
As set out below, rural sector operating costs have gradually increased over time. In an
examination of total rural operating expenditure between 2007–08 and 2012–13, around half of all
utilities recorded an increase and half a decrease, with the general increases below the increases
in volumes and revenue.
Figure D10: Operating expenditure for rural water service provision 2007–08 to 2012–13 by
region and in total (from NWC 2014c)
64
250
200
16
150
100
4
Total expenditure ($ millions)
Total operating expenditure ($ million, Log scale)
300
50
1
0
2007–08
2008–09
Total expenditure
Goulburn–Murray Water
Lower Murray Water
GWMWater
Central Irrigation Trust
2009–10
2010–11
State Water Corporation
Murrumbidgee Irrigation
Harvey Water
Coleambally Irrigation
2011–12
2012–13
Southern Rural Water
Murray Irrigation
Ord Irrigation
Seqwater
Urban sector operating costs have also been increasing steadily: the national median operating
cost per property has increased by an average of 2.4 per cent per year in real terms from 2005–
06 to 2012–13. Operating costs per property for utilities with greater than 100,000 customers fell
in 2012–13, the first such fall across the eight‑year time series.
National Water Commission
379
Figure D11: Total operating expenditure for urban water service provision, water and
sewerage, on a per property basis, 2005–06 to 2012–13 (from NWC 2014d)
1 000
$ per property
800
600
400
200
0
2005–06
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
National median – sewerage
National median – water
Median – utilities with between 10 000 and 20 000 customers
Median – utilities with between 20 000 and 50 000 customers
Median – utilities with between 50 000 and 100 000 customers
Median – utilities with 100 000+ customers
Capital expenditure within the urban sector increased from 2006–07 to 2008–09 and was at
unprecedented levels in 2008–09 and 2009–10, before stabilising and remaining reasonably
steady over the past three years. However, it did not drop to the levels of 2005–06 and 2006–07.
Sewerage capital expenditure has been more stable than water expenditure over the urban NPR
time series.
Figure D12: Total capital expenditure by urban water and sewerage service providers,
2007–08 to 2012–13 (from NWC 2014d)
7
6
$ Billions
5
4
3
2
1
0
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
Total water capital expenditure
380
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
2010–11
2011–12
Total sewerage capital expenditure
2012–13
13. Market participants have access to timely water price information
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the series
of studies of Australia’s water markets by the Commission (e.g. NWC 2013b&c, 2014b). The
delivery of accurate and timely market data to inform decisions by market participants requires
sophisticated systems to allow access to recent trade data on volume, price and location. Such a
system should also present entitlement, allocation and carryover characteristics for all water
products to allow informed decision‑making and efficient market decisions.
Under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth), jurisdictions are required to report trade data from their
registers to the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM). In addition, detailed information on policy changes
can be found on their respective websites. While these current arrangements are enabling timely
trade processing and satisfying the requirements under the Water Act, further improvements to
state registers are required to lower the transaction costs of trade and improve the provision of
data.
Increasingly, allocation trade data is being made available online soon after a trade has occurred.
The Victorian Water Register is updated daily and publishes volume and price data when
available. The South Australian register aims to publish available volume and price data within 48
hours of a trade being completed. Not all jurisdictions have this level of accessibility or timeliness
of data. The National Water Market System was expected to make this data more accessible;
however, there have been substantial delays in getting the system fully operational and the project
has recently been terminated. Some brokers offer daily or weekly information to subscribers.
Overall information availability requires ongoing improvement in all Australian water markets.
In the Murray–Darling Basin new water trade rules took effect on 1 July 2014. The new rules are
intended to give everyone who trades in the Basin better access to market information, including a
new requirement for individuals trading water to declare their sale price. In addition, governments
will have to explain the characteristics of the different types of water entitlements so traders have
a better understanding of what they are buying. The MDBA also intends to publish all of the
states’ water trading rules in a central location to make them more accessible.
14.Comparison of water trade approval times
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the series
of studies of Australia’s water markets by the Commission (e.g. NWC 2013b&c, 2014b).
Large‑scale markets are generally considered to be performing efficiently if there are large
numbers of transactions, traders with access to high‑quality market information, low transaction
costs, short processing times and dependable market intermediaries. Most entitlement and
allocation trading in Australia’s water markets is facilitated by intermediaries, including water
brokers, water exchanges and lawyers. Water market intermediaries match willing buyers with
sellers and offer transaction and information services.
In May 2009, the Natural Resources Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) set service
standards for processing times by state approval authorities for approvals or rejections of
entitlement and water allocation trades. Murray–Darling Basin jurisdictions are required to report
publicly on trade processing times against those service standards.
Jurisdictions have consistently met the standards during the past three years following some initial
difficulties. The Australian water market series of reports lists the yearly performance of each
jurisdiction. Only trades within the Murray–Darling Basin are subject to the service standards. The
expansion of markets outside of the Basin possibly warrants consideration of a separate set of
service standards to be developed for these new and expanding markets.
National Water Commission
381
Table D5: Service standards for Murray–Darling Basin trade processing times (NWC 2013b)
Interstate
Intrastate
Entitlement trade
From 1 July 2009a
90% of trades to be processed within 20 business days for the approvals stage
and within 10 business days for the registration stage
Water allocation trade
From 1 July 2009b
Upon establishment
of the National
Water
Market
System
90% of trades to be
processed
within 10 business days
90% of trades to be
processed within 5 business
days
90% of trades to be processed within 5 business days
a In South Australia, standards apply only to River Murray water access entitlements.
b Except in South Australia, where the standards remain at 20 business days and 10 business days for
interstate and intrastate trades, respectively.
Table D6: Processing times for water entitlement trades by jurisdiction (from NWC
2013b&c)
Approvals stage
(within 20 business days)
Registration stage
(within 10 business days)
90%
90%
New South Wales
92%d
95%d
Queensland
Standard not applicablea
83%
69%b
100%b
(River Murray only)
95%
100%
Tasmania
41%b
Victoria
92%
Western Australia
100%b
COAG service standards
Performance
South Australia
(outside River Murray)c
South Australia
99%b
a No approval is required for water allocation transfers (entitlement transfers) in Queensland. Once a trade has been
settled, the buyer is required to lodge transfer documents with the Titles Registry Office.
b If no published figures were available, values were calculated using raw data. Those values do not allow for the use
of ‘stop the clock’ provisions.
c COAG service standards do not apply.
d NSW figures relate to 2011–12, all other figures are 2012–13.
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, these are figures published by approval authorities.
382
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Table D7: Processing times for water allocation trades by jurisdiction (from NWC 2013c)
Interstate (within 10 days;
20 days for South Australia)
90%
Intrastate (within 5 days; 10
days for South Australia)
90%
96%
100%
No dataa
95%
(River Murray only)
100%
94%
Victoria
99%
99%b
COAG service standards
Performance
New South Wales
Queensland
South Australia
a Interstate allocation trades in 2012–13 occurred only from New South Wales into Queensland. Therefore, those trades and
processing times for them are recorded in the New South Wales data.
b If no published figures were available, values were calculated using raw data. Those values do not allow for the use of
‘stop the clock’ provisions.
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, these are figures published by approval authorities.
15.Access to information on water trading
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator draws on the Regional
Wellbeing Survey (Schirmer 2014).
This indicator measures whether irrigators believe it is easy to access the information they need to
conduct water trades. This is a measure of the transparency of water markets and ability to
receive clear price signals and associated market information. This indicator is measured using
weighted data from the Regional Wellbeing Survey. It reports irrigators’ responses to the
statement: ‘It’s easy to access the information I need to make water trading decisions’. Irrigators
were asked to identify the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with this statement, on a scale
of 1 to 7 where 1 was ‘strongly disagree’ and 7 was ‘strongly agree’. They could also answer
‘don’t know’.
The survey indicated that most irrigators in the southern Murray–Darling Basin agreed it was easy
to access the information needed for water trading.
Figure D13: Proportion of irrigators who agree and disagree with the statement: ‘It’s easy
to access the information I need to make water trading decisions’, by location within and
outside the Murray–Darling Basin (Schirmer 2014)
60
% respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Northern Basin
(n=169)
Disagree
Southern Basin
(n=448)
Agree
Outside Basin
(n=179)
Neither agree or disagree
All irrigators
(n=801)
Don’t know
National Water Commission
383
16. Measure of change in economic surplus under efficient urban pricing structures
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s NPRs for urban water utilities (e.g. NWC 2014d).
Water businesses and their customers in many jurisdictions still do not benefit from fully
independent economic regulation with strong, deterministic powers; however, the changes to
economic regulation have allowed the water businesses to recover the ‘efficient’ (i.e. minimum)
costs of providing the good/service at the required quality. As a result water businesses’ net profit
after tax (NPAT) has steadily improved.
The NPAT ratio examines a utility’s profit with respect to its income. The NPAT ratio is defined as
NPAT divided by total income for the utility. It can be considered as the utility’s net profit margin
earned after tax. The median values for NPAT ratios for utilities with more than 100,000 properties
are notably higher than the NPAT ratios of smaller utilities.
Table D8: Net profit after tax ($000s) for the years 2011–12 and 2012–13 for water utilities
as disclosed in annual financial statements (NWC 2014d)
Size group
Range
High
100 000+
connected
properties
50 000 to
506 596
WC (Perth)
% change
Number of utilities
with increase /
decrease from
2011–12
Low
19 538
in the
total from
2011–12
Total
Increase
Decrease
2011–12
2012–13
3
8
1 646 986
1 625 041
–1%
9
3
91 198
127 546
40%
9
9
81 061
75 809
–6%
9
9
5 230
5 774
10%
30
29
Barwon Water
70 238
– 13 686
Townsville
Coliban Water
54 621
– 24 051
100 000
connected
properties
20 000 to
50 000
connected
properties
Mackay
Water
GWMWater
10 000 to
9 085
– 3 984
20 000
connected
Orange
Queanbeyan
properties
All size groups
506 596
– 24 051
WC (Perth)
GWMWater
1 824 475
1 834 170
1%
Under the regulatory approach that applies to major utilities in most states, customer prices are
calculated assuming a benchmark capital structure of 60 per cent debt and 40 per cent equity.
Increases in a utility’s debt level do not translate into price or bill increases. Rather, NPAT falls
and the funds available for items such as dividends decrease.
The two larger utility size groups have relatively higher debt compared with equity than the
national median (the 100,000‑plus size group significantly so), while the other two size groups are
below the median. As long as the dividend requirement imposed by government changes
according to the entity’s debt equity ratio, it maintains financial sustainability. However, where
384
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
governments maintain or increase their dividend requirements cash‑flow stress may result in a
utility having to borrow to pay dividends, as was the case with the Victorian metropolitan entities
in 2012–13.
Water businesses are unable to send a clear price signal, with efficient price structures, as long as
there is a dividend requirement imposed by government. While water prices reflect water use, the
water business NPATs are dependent on dividend requirements, rather than water use alone.
Table D9: Net profit after tax ratio (%) for the years 2011–12 and 2012–13 for water utilities
as disclosed in annual financial statements (NWC 2014d)
Size group
100 000+
Number of utilities
with increase /
decrease from
2011–12
Range
% change
in the
median
from
2011–12
Median
High
Low
Increase
Decrease
2011–12
2012–13
23
5
3
8
13
10
–27%
9
3
1
4
508%
9
9
3
8
212%
9
9
4
–0
–103%
30
29
8
8
–1%
connected
properties
Gold Coast
WC (Perth)
50 000 to
40
Water
– 14
100 000
connected
Townsville
Coliban Water
properties
49
– 59
connected
Mackay
GWMWater
properties
Water
20 000 to
50 000
10 000 to
35
– 22
Orange
Aqwest–
20 000
connected
properties
All size groups
Bunbury (W)
49
Mackay
– 59
GWMWater
Water
17. Measure of change in economic surplus under efficient rural pricing
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the NPRs
for rural water service providers (e.g. NWC 2014c).
Similar to the urban NPAT, rural water service provider revenue shows total revenue from rural
water service provision per revenue category ($m) and total volume of water supplied (GL) 2007–
08 to 2012–13 steadily increasing during the past six years.
Rural water businesses are more able to send a clear price signal, where revenue reflects water
use, however the state‑owned water business pricing (as part of their tariff structure and
NPAT/revenue requirements) is partially dependent on government decisions.
National Water Commission
385
Figure D14: Total revenue from rural water service provision per revenue category ($m)
and total volume of water supplied (GL), from 2007–08 to 2012–13 (NWC 2014c)
12 000
450
10 000
350
300
8 000
250
6 000
200
4 000
150
100
2 000
50
0
0
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
Water entitlement charge ($m)
2011–12
2012–13
Consumptive charge ($m)
Infrastructure access charge ($m)
Other ($m)
Customer service fee ($m)
Customer service point fee ($m)
Area serviced charge ($m)
Total volume supplied at customer service points (GL) right axis
Water goes to the highest economic value
For this outcome to occur water must be allocated on the basis of price; sufficient information
must be available to allow clear decision‑making by economic actors; and artificial interventions
in the economy that distort water use (e.g. by governments seeking to maintain certain
uneconomic activities) must be minimised.
18. Percentage by volume of entitlements / allocations traded
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the study
of Australia’s water markets by the Commission (NWC 2014b).
High levels of trade are considered to indicate the presence of a strong market. Markets within
the Murray–Darling Basin have the greatest activity levels and reflect seasonal differences and
the significant activity of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office (CEWO). Allocation
trades in 2011–12 and 2012–13 show increased volumes partially as the movement of large
volumes of water for environmental purposes.
387
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Volume (GL)
Revenue ($ million)
400
The following tables describe water entitlement and water allocation trading intensity in the
Murray–Darling Basin.
Table D10: Water entitlement trading intensity in the Murray–Darling Basin
systems, 2007–08 to 2012–13 (NWC 2014b)
Trading intensity (%)a
Queensland
Total
volume of
trade in
2012–13
(ML)
141 025
NSW Murray
185 064
2 323 891
7
7
12
7
6
8
Murrumbidgee
220 288
2 932 333
6
15
10
7
7
8
Lower Darlingb
n.a.
n.a.
0
75
3
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
255 269
115 656
4 944 716
2 193 096
n.a.
5
n.a.
12
14
13
7
6
8
7
5
5
74 915
2 307 451
6
8
8
6
7
3
14 679
33 061
520 585
856 995
1
2
4
5
4
16
9
8
1
9
3
4
5
76 520
n.a.
n.a.
0
0
0
0
Entitlements
on issue
in 2012–13
(ML)
2007–08
936 185
n.a.
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
n.a.
3
3
5
15
NSW Murray–
Darling Basin—
Other
Vic. Murray
Goulburn
Rest of
northern
Victoria
SA Murray
Australian
Capital Territory
a Trading intensity is defined as the sum of internal trades plus outbound and inbound trades, all divided by the volume of
available allocation. Hence, the sum of these volumes will exceed the total amount of trade in these regions. This is
because interstate trades have been counted twice to reflect the fact that trading activity includes both trade in and trade
out. This means that a region that exports a lot of water has as much ‘activity’ as one that imports a lot. Trade and
entitlements on issue include regulated and unregulated systems, surface water and groundwater. They exclude floodplain
harvesting licences.
b NSW no longer reports the Lower Darling separately from the NSW Murray.
387
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Table D11: Water allocation trading intensity in the Murray–Darling Basin systems, 2012–13
(NWC 2014b)
Queensland
Total volume
of trade in
2012–13 (ML)
96 287
Entitlements on
issue in 2012–13
(ML)
936 185
Available
allocation %
2012–13
100
Trading
intensity (%)a
2012–13
10
NSW Murray
1 940 715
2 323 891
100
84
Murrumbidgee
1 158 990
2 932 333
100
40
Lower Darlingb
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
769 884
4 944 716
100
16
1 480 859
2 193 096
80
85
702 172
2 307 451
69
44
57 790
520 585
95
12
South Australian Murrayc
1 314 485
856 995
100
153
Australian Capital Territory
0
76 520
100
0
NSW Murray–Darling Basin other
Victorian Murray
Goulburn
Rest of northern Victoria
a Trading intensity is defined as the sum of internal trades plus outbound and inbound trades, all divided by the volume of
entitlements on issue. Trade and entitlements on issue include regulated and unregulated systems, surface water and
groundwater. They exclude floodplain harvesting licences.
b NSW no longer reports the Lower Darling separately from the NSW Murray.
c
The South Australian figures reflect the delivery of environmental water into South Australia for a number of on‑ and
off‑river sites as well as the Murray Mouth.
19. Number of trades
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the study
of Australia’s water markets by the Commission (NWC 2014b).
Trade numbers have increased from a low base since 2004. Trade of allocations is now a
standard component of business plans across the Murray–Darling Basin. Trade is slowly
increasing outside of the Murray–Darling Basin, but investment is still required to enable market
arrangements to develop.
In mid‑2007 the area where interstate trade could occur was extended to incorporate all of the
southern‑connected Basin as part of the implementation of the NWI. Trade numbers have
increased since then, driven by a mix of the impact of the drought, increased levels of unbundling,
improvements in jurisdictional processes and a better understanding of market operations by the
participants. The movement of allocation water related to environmental deliveries has been a
significant recent addition to this mix.
The number of allocation trades has always exceeded the number of entitlement trades. There
were 6955 entitlement trades for 1343 GL in 2012–13, while there were 27,136 intrastate
allocation trades and 1022 interstate allocation trades that accounted for the 6184 GL of allocation
traded in 2012–13 (of which 6054 GL occurred in the Murray–Darling Basin).
National Water Commission
388
Table D12: Water allocation trading volumes in Australia 2007–08 to 2012–13 (NWC 2014b)
2007–08
(GL)
2008–09
(GL)
2009–10
(GL)
2010–11
(GL)
2011–12
(GL)
2012–13
(ML)
1376
1663
2118
3340
4127
5899
17
290
183
76
89
159
1393
1953
2301
3417
4216
6058
201
205
194
77
81
126
1594
2158
2495
3493
4297
6184
Murray–Darling Basin
Regulated
Unregulated
and
groundwater
Murray–Darling Basin total
Other water systems
Other water systems
Total Australia
Note: Allocation trade totals include Victorian groundwater trades from 2010–11 onwards.
Unregulated and groundwater are different water resources. Records are not sufficiently detailed to permit separate presentation
of trade for these two resources across Australia.
Table D13: Water entitlement trading volume in Australia 2007–08 to 2012–13 (NWC 2014b)
2011–12
2007–08
(GL)
2008–09
(GL)
2009–10
(GL)
2010–11
(GL)
(GL)
2012–13
(GL)
723
1490
1744
894
1065
807
47
108
74
105
153
237
770
1598
1818
999
1219
1044
Other water systems
150
202
131
205
218
300
Total Australia
920
1800
1949
1204
1437
1343
Murray–Darling Basin
Regulated
Unregulated and
groundwater
Murray–Darling Basin total
Other water systems
Note: Entitlement trade totals include Victorian groundwater trades from 2010–11 onwards.
Differences between the sums of individual trading volumes and the total trading volumes reported are due to rounding.
Unregulated and groundwater are different water resources. Records are not sufficiently detailed to permit separate
presentation of trade for these two resources across Australia.
20. Number of Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder trades, purchases and
registrations
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the study
of Australia’s water markets by the Commission and from regular reports published by the CEWH
(DotE 2014).
The CEWH has legislated responsibility under the Water Act 2007 (Cwth) for decisions relating to
Commonwealth environmental water, including management of the portfolio so that it maximises
environmental outcomes across the Murray–Darling Basin over time.
National Water Commission
389
The Commonwealth’s environmental water holdings comprise a portfolio of assets (water
entitlements) and the accumulated annual yield of water (allocations) against those entitlements.
This water may be delivered within the current year to meet environmental needs, carried over to
future years to meet future environmental needs or traded (disposal or acquisition).
Below is a summary of Commonwealth environmental water purchased and registered in each of
the past six water years, as well as cumulative volumes at 30 June each year. The table includes
both entitlements purchased through the buyback process and those recovered through the
Sustainable Rural Water Use and Infrastructure Program.
The CEWH has also completed allocation trades in the Gwydir and Peel catchments. The CEWH
has indicated further sales of Commonwealth environmental water allocations are being
considered through 2013–14 (CEWH 2014).
Table D14: Summary of Commonwealth environmental water purchases 2007–08 to 2012–
13 (in GL) (NWC 2014b)
2007–08
Purchases
secured during
year
Cumulative volume of
secured purchases
at end of yeara
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
22
426
415
189
274
58
22
448
863
1052
1327
1385
Registered during yearb
0
65
659
255
364
246
Cumulative volume
registered at end of
yearc
0
65
724
979
1343
1599
a Includes only direct Restoring the Balance purchases.
b Registered volumes include water not purchased from the market, such as gifted water and recoveries through the
SRWUI Program.
Includes both Restoring the Balance purchases and SRWUI Program recoveries.
Note: Includes 28 GL of non‑tradeable Victorian entitlements that were registered by the Commonwealth in 2012–13. Water
recovery figures have been validated against audited data held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder. Total
volumes registered to the Commonwealth at 30 June 2013 include any corrections to previously published data.
c
21. Regulatory barriers to water trade
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator draws on the Regional
Wellbeing Survey (Schirmer 2014).
This indicator measures whether irrigators said they had experienced barriers to water trade in the
past five years resulting from regulations/restrictions on trade. For those who reported
experiencing barriers, the indicator measures the effects these barriers had on their farm
enterprise. This enables identification of whether and how barriers to water trade are affecting
farm enterprises and, via these, the health of rural and regional economies that depend on these
farm enterprises.
This indicator is measured using weighted data from the Regional Wellbeing Survey. It is
measured by (i) identifying the proportion of irrigators who answered ‘yes’ when asked if they had
‘been unable to sell water allocation due to regulation’, and (ii) for those who reported they had
been unable to sell allocation, identifying how positively or negatively this barrier to trade had
affected their farm enterprise. The latter was measured on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 was ‘very
negatively’ and 7 ‘very positively’. As relatively few irrigators reported being affected by
restrictions to trade, data on how positively or negatively their farm enterprise was affected is only
reported for a small number of regions, as in others there were too few respondents to report data
with appropriate confidence in its reliability.
390
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Figure D15: Proportion of irrigators who reported they had been unable to sell water
allocation due to regulation in the past five years, by state and region (Schirmer 2014)
30
% respondents
25
20
15
10
5
0
Southern Basin
(n=443)
Northern Basin
(n=163)
Outside Basin
(n=178)
All irrigators
(n=789)
Yes, have experienced this in last 5 years
Figure D16: Effect of being unable to sell water allocation due to regulation on the farm
enterprise, as reported by irrigators who had experienced this, by state and region
(Schirmer 2014)
60
% respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Northern Basin
(n=28)
Negative
Southern Basin
(n=126)
Positive
All irrigators
(n=172)
Neither positively or negatively affected
Note: several regions are not included in this figure as there were too few irrigators in the sample to report data for the region.
22. Proportion of market participants reporting not being able to trade because of market
restrictions, and the relative volume excluded from trade
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the study
of Australia’s water markets by the Commission (NWC 2014b) and from a specific study by the
Commission into the Victorian decision to suspend inter‑valley water allocation trading. Market
restrictions have tended to fall into one of two types: a full or partial market suspension; or set
barrier or limit.
The NWI and the Basin plan water trade rules do allow restrictions that are based on physical
constraints, hydrologic connections and water supply considerations, and the need for
environment management to protect features of major Indigenous, cultural heritage or spiritual
significance. These restrictions are not considered relevant to the performance indicator.
National Water Commission
391
The best‑known limit has been the four per cent limit on net export in place for Victorian irrigation
districts. The limit was in place from 2007 to 1 July 2014 when it was removed to comply with the
requirements of the Basin plan. When in effect, many Victorian irrigation districts reached the limit,
and this prevented irrigators from trading entitlements out of their district for the remainder of the
year. This had the effect of distorting the prices within the district. The impact of the limit was less
in 2012–13 than in previous years because there was a reduction in total entitlement sales and
also there was an increased number of exceptions from the four per cent limit.
The NSW three per cent limit was in place for 18 months up to 24 February 2014 and was
removed when NSW signed the Partnership Agreement for the Basin plan. The three per cent
limit had a number of exceptions that have made it difficult to determine how many sales were
prevented as a direct consequence. It is possible that market inefficiencies similar to those in
Victoria were caused by the NSW limit, but it appears that the impacts were not as significant in
NSW.
The late‑season market suspensions in the southern‑connected Murray–Darling Basin in 2010–
11, 2011–12 and 2012–13, and again by Victoria in 2013–14, had noticeable impacts on many
irrigators in those regions and on overall market confidence.
It is widely accepted that the relatively attractive Victorian carryover arrangements have been an
important driver of water market behaviour, with substantial late‑season transfers of water
allocations into Victoria. These carryover arrangements were established to assist Victorian
irrigators manage the impact of drought in 2007–08. At that time, there was sufficient space in
water storages to accommodate the carryover provisions. However, the recent wet years have
reduced available storage for this purpose. This lack of storage coupled with the attractive
carryover provisions available to Victorian entitlement holders led to third‑party impacts on South
Australian and NSW allocations held in storages shared with Victoria.
23. Movements of water between states and regions each season
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the study
of Australia’s water markets by the Commission (NWC 2014b).
Allocation trades tended to move downstream for most of the past decade. Initially this was in
response to the demands of permanent plantings during the drought. The past two years have
seen deliveries of environmental water become a significant driver of allocation water delivered
downstream. Low rainfall years, such as 2012–13, trigger large volumes of intrastate transfers of
both irrigation and environmental water.
Net interstate allocation trade in 2012–13 was 925 GL, a large increase from the net 278 GL
trades in 2011–12. The NSW net allocation export increased from 44 GL to 280 GL in 2012–13.
This pattern was similar to Victoria‘s increase in net allocation export from 231 GL to 645 GL.
South Australia continued to be a net importer of allocations in 2012–13, with its net imports
increasing from 278 GL in 2011–12 to 925 GL.
392
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Figure D17: Net interstate trades in water allocations in the southern Murray–Darling Basin
2003–04 to 2012–13 (NWC 2014b)
1 000 000
800 000
Net allocation trade (ML)
600 000
400 000
200 000
0
-200 000
-400 000
-600 000
-800 000
2003–04
2004–05
2005–06
2006–07
NSW
2007–08
SA
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
Victoria
The figures below show the sources and destinations for water allocation trades for each southern
Murray–Darling Basin trading zone in both 2008–09 and 2012–13. There are numerous external
factors that may drive allocation trade in particular years. For example, in 2008–09 the main
drivers of allocation trade were drought, low allocations, water prices, government purchases for
critical human needs and water for permanent plantings. In 2012–13, the drivers of allocation
trade were environmental deliveries and widespread low rainfall across all irrigated areas
including the rice crop, which greatly increased competition for water and led to increased prices
for allocations.
National Water Commission
393
Figure D18: Significant interzone allocation trading in the southern Murray–Darling Basin,
2008–09 (NWC 2014b)
Key
South
Australia
Trading zone
Net trade
Low reliability allocation percentage (L)
General reliability allocation percentage (G)
High reliability allocation percentage (H)
Average price
Lower Darling
-28 GL
G: 50%
H: 100%
$480 /ML
SA
Murray
336 GL
H: 18%
$340 /ML
Net exporter
Net importer
103 GL
199 GL
3 GL
Victoria
Murrumbidgee
-390 GL
G: 21%
H: 95%
$361 /ML
New
South
Wales
Goulburn
42 GL
L: 0%
H: 33%
$337 /ML
Figure D19: Significant interzone allocation trading in the southern Murray–Darling Basin,
2012-13 (NWC 2014b)
394
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Water resource development is economically sustainable
This outcome focuses on the development of water resources to increase overall supply and the
consequent additional resources that can be used for economic activity. For this outcome to
occur, new water sources should be allocated judiciously and should not have negative impacts
on existing water systems.
24. Proportion of water plans including economic objectives
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (NWC 2014e). Analysis undertaken for the National Water Planning Report Card 2013
showed a high proportion of water plans identified measurable economic outcomes and outputs.
Figure D20: Number of water plans assessed as having measurable economic outcomes
for the National Water Planning Report Card 2013 (unpublished data NWC 2014e)
120
Number of plans
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
25. Proportion of water plans including an assessment of the economic value of water
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (NWC 2014e).
Analysis undertaken for the National Water Planning Report Card 2013 showed a high proportion
of water plans now assess the economic value of water (quantitatively and/or qualitatively) in the
plan area at the time of plan commencement. More detailed assessments are usually made
where there is a higher level of competition for water resources.
Figure D21: Number of water plans that include an assessment of the economic value of
the water across the plan area (unpublished data NWC 2014e)
100
Number of plans
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
National Water Commission
395
26. Proportion of plans with rules which respond to groundwater and surface water
connectivity
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (NWC 2014e). Analysis undertaken for the National Water Planning Report Card 2013
showed a high proportion of water plans have rules which manage groundwater and surface water
connectivity. However, there are significant gaps remaining in both the knowledge and
arrangements to deal with connected resources. Newer plans include better arrangements to
manage groundwater and surface water connectivity.
Figure D22: Number of water plans assessed as addressing groundwater/surface water
connectivity for the National Water Planning Report Card 2013 (NWC 2014e)
120
Number of plans
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
2011 (157 plans)
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
2013 (172 plans)
27. Number of urban centres with defined levels of service
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s NPRs for urban water utilities (e.g. NWC 2014d).
Defined levels of service establish minimum standards in terms of water quality and water service
provision for water supply systems. The 2012–13 Urban NPR reported that 81 urban centres,
representing 18.7 million Australians, now have defined levels of service. Those urban centres all
have more than 10,000 connections. There are also many smaller urban centres with defined
levels of service, for example NSW has more than 70 additional small urban centres with defined
levels of service for the supply of urban water. In most of these cases, the state government sets
the parameters for local government arrangements.
28. Performance of utilities against level of service targets
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the NPRs
for urban water utilities (e.g. NWC 2014d). In general, the larger utilities perform better than the
smaller utilities against level of service targets.
396
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
180
140
160
120
140
100
120
100
80
80
60
60
40
40
Duration (minutes)
Frequency per 1000 properties
Figure D23: Indicators of the reliability of water and sewerage supply across Australian
urban areas for which utilities reported for the period 2006–07 to 2012–13 (NWC 2014d)
20
20
0
0
2006–07
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
2012–13
Incidence of unplanned interruptions – water (per 1000 properties)
Average duration of an unplanned interruption – water (minutes)
Average sewerage interruption (minutes)
Unplanned interruptions – There has been a slight increase (three per cent) in the number of
utilities reporting higher average durations of unplanned interruptions.
Water and sewerage complaints – The median result for all utilities for the number of water and
sewerage complaints decreased from eight in 2011–12 to six in 2012–13.
Main breaks – There has been a three per cent increase in the number of main breaks (bursts
and leaks in all distribution system mains – including both potable and non‑potable water mains).
Sewer break and chokes – Sewer break and chokes per 100 km of sewer main decreased by
two per cent, property connection sewer breaks and chokes per 1000 properties increased three
per cent, so overall the performance of sewer systems remained stable.
Median value for real losses – The median value for real losses increased seven per cent (real
loss = leakage, and overflow from mains – a general indicator of condition of mains and other
infrastructure and water pressure). There was a general decrease in real losses from 2007–08 to
2010–11, however increases in the past two years are consistent with rising usage.
Water use is technically efficient
This outcome assumes that increased technical efficiency will reduce the amount of water
required for use in various activities, thereby increasing the water resources available for other
users. There are many ways that this can occur, including improvement of physical infrastructure,
innovation, research and development, regulatory arrangements that promote efficiency and the
use of technical solutions that factor in all externalities (including energy consumption).
29. Household consumption per capita
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the Water
Account Australia compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2013b).
Household consumption per capita has declined nationally (by as much as 26 per cent) between
2004 and 2012. However, the decline in household consumption per capita appears to have
slowed between 2008–09 and 2011–12, which may indicate a levelling out in this general trend of
decline in consumption due to the easing of drought conditions and water restrictions.
National Water Commission
397
Table D15: Trends in water consumption by different user groups over the period 2008–09
to 2011– 12 by jurisdiction and for the whole of Australia (ABS 2013b)
NSW
Vic.
Qld
SA
WA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Aust.
2011–12
Water consumption
by industry (GL)
5,753
3,017
3,029
916
1,113
311
140
24
14,303
Water consumption
by households (GL)
508
316
346
120
308
56
34
26
1,715
6,262
3,333
3,375
1,036
1,420
368
174
50
16,019
91,217 236,338 24,345
18,086
31,511
1,451,120
Total water
consumption (GL)
Gross State
Product ($m)
Population at
30 June 2012 (‘000)
446,169 322,833 280,622
7,301
5,629
4,566
1,656
2,433
512
235
375
22,707
Gross State
Product/Total water
consumption ($ per GL)
71
97
83
88
166
66
104
630
91
Gross State Product/
Industry water
consumption ($ per GL)
78
107
93
100
212
79
128
1,313
101
858
592
739
626
584
719
740
133
705
70
56
76
72
127
109
145
69
76
Total economy water
consumption (kL)
per capita
Household water
consumption (kL)
per capita
2010–11
Water consumption
by industry (GL)
4,514
2,048
2,654
907
1,059
302
135
18
11,637
Water consumption
by households (GL)
527
311
311
115
310
69
31
25
1,699
5,041
2,359
2,964
1,023
1,369
371
167
43
13,337
251,616 86,323
187,117
23,738
16,281
29,473
1,320,058
Total water
consumption (GL)
Gross State
Product ($m)
Population at
30 June 2011 (‘000)
7,219
5,538
4,477
1,640
2,353
511
231
368
22,337
Gross State
Product/Total water
consumption ($ per GL)
83
130
85
84
137
64
97
685
99
Gross State Product/
Industry water
consumption ($ per GL)
93
149
95
95
177
79
121
1,637
113
698
426
662
624
582
726
723
117
597
73
56
69
70
132
135
134
68
76
Total economy water
consumption (kL)
per capita
Household water
consumption (kL)
per capita
398
419,895 305,615
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NSW
Vic.
Qld
SA
WA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Aust.
2009–10
Water consumption
by industry (GL)
3,767
2,581
2,756
987
1,038
391
130
20
11,670
Water consumption
by households (GL)
556
323
356
123
348
73
37
28
1,844
4,323
2,904
3,112
1,110
1,386
464
167
47
13,515
410,774 298,123 251,144 84,269 180,821
23,561
16,021 28,666
1,293,379
Total water
consumption (GL)
Gross State
Product ($m)
Population at
30 June 2010 (‘000)
7,144
5,461
4,405
1,627
2,291
509
230
362
22,029
Gross State
Product/Total water
consumption ($ per GL)
95
103
81
76
130
51
96
610
96
Gross State Product/
Industry water
consumption ($ per GL)
109
116
91
85
174
60
123
1,433
111
Total economy water
consumption (kL)
per capita
605
532
706
682
605
912
726
130
614
78
59
81
76
152
143
161
77
84
Household water
consumption (kL)
per capita
2008–09
Water consumption
by industry (GL)
4,007
2,620
3,001
1,051
1,026
397
121
21
12,242
Water consumption
by households (GL)
548
331
340
128
335
69
39
27
1,818
4,555
2,951
3,341
1,179
1,361
466
160
48
14,061
402,003 291,352 246,901 83,231 173,419
23,457
15,813
27,780
1,263,956
Total water
consumption (GL)
Gross State
Product ($m)
Population at
30 June 2009 (‘000)
7,054
5,372
4,329
1,609
2,240
504
226
355
21,689
Gross State
Product/Total water
consumption ($ per GL)
88
99
74
71
127
50
99
579
90
Gross State Product/
Industry water
consumption ($ per GL)
100
111
82
79
169
59
131
1,323
103
Total economy water
consumption (kL)
per capita
646
549
772
733
608
925
708
135
648
78
62
79
80
150
137
173
76
84
Household water
consumption (kL)
per capita
National Water Commission
399
30. Households with water conservation devices in the household
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
statistics compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics on environmental issues: water use and
conservation (ABS 2013a).
Understanding the water usage behaviour of Australian households is important for the continued
management and planning of water resources. This is especially important when forecasting
future household water demands. Increased water efficiency and conservation measures by
Australian households may lessen the demand for fresh water supplies in urban and rural areas.
Rainwater tanks – Approximately 2.3 million households (26 per cent) used a rainwater tank as a
source of water in 2013. The proportion of households that used water from a rainwater tank has
remained steady since 2010, having increased from 19 per cent in 2007. South Australia had the
highest proportion of households that used water from a rainwater tank (46 per cent), followed by
Queensland (34 per cent) and Victoria (29 per cent).
Figure D24: Trends in use of rainwater tanks in urban households across Australia 2007–
13 (ABS 2013a)
60
50
%
40
30
20
10
0
NSW
Vic
Qld
SA
2007
WA
2010
Note:
(a) Data not available for graph as relative standard error greater than 25%
400
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Tas
2013
NT (a)
ACT
Front load washing machines – The use of front loading washing machines, generally more
water efficient than top loaders, has increased during the past three years. More than 34 per cent
of Australian households had a front loading washing machine in 2013 compared with 28 per
cent in 2010. The proportion of households with a front loading washing machine has increased in
all states and territories during the past three years.
Figure D25: Trends in use of front loading washing machines across Australia 2010–13
(ABS 2013a)
50
40
%
30
20
10
0
NSW
Vic
Qld
SA
2010
WA
Tas
NT
ACT
2013
Water efficient shower heads – More than 68 per cent of Australian households had water
efficient shower heads in 2013 compared with 55 per cent in 2007.
Dual flush toilets – More than 89 per cent of Australian households had dual flush toilets in 2013
compared with 80 per cent in 2007.
Steps to save water use in the garden – Of the 7.3 million households with a garden, the
proportion of households that took at least one step to save water in the garden has decreased
during the past six years, with 54 per cent taking at least one step in 2013 compared with 62 per
cent in 2010 and 71 per cent in 2007.
31. Conveyance losses (unaccounted water) as a proportion of distributed supply (rural
only)
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the Water
Account Australia compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2013b).
The percentage of water losses to total distributed water for rural water providers has continued to
decrease over time. Nationally irrigation/rural water providers have reported the percentage of
water losses to total distributed water has decreased from 34 per cent in 2008–09 to 18 per cent
in 2011–12.
National Water Commission
401
Table D16: Water distribution losses 2008–09 to 2011–12 by jurisdiction and for the whole
of Australia (ABS 2013b)
NSW
Vic.
Qld
SA
WA
2011–12
Tas.
NT
ACT
Aust.
105,921
76,810
70,440
22,093
64,028
8,199
8,201
3,316
359,008
932,394
254,611
167,379
3,007
64,627 25,288
0
0
1,447,306
8,201
3,316
1,806,314
Volume of water lost
during delivery
Urban water utilities/
providers (ML)
Rural water utilities/
providers (ML)
Total
1,038,315
331,421
237,819
25,100
128,655
33,487
Urban water
providers (%)
13
6
12
10
15
6
14
7
9
Irrigation/rural water
providers (%)
21
14
13
2
31
51
0
0
18
Total (%)
19
11
13
7
20
17
14
7
15
Percentage of water
losses to total
distributed water
2010–11
Volume of water lost
during delivery
Urban water utilities/
providers (ML)
131,808
72,144
61,303
21,634
39,139
9,372
8,415
3,173
346,988
Rural water utilities/
providers (ML)
712,353
203,850
101,422
4,728
59,388
870
0
0
1,082,611
Total
844,161
275,994
162,725
26,362
98,527
10,242
8,415
3,173
1,429,599
Urban water
providers (%)
15
9
12
11
10
11
16
9
12
Irrigation/rural water
providers (%)
33
24
16
4
24
8
0
0
27
Total (%)
28
17
14
8
16
11
16
9
20
Percentage of water
losses to total
distributed water
402
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NSW
Vic.
Qld
SA
WA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Aust.
10,100
9,787
3,778
377,637
2009–10
Volume of water lost
during delivery
Urban water utilities/
providers (ML)
Rural water utilities/
providers (ML)
Total
126,275
81,107
73,280 34,992
846,591 398,251 106,050 12,917
972,866 479,358 179,330 47,909
38,318
59,377
4,410
97,695 14,510
0
0 1,427,596
9,787 3,778 1,805,233
Percentage of water
losses to total
distributed water
Urban water
providers (%)
14
9
13
16
10
11
17
9
12
Irrigation/rural water
providers (%)
38
30
8
8
24
21
0
0
27
Total (%)
31
21
10
13
15
13
17
9
21
2008–09
Volume of water lost
during delivery
Urban water utilities/
providers (ML)
Rural water utilities/
providers (ML)
Total
144,500
91,868
70,728
31,871
39,086
18,450
7,365
3,080
406,948
1,153,505 423,032 148,460
14,253
51,519
8,127
0
0
1,798,896
1,298,005
514,900
219,188
46,124
90,605
26,577
7,365
3,080
2,205,844
Urban water
providers (%)
16
8
11
14
11
18
12
7
12
Irrigation/rural water
providers (%)
49
35
12
10
19
24
0
0
34
Total (%)
40
22
12
13
15
20
12
7
25
Percentage of water
losses to total
distributed water
National Water Commission
403
32. Proportion of farms with efficient irrigation infrastructure, e.g. drip irrigation, spray
irrigation, tile drains, drainage reuse etc.
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the Water
Account Australia compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2010, 2013c).
Of the 40,000 agricultural businesses that irrigated in 2008–09, more than 21,000 (54 per cent)
reported making one or more changes to their irrigation practices. The three most common
changes made included adopting more efficient irrigation techniques (8770 agricultural
businesses), adopting more efficient irrigation scheduling (6459), and reducing the area under
irrigation (5618).
In the Murray–Darling Basin, of the 11,000 agricultural businesses who reported making one or
more changes to their irrigation practices in 2008–09, the most commonly reported changes
included the adoption of more efficient irrigation techniques (38 per cent of irrigators making one
or more changes), reducing the area under irrigation (35 per cent), and purchasing extra water (31
per cent).
Between 2004–05 and 2008–09, there was a shift towards the use of more efficient irrigation
methods. Surface irrigation remained the most preferred method of irrigation with 44 per cent of
irrigated area irrigated by this means in 2008–09; however this was down from 62 per cent in
2004–05. Sprinkler systems, which include microspray, portable and hose irrigators, large mobile
machines and solid set, were the next preferred method in 2008–09 (37 per cent), up from 28 per
cent of area irrigated by these means in 2004–05.
Figure D26: Trends in use of efficient irrigation technologies for all irrigation areas in
Australia 2004–05 and 2008–09 (ABS 2010)
Other
Sprinkler
Drip or trickle
Surface
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
% total irrigated area
2004–05
2008–09
33. Infrastructure investment benefits rural water users
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator draws on the Regional
Wellbeing Survey (Schirmer 2014).
Having high quality, efficient water supply infrastructure can support the economically efficient use
of water, which in turn can benefit farm enterprises. Considerable investment has been made in
recent years to upgrade this infrastructure in many regions. This indicator measures whether
investment in upgrading irrigation water supply infrastructure has had on‑farm benefits for
irrigators. It is measured in two steps: first, the proportion of irrigators who answered ‘yes’ when
asked ‘has your water provider
404
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
(e.g. irrigation company) upgraded its infrastructure in recent years?’. Those who had experienced
upgrade of water supply infrastructure were then asked to rate how this upgrade affected their
farm enterprise, using a 7‑point scale from 1 (very negatively) to 7 (very positively).
In general, most respondents identified a positive impact from water providers upgrading
infrastructure.
Figure D27: Proportion of irrigators who reported their water provider had upgraded
infrastructure in recent years, by state and region (Schirmer 2014)
Figure D28: Impact on‑farm enterprise of water provider upgrading water infrastructure, as
reported by irrigators who had experienced this, by state and region (Schirmer 2014)
100
% respondents
80
7.0
4.2
4.8
13.4
12.1
9.0
57.8
60.7
60.6
57.0
16.4
15.1
13.6
18.6
All irrigators (n=258)
Southern Basin (n=205)
NSW (n=123)
Vic (n=87)
17.4
60
40
20
0
Don't know
Neither positive or negative
Positive
Negative
National Water Commission
405
34. Investment in increasing on‑farm water use efficiency
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator draws on the Regional
Wellbeing Survey (Schirmer 2014).
This indicator identifies the proportion of irrigators who report having invested in increasing the
efficiency of their on‑farm water use, and the effects of doing this on their farm enterprise.
This indicator is measured in two parts:

identification of the proportion of irrigators who have invested in increased on‑farm water
use efficiency and, of these, the proportion who have done so with no assistance, or with
assistance from their water provider or a government grant

self‑assessment of the effects of increasing water use efficiency: irrigators’ perspectives
on whether investing in increasing water use efficiency has had a positive or negative
effect on their farm, measured on a scale of 1 (very negative) to 7 (very positive).
Results showed that the majority of respondents had invested in water use efficiency in the past
five years.
Figure D29: Proportion of irrigators who have invested in improving water use efficiency in
the past five years, and have received support to do so at any time, by location within and
outside the Basin (Schirmer 2014)
80
70
% respondents
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Northern Basin
(n=167)
Southern Basin
(n=448)
Outside Basin
(n=179)
Invested in improved water use efficiency in last 5 years
Received government grant to improve water use efficiency
Received assistance from water provider to improve water use efficiency
35. Water application rates for irrigated agriculture by enterprise type, recognising
seasonal factors
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
statistics on Water Use on Australian Farms compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS
2013c).
Australia wide, application rates (ML/ha) for irrigated agriculture, across all enterprise types, have
fallen by 10 per cent between 2004 and 2012. However, there has been a slight increase between
2009–10 and 2011–12. It should also be noted that increases in application rates by enterprise
sector can in some cases be justified in the pursuit of higher yields, and may change subject to
climatic variability or seasonal rainfall totals. Bearing this in mind, there may be some indication
that the use of water within irrigated agriculture is becoming more efficient.
406
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Table D17: Trends in total water use on Australian farms 2009–10 to 2011–12 and use by
agricultural commodity type (ABS 2013c)
Agricultural
businesses
Agricultural
Area
businesses under pasture
irrigating or crop
Area
irrigated
Volume
applied
Application
rate
no.
no.
ha
ha
ML
ML/ha
2009–10
134,553
40,816
398,580,223.3
1,840,610.3
6,596,039.8
3.6
2010–11
135,654
38,752
409,672,625.3
1,962,568.8
6,645,374.7
3.4
2011–12
135,692
34,911
405,473,623.0
2,141,303.4
8,174,320.3
3.8
101,960
11,470
355,082,951.9
613,978.5
1,576,418.6
2.6
27,496
4,070
1,143,350.5
104,280.0
293,031.6
2.8
5,908
846
320,140.0
41,226.9
81,524.1
2.0
861
861
103,114.6
103,114.6
1,138,286.7
32,201
2,474
19,294,901.0
237,628.2
565,043.6
2.4
1,080
828
596,497.0
397,221.4
2,068,907.5
5.2
3,947
1,656
388,264.9
166,148.8
668,252.2
4.0
Other broadacre crops
18,638
823
4,594,391.2
48,815.4
109,191.9
2.2
Fruit trees, nut trees,
plantation or berry fruits
8,073
5,400
186,001.8
134,536.9
666,627.0
5.0
Vegetables for
human
consumption
6,018
4,676
126,411.2
105,169.4
376,165.2
3.6
Nurseries, cut
flowers and
cultivated turf
2,918
2,162
16,378.2
11,905.0
50,092.9
4.2
Grapevines
6,674
5,664
153,212.7
137,928.4
415,621.5
3.0
TOTAL
2011–12
Pastures and cereal
crops used for grazing or
fed off
Pastures and cereal
crops cut for hay
Pastures and cereal
crops cut for silage
Rice
Other cereals
for grain or
seed
Cotton
Sugar cane
11.0
36. Supply network delivery efficiency: unaccounted water as a proportion of distributed
supply
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the NPRs
for rural water utilities (NWC 2014c).
Supply network delivery efficiency is an industry measure specific to the rural water sector. It is
defined as the percentage of measured inflow volume that is delivered via a supply network to
customer service points and as other planned deliveries, which include environmental flows and
passing flows to downstream users.
The efficiency of gravity delivery systems generally improved from 2007–08 to 2010–11, but has
remained stable at around 83 per cent since then, despite large increases in water sales in 2011–
12 and 2012–13. Up to 2010–11, the improvement in efficiency was indicative of significant
investment
National Water Commission
407
by the rural water industry to modernise and pipe irrigation systems, specifically to enhance
customer service and reduce water losses. The drier conditions in 2012–13, which caused more
evaporation and seepage, are the likely reason for the lack of further improvement.
Among individual water service providers, six recorded increases and two recorded decreases in
their gravity systems’ delivery efficiency from 2007–08 to 2012–13. The largest increases since
2007–08 were by Coleambally Irrigation (37 per cent), Murray Irrigation (25 per cent) and
Murrumbidgee Irrigation (24 per cent).
Figure D30: Network delivery efficiency for gravity‑supplied rural districts 2007–08 to
2012–13 (from NWC 2014c)
100
80
%
60
40
20
0
2007–08
2008–09
2009–10
Coleambally Irrigation
Murrumbidgee Irrigation
Lower Murray Water
Ord Irrigation
2010–11
Murray Irrigation
Goulburn–Murray Water
Harvey Water
Southern Rural Water
2011–12
2012–13
Weighted average (all WSPs)
The delivery efficiency of the pressurised pipe systems of Central Irrigation Trust (CIT) and G‑MW
has remained consistently high over the past six years. Increases in efficiency by G‑MW in 2009–
10 and LMW in 2010–11 were the result of the completion of the Wimmera–Mallee pipeline and
the Robinvale project respectively. Before then, those systems were mainly gravity fed.
Figure D31: Network delivery efficiency for pressurised supply districts 2007–08 to 2012–
13 (from NWC 2014c).
100
80
%
60
40
20
0
2007–08
408
2008–09
2009–10
2010–11
2011–12
Central Irrigation Trust
GWMWater
Goulburn–Murray Water
Lower Murray Water
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
2012–13
37. Proportion of waste, storm and drainage water that is re ‑used by the industry sector
and households
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the Water
Account Australia compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS 2013b).
Household use of re‑use water increased between 2008–09 (since records began) and 2010–11,
but then decreased in 2011–12.
Industry use of re‑use water has decreased between 2008 (since records began) and 2012.
Industry use of re‑use water gradually increased between 2008 and 2011, however industry use
of re‑use water decreased between 2010–11 and 2011–12.
The re‑use of water is influenced by factors such as overall availability in storages, seasonal
rainfall totals and climatic variability; these factors may explain why total consumption of re‑use
water decreased by 35 per cent from 2010–11 to 2011–12, from 351 GL to 227 GL.
Table D18: Trends in water re‑use by industry groups and households over the period
2008–09 to 2011–12 by jurisdiction and for the whole of Australia (ABS 2013b)
NSW
Vic.
Qld
SA
WA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Aust.
ML
ML
ML
ML
ML
ML
ML
ML
ML
4,410
1,267
336
0
45,269
6
0
0
1,125
0
0
4,727
295
22,701
2011–12
Agriculture
9,864
Forestry, fishing
and aquaculture
15,427
10,892
3,072
245
731
0
220
Mining
1,819
1,032
1,582
Manufacturing
6,411
2,082
6,955
950
4,905
10,855
730
1,266
0
7,973
1,368
4,266
160
343
18,436
4,194
6,557
635
692
Electricity and
gas supply
Water supply
18,637
Other industries
10,247
Household
Total
32,543
16,737
1,786
67,076
66,680
1,993
214
297
207
0
0
0
0
2,711
51,820
76,046
57,721
10,633
21,624
3,148
1,425
4,607
227,025
2010–11
Agriculture
80,201
18,745
5,398
12,609
4,266
1,333
258
28
122,839
354
124
1,846
302
9
1
0
0
2,637
7,084
2,446
327
17
349
2
0
0
10,225
Manufacturing
13,986
5,473
7,151
868
4,688
265
8
28
32,468
Electricity and
gas supply
10,628
3,743
11,796
1
530
0
0
4
26,703
Water supply
18,664
32,482
6,965
1,539
3,874
975
0
3,883
68,382
Other industries
27,560
15,154
22,184
9,732
4,535
4,433
517
362
84,478
2,373
317
257
316
20
0
0
0
3,283
160,850
78,485
55,925
25,384
18,272
7,009
784
4,305
351,014
Forestry, fishing
and aquaculture
Mining
Household
Total
National Water Commission
409
Table D18: Trends in water re‑use by industry groups and households over the period
2008–09 to 2011–12 by jurisdiction and for the whole of Australia (ABS 2013b) (continued)
NSW
Vic.
Qld
SA
WA
Tas.
NT
ACT
Aust.
2009–10
Agriculture
54,549
34,015
10,056
21,269
4,932
1,013
7
21
125,862
166
248
2,908
0
8
1
0
0
3,332
5,956
2,697
72
15
316
1
0
0
9,057
Manufacturing
10,558
4,986
7,815
840
5,586
176
5
25
29,990
Electricity and
gas supply
1,515
3,743
13,934
0
530
0
0
4
19,726
Water supply
21,693
31,159
7,767
3,233
2,736
583
0
2
67,173
Other industries
25,620
18,206
18,672
6,444
3,361
4,315
1,221
4,197
82,035
2,210
584
50
242
20
0
0
0
3,106
122,268
95,638
61,273
32,042
17,488
6,089
1,233
4,249
340,280
Forestry, fishing
and aquaculture
Mining
Household
Total
2008–09
Agriculture
38,954
24,266
12,419
26,393
3,967
2,592
0
66
108,656
32
159
2,165
0
8
1
0
0
2,365
5,274
2,254
106
15
322
2
0
0
7,973
Manufacturing
11,088
5,371
4,558
852
4,601
260
8
27
26,767
Electricity and
gas supply
1,093
3,743
3,914
0
543
0
0
0
9,294
Water supply
25,318
43,467
6,318
317
1,777
1,072
300
3,877
82,446
Other industries
18,128
35,374
14,421
6,640
8,146
2,529
1,546
232
87,016
1,704
208
37
352
0
0
0
0
2,301
101,591
114,842
43,939
34,570
19,364
6,456
1,854
4,202
326,818
Forestry, fishing
and aquaculture
Mining
Household
Total
410
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Water supports a healthy environment
This section of Appendix D summarises the findings for each performance indicator under the
broad outcome of Water supports a healthy environment and provides a snapshot of the data
used for the assessment. Major sources of information to support the analyses and interpretation
are the Commission’s national water planning report cards and the Assessing water stress in
Australian catchments and aquifers report.
Future water options aren’t compromised by today’s decisions
Water sources are managed sustainably
This outcome relates to whether water plans take into account sustainability and the degree to
which this is embedded into water management practices. We would expect to see sustainable
levels of extraction defined within water plans, acknowledging and addressing situations of
overuse and overallocation where they exist. In systems where use and allocation is below the
sustainable level of extraction, we would expect NWI‑consistent arrangements are in place to
ensure any growth in use does not exceed agreed levels.
38. Robust and transparent risk‑assessment processes are used to prioritise water plan
development
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e).
All jurisdictions maintain that they have a risk‑based process to prioritise plan development,
evaluation and review although the criteria applied to this process are not always clear.
Acknowledging that planning priorities change over time, there is a lack of transparency in some
jurisdictions regarding the status of areas that have previously been prioritised but where plans
have not been completed. It is unclear to what extent planning priorities are documented
internally within agencies and are robust and repeatable.
39. Proportion of water plans that have established water extraction limits
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e).
A high proportion of water plans establish water extraction limits within the plan area. In addition,
the finalisation of the Basin plan has made clearer the sustainable levels of extraction inside the
Murray–Darling Basin and the intended timeframes for achieving reductions in water use where
required.
Despite progress in defining water extractions limits within water plans, challenges persist in both
overallocation and/or overuse in some systems. In some cases, water resources are not covered
by finalised plans (e.g. groundwater resources in the Darwin Rural area) or extractions are
unmetered (e.g. unregulated rivers in some cases in New South Wales).
National Water Commission
411
Figure D32: Number of water plans that define a sustainable level of extraction as
assessed for the National Water Planning Report Card 2013 (unpublished data NWC 2014e)
140
Number of plans
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
40. Proportion of water plans with accountable environmental water management
arrangements
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e).
The national water planning report card assessments undertaken in 2011 highlighted the need to
improve coordination and accountability of environmental watering activities. Analysis undertaken
for the National Water Planning Report Card 2013 showed a high proportion of recent water plans
make provisions for environmental water. Most commonly, these provisions rely on planned
environmental water (i.e. water that is reserved within each of those systems for environmental
purposes and not available to be extracted), rather than on entitlements committed exclusively to
meet environmental needs.
Some plan areas, particularly those that have been identified as overallocated within the Murray–
Darling Basin, have provisions for the holding and management of environmental water
entitlements and have associated environmental watering plans. The latter usually apply to
surface water resources and include explicit commitments about the delivery of environmental
water depending on local needs an conditions at different times.
Figure D33: Number of water plans assessed as containing accountable environmental
watering arrangements for the National Water Planning Report Card 2013 (NWC 2014e)
100
Number of plans
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
2011 (157 plans)
412
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
No
Unable to assess
2013 (172 plans)
Not applicable
Sustainable levels of extraction for water sources are identified
This outcome focuses on having sufficient information to be able to make appropriate decisions
on sustainable management of water resources, including returning existing sources to
sustainable levels of extraction. This includes long‑term water planning arrangements which both
predict and prepare for likely future demand and supply scenarios.
41. Number of water systems with overallocation or overuse identified
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s Assessment of water stress in Australian catchments and aquifers (NWC 2012a).
The NWI requires that overused systems be returned to sustainable levels of water use. However,
it has been difficult to assess whether this NWI objective is being met because there is no
nationally consistent method for identifying whether a system is presently overused. Further,
overuse is relative to the sustainable level of extraction, the determination of which is a complex
judgement, made at the level of the individual water resource or management area through a
planning process which recognises environmental, social and economic values and objectives.
In the absence of nationally agreed criteria, the Commission undertook an assessment of levels of
stress in all river basins and groundwater management units in 2012 (NWC 2012a). The following
water systems were listed as ‘Category D – most water stressed’ which are ‘likely high risk of
overuse/ overallocation’. The following table also shows that the identified stress in all these
Category D systems is being addressed through relevant water plans, or is expected to be
addressed via the Basin plan SDLs and water resource plans which will come into effect in 2019.
Table D19: List of Category D – most water stressed river basins and groundwater
management units, and an assessment of whether the stress is addressed (NWC 2012a)
Most water stressed river basins
Categorisation
River basin
Darling River
State
NSW
Category Confidence
D
Confident
Relevant water plan
WSP for the NSW Murray and Lower Darling
Regulated Rivers Water Sources
Addressed by
MDB Plan or
relevant water plan
Yes – MDB Plan
WSP for the Lower Murray–Darling Unregulated
and Alluvial Water Sources
Glenelg
Vic
D
Likely
Western Region Sustainable Water Strategy
To some extent –
Wimmera–Glenelg Bulk Entitlements
relevant water plan
Goulburn River
Vic
D
Confident
Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy
Yes – MDB Plan
Loddon River
Vic
D
Likely
Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy
Yes – MDB Plan
National Water Commission
413
Table D19: List of Category D – most water stressed river basins and groundwater
management units, and an assessment of whether the stress is addressed (NWC 2012a)
(continued)
Most water stressed river basins
Categorisation
River basin
State
Lower Murray
SA &
River
NSW
Category Confidence
D
Confident
Relevant water plan
River Murray Prescribed Water Course
Addressed by MDB
Plan or relevant
water plan
Yes – MDB Plan
Marne/Saunders Prescribed Water Resources
Area
WSP for the NSW Murray and Lower Darling
Regulated Rivers Water Sources
WSP for the Lower Murray–Darling Unregulated
and Alluvial Water Sources
Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy
Moorabool
River
Vic
D
Confident
Murray–
Riverina
NSW
D
Likely
Central Region Sustainable Water Strategy
To some extent –
relevant water plan
WSP for the NSW Murray and Lower Darling
Regulated Rivers Water Sources
Yes – MDB Plan
WSP for the Murray Unregulated and Alluvial
Water Sources
WSP for the Upper Billabong Water Source
Northern Region Sustainable Water Strategy
Murrumbidgee
NSW
D
Confident
River
WSP for the Adelong Creek Water Source
Yes – MDB Plan
WSP for the Tarcutta Creek Water Source
WSP for the Murrumbidgee Regulated
River Water Source
Snowy River
NSW &
Vic
Yarra
Vic
D
Confident
Gippsland Region Sustainable
Water Strategy
To some extent –
relevant water plan
D
Confident
Diamond Creek Water Supply
Protection Area
To some extent –
relevant water plans
Streamflow Management Plan
Hoddles Creek Water Supply
Protection Area
Streamflow Management Plan
Plenty River Water Supply Protection Area
Streamflow Management Plan
Steels/Pauls/Dixons Protection Area
Streamflow Management Plan
Olinda Creek Water Supply Protection Area
Streamflow Management Plan
Stringybark Creek Water
Supply Protection Area
Streamflow Management Plan
Central Region Sustainable Water Strategy
414
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Table D19: List of Category D – most water stressed river basins and groundwater
management units, and an assessment of whether the stress is addressed (NWC 2012a)
(continued)
Most water stressed groundwater management units
Groundwater
management
Categorisation
Category Confidence
D
Subjective
Relevant water plan
Alice Springs Water Resource Strategy
Addressed by MDB
Plan or
relevant water plan
unit
Alice Springs
State
NT
Baroota
SA
D
Estimated
Plan under development
Bell Valley
Alluvium
NSW
D
Estimated
WSP for the Macquarie Bogan
Unregulated and Alluvial Water
Sources
Belubula Valley
Alluvium
NSW
D
Likely
WSP for the Lachlan Unregulated
and Alluvial Water Sources
Bundaberg
Qld
D
Confident
Burnett WRP/ROP
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Callide
Qld
D
Confident
Fitzroy WRP/ROP
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Castlereagh
Alluvium
NSW
D
Likely
WSP for the Castlereagh
River Unregulated and Alluvial
Water Sources
Yes – MDB Plan
Collaburrugundry
– Talbragar
Valley
NSW
D
Estimated
WSP for the Macquarie Bogan
Unregulated and Alluvial Water
Sources
Collie
WA
D
Confident
Upper Collie Water Allocation Plan
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Deutgam
Vic
D
Likely
Central Region Sustainable Water
Strategy
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Gnangara
Complex
WA
D
Confident
and
subjective
Gnangara Groundwater Areas
Allocation Plan
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Great Artesian
Basin
NSW
D
Confident
WSP for the NSW Great Artesian
Basin Groundwater Sources
Yes – relevant water
plans
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Anticipated in
forthcoming plan
Yes – MDB Plan
Yes – MDB Plan
Yes – MDB Plan
Also Great Artesian Basin
Sustainability Initiative (GABSI)
Great Artesian
Basin (Clarence,
Morton, Eastern
Downs and
Mulgildie
management
areas)
Qld
D
Subjective
Qld Great Artesian Basin
Katunga
Vic
D
Likely
Katunga Water Supply Protection Area
Groundwater Management Plan
Yes – relevant water
plan
Yes – MDB Plan
National Water Commission
415
Table D19: List of Category D – most water stressed river basins and groundwater
management units, and an assessment of whether the stress is addressed (NWC 2012a)
(continued)
Most water stressed groundwater management units
Groundwater
management
unit
Lower Gwydir
Alluvium
Categorisation
State
NSW
Category Confidence
D
Confident
Relevant water plan
Addressed by MDB
Plan or
relevant water plan
WSP for the Lower Gwydir
Yes – MDB Plan
Groundwater Source
Also Achieving Sustainable
Groundwater
Entitlements
(ASGE) program
NSW
D
Confident
Lower Lachlan
Alluvium
(downstream of
Lake Cargelligo)
WSP for the Lower Lachlan
Yes – MDB Plan
Groundwater Source
Also ASGE program
SA
D
Confident
Lower
Limestone
Coast
Comaum‑Caroline prescribed
Yes
wells area
Lacepede Kongorong prescribed
wells area
Prescribed
Wells Area
Naracoorte Ranges prescribed
wells area
NSW
D
Confident
Lower Macquarie
Alluvium
(downstream
WSP for the Lower Macquarie
Yes – MDB Plan
Groundwater Sources
Also ASGE program
of Narromine)
NSW
D
Confident
Lower Murray
Alluvium
(downstream
of Corowa)
Lower
Murrumbidgee
Alluvium
(downstream of
Narrandera)
WSP for the Lower Murray
Yes – MDB Plan
Groundwater Source
Also ASGE program
NSW
D
Confident
WSP for the Lower Murrumbidgee
Yes – MDB Plan
Groundwater Source
Also ASGE program
NSW
D
Confident
Lower Namoi
Alluvium
WSP for the Upper and Lower
Yes – MDB Plan
Namoi Groundwater Sources
Also ASGE program
Mallee
Prescribed
WellsArea
Mid
Murrumbidgee
Alluvium
(upstream of
Narrandera)
Miscellaneous
Alluvium of
Barwon Region
416
SA
D
Confident
Water Allocation Plan for the
Yes – MDB Plan
Mallee Prescribed Wells Area
NSW
D
Likely
WSP for Murrumbidgee
Yes – MDB Plan
Unregulated and Alluvial
water sources
NSW
D
Likely
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Plan under development
Yes – MDB Plan
Table D19: List of Category D – most water stressed river basins and groundwater
management units, and an assessment of whether the stress is addressed (NWC 2012a)
(continued)
Most water stressed groundwater management units
Groundwater
management
unit
Categorisation
State
Category Confidence
Relevant water plan
Addressed by MDB
Plan or
relevant water plan
Murrayville
Vic
D
Likely
Murrayville Groundwater Supply
Protection Area Management Plan
Yes – MDB Plan
Neuarpur
Vic
D
Confident
Neuarpur Groundwater Supply Protection
Area Management Plan
Yes – MDB Plan
Northern
Adelaide Plains
Prescribed
WellsArea
SA
D
Confident
Northern Adelaide Plains
prescribed wells area
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Padthaway
Prescribed
Wells Areas
SA
D
Confident
Padthaway prescribed
wells area
Yes – relevant
water plan
Pioneer
Qld
D
Confident
Pioneer Valley
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Rosedale
Vic
D
Likely
West Gippsland
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Stratford
Vic
D
Subjective
West Gippsland
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Upper
Condamine
Alluvium
Qld
D
Subjective
Plan under development
Yes – MDB Plan
Upper Lachlan
Alluvium
(upstream of
Lake Cargelligo)
NSW
D
Likely
WSP for the Lachlan Unregulated
and Alluvial Water Sources
Yes – MDB Plan
Upper Macquarie
Alluvium (upstream
of Narromine)
NSW
D
Confident
WSP for the Macquarie
Bogan Unregulated and
Alluvial Water Sources
Yes – MDB Plan
Upper Namoi
Alluvium
NSW
D
Confident
WSP for the Upper and Lower
Namoi Groundwater Sources
Yes – MDB Plan
Also ASGE program
Yarram
Vic
D
Likely
West Gippsland
To some extent –
relevant water plan
Notes:
ASGE – Achieving Sustainable Groundwater Entitlements
ROP – resource operation plan
SFMP – streamflow management plan
WRP – water resource plan
WSP – water sharing plan
National Water Commission
417
42. Proportion of water plans that address overallocation or overuse
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards which examine how jurisdictional water plans manage both overallocation and overuse (e.g.
NWC 2014e). Analysis for the water planning report card showed that a high proportion of the
water plans address overuse and overallocation when it is identified, and provide pathways back
to sustainable levels of extraction.
Figure D34: Number of water plans assessed for the National Water Planning Report Card
2013 as having arrangements that address overallocation and overuse where it is identified
(NWC 2014e)
140
Number of plans
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
2011 (157 plans)
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
2013 (172 plans)
Environmental condition of water systems is maintained or improved
Water management decisions are made to improve system environmental conditions
This outcome relies on environmental values being integrated into water planning. For this to
occur we would expect to see water planning that includes a practical understanding of the needs
and current condition of the water system(s) and associated ecosystem services.
43. Proportion of water plans including environmental objectives
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e).
Most water plans contain environmental outcomes and there is increased recognition that plan
outcomes need to be measurable. Progress is being made in many jurisdictions to develop better
tools and techniques to monitor performance indicators and evaluate progress towards plan
outcomes. There is some evidence that more measurable performance indicators, which are
clearly linked to objectives, are being included in newer plans.
418
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Figure D35: Number of water plans that identify environmental outputs and outcomes that
are measurable and that can be assessed within the plan’s timeframe (unpublished data
NWC 2014e)
140
Number of plans
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
44. Volume of recycled water
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the NPRs
for urban water utilities (e.g. NWC 2014d).
The total volume of recycled water supplied in Australia has increased substantially between
2005–06 and 2012–13. While volume of recycled water dropped after 2009–10 due to increased
rainfall and flooding over this period, the total volume supplied is expected to increase as a result
of additional recycled water projects that are underway in several jurisdictions.
Table D20: Total volume of recycled water supplied to industrial and domestic users per
year 2005–06 to 2012–13 (NWC 2014d)
Year
ML
2005–06
159,992
2006–07
196,336
2007–08
202,774
2008–09
221,517
2009–10
244,804
2010–11
186,105
2011–12
181,441
2012–13
212,150
National Water Commission
419
45. Proportion of water plans including an assessment of environmental water needs
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e).
Most jurisdictions have adopted a risk‑based approach to determine the level of investment made
to quantify environmental water needs. Although most plans have some assessment of
environmental values and water needs, the adequacy of this knowledge base is variable. In many
cases environmental water needs are based on the hydro‑ecological assumption that mimicking
the natural hydrological regime will protect water‑dependent ecosystems. Plans often commit to
improving the knowledge base throughout the life of the plan; however, these commitments are
not always met due to resourcing constraints. Environmental watering regimes in some recent
plans have been based on research that quantifies the water requirements of critical components
of water‑dependent ecosystems.
Figure D36: Number of water plans assessed for the National Water Planning Report Card
2013 that quantify water needs of environmental assets in the plan area (unpublished data
NWC 2014e)
100
Number of plans
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
The quality of water released to the environment is not detrimental to its health
This outcome focuses on ensuring that water that enters the environment from any source does
not impose significant adverse impacts on overall environmental health and therefore on the
communities that rely upon it. We would expect to see that water discharged into a waterway
meets licence conditions and environmental risks are appropriately managed.
46. Sewerage discharge into waterways meets licensed conditions
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s NPRs for urban water utilities (e.g. NWC 2014d).
Urbanisation places pressure on wastewater and stormwater systems and can increase pollutant
loads entering waterways. While many factors contribute to urban waterway health, the urban
water sector’s main impacts arise from sewage spills and the management of stormwater.
Sewage spills pose public health and environmental risks.
Utilities have generally improved their performance in managing discharges from sewage
treatment facilities. In 2012–13, 23 utilities recorded an increase in the number of sewer overflows
reported to the environmental regulator and 28 recorded a decrease. The overall median
increased marginally. Different states and territories have different licensing arrangements and
requirements for reporting to their environmental regulators. Therefore, this indicator is not directly
comparable across jurisdictions.
420
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Table D21: Sewer main breaks and chokes (no. per 100km sewer main) (NWC 2014d)
Size group
100 000+
connected
properties
50 000 to 100 000
connected
properties
20 000 to 50 000
connected
properties
10 000 to 20 000
Number of utilities
with increase /
decrease from
2011–12
Range
High
Low
57
12
SA Water
(Adelaide)
Logan
54
3
Coliban
Water
% change
in the
median
from
2011–12
Median
Increase
Decrease
2011–12
2012–13
4
5
25
25
–1%
4
7
18
16
–10%
10
5
12
16
30%
10
11
20
21
6%
28
48
20
19
–2%
Townsville
88
2
Wagga
Wagga (S)
Tweed
128
5
connected
properties
Essential
Energy
All size groups
128
Westernport
Water
2
Tweed
Essential
Energy
The combination of higher treatment standards and recycling targets has also led to
improvements in the quality of discharged wastewater. In collaboration with communities,
catchment managers and local governments, utilities are increasingly using recycling of
stormwater and wastewater as an alternative to traditional asset management and pollution
prevention approaches.
Change in environmental conditions is reported
This outcome focuses on ensuring that there is sufficient information to determine whether the
desired changes have occurred. The ‘best‑available information’ enabler is critical to its
achievement.
47. Proportion of water plans where monitoring, evaluation and reporting on progress
towards environmental outcomes has been undertaken
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e).
There is evidence that jurisdictions are undertaking hydrological monitoring (including streamflow
and groundwater level monitoring). There is less evidence that ecological monitoring is being
undertaken, with many plans relying on streamflow or water level monitoring to measure progress
towards meeting environmental outcomes. Monitoring is not always aligned to high‑level
environmental outcomes and does not feed effectively into reporting and evaluation of plan
performance.
National Water Commission
421
Figure D37: Number of water plans assessed for the National Water Planning Report Card
2013 that include detailed monitoring plans and have evidence of environmental
monitoring being undertaken (unpublished data NWC 2014e)
140
Number of plans
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
48. Proportion of water plans where monitoring, evaluation and reporting demonstrates
progress towards environmental objectives has been achieved
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e). There has been an increase in the availability of monitoring data and of
evidence that jurisdictions are implementing plan management arrangements and actions;
however, there is limited evidence that environmental outcomes have been achieved. In some
plans, detailed assessment of progress towards environmental objectives is not undertaken until
plan review (i.e. after five or 10 years of implementation).
Figure D38: Number of water plans assessed for the National Water Planning Report Card
2013 that demonstrate evidence of achievement of environmental outcomes (unpublished
data NWC 2014e)
140
Number of plans
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
Note: The high number of ‘not applicable’ assessments reflects the fact that several plans have only recently been finalised and
so it is too early to report on outcome achievement.
422
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Water supports people and communities
This section of Appendix D summarises the findings for each performance indicator under the
broad outcome of Water supports people and communities and provides a snapshot of the data
used for the assessment. Major sources of information to support the analyses and interpretation
are the Regional Wellbeing Survey, Marsden Jacob’s social impact analysis report, and Frontier
Economics’ urban water review. Data have also been drawn from the Commission’s
environmental water management reports, urban NPRs and national water planning report cards
(e.g. NWC 2011c; 2013a; 2014a,c,d,e).
Water supports community wellbeing
Communities provide input on their priorities and goals
The biennial assessment 2011 identified minimum and desired mechanisms for incorporating
community and individual views into water planning arrangements and plan implementation.
These include:

gathering information on the values that communities and individuals place on water
resources

gathering information on (perceived community) impacts of proposed management
changes

allowing communities to provide input into decision‑making, such as via advisory
committees, public information meetings, conducting targeted consultations
reflecting community values within plans through plan social objectives
communities should be able to participate in water management decisions so they reflect
community needs and aspirations (this will ensure water is provided to match community
priorities, within the boundaries set by planning and availability).


49. Proportion of water plans developed through an adequate consultation process
A review of water plans (or planning arrangements) in the National Water Planning Report Card
2013 showed that a high proportion (77 per cent of those water planning arrangements assessed
nationally) were developed through an adequate stakeholder engagement process. To be
deemed adequate there needed to be evidence of stakeholder consultation being undertaken
during plan development and of stakeholders’ input being considered.
Figure D39: Number of water plans assessed for the National Water Planning Report Card
2013 as having adequate stakeholder engagement processes (NWC 2014e)
160
Number of plans
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
2011 (157 plans)
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
2013 (172 plans)
National Water Commission
423
The following provides a summary of jurisdictional stakeholder engagement processes taken from
the National Water Planning Report Card 2013:
New South Wales: Early water sharing plans used local water management committees to
develop draft plans and this process generally resulted in extensive community consultation. More
recent ‘macro’ water sharing plans have been developed by an Interagency Regional Panel and
engagement is supported by online documentation, targeted consultation, community meetings to
disseminate information, and public exhibition of draft water sharing rules. The recent 10‑year
review process undertaken by the Natural Resources Commission and NSW Office of Water
included a transparent public submissions process to gather feedback on plan performance.
Queensland: Stakeholder consultation processes are outlined in the Water Act 2000 (Qld) for
Water Resource Plans (WRP) and Resource Operation Plans (ROP). These processes include
the identification of stakeholders and steps to involve them at key stages of the planning process.
A consultation report, prepared once a WRP or ROP has been finalised, provides public feedback
on the issues raised and decisions taken. Consultation reports are retained on the Department of
Natural Resources and Mines website for a limited period and then removed. Recent changes to
the Act have enabled concurrent development of WRPs and ROPs, potentially increasing the
effectiveness of the consultation process. However, other changes have removed the requirement
to form community advisory committees and streamlined the replacement of WRPs in cases
where the replacement plan does not differ significantly from the original plan or arrangements
applying in other areas of Queensland. Public release of a draft replacement plan, followed by a
submissions process, is still required in all cases.
South Australia: Water allocation plans are developed through a comprehensive program of
stakeholder consultation and engagement. Engagement continues from plan pre‑development
through to plan finalisation and review, usually beyond the requirements of the Natural Resources
Management Act 2004 (SA). Stakeholder views are typically responded to and the trade‑offs
made between competing demands are embedded in water allocation plan provisions, although
these are not routinely transparently explained. Engagement with Indigenous groups to determine
Indigenous values is an emerging area.
Tasmania: Planning processes exhibit very effective stakeholder engagement strategies. This
comprises a number of formal and informal activities, including the formation of a consultative
group, which provides opportunities for all stakeholders to contribute to plan development. Key
Indigenous groups have been consulted in the development of newer plans and the public
submission process is open and transparent. Positive stakeholder relations have underpinned
some user‑driven initiatives in the planning process.
Victoria: The strategic frameworks for allocation and waterway health decisions are underpinned
by extensive engagement processes. There has been considerable stakeholder engagement in
the development and implementation of sustainable water strategies, waterway strategies and
management plans. Stakeholders are provided with opportunities to engage, either through
representative committees or public forums, and information is readily provided. Bulk entitlements
were developed using local community and interagency engagement.
Western Australia: Stakeholder engagement in water planning is outlined in policy and
undertaken through a variety of formats (including press releases, statements of intent, method
reports, newsletters, the public release of draft plans) and approaches (such as committees,
public forums and targeted consultation). Draft plans are released for a two‑ to three‑month
public comment period and formal submissions are invited. All submissions and responses are
summarised in a statement of response. For some water allocation plans information is available
in several languages and formats in an attempt to engage specific stakeholders. A considered
element of water allocation plans is targeted engagement of the Indigenous community.
424
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Northern Territory: While the Water Act 1992 (NT) provides for the formation of water advisory
committees, there is no legal requirement for consultation in preparing plans. To date the
development of draft water allocation plans (except for the Great Artesian Basin) has involved
substantial input from community‑based water advisory committees. These committees have
included Indigenous and other relevant stakeholders. Following the release of draft plans, further
community input has been sought through community meetings and submissions processes.
However it is unclear whether further consultation will be undertaken on the draft Alice Springs,
Oolloo and Mataranka plans.
Australian Capital Territory: Stakeholder engagement has occurred during all key stages of plan
development (e.g. pre‑plan consultation, public submissions on draft, feedback on trade‑off
decisions). Provisions of the Environmental Flow Guidelines also facilitate ongoing stakeholder
input and engagement occurs on other issues on an ad hoc basis (e.g. enlargement of Cotter
Dam). Stakeholder engagement was undertaken as part of the review of Think water, act water. In
preparing for Basin plan implementation, a strategy for Indigenous engagement is being
developed.
50. Community satisfaction with how rural water planning incorporates community views
This performance indicator has been developed using information from the Regional Wellbeing
Survey (Schirmer 2014, MDBA Futures 2014) and the workshops held by the Commission to
inform this report. This indicator examines whether members of rural communities feel that:
(i)
they can access information
(ii) they can communicate their views
(iii) their views will be listened to in discussions about water policy and reform.
The measurement of this indicator is limited by its focus on participation in discussions about the
Basin plan; many other water reform and policy discussions occur at multiple scales in rural and
regional communities, and a broader indicator should ideally be used in future to measure levels
of engagement in discussion about water‑related issues.
Confidence in ability to access information
A majority of people who felt the Basin plan would result in change for their household or
community, or who had views about the plan (referred to from this point as people with an ‘interest
in the plan’), felt able to access information about it. Confidence in ability was lower for dryland
farmers compared with irrigators and non‑farmers. Many more dryland farmers indicated they
didn’t know if they could access information compared with other groups, suggesting dryland
farmers with an interest in the plan are less likely than others to have sought information on it.
National Water Commission
425
Figure D40: Confidence in ability to access information about the Basin Plan reported by
people with an interest in the plan (Schirmer 2014)
100
% respondents
80
60
40
20
0
Irrigators
(n=724)
Dryland farmers
(n=1010)
Don't know
Neither agree or disagree
Non-farmers
(n=3003)
All respondents
(n=4737)
Agree that it is easy to access information
Disagree that it is easy to access information
Confidence in ability to have views about water policy and reform heard by
decision‑makers
This indicator examines whether people with an interest in the Basin plan feel confident that their
views will be listened to by decision‑makers if they choose to share them. Responses to this
question are complex to interpret. In particular, it is difficult to identify whether responses reflect
specific levels of trust in water reform decision‑makers or more general levels of trust in all
decision‑makers. To assist in understanding this, results are compared for a similar question
asking about coal seam gas and local decision‑making processes, rather than the Basin plan.
A majority of survey respondents with an interest in the Basin plan (58 per cent) disagreed that
their views about the plan would be listened to if they shared them. This compared to 65 per cent
of people with an interest in coal seam gas, and 38 per cent of people asked if they could
influence local decision‑making. These results suggest that there is an overall lack of trust in
decision‑makers, and that there is greater trust at more localised scales. When compared with
surveys that measure the level of trust people have generally in government, the results are
somewhat comparable. For example, in Australia in 2013, the Edelman trust barometer survey
(which sampled 1200 people across Australia asking if they trusted government to ‘do what is
right’) found that only 43 per cent of Australians trusted government. Thus the indicator results
are likely to be a consequence of (i) generalised distrust of government beyond the local scale,
irrespective of issue, as well as (ii) possibly some influence specifically related to water reform,
with the extent of this influence unable to be determined.
When data were examined by Basin region, state, and group, the only significant differences
identified were that (i) those living outside the Basin, and (ii) dryland farmers (irrespective of their
location) were more likely to report ‘don’t know’ when asked if their views would be listened to be
decision‑makers. At state level, 21 per cent of irrigators living in South Australia believe their
views would be listened to, compared with 12 per cent of all irrigators with an interest in the Basin
plan; other than this, no large differences were identified.
426
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Figure D41: Confidence that views will be listened to by decision‑makers for the Basin
Plan, coal seam gas, and local decision‑making (Schirmer 2014)
100
% respondents
80
60
40
20
0
Views about Basin Plan
will be listened to (n=4719)
Don't know
Neither agree or disagree
Views about CSG will be
listened to (n=1272)
Able to inluence local
decision making (n=8494)
Agree that views about this issue will be listened to by decision makers
Disagree that views about this issue will be listened to by decision makers
Commission workshops
The Commission held workshops in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western
Australia in 2013 to discuss and inform the 2014 triennial assessment. In particular, participants
were asked to voice their views on:

To what extent have community views been incorporated into water plans?

To what extent have community views been incorporated into urban water priorities?

Have water reforms contributed positively towards social wellbeing?
Workshop participant comments on these questions have been drawn together below to illustrate
a mixed response to whether communities are satisfied with the how their views are incorporated
into water planning and implementation processes.
New South Wales participants commented on the engagement during the development of the
Basin plan. The community felt the level of engagement during plan development had improved
over time, but had diminished since the plan commenced. The second iteration of the Basin plan
process was better than the first and started the process of rebuilding trust. However, some in the
community were doubtful that they influenced the plan’s development and felt the NSW water
sharing plan development processes were far better than the Basin plan process. Others felt the
Basin plan process was rushed, even though it took five years to get a Basin plan in place.
Queensland participants felt that engagement in South East Queensland was more about
effecting behavioural change, and had been successful in driving down per capita water use.
Participants felt that water planning processes had dragged on in some areas with the
development of ROPs lagging due to insufficient resources.
Western Australia workshop participants felt that in the past there had been a lack of
transparency in decision‑making processes and this was a significant barrier, however recent
changes had improved transparency. Water advisory groups are helping to get the community
involved, but participants commented that community involvement once the plan had been
activated reduced considerably. Workshop participants commented that the use of a stakeholder
reference group in the current reform process had been positive.
National Water Commission
427
51. Proportion of water plans including robust social assessment of likely impacts on the
local and broader communities
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e). Fifty‑eight per cent of water plans (or water planning arrangements)
assessed via the report cards had been developed using assessments of the community values
and attitudes to water in the plan area. Forty per cent of plans were evaluated as having assessed
community values and attitudes to water in the plan area to some extent.
Figure D42: Number of water plans that include an assessment of community values and
attitudes to water in the plan area (unpublished data NWC 2014e)
120
Number of plans
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
52. Proportion of water plans including social objectives
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e). Thirty per cent of water planning arrangements assessed via the report
cards included measurable social outcomes and outputs that could be assessed within the plan’s
timeframe. However a large proportion of plans (66 per cent) were found to have social
outcomes that were measurable only ‘to some extent’. Generally, consumptive uses such as town
water supply quantity and quality were well specified, while non‑consumptive uses such as
recreational fishing were described in broad terms only.
Figure D43: Number of water plans assessed for the National Water Planning Report Card
2013 that include measurable social outcomes and outputs (unpublished data NWC 2014e)
160
Number of plans
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
428
To some extent
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
Water is provided to meet community priorities where possible
To understand whether water is being provided to meet community priorities (where possible) we
investigated the following:

proportion of water planning arrangements that achieve the stated social outcomes

water reform contribution to social wellbeing

evaluation of changes in community wellbeing, structural change and community
measures.
53. Proportion of water plans that achieve the stated social outcomes
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
assessments of water plans in each jurisdiction for the series of national water planning report
cards (e.g. NWC 2014e). Of those plans assessed, only 10 per cent had demonstrated
achievement of their stated social outcomes, taking into account the reporting period for the plan.
In addition, only 14 per cent of plans were assessed as having their social outcomes adequately
monitored with the majority assessed as only being monitored ‘to some extent’.
Figure D44: Number of water plans assessed for the National Water Planning Report Card
2013 that demonstrated achievement of social outcomes (unpublished data NWC 2014e)
120
Number of plans
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
Figure D45: Number of water plans assessed for the National Water Planning Report Card
2013 as having adequate monitoring for social outcomes (unpublished data NWC 2014e)
140
Number of plans
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Yes
To some extent
No
Unable to assess
Not applicable
National Water Commission
429
54. Water reform contribution towards social wellbeing
Two sources of evidence were used to report against this performance indicator. The first relates
to an indicator from the Regional Wellbeing Survey that examines whether residents of
communities exposed to differing levels of water reform in recent years report differing levels of
individual and community wellbeing (Schirmer 2014). The second source of information comes
from Commission workshops used to inform the Triennial Assessment.
Wellbeing of communities exposed to differing levels of water reform
This indicator was measured by examining whether individual wellbeing and community wellbeing
differ depending on the exposure of a community to water reform. Exposure to water reform is
made up of two elements: the overall dependence of a community on irrigation (higher
dependence increases the potential effect of any water reform on the entire community), and the
extent to which various actions forming part of water reform have occurred in that community in
recent years. The measure ultimately chosen was one based on expert assessment of extent of
exposure to water reform in recent years, including exposure to changes in water trading
regulation, water recovery, and investment in infrastructure upgrade.
In general, communities located in the southern Basin had greater exposure to these reforms in
recent years, those in the northern Basin moderate exposure, and those outside the Basin low
exposure. However, in South Australia exposure to water reform processes was considered lower
in recent years compared with other parts of the southern Basin.
Individual wellbeing was measured based on the level of satisfaction a person had in multiple
dimensions of their life, as measured by the Life Satisfaction Index described in Schirmer and
Berry (2014). Community wellbeing was measured using the process described in the indicator
‘Confidence in future of rural communities and in water supply’.
Figure D46: Average individual and community wellbeing reported by residents living in
communities with high, medium and low exposure to water reform in recent years
(Schirmer 2014)
7
Average Life Satisfaction
(measured /100)
70
69
69
6
69
60
50
5.0
5.0
4.9
4
40
3
30
2
20
1
10
0
0
Average for all communities with
high exposure to water reform
Average for all communities with
medium exposure to water reform
Average individual wellbeing – Life Satisfaction Index
430
5
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Average for all communities with
low exposure to water reform
Average community wellbeing
Average wellbeing (measured /7)
80
No correlation was identified between the extent of water reform a community experienced in
recent years, and either the (i) wellbeing of individuals who responded to the survey in that
community, or (ii) the assessment individuals made of the overall wellbeing and future of their
community. This finding does not mean that water reform has no effect on the wellbeing of
individuals or communities. Instead, it means that the effects of water reform are not readily
observed at an aggregate level, as any effect is obscured by the influence of the multiple other
factors that influence the wellbeing of individuals and communities. More nuanced indicators are
needed to be able to observe the extent of any effect water reform does have on individual and
community wellbeing.
Commission workshops
The Commission held workshops in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and Western
Australia in 2013 to discuss and inform the 2014 triennial assessment. In particular, participants
were asked to voice their views on whether water reforms contributed positively towards social
wellbeing, particularly in relation to:

water for the environment

trading of water rights

separation of water entitlements from land

investment confidence.
New South Wales workshop participants felt in relation to NWI water reform and social benefits
that some communities had fared better than others. For example, social costs and environmental
benefits may not be aligned geographically; that is, one particular community loses water to
achieve an environmental outcome downstream. Some pointed to water trade as a water reform
action with the biggest impact on social wellbeing. Some participants felt it had divided
communities where others felt it was well accepted within communities. Others felt it was hard to
differentiate between the impacts of water reform in general from the impact of drought followed
by good rain. Many felt that reforms had helped resolve overallocation issues. Participants felt
urban water reform benefits to a community were hard to identify. Participants felt the community
was very concerned for its wellbeing. They noted that in some towns, shops and services were
closing and populations were declining. In terms of community cohesion, water trading had tended
to divide communities while battling the Basin plan had brought people together. They felt that
community leadership was an important determinant of social outcomes and this was why some
communities had fared better than others.
Queensland workshop participants felt water reform had prevented problems from occurring and
therefore it was hard for people to appreciate the benefits of reforms without the counterfactual.
They noted that water trading had helped resolve the issues around how much water to allocate to
agriculture and how much to mining. Trading within sectors is now well accepted, however trading
between sectors is more contentious. Many noted that separation of water entitlements from land
had not happened in all areas. Where it had, entitlements had enabled a clear description of the
water asset. Participants agreed that water reforms had also helped resolve overallocation issues
in the Balonne, where transparency of the planning process has been evident. There was support
for Cape York water resource planning and many commented that it would be interesting to see if
NWI principles would apply in the new Cape York arrangements. Participants felt the key issue in
northern Australia is that ‘water planning isn’t broken, but it’s important not to repeat the mistakes
of the south’. They felt it was hard to identify an urban benefit from water reform. Focus in north
Queensland is more on water quality.
Western Australian participants had not had the benefit of the full suite of reforms yet. They
noted that allocation plans had provided a good basis for economic development and there was
limited trading to date (about 100 trades over the last four to five years).
National Water Commission
431
Community acceptance of different water policy measures
This indicator measured how acceptable communities find the different policy measures used to
achieve water reform/policy objectives. It specifically examines how acceptable or unacceptable
the following policies are:





reducing the total amount of water that farmers can take out of rivers for irrigation
investing in projects that reduce water use in rural communities, e.g. water saving
technologies
making it easier for irrigators to trade water
using water for environmental watering
governments purchasing water from farmers.
While many of these actions are related, they were considered separately as they represent
different methods used to achieve water reform objectives. This indicator helps identify the extent
to which water reform and policy is likely to influence community wellbeing, or to result in
community division. Policies considered highly unacceptable may have a negative influence on
community wellbeing, and those about which there is a diversity of views may have potential to
trigger community division.
There are clear differences in views about the acceptability of different actions used by
governments and other stakeholders as part of water reform processes. For most, the
acceptability of the action differs for irrigators, dryland farmers, and non‑farmers. The action that
is most uniformly considered acceptable is improving water use efficiency.
The next most acceptable reform action was making water trade easier, followed by
environmental watering. But there was large variation in the views of different groups: 60 per cent
of non‑farmers found environmental watering acceptable, compared with 36 per cent of dryland
farmers and 28 per cent of irrigators. Government purchasing water from irrigators was
considered less acceptable by most, with one third or less of each group reporting it as
acceptable. Reducing the volume of irrigation water available to irrigators was least acceptable to
irrigators, while some non‑farmers and dryland farmers found it acceptable.
432
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Figure D47: Proportion of non‑farmers, dryland farmers, and irrigators who found different actions
associated with water reform acceptable and unacceptable (Schirmer 2014)
100
90
80
% respondents
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Reducing
Reducing
Reducing
irrigation water
irrigation
irrigation water
– non-farmers water – dryland
– irrigators
(n=2590) farmers (n=418)
(n=252)
Improving
water use
eficiency –
non-farmers
(n=2592)
Improving
water use
eficiency –
dryland farmers
(n=416)
Don't know
Improving
water use
eficiency
– irrigators
(n=252)
Making
water trade
easier –
non-farmers
(n=2588)
Making water
trade easier
– dryland
farmers
(n=410)
Neither acceptable or unacceptable
Making water
trade easier –
irrigators
(n=249)
Environmental Environmental Environmental
watering –
watering –
watering –
non-farmers dryland farmers
irrigators
(n=2581)
(n=414)
(n=252)
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Government
purchasing
water
– nonfarmers
(n=2582)
Government
purchasing
water – dryland
farmers
(n=414)
Government
purchasing
water
– irrigators
(n=249)
National Water Commission
407
Views varied considerably by region. Key findings from the analysis by region are that:

Reducing water availability for irrigation was considered most acceptable by people living
outside the Basin, and in South Australia; and least acceptable by residents of the
northern Basin.

Increasing water use efficiency was considered almost uniformly acceptable across all
regions.

Making water trade easier was considered most acceptable in the southern Basin (and
particularly in South Australia and Victoria), and least acceptable outside the Basin. This
suggests that those who have greater experience of and opportunity for water trade are
more likely to find it acceptable compared with those with less experience or opportunity.

Environmental watering was considered more acceptable by those living outside the
Basin than those living within it. Within the Basin, environmental watering was
considered more acceptable by those living in the southern Basin than the northern
Basin; this likely reflects the views largely of those southern Basin residents living in
South Australia and Victoria, who were more accepting of environmental watering than
those living in New South Wales.

Governments purchasing water from irrigators was considered more acceptable by
non‑farmers and irrigators living in South Australia and Victoria compared with those
living in New South Wales, while dryland farmers in most regions except New South
Wales found this action less acceptable than other groups.
Figure D48: Proportion of respondents who believed it was acceptable to reduce the total
amount of water that farmers can take out of rivers for irrigation, by location within and
outside the Basin, and by state (Schirmer 2014)
60
% respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Northern
Basin
(n= 66,
139, 525)
Southern
Basin
(n= 138,
115, 1331)
Outside
All
Basin
respondents
(n= 48, 161, (n= 252,
728)
418, 2590)
Irrigators
NSW
(n= 118,
160, 1262)
Dryland farmers
QLD
(n= 33,
68, 222)
SA
(n= 44,
28, 308)
VIC
(n= 51,
116, 495)
WA
(n=
4,
44, 251)
Non-farmers
Note: Region, and number of respondents from region who were (i) irrigators, (ii) dryland farmers, and (iii) nonfarmers indicated by numbers following 'n='. No data are shown for groups where there were <40 respondents.
434
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Figure D49: Proportion of respondents who believed it was acceptable to invest in projects
that reduce water use in rural communities such as water saving technologies, by location
within and outside the Basin, and by state (Schirmer 2014)
100
% respondents
80
60
40
20
0
Northern
Basin
(n= 66,
138, 525)
Southern
Basin
(n= 138,
115, 1332)
Outside All respondents
NSW
Basin
(n= 252,
(n= 118,
(n= 48,
416, 2592) 159, 1264)
160, 729)
Irrigators
Dryland farmers
QLD
(n= 33,
68, 221)
SA
(n= 44,
28, 309)
VIC
(n= 51,
115, 494)
WA
(n=
4,
44, 252)
Non-farmers
Note: No data are shown for groups where there were <40 respondents.
Figure D50: Proportion of respondents who believed it was acceptable to make it easier for
irrigators to trade water, by location within and outside the Basin, and by state (Schirmer
2014)
80
70
% respondents
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Northern
Basin
(n= 65,
135, 524)
Southern
Basin
(n= 137,
116, 1331)
Outside All respondents
NSW
Basin
(n= 249,
(n= 115,
(n= 47,
410, 2588) 158, 1261)
156, 728)
Irrigators
Dryland farmers
QLD
(n= 33,
64, 222)
SA
(n= 43,
28, 308)
VIC
(n= 52,
115, 494)
WA
(n=
4,
43, 252)
Non-farmers
Note: No data are shown for groups where there were <40 respondents.
National Water Commission
435
Figure D51: Proportion of respondents who believed it was acceptable to use water for
environmental watering, by location within and outside the Basin, and by state (Schirmer
2014)
70
% respondents
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Northern
Basin
(n= 65,
137, 524)
Southern
Basin
(n= 139,
117, 1325)
Outside All respondents
NSW
Basin
(n= 252,
(n= 117,
(n= 48,
414, 2581) 160, 1260)
157, 726)
Irrigators
Dryland farmers
QLD
(n= 33,
66, 221)
SA
(n= 44,
27, 306)
VIC
(n= 52,
115, 492)
WA
(n=
4,
44, 250)
Non-farmers
Note: No data are shown for groups where there were <40 respondents.
Figure D52: Proportion of respondents who believed it was acceptable for governments to
purchase water from farmers, by location within and outside the Basin, and by state
(Schirmer 2014)
60
% respondents
50
40
30
20
10
0
Northern
Basin
(n= 65,
137, 522)
Southern
Basin
(n= 136,
116, 1327)
Outside All respondents
NSW
Basin
(n= 249,
(n= 117,
(n= 48,
414, 2582) 159, 1262)
158, 727)
Irrigators
Dryland farmers
Note: No data are shown for groups where there were <40 respondents.
436
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
QLD
(n= 33,
66, 219)
SA
(n= 42,
27, 304)
Non-farmers
VIC
(n= 51,
116, 495)
WA
(n=
4,
44, 251)
55. Evaluation of changes in community wellbeing, structural change, and community
measures
The Commission engaged Marsden Jacob Associates to analyse the social impact of the NWI
(Marsden Jacob and Associates 2013). For the analysis 20 case study communities were
selected based on how affected the communities have been by national water reform, measured
by how long key water reform instruments were implemented in those regions. Using this
approach, it is expected that greater change would be observed in communities that are more
water dependent, and where water reforms have been implemented. This approach has been
used by ABARES and the MDBA as one way to investigate how Basin communities may be
impacted by Basin plan water reforms, and the community resources they have to adapt to these
water reforms (Stenekes, Reeve, Kancans, Stayner, Randall, & Lawson, 2012). The Commission
has also used this approach previously to understand how water trading in the southern Basin has
contributed to community‑level social and economic impacts.
These 20 ‘water reform impacted’ communities were compared with non‑metropolitan
communities across each State and the Northern Territory using three population bands: <10,000;
10–20,000, and >20,000 persons. The comparator communities are, in aggregate by population
band and jurisdiction, considered to have been relatively less impacted by water reforms than the
case study communities. The comparisons showed no clearly discernible differences on available
measures of community socio‑economic performance. The results show that, during the past
decade, most of the 20 case study communities have:

maintained or grown their populations

maintained diverse economies that are showing stability over time

maintained rates of unemployment and underemployment

reported high levels of self‑scored life and community satisfaction.
While the socio‑economic condition of 16 of the 20 communities had declined marginally over
time based on measures of socio‑economic advantage and disadvantage, the evaluation
suggests these declines cannot be directly attributed to water reforms, and are more likely caused
by regional factors and patterns of regional to urban migration.
There is no strong relationship between the incidence of water reform and performance on a
range of socio‑economic measures. Communities with water reforms have comparable
performance to state comparison communities of similar population sizes on measures like
population change, socio‑economic condition, structural change and personal wellbeing
measures, and show similar trends of change over time.
Where communities are changing in ways that are different to state trends, these movements are
more likely to be caused by non‑water reform factors, such as the mining boom, regional
economic and social conditions, and regional to urban migration. Water reform and water
dependency do not seem to play a significant role at the regional level.
Water resources provide for Indigenous requirements
Indigenous Australians have unique and permanent ties to rivers and water resources across
Australia for cultural, social and economic purposes. The need to better understand the interests
and rights of Indigenous people to access and manage water resources is a requirement to which
all jurisdictions subscribe through their commitment to the NWI.
To track national progress of Indigenous involvement in water planning, the Commission explored
three performance indicators to understand jurisdictional progress in implementing the NWI
provisions relating to Indigenous requirements for water. The Commission’s Review of Indigenous
involvement in water planning 2013 (NWC 2014f) investigated the extent of Indigenous water
allocation and access in water plans and the
National Water Commission
437
following provides a summary of findings against the three areas explored. Information was also
drawn from a number of other reports including the National Water Planning Report Card 2013,
Indigenous access position statement and Environmental Water Management Review 2014 (e.g.
NWC 2012c; 2014a,e).
56. Water access provisions of jurisdictional water planning arrangements
Australian Capital Territory: There are no mechanisms to allocate water specifically to
Indigenous purposes.
Murray–Darling Basin: In accordance with the Basin plan, water resource plans in the Basin
states need to identify Indigenous cultural objectives and outcomes based on Indigenous values
and uses in relation to managing water. Plans need to also be prepared having regard to the
views of Indigenous people with respect to cultural flows. Further, water resource plans must
consider native title rights and claims, Indigenous Land Use Agreements, Indigenous heritage,
and risks to the protection of Indigenous values and uses arising from the use and management
of water. Indigenous representation in the preparation and implementation of plans is also
required.
New South Wales: In general New South Wales has fully allocated systems which provide
challenges for Indigenous communities to gain access to water. Most water plans have allocation
for Indigenous people and need to provide water for native title where a positive determination
prescribes it. In 2012 New South Wales established an Aboriginal water unit, which is a positive
step to assist in meeting the objects of the Water Management Act 2000 (NSW). Two types of
Indigenous Specific Purpose licences are available under the Water Management Act: cultural
access licences and community development licences. Cultural access licences, active for the life
of the cultural purpose, are capped at 10 ML per year per application and cannot be traded. There
are two cultural access licences in New South Wales, one for the Dorrigo Plateau and one for the
Murrumbidgee. The full allocation under the Murrumbidgee licence is 2150 ML and has been used
to water a culturally significant wetland managed by the Nari Nari Tribal Council.
Community development licences are also available under water sharing plans in order to support
the commercial enterprises owned by Indigenous people (e.g. Dorrigo Water Sharing Plan). The
commercial licences come with restrictions, including being non‑tradeable and pumping
restrictions depending on flows. A community development licence has been granted to the
Stuarts Point community near Kempsey for a native flower business but is currently inactive. The
Barwon‑Darling Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources Water Sharing Plan also allows
supplementary (Aboriginal environmental) water access licences to be granted. These access
licences allow Indigenous persons and communities to extract water to fill lagoons and billabongs
to improve or restore their cultural and environmental value. Supplementary (Aboriginal
environmental) access licences can be granted up to a total volume of 500 ML per year across the
water source.
Northern Territory: The desired outcome for Indigenous people generally is for an identified
allocation of water to a Strategic Indigenous Reserve (SIR) for economic purposes in all water
plans. The SIR is defined as a perpetual, exclusive and inalienable right to a share of water
available for consumption in surface and groundwater systems. These water rights would be
specifically set aside for activities that contribute to Indigenous prosperity and be held and
managed by traditional owners across northern Australia. In relation to water for Indigenous
economic development, the Tindall Limestone Aquifer Water Allocation Plan in Katherine provides
for an SIR contingent on successful native title determination. The plan states that if native title is
recognised within five years of the plan, the Controller must amend it to account for a volume of
water for Indigenous commercial development. Other than the Tindall Plan, water is not ‘reserved’
in the Northern Territory. The Tindall Limestone Aquifer (Katherine) plan is due for review in 2014
and it is unclear whether the SIR provisions will remain, given the Northern Territory
Government’s announcement that SIRs will no longer be included in its water plans.
438
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
The Northern Australian Indigenous Land and Sea Management Alliance and the Northern Land
Council have most recently been working with Mataranka traditional owners to discuss the
potential opportunity for an Indigenous allocation of water for commercial purposes within the
Mataranka Water Allocation Plan. The Mataranka Traditional Owners Water Allocation Plan
Reference Group had hoped to secure a guaranteed proportion of local water for future economic
development. Traditional owners have also been involved in lobbying for a percentage of the
water allocation for the Oolloo Aquifer to be used for water trading and future economic
development.
Queensland: In Queensland, an Indigenous reserve provides communities with access to water
for economic or social benefit. For example, the recently commenced Water Resource (Wet
Tropics) Plan 2013 provides Indigenous reserves to make water available to Indigenous
communities in the plan area to achieve their economic and social aspirations. In addition,
Indigenous water reserves to meet economic and social needs are identified in the following water
resource plans: Water Resource (Cooper Creek) Plan 2011 (200 ML per year), Water Resource
(Gulf) Plan 2007 (5050 ML per year), Water Resources (Mitchell) Plan 2007 (5000 ML per year),
Water Resource (Fitzroy) Plan 2011 (15,000 ML per year). Overall it appears the amount of water
allocated is small and it is unclear whether these amounts will be sufficient to meet economic and
social needs.
South Australia: The main sources of state NRM boards’ funding are from the South Australian
Government, the Australian Government and income from state levies. An example of Australian
Government funding assistance relates to a grant from the Caring for our Country scheme, which
has enabled the Alinytjara Wilurara NRM Board to invest in community engagement projects,
although the scope of the projects has covered wider issues than just water. However, funding
sources to assist Indigenous people to participate in water planning in South Australia are
variable. As an illustration, the South East NRM Board had previously funded a Caring for our
Country scheme to support the activities of the South East Aboriginal Focus Group in further
discussing cultural water needs with the community, in particular reaching a consensus that could
inform water policy and future implementation. However, in the 2013–14 business plan the board
noted uncertainty about the future funding from this source and that a portion of the project would
be funded from internal sources unless external funds could be accessed.
Tasmania: There are no legislative mechanisms to allocate water specifically to Indigenous
purposes. At present, none of the water management plans or draft plans contain
Indigenous‑specific aspirations.
Victoria: There are currently no Indigenous water allocations in Victoria. Water access has been
provided primarily through the native title process. Most recently, the Traditional Owner
Settlement Act 2010 provides for an out‑of‑court settlement of native title and delivery of land
justice and may allow for members of a traditional owner group with a natural resource
agreement under the Act to take and use water from a waterway or bore for traditional
(non‑commercial) purposes. For example, the first comprehensive settlement negotiated under
the Act gives the Dja Dja Wurrung the right to take and use water from a waterway or bore where
the Dja Dja Wurrung member has access to a waterway or bore according to the private domestic
and stock water rights set in the Victorian Water Act or to take and use water, for traditional
purposes, from a waterway or bore for the purposes of providing for any personal, domestic or
non‑commercial communal needs of its members. Traditional owners played a part in contributing
to the development of the Victorian Water Management Strategy. The strategy recognises the
intrinsic connection to Country of Aboriginal communities and seeks to improve their participation
in waterway management at a level that reflects their rights and interests. The strategy supports
strengthened partnerships with traditional owners and the provision of specific capacity building
opportunities to enable more effective water management participation. It recognises, among
other indicators, the significance of cultural values in determining high‑value
National Water Commission
439
waterways and the aspirations of Indigenous communities to protect the environment and improve
their future economic and social wellbeing. Under the strategy, the primary purpose of
environmental entitlements is to achieve environmental benefit, however where consistent with
these achievements, environmental water managers must also consider whether social and
cultural benefits can be met.
Western Australia: At present, there are no statutory mechanisms for allocating water specifically
to Indigenous purposes. The only current reservation policy is for public drinking water. Water
plans consider in situ non‑consumptive water needs for Indigenous cultural benefit where
relevant. In situ water is not allocated and therefore left to meet cultural needs. No plans provide
specifically for economic water, but Indigenous commercial interests may be met through the
licensing process or through native title provision.
57. Environmental water takes account of opportunities to provide for cultural outcomes
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s Review of Indigenous involvement in water planning 2013, National Water Planning
Report Card 2013 and Environmental Water Management Report 2014 (NWC 2014a,e,f).
For many Indigenous communities, cultural and social aspirations are closely linked with riparian
sites of cultural significance and also with aquatic resources and species for subsistence and
customary purposes. While some advances have been made in understanding these
requirements, most water plans still make the assumption that water for the environment will
deliver non‑consumptive cultural and social outcomes for Indigenous communities. Species of
importance scientifically or to peak groups such as recreational fishers or tourism, may not align
with those required by traditional owners for food or ceremonial purposes. While there is still more
work to be undertaken to demonstrate the ability of environmental water to deliver outcomes for
Indigenous customary and social objectives, there are some good initiatives that draw together
information for use by water planners and managers and commence progress towards this
objective.
The Basin plan’s Environmental Watering Plan framework provides opportunities for cultural
outcomes to be considered in environmental watering plans. Each year the MDBA must identify
important environmental watering activities or priorities that will influence Basin‑scale outcomes.
For Indigenous cultural outcomes, the MDBA must prepare the Basin plan’s annual environmental
watering priorities having regard to Indigenous values and Indigenous uses. The MDBA must
consult with the Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN) and the Northern
Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN) when setting Basin‑wide annual environmental watering
priorities. Basin states will also consult with Indigenous communities on their long‑term
environmental watering plans.
The Aboriginal Water Initiative being undertaken by the NSW Office of Water seeks to ensure
ongoing effective statewide and regional engagement with Indigenous communities in water
sharing plans. Building on earlier Australian Government‑funded work to collect data on
water‑dependent cultural assets to inform decision‑making, the project will deliver the Aboriginal
Water Initiative System (AWIS). To uphold and respect Indigenous custom and tradition,
information will be held at a range of secure levels in the database to contribute to the
development of water sharing plans in New South Wales.
Many jurisdictions have developed Indigenous heritage registers which provide information on
sites of cultural significance. To respect Indigenous customs, these data are often only available
internally to government but they can provide baseline information for water planners and
managers to contribute to water planning and management processes. Ongoing local
collaboration with Indigenous communities is critical to fully appreciate and understand
prioritisation of significant cultural sites.
440
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
58. Indigenous communities realise economic benefits from commercial Indigenous water
licences
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s Review of Indigenous involvement in water planning 2013 (NWC 2014f). The
review found there had been little or no uptake of Indigenous‑specific licences for cultural and
economic development since 2010. There are substantial challenges for Indigenous communities
in benefiting economically from commercial Indigenous water licences.
New South Wales demonstrates some of the main challenges. Competition for water is high and
there is recognition that reliance on native title is not sufficient. Measures such as cultural and
commercial licences offer other options, however these measures are limited in scope and, aside
from the cultural water access licence granted in 2005 in the Murrumbidgee, there are currently no
active cultural or community development licences.
The costs associated with obtaining and operating a licence are significant barriers for many
Indigenous communities. Not only are costs associated with licence generation and the purchase
of a volume of water, there is considerable cost to develop appropriate infrastructure such as
dams and machinery to effectively utilise the resource. Also flagged is the challenge for traditional
owners, particularly in remote communities, of awareness that a potential opportunity exists. The
recent waiver by the New South Wales Government of fees for the purchase of
Indigenous‑specific water licences is a positive initiative.
Water quality is safe for its intended use
Water for human health meets minimum standards
This outcome focuses on the issue of water being safe for human health. Two key elements
contribute to water safety:

Regulation at the state and territory level, which sets standards and mandates a
risk‑based approach with strict tolerance levels. These regulations require service
providers to deliver frequent and transparent reports on water quality standards;

Risk management planning that is undertaken by service providers. This risk
management makes providers accountable for water quality and is monitored closely.
59. Water for human health meets minimum standards
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s National Performance Report 2012–13: urban water utilities and the
Productivity Commission’s 2011 report on Australia’s urban water sector (PC 2011).
Across all metropolitan water utilities small and large, the median percentage of population for
which microbiological compliance was achieved was 100 per cent which was unchanged from
2011–12.
Large water utilities’ performance against the 2004 drinking water guidelines was excellent for four
years from 2007–08. Smaller utilities also performed well. Only three utilities, Ben Lomond in
Tasmania and Clarence Valley and Tamworth in New South Wales, reported less than 99 per cent
compliance with microbial limits (97 per cent, 73 per cent and 99 per cent respectively).
National Water Commission
441
Table D22: Percentage of population for which microbiological compliance was achieved
(NWC 2014d)
Size group
100 000+
Range
High
Low
100
100
Multiple
Multiple
utilities
utilities
100
97
Number of utilities
with increase /
decrease from
2011–12
Increase
Decrease
Median
2011–12
2012–13
% change
in the
total from
2011–12
0
0
100
100
0%
4
1
100
100
0%
1
3
100
100
0%
0
0
100
100
0%
5
4
100
100
0%
connected
properties
50 000 to 100 000
connected
properties
20 000 to 50 000
connected
properties
10 000 to 20 000
connected
properties
All size groups
Multiple
Ben Lomond
utilities
Water
100
73
Multiple
utilities
Clarence
100
100
Multiple
utilities
Multiple
utilities
100
Multiple
utilities
Valley
73
Clarence
Valley
A number of submissions to the Commission expressed concern that many regional and remote
communities face constrained financial resources and skills to ensure safe drinking water. Some
regional utilities have also been faced with the prospect of trucking in water supplies. This can be
attributed to a range of issues including economies of scale, large geographic distances to cover
and lower customer base that is sensitive to price increases. Recovering the full cost of services
in these regions has been found to increase prices and in turn impact on the cost of living
expenses for lower income houses.
In some cases, it may not be realistic for smaller regional utilities to recover the full cost of water
and sewerage services and subsidisation may always be required. To address this scenario, the
Productivity Commission suggested that state and territory governments should subsidise the
provision of water supply and wastewater services in regional areas where it is uneconomic for
the utility to provide these services safely and efficiently.
The lack of transparency in the economic regulation of smaller, local government‑owned utilities
and the financial constraints being experienced by these agencies has flow‑on impacts to
business sustainability, including attracting the necessary technical, managerial, financial and
governance skills to ensure efficient and effective service delivery.
Regional water utilities will always face their own range of complex economic, demographic and
geographic challenges, and there is no ‘one‑size‑fits‑all’ solution to addressing these issues. In
certain cases there may be no solution, as some of these issues reflect the reality of water supply
and wastewater service provision in regional areas, and will not be removed or even alleviated via
reform.
442
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
60. Risk to the quality of supplies are appropriately managed
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from the
Commission’s National Performance Report 2012–13: urban water utilities (NWC 2014d).
Managing the associated risks to public health and the environment has required new science,
new technologies and new approaches to regulation and policy. State and territory governments
have responded in various ways to meet the challenges including implementing risk‑management
frameworks in water quality legislation and increased collaboration through catchment planning.
Central to progress in managing human health risks has been the development and review of the
Australian Drinking Water Guidelines (2004) and Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling (2006,
2007 and 2009). Published by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and
signed off by all state and territory governments, the guidelines provide the framework for
managing drinking water to ensure its safety, including from stormwater and recycled water.
Australia’s regulatory arrangements for maintaining water quality in our drinking supplies have
been effective. The findings from recent industry assessments of urban water utilities highlight
that:

Australia’s performance in providing safe drinking water remains high. In 2011–12, 92
per cent of water utilities across Australia reported 100 per cent compliance with relevant
microbiological standards.

Data for smaller utilities in regional areas suggests that compliance with drinking water
standards has been less consistent. Submissions received for the Commission’s review
of urban water suggests the level of treatment is far below the level of treatment in major
towns and cities.

The focus of governments and the industry is now to reduce regulatory inefficiencies as
fragmentation and duplication of regulations still poses challenges for some water
providers.
Water that is provided is fit for purpose
This outcome focuses on the provision of water that is of a quality that is appropriate for its
intended purpose. This includes ensuring that there is a choice of water types, requiring
appropriate investment and infrastructure, which is priced according to cost of delivery. This will
allow people and communities to make decisions to match their aspirations.
61. Choice in water supply options offered
The information for evaluating progress against this performance indicator comes from Frontier
Economic’s review of urban water customer choice options, policy drivers and regulatory
instruments (Frontier Economics 2013).
Since microeconomic reforms dating back to the mid‑1990s, there has been a gradual widening
of the options open to urban water users, as well as moves towards consulting customers to
ascertain their views and preferences. Key drivers of this growing interest in the scope for
expanding choice include:

reforms in other utility sectors generating debate among policymakers

changing culture in the industry

emerging technological developments allowing alternative sources of water

growing demand by communities to be consulted on issues affecting the local
environment and liveability
National Water Commission
443


reaction against centrally determined supply augmentations undertaken with little or no
public consultation and now impacting on people’s water bills
land development demands.
Frontier Economics found that customers have some choice over the quantity of services provided
by their monopoly water supplier by conserving water, installing water efficient appliances, or
installing water tanks, while industrial customers may have some ability to undertake on‑site
treatment of trade waste. In general, there has been a move towards more cost‑reflective tariffs in
the water sector across Australia, which should help to ensure that the most cost‑effective
solutions are adopted.
Although there has been considerable public discussion of tariff choices for customers, there is
little evidence that such options have been implemented in practice. To date there is no evidence
of an urban water supplier offering a differing level of security product for a different price,
although in recent years there does appear to be a greater range of billing and customer service
options emerging as some urban water businesses seek to take a greater customer focus. One
notable area relates to different billing arrangements and online management of customers’ water
accounts. The scope for offering differentiated or non‑standard services appears to be particularly
relevant for larger non‑residential customers.
Another form of choice that may be able to be offered to individual customers by the incumbent
water supplier is an alternative product or source of supply (e.g. an option to take recycled water
as an alternative to or partial substitute for potable water supply). In recent years there has been
a significant increase in the supply of recycled water as an alternative to potable water for some
customers. There have been a number of examples across several jurisdictions where developers
or other parties have sought to have an alternative supply to the traditional centralised solution
offered by the incumbent water utility.
Another form of customer choice is where customers can choose to switch from their current
supplier to a new supplier. This form of customer choice—known as ‘retail competition’—has
been implemented in a number of utility industries in Australia and elsewhere, most notably in
electricity, gas and telecommunications. To date in Australia no jurisdiction has established retail
competition for urban water services, although moves towards increasing competition have been
initiated in several jurisdictions. The most significant reform to allow choice of supplier has
occurred in New South Wales under the Water Industry Competition Act (WICA), although several
other states have also flagged similar reforms.
444
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Table D23: Customer choice options: overview of current status
New South Wales
Individual tariff/service choices
Individual customer choice over
supplier
Collective customer choice:
water utilities
Collective customer choice:
external standards
Scope limited by uniform pricing and
prescriptive price setting
Third‑party access and licensing
regime in place under WICA
Water businesses adopting
advanced techniques to meet
regulator’s requirements
Some willingness to pay studies by
Metropolitan Water Directorate for
urban water planning
Appears to be limited engagement on
environmental standards
Victoria
One metropolitan business
offering trial tariff options
Third‑party access regime
advocated in policy documents,
but not implemented to date
Extent of customer
engagement varies
Has been limited past engagement on
supply‑demand planning and
environmental standards but Office of
Living Victoria currently consulting on
Melbourne’s Water Future
Queensland
Choice of tariffs in Townsville
No policy initiatives for
choice of supplier
Many decisions devolved
to local government
Many decisions devolved to local
government
Western Australia
Scope limited by uniform pricing and
prescriptive price setting
Licensing regime overseen by
Economic Regulation Authority
Water Corporation undertake broad
customer surveys
Water Corporation has consulted widely on
long‑term supply/demand options.
Access regime recommended
by ERA several years ago,
but not implemented
but no formal willingness
to pay studies
Appears to be limited engagement
on environmental standards
Third‑party access regime to
be developed
Consultation by SA Water on
local issues but regulatory
framework new
SA Government has consulted widely on
long‑term supply/demand options.
South Australia
Scope limited by uniform pricing
and prescriptive price setting.
Essential Services Commission
of SA to review tariff structures
Appears to be limited engagement on
environmental standards
National Water Commission
419
References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2010, Water Account Australia, 2008–09, cat. no. 4610.0, Australian
Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2013a, Environmental Issues: Water use and Conservation, cat. no.
4602.0.55.003, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2013b, Water Account, Australia, 2011–12, cat. no. 4610.0, Australian
Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2013c, Water Use on Australian Farms, 2011–12, cat. no. 4618.0,
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
CEWH (Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder) 2014, Commonwealth Environmental Water Office: Trading
Outcomes,
accessed
8
April
2014,
http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/water/commonwealth‑
environmental‑water‑office/trade
DotE (Department of the Environment) 2014, Commonwealth Environmental Water Office – Trade, see
http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/water/commonwealth‑environmental‑water‑office/trade
DSEWPaC (Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities) 2012, National
Framework for Compliance and Enforcement Systems for Water Resource Management, accessed 26 May
2014, http://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/d4367a3b‑28a9‑430d‑
a869‑2effbda8a447/files/ris‑water‑compliance‑enforcement.pdf
Frontier Economics 2013, Review of urban water customer choice options, policy drivers and regulatory
instruments, a report prepared for the National Water Commission, accessed 26 May 2014, http://
www.frontier‑economics.com/_library/publications/frontier%20australia%20report%20‑%20urban%20
water%20customer%20choice%20stc.pdf
Marsden Jacob Associates 2013, Analysis of the social impact of NWI reforms for the Triennial
Assessment, report prepared for the National Water Commission.
MDBA Futures 2014, Regional Wellbeing Survey, University of Canberra, Canberra.
NOW (New South Wales Office of Water) 2011, Monitoring economic and social changes in NSW water sharing
plan areas: A comparison of irrigators’ survey 2006 and 2010 – covering plans commenced in 2004, accessed
26 May 2014, http://www.water.nsw.gov.au/Water‑management/Water‑sharing‑plans/
Socio‑economic‑assessment/irrigator‑survey/default.aspx#survey2013
NWC (National Water Commission) 2009, Governance at a Glance: Water Pricing and Economic Regulation,
National Water Commission, Canberra.
NWC 2010, Impacts of water trading in the southern Murray–Darling Basin: an economic, social,
and environmental assessment, NWC, Canberra.
NWC 2011a, Review of pricing reform in the Australian water sector, NWC, Canberra.
NWC 2011b, The National Water Initiative – securing Australia’s water future: 2011 assessment,
NWC, Canberra.
NWC 2011c, Urban Water in Australia: Future Directions, NWC, Canberra NWC
2012a, Assessing water stress in Australian catchments and aquifers,
National Water Commission, Canberra.
NWC 2012b, National Performance Report 2010–11: rural water service providers, National
Water Commission, Canberra.
446
6
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
NWC 2012c, Position Statement Indigenous access to water resources, June 2012, NWC, assessed 26 May
2014, http://www.nwc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/22869/
Indigenous‑Position‑Statement‑June‑2012.pdf
NWC 2013a, Australian environmental water management: 2012 review, NWC, Canberra.
NWC 2013b, Australian water markets report 2011–12, National Water Commission, Canberra.
NWC 2013c, Australian water markets report 2012–13, National Water Commission, Canberra.
NWC 2014a, Australian Environmental Water Management: 2014 Review, NWC, Canberra.
NWC 2014b, Australian water markets: trends and drivers 2007–08 to 2012–13, National Water
Commission, Canberra.
NWC 2014c, National Performance Report 2012–13: rural water service providers, National
Water Commission, Canberra.
NWC 2014d, National Performance Report 2012–13: urban water utilities, National
Water Commission, Canberra.
NWC 2014e, National Water Planning Report Card 2013, National Water Commission, Canberra. NWC
2014f, Review of Indigenous involvement in water planning, 2010 to 2013, NWC, Canberra.
PC (Productivity Commission) 2011, Review of urban water sector, Productivity Commission, Melbourne
Schirmer, J 2014, Community perceptions and experiences of water reform: analysis of the Regional
Wellbeing Survey data to inform the Triennial Assessment. Customised analysis of Regional Wellbeing
Survey data produced for the National Water Commission. University of Canberra, Canberra.
Schirmer, J & Berry, H 2014, People and Place in Australia: The 2013 Regional Wellbeing Survey – Summary
Report. University of Canberra, Australia.
Stenekes, N, Reeve, I, Kancans, R, Stayner, R, Randall, L & Lawson, K 2012, Revised indicators of community
vulnerability and adaptive capacity across the Murray–Darling Basin: a focus on irrigation in agriculture,
ABARES report to client prepared for the Murray–Darling Basin Authority, Canberra, December.
National Water Commission
447
Appendix E
Next Steps in National Water
Reform: Preparation for the future
(a report by the Standing Council
on Environment and Water)
A
482
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Appendix E: Next Steps in National Water Reform:
Preparation for the future (a report by the Standing
Council on Environment and Water)
Context
1. The Standing Council on Environment and Water (SCEW) agreed to develop an enhanced
water reform agenda in 2012 in response to key reviews including the National Water
Commission’s (NWC) review of the National Water Initiative (NWI) and the Council of
Australian Governments (COAG) review of the National Water Commission.
2. In April 2012 COAG requested SCEW report by the end of 2012 on the next stage of water
reform.
3. This report fulfils that request and constitutes the COAG response to the NWC review of the
NWI1 and Productivity Commission report on Australia's urban water sector2.
4. This report identifies the water issues expected to deliver the greatest benefit from national
progression over the next ten years, and lists actions for addressing these issues over the
next five years. It also identifies significant unfinished business from the National Water
Initiative.
5. It has been informed by a range of relevant recent activities, reviews and reports, including:

the NWI and the 2008–2011 COAG work program on water3;

the NWC second Biennial Assessment of the NWI in 2009,4 and the COAG response5;

the NWC Biennial Assessment and Review of the NWI in 2011 1;

the Productivity Commission report on Australia’s urban water sector;

state based plans for water policy, management and reform;

cross-jurisdictional discussions by officials, and SCEW and COAG decisions;

the review of the National Water Quality Management Strategy6; and

other processes relating to water resource management.
Rationale
Outcome sought by all governments from water resource management:
6. Water resources are managed efficiently and effectively to improve the wellbeing of Australians.
Why do we need national action on water reform?
7. Water is critical to Australia’s economic prosperity and environmental health, and to Australia’s
social and cultural life. The importance of water to Australia necessitates an integrated water
Water Commission (2011a), The National Water Initiative—securing Australia’s water future.
Commonwealth of Australia.
1 National
2
Productivity Commission (2011), Australia’s Urban Water Sector. Commonwealth of Australia.
3
http://www.environment.gov.au/water/australia/coag/work-program.html> (viewed 7 November 2012)
4
National Water Commission (2009), Australian Water Reform 2009: Second biennial assessment of progress
in implementation of the National Water Initiative. Commonwealth of Australia.
Council of Australian Governments (2010), Response to National Water Commission Report: “Australian
Water Reform 2009, Second Biennial Assessment of Progress in Implementation of the national Water
Initiative”. Approved April 2012,
<http://www.coag.gov.au/sites/default/files/COAG%20urban%20water%20stocktake.doc> (viewed 15 October
2012)
5
6
Stage one was an evaluation by KPMG: KPMG (2011), Independent evaluation of the National Water Quality
Management Strategy – final report. http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/quality/water-qualityfinal-report.html (viewed 15 October 2012)
National Water Commission
449
resource management system which provides for productive water allocation, protects the
environment and caters for complex social and cultural needs in a highly variable system that
is likely to be increasingly impacted by climate change.7 Governments have seen the
advantages in national action where there are benefits from collaboration or cooperation, or
to address cross-border issues and shared resources.
8. Governments across Australia have agreed on actions to achieve a more cohesive national
approach to the way Australia manages, measures, plans for, prices, and trades water as a
consequence of the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework and the National Water Initiative,
agreed by COAG in 2004. Since 1994 the management of water in Australia has changed
profoundly, and Australia is now seen as an international leader in water resource
management.8
9. The implementation of the two COAG agreements varies between locations and jurisdictions to
meet local priorities. Changes have been implemented by all sectors of society – government,
industry, communities and individuals. Within that variability, the essence of the reforms has
been given effect: the NWC states the “NWI has embedded into water management across
Australia the imperative to manage water resources sustainably, to articulate environmental
objectives more clearly, and to use best available science in decision making.” 9 Water
markets have matured and now produce economic benefits.
10. Further significant changes have come from the Commonwealth Water Act 2007, including its
requirement to develop a whole of basin plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. The significant
work by Basin governments to implement Murray-Darling Basin reforms is not within the remit
of the SCEW, and is therefore not included in this report.
11. Supported by initiatives such as the Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards scheme and
the installation of meters, householders are making more informed decisions on their water
use. Residential water consumption has declined across Australia, accelerated by water
restrictions and the recent drought. Water pricing structures are now more in line with efficient
pricing approaches, and recycled wastewater and stormwater are increasingly replacing the
use of potable water in areas such as toilets, parks and gardens.
12. Rural Australians, particularly irrigators, have considerably greater flexibility in managing
water as part of their business as a result of separating water from land and the emergence
and deepening of water markets. This was evident during the recent drought within the
Murray-Darling Basin where water markets became an even more important tool for
managing business risks associated with shortages of water as well as allowing water to be
obtained by government to meet environmental objectives. The planning framework has
enhanced the recognition of environmental and other public benefit outcomes, and there are
now significant environmental water holdings, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin.
13. However, in its comprehensive review of the NWI,10 the NWC noted that despite significant
progress, the available benefits of water reform have not been fully achieved. It also made
recommendations on maturing the agenda and addressing emerging and future issues.
Similarly the COAG review of the NWC11 noted that “the full benefits of those initiatives
[already implemented] require further elements of the NWI to be put in place” and that
“several of the key reforms have not yet been implemented because they have proven to be
7
CSIRO (2010), Climate variability and change in south-eastern Australia: A synthesis of findings from Phase
1 of the South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative (SEACI). CSIRO Australia.
8
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012), Meeting the Water Reform Challenge,
OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing.[ “...some countries have been at the cutting edge of water policy
innovation and have developed sophisticated policy frameworks to address water challenges. Australia, for
example, has had a long period of water policy reform and has implemented mechanisms such as water
markets, water pricing, and government purchase of water entitlements for environmental flows”]
9
National Water Commission (2011a), op. cit.
10
National Water Commission (2011a), op. cit.
11
Rosalky, D. (2011), COAG Review of the National Water Commission. Commonwealth of Australia.
<http://www.environment.gov.au/water/australia/nwi/pubs/coag-review-national-water-commission.pdf>
(viewed 15 October 2012)
450
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
technically and politically difficult and demanding of scarce resources.”
14. It is timely to consider the outcomes of recent reviews, the likely impact of existing initiatives
and of future challenges, and make recommendations for national action based on principles
for good water management (Attachment A).
15. Given the significant ongoing reforms, including in the Murray-Darling Basin, this report
proposes efficient, cost-effective actions over the next five years to supplement the existing
agreed policy reform agenda. The new actions aim to respond to the key challenges for
progressing national water resource management over the next ten years.
Key Issues and Actions
16. In considering the context of water reform, it is important to acknowledge the matters
underpinning the delivery of water management by governments, to identify opportunities to
build on the success of the past, and to identify the key challenges of the future.
17. All governments continue to explore improvement in service delivery and underpinning
actions that are not specifically in the purview of this national report. These include building
skills and capabilities, improving governance, continued adequate resourcing, and
communicating and consulting on water resource management.
18. Further, the successful and timely delivery of key programs currently under way, such as the
National Water Market System, are critical enablers to planned significant improvements and
implementation of agreed reforms.
Build on the success of the past
19. Progressive COAG agreements have established a comprehensive water management
framework in Australia, primarily based on the National Water Initiative (NWI).
20. All governments consider the NWI remains relevant to the management of water resources.
The NWI’s planning, entitlement and market framework transparently balances the competing
demands on water in rural regions using a defined consumptive pool and statutory
recognition of environmental water, and enables efficient water trading. The pricing and
institutional reforms have been beneficial: there have been improvements in governments’
transparency and accountability, and water businesses are generally now able to understand
and factor in the cost of water and to fund new investment because of greater certainty and
security.12
21. Progress in implementing the framework has in some cases highlighted gaps in the
framework or opportunities for improvement: initiatives to address such gaps and
opportunities include the National Water Market System and the National Framework for
Compliance and Enforcement Systems for Water Resource Management, both of which are
part of the ongoing reform activities. Recently agreed platforms to increase collaboration,
efficiency and effectiveness include the National Hydrologic Modelling Platform and the
National Water Knowledge and Research Platform — these will continue to be implemented
over the next five years.
22. In some cases agreement has been reached on further development of the framework, but
full implementation of the new action is not yet complete. An example is in accounting and
measuring of water use, where there is still monitoring required of both the implementation of
the National Framework for Non-Urban Water Metering, and the development of methods for
estimating rural water use.
23. One of the remaining elements needed for successful implementation of the NWI is the
further development and implementation of water plans that, among other matters, identify
pathways to sustainable use, and are sufficiently resilient to accommodate the broad range of
climate change outcomes.13 COAG has agreed14 to a biennial National Water Planning
12
National Water Commission (2011a), op. cit.
National Water Commission (2009), Australian Water Reform 2009 – Second Biennial Assessment of
Progress in Implementing the National Water Initiative
13
14
Council of Australian Governments (2010), op. cit.
National Water Commission
451
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
Report Card, reporting progress with the development and implementation of water plans in
all water resource systems with reference to the NWI Policy Guidelines for Water Planning
and Management (Planning Guidelines). COAG also agreed to develop and implement a
framework to improve understanding of water resource condition, availability and use,
reporting biennially on those systems at risk of unsustainable use.
Given the long timeline of water plans, these reporting initiatives need time to take effect, and
there is merit in considering a review of effectiveness when developing the next five-year
work plan. As the impact of interception on the integrity of water entitlements is also not yet
fully understood or incorporated into water resource management, a review of the
effectiveness of existing tools and policies in managing interception should also be
considered at that time.
There are two other identified issues of priority ’unfinished business’. The first, improving
water planning to better recognise Indigenous needs in relation to water access and
management, will be supported by the COAG decision to develop guidance under the
Planning Guidelines to address the need to better engage Indigenous people in water
planning.15 The second, fully implementing the NWI in recognising and managing the
connectivity between groundwater and surface water, will be progressed through a national
groundwater strategic plan (new action 1).
Further opportunities arise to build on the success of the existing entitlements framework. It is
timely to explore addressing new types of water products where there is insufficient clarity on
water rights or entitlements, such as for stormwater and wastewater, water sourced from
managed aquifer recharge, and temporarily available water such as that co-produced from
extractive industries (new action 2).
In urban water, national initiatives such as Water Efficiency Labelling and Standards scheme
and water quality guidelines for recycled water and stormwater have supported efficient water
use. Guidance has also been provided through the development of urban water planning
principles, the NWI pricing principles and the 2011 Productivity Commission report which
examined the case for further reform in the urban water sector. The Productivity
Commission16 and the NWC17 recognised that the drought, population growth, climate
variability, climate change, and ageing infrastructure placed considerable pressures on the
sector and identified opportunities for further institutional and regulatory reform, through
nationally coordinated action and by jurisdictions alone. New action 3 describes an urban
water program informed by these reports.
Water management is intricately linked with land and natural resource management.
Environmental, social and economic outcomes are best achieved when the disparate land
and water planning and management regimes complement each other, while disjunct
management can lead to perverse outcomes. Further consideration needs to be given to
better linkages between planning regimes. As a first step it is proposed that greater linkages
are established between the water quality framework and water quantity management (new
action 4).
15
Council of Australian Governments (2010), op. cit.
16
Productivity Commission (2011), op. cit.
17
National Water Commission (2011b), Urban water in Australia: future directions. Commonwealth of
Australia.
452
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Inform future decisions – further prepare for the challenges of the future
29. Significant challenges to water management can be expected in the medium to long term.
Two key long term challenges have been identified: climate change and increased likelihood
or severity of climate extremes such as droughts, storms or floods, and growth in water
demand arising from a range of sources including population growth and economic
development.
30. In thinking about managing for greater climate variability there will be considerable value in
reviewing the lessons learnt in the recent droughts and floods once there are formal
responses to existing reviews (including of the recent floods).
31. The OECD18 predicts in its baseline scenario that global water demand will increase by 55%
by 2050. Potential future impacts on water resource management in Australia include: a
projected population of nearly 26 million by 202019; internal migration; likely increased
impacts of climate change and extreme weather events; climate change, and associated
mitigation and adaptation activities; increased input costs to business and agriculture,
especially for energy; and increased global demand for food and fibre with smaller inputs.
Water resource management is also intricately linked with the extraction of fossil fuels, the
generation of energy, industry needs, health, and social and cultural amenity.
32. The interlinking of all of these issues requires greater coordination across sectors, and a new
way of working. As a first step it is proposed to provide guidance on planning for climate
change and climatic extremes, and review the likely future impacts on water supply and
demand (new action 5).
33. As a consequence of growth and development, there will be continued need to improve the
efficiency of both rural and urban water use, to build water-sensitive urban areas, to fund new
developments and existing infrastructure adequately, and to sustainably develop water
resources (new action 6).
34. The new actions to address the key issues above have been scoped in some detail below.
Implementation will be overseen by the SCEW, including the development of a
comprehensive implementation plan, and recommendations for a further five year work plan
developed in 2017, based on the outcomes of this work plan.
18
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2012), OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050:
the Consequences of Inaction, OECD Publishing.
19
The Treasury (2010), Australia to 2050: future challenges. The 2010 Intergenerational report.
Commonwealth of Australia.
<http://archive.treasury.gov.au/igr/igr2010/Overview/pdf/IGR_2010_Overview.pdf> (viewed 9 October 2012)
National Water Commission
453
New Actions
1. National Groundwater Strategic Plan
Objective
To further groundwater management by developing and implementing a National Groundwater
Strategic Plan.
Context
An estimate widely accepted by scientists and policymakers is that groundwater now directly
supplies close to 30% of Australia’s total water needs – more than double this in south west
Western Australia20. The national figure may exceed 50% when factoring in the significant base
flow contribution to surface water systems. Over the next 40–50 years the need for fresh water will
intensify as Australia’s population doubles. This is a major challenge because existing
groundwater resources were often laid down in wetter climates and are now experiencing much
lower rates of replenishment.
The draft National Groundwater Strategic Plan identifies six strategic priorities to improve
groundwater management and information:

water planning and management

legislation and governance

monitoring and compliance

skills development and capacity building

groundwater information and dissemination

research and development
What will be done
1.1
National Groundwater Strategic Plan presented to SCEW by the end of 2013 as a
blueprint to improve groundwater management in Australia.
1.2
All jurisdictions agree to an action plan for the National Groundwater Strategic Plan by
2014, consistent with the NWI Policy Guidelines for Water Planning and Management, containing
measures as defined in the National Groundwater Strategic Plan.
Responsibility
All jurisdictions.
Monitoring or review strategy

Reporting to SCEW on progress against the National Groundwater Strategic Plan.

All jurisdictions review the National Groundwater Strategic Plan in 2018.
This preliminary description has been provided in advance of finalisation of the National
Groundwater Strategic Plan. Any changes to the priorities in the final version will take precedence.
20
CSIRO (2009). Water yields and demands in south-west Western Australia. A report of the South-West
Western Australia Sustainable Yields Project.
454
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
2. Improving certainty and security of access to water
Objective
To explore the costs and benefits of improving certainty and security of access to sources of water
where rights are not explicitly defined within the existing water access and entitlement framework
(i.e. for new and alternative sources of water such as reuse, recycling, stormwater etc).
Context
Rights to water if defined clearly can promote gains from trade and provide a level of security to
users. Rights and responsibilities are involved in any arrangements that provide a level of
certainty and consistency surrounding the terms and conditions about how users access water
resources.
As the supply and demand for water within Australia changes over time, available benefits from
further water rights reforms are likely to increase. This may involve clarification, formalisation or
strengthening of existing rights as well as the creation of new rights – for different water sources
or in relation to capacity constraints. This process will require careful consideration to ensure
there are no unintended impacts, for example on informal customary use.
Water rights development and reform will be more effective if undertaken through established
frameworks. Consideration should also be given to the costs and benefits of better defining
existing rights and establishing or clarifying frameworks and decision processes for rights to (but
not limited to) stormwater, wastewater, water from managed aquifer recharge, and co-produced
water.
What will be done
2.1
Investigate the costs and benefits of a nationally consistent framework and decision
matrix for further defining and developing rights to water which allows for the efficient and effective
use of water within a potential water resource. The investigation should include a number of case
studies which align with priority areas.
2.2
In considering the need for development of a framework and decision matrix for further
defining water rights within potential water resources, attention should be focussed on, but not
limited to:
a) the flow-on consequences to explicit and implicit rights if rights in water are further
defined or new rights created; and
b) how further defining or creating new rights align with current water management and
planning frameworks.
2.3
Make recommendations to SCEW in 2015 on how best to progress actions to increase
certainty and security of access to water not explicitly defined within the existing water access and
entitlement framework.
Responsibility
All jurisdictions.
Monitoring or review strategy
If agreed, the framework should be reviewed five years after finalisation.
National Water Commission
455
3. Urban water
Objective
To provide evidence to inform future national urban water reform initiatives that support secure,
safe, healthy and reliable water-related services and which meet community needs in an efficient
and sustainable manner.
Context
The Productivity Commission21 found a strong case for reform to improve the efficient provision of
water, wastewater and stormwater services in its report on the urban water sector in 2011. This
was broadly consistent with the NWC22 findings that the effects of drought, urbanisation and
ageing assets warrant improvements in the institutional and regulatory arrangements in the
sector. The urban water work program has been informed by these reports.
As previously agreed by COAG, the review of the National Water Initiative pricing principles will be
undertaken. The scope of this review could address some of the pricing issues identified by the
Productivity Commission, such as: pricing the scarcity value of water; the valuation and recovery
of environmental externalities; the feasibility of multiple customer tariff options; costs and benefits
of postage stamp pricing; and sewerage and trade-waste pricing. Based on recommendations that
further work was needed to build the capacity and expertise in adaptive planning in the sector, the
2008 National Urban Water Planning Principles will also be reviewed. The review will assess the
extent of implementation and the effect on urban water planning decisions by utilities and local
governments and the role of the principles in advancing new approaches to planning, such as
adaptive management planning and integrated urban water management.
The development of the strategic direction of the National Water Quality Management Strategy
will be completed in 2013 and will provide the opportunity to respond to recent reports on the
variability of water quality in smaller towns and remote communities. Recommendations for new
initiatives may be included in regular revisions to the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines.
Recognising governments’ involvement in practical urban water research and analysis, the work
plan includes a commitment to share the outcomes of this work which includes: analysis of tariff
options; the use of allocation mechanisms in supporting investment in alternate water sources;
and findings from the recently established Cooperative Research Centre for Water Sensitive
Cities. Finally, the Productivity Commission found that the scheduled independent review of the
National Access Regime should proceed. The twelve-month inquiry was announced on 25
October 2012.
What will be done
3.1
Review the National Water Initiative pricing principles by end 2014.
3.2
Review the National Urban Water Planning Principles by end 2014.
3.3
Promote awareness of the outcomes of research and analysis of urban water issues
across governments through existing forums.
Responsibility
All jurisdictions.
Monitoring or review strategy
NWC to monitor progress through its triennial assessments.
456
21
Productivity Commission (2011), op. cit.
22
National Water Commission (2011b), op. cit.
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
4. Integrating water quality and quantity
Objective
Better integration between water quality and quantity in planning, management and regulation
frameworks to achieve improved environmental, economic and social outcomes.
Context
Water quantity and quality management actions affect each other and common outcomes.
Changes in the quality or quantity of water may result in changes in the structure and function of
ecosystems including the numbers and types of organisms that can survive in the altered
environment. It can equally affect other environmental and water use values such as drinking
water quality, primary industries, recreational, aesthetic, and cultural and spiritual values.
While the National Water Quality Management Strategy (NWQMS) is described as
complementary to the NWI, in practice the two largely operate as separate frameworks. The
outcomes sought under both frameworks could be more effectively achieved if implementation of
each framework were better integrated. Improving the integration of policy settings addressing
water quality and water quantity issues is a key consideration in the current review of the
NWQMS.
The NWQMS was jointly developed and agreed in the early 1990s to provide a national approach
for achieving sustainable use of the nation’s water resources by protecting and enhancing water
quality, while maintaining economic and social development. The review involves all jurisdictions
in considering the strategic directions of the NWQMS. Specific actions are proposed in relation to
policy setting, governance arrangements, guidance material and monitoring and evaluation.
What will be done
Assist the integration of water quality and quantity in water management planning by:
4.1
Revising the strategic directions of the NWQMS by end 2013. Proposed subsequent
actions include:
a) revising the policy setting for the NWQMS in line with developments in water reform and
including a focus on the integration of water quality and quantity planning;
b) resetting governance arrangements for NWQMS management;
c) rationalising guidance material (including on better integration of water quality and
quantity); and
d) developing appropriate monitoring and evaluation metrics.
4.2
Based on the outcomes from the revised NWQMS policy settings (once agreed), make
recommendations by end 2016 as to whether the preparation of a module to the NWI Policy
Guidelines for Water Planning and Management is required to assist in the integration of water
quality and water quantity planning and management.
Responsibility
All jurisdictions (including, for fresh and marine water quality guidelines, New Zealand).
Monitoring or review strategy
Progress to be monitored by officials reporting to the SCEW through ongoing oversight of
NWQMS reform.
National Water Commission
457
5. Improved long term water planning
Objective
To ensure water resource decision makers are better equipped to plan for likely long term impacts
on water supply and demand, including identifying areas of critical balance between supply and
demand.
Context
Supply and demand of water, energy and food are fundamentally linked. While projections have
been developed at local and regional scales, the likely long term demand for water resources,
including as a result of future changes in climate, population and industry requirements, is a key
gap in understanding for developing effective national water policy. Recent reports23 highlight the
need for integrated policy approaches, noting that attempts to address problems in one area
without regard for implications elsewhere can have unintended negative consequences.
Fully understanding projected water supplies, including dealing with uncertainty around climate
change and climate extremes such as droughts and floods, requires a risk management
approach. For a 1°C warming (median warming by 2030 relative to 1990), river flows in far southwestern and south-eastern Australia are likely to decline by 5–30% (30–50% under the driest
projections). In areas exposed to cyclones and storm surges the current 1-in-100 year event could
occur several times a year.24
What will be done
5.1
Prepare a module to the NWI Policy Guidelines for Water Planning and Management
by end 2014 to take account of the likely impact of climate change and extreme events within
planning frameworks and water plans.
5.2
Report to SCEW by end 2014 on existing information available to help define expected
impacts on water supply and demand across sectors (e.g. agriculture, energy generation,
extractive industries, population, industry, and climate change mitigation and adaptation actions)
and relevant Commonwealth and state or territory policies and planning instruments with potential
to affect future water supply and demand.
5.3
Water supply and demand projections
a) provide a scoping report and methodology, for SCEW endorsement by end 2015, for the
development of nationally-consistent, integrated water supply and demand projections
(up to 50 years ahead), taking into account existing state and international approaches;
b) if agreed by SCEW, produce the projections by 2017; and
c) report to SCEW by end 2017 on high risk demand and supply issues with
recommendations for action, including to address any significant gaps in understanding
of likely future demand on water resources and identifying any constraints to closing the
gap between supply and demand projections.
Responsibility
All jurisdictions.
Monitoring or review strategy
Public reporting on new action 5.1 through the National Water Planning Report Card.
23 PMSEIC (2010), Challenges at Energy-Water-Carbon Intersections. Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, Canberra,
Australia.
+ State of the Environment 2011 Committee (2011), Australia state of the environment 2011. Independent report to the Australian Government
Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
+ OECD (2012a), A Framework for Financing Water Resources Management. OECD Studies on Water, OECD Publishing.
+ OECD (2012b), OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences of Inaction. OECD Publishing.
24 Keenan, T.D. and Cleugh, H.A. (eds) (2011), Climate Science Update: A Report to the 2011 Garnaut Review. Centre for Australian Weather
and Climate Research Technical Report No. 036. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology.
458
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
6. Water resource development
Objective
To inform decisions on the development of water resources based on the consistent application of
agreed principles.
Context
Much of the reform effort to date has focussed on planning, management and establishment of
markets for water resources that have already been developed. The same framework can inform
the sustainable development of water where there are opportunities to increase water supply to
meet growing demand.
The expected growth in demand for water will need to be met through a range of approaches,
including in part identifying and developing “new” water products, and identifying development
opportunities in more traditional water resources. It is timely to focus effort on considering
common principles and the benefits of a national framework to support decision-making on
appropriate and sustainable development of water.
Decisions to develop water resources should be based on sound policy principles and
underpinned by robust information to ensure environmental, economic and social sustainability.
Using this approach, water planning enables resource development opportunities to be identified
by establishing the availability of water for irrigation, town water supply and other purposes.
What will be done
6.1
Develop a scoping study for a framework for guiding decisions on water resource
development proposals, with timelines and costs, for SCEW by end 2014.
6.2
Subject to the outcomes of new action 6.1 and approval of a scope, develop a national
framework to be considered during the decision-making process on water resource development
proposals for SCEW endorsement by 2017. The framework would:
a) draw on relevant existing principles, frameworks, guidelines and methods; and
b) be developed with reference to work on defining rights to water, including for new
products.
Responsibility
All jurisdictions.
Monitoring or review strategy
The framework should be reviewed five years after finalisation.
National Water Commission
459
Attachment A: Principles for Water Resource Management
The principles for continued water resource management in Australia remain relatively unchanged
from those that drove the 1994 COAG Water Reform Framework and the 2004 National Water
Initiative.
The principles are:

Sustainability and wellbeing. Wellbeing includes economic prosperity, community
liveability and environmental integrity: water management should contribute to the aim of
enhancing the wellbeing of society over time;

Management. Water is managed on a whole-of-cycle and whole-of-catchment (or
aquifer) basis, including conjunctive management of surface and groundwater;

Measurement. Investment in appropriate information, science (including socioeconomic), monitoring and evaluation to inform adaptive management by all sectors;

Planning. Water planning results in transparent resource allocation, including clear
property rights and water allocation based on a clearly defined consumptive pool;

Pricing. Water is priced to ensure sufficient revenue streams to allow efficient delivery of
the required services, user pays and cost recovery, and with transparently funded
community service obligations where needed;

Markets. Facilitation of trading in rights to water where water resources are physically
shared or hydrologic connections and water supply considerations permit, to enable
water to move to its highest value use;

Consultation, transparency and accountability. Governments are accountable to
communities, reporting responsibilities are clear and communities are consulted in key
decisions;

Value for money. Actions are prioritised to those which are most cost-effective and
which most benefit Australia’s wellbeing;

Use of best available evidence. Best available information on long and short term
outcomes is used in making decisions; and

Risk-management based. Application of the water management framework includes
assessment and management of the risks.
460
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Attachment B: Glossary
The terms in this document are defined by those in the NWI Policy Guidelines for Water Planning
and Management.
Consumptive pool is the portion of the total resource that may be made available for consumptive
use at a given time or during a defined planning period, either through water access entitlements
or other statutory rights (for example, stock and domestic use, fixed term water licences) or
unregulated use such as some interception activities.
Environmental and other public benefit outcomes that are specified in water plans may include a
number of aspects such as:

environmental outcomes: the maintenance of key environmental assets and key
ecosystem services and functions (such as biodiversity and water quality)

other public benefits: mitigating pollution, public health (for example, by limiting noxious
algal blooms), Indigenous and cultural values, recreation, fisheries, tourism, navigation
and amenity values.
Sustainable water extraction regime is the level of water extraction allowable in a particular water
resource (including the volume, timing, location and management of flows and extraction) that
ensures that the environmental and other public benefit outcomes as well as critical human needs,
defined in approved water plans can be met at a specified level of risk.
Overallocation refers to situations where, with allowable full development of water access
entitlements and all other forms of authorised25 use in a particular system, the total volume of
water allowed to be extracted by entitlement holders and other authorised users at a given time
exceeds the sustainable water extraction regime for that system.
Overuse refers to situations where the total volume of water actually extracted in a particular
system at a given time exceeds the sustainable water extraction regime for that system.
25
An authorised use is any water use that is allowed through statutory rights and includes uses
specifically excluded from licensing systems.
National Water Commission
461
National Water Reform Work Plan 2013–2017
Table 1: Work Commitments
The following items include the new actions and previous commitments arising from Ministers’
agreements (including the COAG Response to the 2009 Biennial Assessment of the NWI and the
COAG 2008–2011 Work program on water).
Item
1
2
Sustainable
management
Fully implement
commitments for NWIcompliant water planning
Fully implement the
interception commitments
in the NWI
Responsibility for
delivery
Matters for further
progression/next steps
Expected
delivery
date
All states and
territories
NWC’s Biennial Report Card and
Triennial NWI assessments will inform
and assist progress.
Ongoing
All states and
territories
Consider adequacy of progress and
recommendations for progression in
next five-year plan
Absence of tools and information
remains a barrier. Existing work will
assist.
A review of progress in addressing
interception would support
implementation.
Proposed for
next five-year
work plan
As soon as
possible
3
Use best endeavours to
introduce and pass
legislation to enable
implementation of NWIconsistent water access
entitlements (NT and WA)
and water planning (WA).
(Refer Schedule A for full
text)
NT & WA
4
Identify and report on
water systems where use
is in excess of sustainable
water extraction regimes.
(Refer Schedule A for full
text)
All jurisdictions
2015 and
biennially
thereafter
5
Develop enhancements to
the NWI Policy Guidelines
for Water Planning and
All jurisdictions
Ongoing
Management26 (Refer
Schedule A for full text)
prioritising:
1. a) taking account of
climate change and
variability within plans
2. b) engaging indigenous
people in water planning
6
3. a) Develop a national
groundwater strategic
plan
End 2014
End 2014
All jurisdictions
4. b) Develop action plan for
further implementation
26 Note potential additional module on integrating water quality and quantity under action 16
462
Ongoing
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
End 2013
2014
7
Item
Responsibility for
delivery
Water resource
development
All jurisdictions
Develop an agreed
national decision
framework:
5.
a) Scoping report
6.
b) Framework and
recommendations
Matters for further
progression/next steps
Expected
delivery
date
SCEW approval of scope a)
End 2014
End 2017
Markets
8
Complete the National
Water Market System
(NWMS)
All jurisdictions
9
Address stakeholder
concerns regarding water
market intermediaries
All jurisdictions
2015
COAG consultation Regulatory Impact
Statement (RIS) to seek views from
stakeholders on options
Mid 2013
COAG decision on preferred option
10
The Commonwealth,
Victorian, South
Australian and New South
Wales Governments will
work collaboratively to
develop practical
measures to overcome
impediments to the
consistent application of
the four per cent cap and
a staged increase in the
Mid 2014
2014
Commonwealth,
Victoria, SA & NSW
For the MDB, Basin Plan trading rules
(commencing 1 July 2014) include a
provision allowing trade free of
volumetric limits
All jurisdictions
Develop the framework if agreed by
SCEW
2015
All jurisdictions
Respond to recommendations as
agreed by SCEW
2014
All jurisdictions
Respond to recommendations as
agreed by SCEW
2014
limit.27
11
Improving certainty and
security of access
Investigate costs and
benefits and make
recommendations on
developing an overarching
framework and decision
matrix for new water
rights.
12
13
14
Urban Water 28
Review the NWI Pricing
Principles
Review the National
Urban Water Planning
Principles
Promote awareness of the
outcomes of research and
analysis of urban water
issues.
Improving Integration
All jurisdictions
2015
27 All
jurisdictions to abide by their NWI commitment to not implement new barriers to water trade
(COAG response to 2009 Biennial Assessment of the NWI)
28 Full text for the urban water work plan is at Schedule A
National Water Commission
463
Item
15 7. a) Report on existing
information on future
supply and demand
Responsibility for
delivery
Matters for further
progression/next steps
Expected
delivery
date
End 2014
All jurisdictions
End 2015
8. b) Provide a scoping
report and method for
water supply and demand
projections
End 2017
End 2017
9. c) Produce the
projections, if agreed
10. d) Report on high risk
demand and supply
issues with
recommendations for
action
16
Integrating water quality
and quantity
management.
11. a) Revise policy
documents of the National
Water Quality
Management Strategy
(NWQMS)
All jurisdictions
End 2013
2016
12. b) If needed, produce a
module to the Planning
Guidelines
17
464
Water Information and
Capacity Building
Continued implementation
of the National Framework
for Non Urban Water
Metering
All jurisdictions
Regular reporting on progress would
assist ongoing improvement
18
Estimation of rural water
use
(Refer Schedule A for full
text)
All parties – BoM to
lead
2015
19
Implementation of the
National Water
Knowledge and Research
Platform
All jurisdictions
2013
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Table 2: Existing Reporting Commitments
The following reporting commitments are ongoing and arise from Ministers’ agreements (including
the COAG Response to the 2009 Biennial Assessment of the NWI and the COAG 2008–2011
Work program on water).
R1
R2
R3
R4
Reporting deliverable
Responsibility
Reporting period
Reporting to
Report on the
implementation of the
Interception Framework in
the Planning Guidelines,
including:
All states and territories
Biennial
Public release
All states and territories
Biennial
Public release
All jurisdictions
Annual (to be
published within six
months of the close
of each water year)
Public release
All jurisdictions
2012
Public release

interception risk
assessments in all
catchments and
aquifers in order of
priority

implementation of
necessary measures to
maintain interception
activities below
identified threshold
levels, or to offset
impacts above
threshold levels
Conduct risk assessments
for priority groundwater
management areas and
publicly report progress on
this work on a biennial basis
Report publicly on the
planning and management
status of groundwater
systems on a biennial basis
Publicly identify
environmental water
management arrangements,
specify

the authority and
accountabilities of
entities responsible for
managing
environmental water

publish annual reports
accounting for their
management of
environmental water
including outcomes
achieved
Publish information on how
the risk assignment
provisions of the NWI will be
implemented.

Originally agreed to be
‘within 16 weeks of
proposed Basin Plan
release’ – A report on
progress in 2013 would
support
implementation.
National Water Commission
465
Reporting deliverable
Responsibility
Reporting period
Reporting to
Continue to publish the
National Water Planning
Report Card
(Refer Schedule B for full
text)
Extend mandatory reporting
outside the MDB, on price
and volumes for all trades of
entitlements and allocations
(Refer Schedule B)
National Water
Commission
Biennially, next due
2013
Public release
All states and territories
From 2015
Public release
R7
Service standards for trade
approval time for non-MDB
jurisdictions – work towards
meeting agreed service
standards
Northern Territory,
Tasmania and Western
Australia
Ongoing
Public release
R8
Jurisdictions to develop and
publish schedules for the
priority completion of NWIconsistent entitlement
reform, consistent with the
Planning Guidelines.
All states and territories
Ongoing
Public release
R5
R6
Schedules will include
timeframes for unbundling
water entitlements from land
and into their constituent
parts on a priority
catchment/area basis, where
this is feasible and
beneficial.
466

Where decisions
are made against
further
unbundling, the
reasons for this
should be made
public;

Where fixed-term
or other types of
entitlements are
demonstrably
necessary,
jurisdictions
articulate why and
where such
arrangements are
to be made.
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Schedule A – Full descriptions of Table 1 Items as listed below
This schedule provides further detail for certain work plan items, as indicated in Table 1. Boxed
elements are verbatim extracts from COAG’s response to the NWC’s 2009 Biennial Assessment
of the NWI.
Item 3: Use best endeavours to introduce and pass legislation to enable implementation of NWIconsistent water access entitlements (NT and WA) and water planning (WA).
Western Australia and the Northern Territory to use best endeavours to introduce and pass
legislation to enable the implementation of NWI-consistent water access entitlements (and water
planning in Western Australia) by the end of 2010 or as soon as possible thereafter.
Three actions from the 2008–11 COAG work program on water also relate to Item 3 and are
ongoing:
Action A7: Where necessary, ensure legislation is capable of implementing the provisions of the
agreed [planning] guidelines, including:
a) requiring that future significant water intercepting activities are compliant with relevant
water resource plans; and
b) providing for proponents of significant future water intercepting activities, or relevant third
parties, to hold offsetting water access entitlements.
Action A9: Implement the following approach to the planning and management of groundwater:
a) adoption of NWI-consistent water access entitlements in actively managed groundwater
systems (i.e. those with a medium or higher risk category) while recognising that it may
be appropriate in those systems for some extraction such as stock and domestic use to
continue as statutory authorisations;
b) note that an outcome of the risk-based approach to planning and management is that
low risk systems may not require fully specified water access entitlements;
c) recognition that in systems with little or no recharge, entitlements should be for a fixed
term or other appropriate forms (consistent with NWI clause 33), and that transparent
social and economic decisions should be made through planning processes to determine
the rate and period over which resource depletion will be allowed, and the uses that this
limited water can be used; and
d) all significant uses of groundwater outside of the water access entitlements system
should be assessed and accounted for as part of the water budget.
Action A11: Adopt regulatory mechanisms to ensure that:
a) the impacts of activities outside the water entitlement system which may interfere with
the integrity of an aquifer (for example: drilling or excavation), are understood prior to
approval; and
b) arrangements are in place to ensure that the legitimate water access rights of existing
water users are protected.
National Water Commission
467
Item 4: Identify and report on water systems where use is in excess of sustainable water extraction
regimes.
To improve understanding and promote transparency of groundwater and surface water system
condition, resource availability, extraction and environmental water requirements:
a)
Develop and agree, within twelve months of agreement by COAG, 29 a framework for
the identification of water systems where use is in excess of sustainable water extraction
regimes30 or, where a plan is not in place, at potential risk thereof.31 32 33
b)
Within twelve months of finalising the framework in 2(a), the Commonwealth to
undertake and publish a reliable peer-reviewed risk assessment against the framework for every
water plan area (or water system where a plan is not in place), based on available information. 34
The risk assessment will be updated biennially.
c)
For those systems outside the MDB35 identified as having use in excess of sustainable
water extraction regimes or at potential risk thereof, within six months of the publication of the risk
assessment above:

each State and Territory to report to WRC on steps being taken to ensure that there are
no additional water rights issued until an effective water plan or other necessary
measures are in place, including those that may be provided for in existing water plans;36

each State and Territory to publish a timetable for returning those systems to within their
sustainable water extraction regimes; and

the above reports to be in a common format allowing compilation into a national
timetable and report to be published by the WRC.
Item 5: Develop enhancements to the NWI Policy Guidelines for Water Planning and Management.
Development of additional tools, methodologies, modules, or case studies for the Planning
Guidelines by the end of 2011 to address the need to:

take account of likely climate change within plans;

measure and establish thresholds for surface and groundwater connectivity;

manage interception by plantations and by stock and domestic use;

develop best practice guidance on environmental water planning, management
(including environmental water shepherding) and monitoring;

support the delivery of environmental water at all priority assets to ensure the best
possible environmental outcomes can be achieved by developing complementary (or
aligning existing) NRM plans and activities at the asset location; and

engage Indigenous people in water planning
Urban Water Work Plan: Items 12–14, 16a in part
29
All jurisdictions agree to settle the framework by the end of 2011.
30
The sustainable water extraction regime is determined through the water resource planning process in
accordance with the Planning Guidelines.
31
The framework will draw on the risk module under the Planning Guidelines where relevant. At a minimum
and for each water system, the framework should allow assessment and reporting on: (i) whether or not a
water plan is in place and risk assessments undertaken by jurisdictions in reaching judgements about whether
a plan is required; (ii) the system water balance; (iii) ecological assets within the system (identified in both the
corresponding water plan and through other means such as application of the HCVAE framework); (iv)
environmental water requirements; and (v) system condition.
32
The framework methodology will take into account the sustainable diversion limits set by the Basin Plan
when assessing systems in the MDB.
33
The development of the framework, and the assessment against it, will be funded by the Commonwealth. All
jurisdictions will provide relevant data at their own cost.
34
Risk assessments undertaken under the Water Management Partnership Agreements and the 2008–2011
COAG Work Program on Water (item 8, identified groundwater systems) will be used to inform assessments.
It is assumed that the Basin Plan will deal with ‘overuse’. This action builds on water management
partnership agreements in the MDB.
35
36
468
Nothing here suggests that a water plan must be amended.
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Pricing and planning for safe and sustainable water management
12.
Review the NWI pricing principles. This review may cover the scarcity value of water,
the valuation and recovery of environmental externalities, the feasibility of multiple customer tariff
options and the broader costs and benefits of postage stamp pricing. The review should consider
principles for sewerage and trade waste pricing. This activity would be subject to scoping the
review and establishing terms of reference.
13.
Review the National Urban Water Planning Principles to assess the uptake of the
planning principles and opportunities for improvements. This includes assessing and making
recommendations for improvements on:
a) the extent of implementation of the planning principles and the effect on urban water
planning decisions by utilities and local governments.
b) the role of the principles in advancing new approaches to planning, such as real options,
risk or adaptive management planning, water sensitive urban design and integrated
urban water management.
Sharing the outcomes of current analysis
14.
Jurisdictions to share information consistent with the objective, commencing with:
a) Monitoring and reporting on trials of multiple tariff options for consumers. The outcomes
of new initiatives by utilities to provide different tariff options for a range of consumer
groups will inform governments about utilities ongoing ability to deliver on community
expectations for liveable communities, environmental protection and efficient services.
b) Monitoring and investigating how existing and new allocation mechanisms act to support
greater certainty for investment in stormwater, wastewater, recycled water and managed
aquifer recharge. This project would complement prior work on barriers to innovation in
water sensitive urban design.
c) Monitor and report on outcomes from the Cooperative Research Centre on Water
Sensitive Cities, particularly in relation to robust evaluation of costs and benefits of
Integrated Urban Water Management and Water Sensitive Design.
Protecting public health and the environment
(Part of Item 16a) Achieving safe, good quality water for urban communities.
Respond to concerns about the variability of water quality in metropolitan and rural communities in
the future revisions of the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines and in the development of the
strategic direction of the National Water Quality Management Strategy.
Item 18: Estimation of rural water use
This action comes from the 2008–11 COAG work program on water, Actions 55(f) and (g).
f.
prepare a national plan for estimating rural water use; and
g.
use plan (in f above) to guide future investments by governments in the modernisation
and extension of non-urban water metering.
National Water Commission
469
Schedule B – Descriptions of existing reporting deliverables
This schedule provides further detail for certain reporting deliverables, as indicated in Table 2.
Boxed elements are verbatim extracts from COAG’s response to the NWC’s 2009 Biennial
Assessment of the NWI.
Reporting Deliverable 5: Continue to publish the National Water Planning Report Card
An independently completed National Water Planning Report Card to be published by or on behalf
of COAG, reporting progress with the development and implementation of water plans in all water
resource systems37 with reference to the Planning Guidelines. The first National Water Planning
Report Card will be prepared and published by the NWC by the end of December 2011.38
Subsequent reports are scheduled to be published every two years by a process to be determined
following the COAG review of the NWC in 2011. SCEW has tasked senior officials to report at its
next meeting on proposed future reporting timelines in the context of the new reporting obligations
established under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Reports will provide a succinct evaluation of the status of each water plan, including against the
following indicators:
a) overuse status and whether there is a pathway to return to a sustainable water extraction
regime;
b) inclusion of clearly identified and measurable outcomes;
c) facilitation of water trade (absence of trade barriers, meeting service standards for trade,
etc);
d) integration of mining, forestry and other water intercepting activities within the water
planning and entitlements system where appropriate;
e) surface water/groundwater connectivity;
f) accountable environmental water management arrangements, together with a
comprehensive environmental watering plan (or other appropriate environmental water
management arrangement);39
g) the adequacy of monitoring, compliance and enforcement provisions; and
h) planning for climate change and extremes in inflows or recharge that may occur during
the planning cycle.
In addition, the report will assess the adequacy of stakeholder engagement in planning processes
and the extent to which identified outcomes have been achieved during the reporting period.
Further:

Jurisdictions utilise the Planning Guidelines when developing all future plans and plan
revisions, incorporating principles within the guidelines to:

include specific and measurable outcomes in all water;

return overused systems to within their sustainable water extraction regimes;
37 Where
a water system does not have a corresponding water plan, the National Water Planning
Report Card will report whether a water plan will be developed for that system. Where a
jurisdiction determines that a water plan will not be developed for a particular system the reasons
for that decision (including whether a risk assessment has been undertaken) will be reported in
the National Water Planning Report Card.
38 The NWC will consult with all jurisdictions on the Report Card methodology.
39 It is acknowledged that environmental water management arrangements differ depending on
whether environmental water is provided through rules or as entitlement-based water. It is also
acknowledged that where an environmental watering plan is developed, that this plan may be in a
separate document to the relevant water plan. The Report Card will be flexible enough to cater for
differing arrangements.
470
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014






treat surface and groundwater as highly connected unless studies demonstrate
otherwise;
better integrate water use by forestry, mining and other extractive activities into the water
planning process;
address the identification, risks, thresholds and management actions required for
interception activities as per guidelines
establish accountable environmental water managers;
based on risk assessments and best practice modelling, ensure that water plans
adequately address the likely impacts of future climate change, including extreme flow
events in areas where these may occur; and
effectively engage stakeholders, including Indigenous people, in water planning.
Reporting Deliverable 6: Extend reporting outside the MDB, on agreed price and volumes for all trades
of entitlements and allocations
Outside of the MDB, jurisdictions to ensure that by the end of 2012:40 41
a) water access entitlement holders participating in a trade are required to report to
approval authorities or registers, at the time of seeking trade approval or registration, the
agreed price and volumes for all trades of water access entitlements and water
allocations;
b) approval authorities and registers require pricing information to be provided as a
condition of seeking approval and registration; and
c) water price information is disclosed to the market in a timely fashion.
These actions are consistent with the ACCC’s draft trading rules advice to the MDBA.
compliance with these actions requires legislative change, jurisdictions agree to use their
best endeavours to enact such legislation within the timeframe. In the interim, jurisdictions agree
to implement administrative measures to accurately reveal as much price information as possible.
Timing determined in order to be consistent with delivery of the National Water Market System
(scheduled to be delivered in September 2012).
40
41 Where
National Water Commission
471
Appendix F
Intergovernmental Agreement on a
National Water Initiative
Appendix D: Impacts of water reform: methods, indicators and
assessment
472
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Appendix F: Intergovernmental Agreement on a
National Water Initiative
Between the Commonwealth of Australia and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South
Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory
Preamble
1. Water may be viewed as part of Australia’s natural capital, serving a number of important productive, environmental
and social objectives. Australia’s water resources are highly variable, reflecting the range of climatic conditions
and terrain nationally. In addition, the level of development in Australia’s water resources ranges from heavily
regulated working rivers and groundwater resources, through to rivers and aquifers in almost pristine condition.
2. In Australia, water is vested in governments that allow other parties to access and use water for a variety of
purposes – whether irrigation, industrial use, mining, servicing rural and urban communities, or for amenity
values. Decisions about water management involve balancing sets of economic, environmental and other
interests. The framework within which water is allocated attaches both rights and responsibilities to water users
– a right to a share of the water made available for extraction at any particular time, and a responsibility to use
this water in accordance with usage conditions set by government. Likewise, governments have a responsibility
to ensure that water is allocated and used to achieve socially and economically beneficial outcomes in a
manner that is environmentally sustainable.
3. The 1994 Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) water reform framework and subsequent initiatives
recognised that better management of Australia’s water resources is a national issue. As a result of these
initiatives, States and Territories have made considerable progress towards more efficient and sustainable
water management over the past 10 years. For example, most jurisdictions have embarked on a significant
program of reforms to their water management regimes, separating water access entitlements from land titles,
separating the functions of water delivery from that of regulation, and making explicit provision for environmental
water.
4. At the same time, there has been an increase in demand for water, and an increased understanding of the
management needs of surface and groundwater systems, including their interconnection. There has also been
an enhanced understanding of the requirements for effective and efficient water markets. The current variation
in progress with water reforms between regions and jurisdictions, and the expanded knowledge base, creates
an opportunity to complement and extend the reform agenda to more fully realise the benefits intended by
COAG in 1994.
5. The Parties agree to implement this National Water Initiative (NWI) in recognition of the continuing national
imperative to increase the productivity and efficiency of Australia’s water use, the need to service rural and
urban communities, and to ensure the health of river and groundwater systems by establishing clear pathways
to return all systems to environmentally sustainable levels of extraction. The objective of the Parties in
implementing this Agreement is to provide greater certainty for investment and the environment, and underpin
the capacity of Australia’s water management regimes to deal with change responsively and fairly (refer
paragraph 23).
6. The Parties acknowledge that the NWI builds on the 1994 strategic framework for the efficient and sustainable
reform of the Australian water industry (the 1994 COAG framework), as amended in 1996 to include
groundwater and stormwater management revisions and by the Tripartite agreement in January 1999. The
Parties are committed to meeting their commitments under the 1994 COAGframework and continuing to meet
the objectives and policy directions of the 1994 COAG framework in a way that is consistent with the objectives
and actions set out in this Agreement.
7. Other natural resource management initiatives having a significant water focus and subject of separate agreements
by the Parties, particularly the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality and the Natural Heritage Trust,
play an important and complementary role in improving the sustainable management of water in Australia.
National Water Commission
473
Continued implementation of the National Water Quality Management Strategy will also complement the outcomes
of this Agreement. To the extent that there is any inconsistency between the agreements, the National Water
Initiative should take precedence.
Implementation
8. The Parties agree that actions under this Agreement will be implemented in accordance with the timetable at
Schedule A and in accordance with implementation plans to be developed by each jurisdiction within 12
months of signing this Agreement, to reflect their particular circumstances. The Parties will make substantial
progress towards implementation of this Agreement by 2010.
9. The implementation plans will:
(i) describe how the actions and timelines agreed in the IGA are to be achieved, including milestones for
each key element of the Agreement (paragraph 24 refers);
(ii) describe the timing and process for making any consequential changes to water plans and the water
access entitlements framework (paragraph 26 refers);
(iii) be developed cooperatively between States and Territories which share water resources to ensure
appropriate co‑development of those actions which are of a cross‑jurisdictional nature, including
registries, trading rules, water products, and environmental outcomes; and
(iv) be made publicly available.
10. The Parties agree to the establishment of a National Water Commission (NWC) to assist with the effective
implementation of this Agreement. The NWC will accredit implementation plans to ensure consistency with the
timetable at Schedule A.
11. The Parties agree that the scheduled 2005 assessment of States’ and Territories’ National Competition Policy
water‑related reform commitments will be undertaken by the NWC.
12. This Agreement contains a number of interrelated actions. It is recognised that some actions have already
commenced in some jurisdictions. The Parties intend that where necessary to achieve the objectives of the
Agreement, actions required may be modified on the basis of further information or analysis.
13. Relevant Parties will review existing cross‑jurisdictional water sharing agreements to ensure their consistency
with this Agreement, and identify those instances where any new cross‑jurisdictional agreements may be
required to give effect to this Agreement.
14. In relation to the Murray–Darling Basin (MDB):
(i) relevant Parties agree to review the 1992 Murray–Darling Basin Agreement, where necessary, to ensure
that it is consistent with this Agreement; and
(ii) a separate agreement to address the overallocation of water and achievement of environmental
objectives in the MDB (‘the MDB Intergovernmental Agreement’) will operate between the
Commonwealth Government and the Governments of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the
Australian Capital Territory. The MDB Intergovernmental Agreement will be consistent with the objectives,
principles and actions identified in this Agreement.
Commencement
15. The provisions of this Agreement will commence for each jurisdiction as it becomes a signatory to the
Agreement.
Interpretation
16. In this Agreement words and phrases that are italicised are to be interpreted by reference to the glossary at
Schedule B(i).
17. Recognising the importance of a common lexicon for water use and management, the Parties acknowledge
the desirability of adopting within their respective water management frameworks, the words and phrases, and
474
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
their interpretations, contained in Schedule B(ii).
Roles and responsibilities
18. The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) will be responsible for:
(i)
overseeing implementation of this Agreement, in consultation with other Ministerial Councils as necessary
and with reference to advice from COAG; and
(ii) addressing ongoing implementation issues as they arise.
19. The National Water Commission (NWC) will be responsible for providing advice to COAG on national water
issues and to assist in the implementation of this Agreement. The NWC’s institutional structure and role are set
out in Schedule C.
20. The States and Territories are responsible for implementing this Agreement within their respective jurisdictions,
consistent with their implementation plans (paragraph 9 refers).
21. The Parties are responsible for ensuring there is adequate engagement of relevant stakeholders in the
implementation of this Agreement (paragraphs 95–97 refer).
22. The Commonwealth Government will assist in implementation of this Agreement by working with the States and
Territories.
Objectives
23. Full implementation of this Agreement will result in a nationally‑compatible, market, regulatory and planning
based system of managing surface and groundwater resources for rural and urban use that optimises
economic, social and environmental outcomes by achieving the following:
(i)
clear and nationally‑compatible characteristics for secure water access entitlements;
(ii)
transparent, statutory‑based water planning;
(iii) statutory provision for environmental and other public benefit outcomes, and improved
environmental management practices;
(iv) complete the return of all currently overallocated or overused systems to environmentally-sustainable
levels of extraction;
(v) progressive removal of barriers to trade in water and meeting other requirements to facilitate the
broadening and deepening of the water market, with an open trading market to be in place;
(vi) clarity around the assignment of risk arising from future changes in the availability of water for the
consumptive pool;
(vii) water accounting which is able to meet the information needs of different water systems in respect to
planning, monitoring, trading, environmental management and on‑farm management;
(viii) policy settings which facilitate water use efficiency and innovation in urban and rural areas;
(ix) addressing future adjustment issues that may impact on water users and communities; and
(x) recognition of the connectivity between surface and groundwater resources and connected systems
managed as a single resource.
Key elements
24. Agreed outcomes and commitments to specific actions are set out on the basis of the following key elements:
(i) Water Access Entitlements and Planning Framework;
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Water Markets and Trading;
Best Practice Water Pricing;
Integrated Management of Water for Environmental and Other Public Benefit Outcomes;
Water Resource Accounting;
(vi) Urban Water Reform;
(vii) Knowledge and Capacity Building; and
(viii) Community Partnerships and Adjustment.
Water Access Entitlements and Planning Framework
National Water Commission
475
Outcomes
25. The Parties agree that, once initiated, their water access entitlements and planning frameworks will:
(i)
enhance the security and commercial certainty of water access entitlements by clearly specifying the
statutory nature of those entitlements;
(ii) provide a statutory basis for environmental and other public benefit outcomes in surface and
groundwater systems to protect water sources and their dependent ecosystems;
(iii) be characterised by planning processes in which there is adequate opportunity for productive,
environmental and other public benefit considerations to be identified and considered in an open and
transparent way;
(iv) provide for adaptive management of surface and groundwater systems in order to meet productive,
environmental and other public benefit outcomes;
(v) implement firm pathways and open processes for returning previously overallocated and/or overdrawn
surface and groundwater systems to environmentally-sustainable levels of extraction;
(vi) clearly assign the risks arising from future changes to the consumptive pool;
(vii) in the case of water access entitlements, be compatible across jurisdictions to improve investment
certainty, be competitively neutral and to minimise transaction costs on water trades (where relevant);
(viii) reflect regional differences in the variability of water supply and the state of knowledge underpinning
regional allocation decisions;
(ix) recognise indigenous needs in relation to water access and management;
(x) identify and acknowledge surface and groundwater systems of high conservation value, and manage
these systems to protect and enhance those values; and
(xi) protect the integrity of water access entitlements from unregulated growth in interception through land‑use
change.
Actions
26. The Parties agree that the general approach to implementing the entitlements and allocation framework will be
to:
(i) substantially complete plans to address any existing overallocation for all river systems and groundwater
resources in accordance with commitments under the 1994 COAG water reform framework by 2005;
(ii)
incorporate the elements of the entitlements and allocation framework in this Agreement that are missing
or deficient in existing water entitlement frameworks, into their legislative and administrative regimes by
2006;
(iii) review any plans developed for the 1994 COAG framework to ensure that they now meet the
requirements of this Agreement in terms of transparency of process, reporting arrangements and risk
assignment;
(iv) immediately proceed on a priority basis to develop any new plans, consistent with paragraph 38; and
(v) apply the risk assignment framework (paragraphs 46–51 refer) once plans are initialised under this
Agreement.
27. Recognising that States and Territories retain the vested rights to the use, flow and control of water, they agree
to modify their existing legislation and administrative regimes where necessary to ensure that their water
access entitlement and planning frameworks incorporate the features identified in paragraphs 28–57 below.
Water Access Entitlements
28. The consumptive use of water will require a water access entitlement, separate from land, to be described as
a perpetual or open‑ended share of the consumptive pool of a specified water resource, as determined by
the relevant water plan (paragraphs 36 to 40 refer), subject to the provisions at paragraph 33.
29. The allocation of water to a water access entitlement will be made consistent with a water plan (paragraph 36
refers).
30. Regulatory approvals enabling water use at a particular site for a particular purpose will be specified separately
to the water access entitlement, consistent with the principles set out in Schedule D.
31. Water access entitlements will:
476
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
(i)
(ii)
specify the essential characteristics of the water product;
be exclusive;
(iii) be able to be traded, given, bequeathed or leased;
(iv) be able to be subdivided or amalgamated;
(v) be mortgageable (and in this respect have similar status as freehold land when used as collateral for
accessing finance);
(vi) be enforceable and enforced; and
(vii) be recorded in publicly‑accessible reliable water registers that foster public confidence and state
unambiguously who owns the entitlement, and the nature of any encumbrances on it (paragraph 59
refers).
32. Water access entitlements will also:
(i) clearly indicate the responsibilities and obligations of the entitlement holder consistent with the water plan
relevant to the source of the water;
(ii)
only be able to be cancelled at Ministerial and agency discretion where the responsibilities and
obligations of the entitlement holder have clearly been breached;
(iii) be able to be varied, for example to change extraction conditions, where mutually agreed between the
government and the entitlement holder; and
(iv) be subject to any provisions relating to access of water during emergencies, as specified by legislation in
each jurisdiction.
33. The provisions in paragraphs 28–32 are subject to the following provisions:
(i) fixed term or other types of entitlements such as annual licences will only be issued for consumptive use
where this is demonstrably necessary, such as in Western Australia with poorly understood and/or less
developed water resources, and/or where the access is contingent upon opportunistic allocations, and/or
where the access is provided temporarily as part of an adjustment strategy, or where trading may
otherwise not be appropriate. In some cases, a statutory right to extract water may be appropriate; and
(ii) an ongoing process will be in place to assess the risks of expected development and demand on
resources in poorly understood or undeveloped areas, with a view to moving these areas to a full
entitlement framework when this becomes appropriate for their efficient management (paragraph 38
refers).
34. The Parties agree that there may be special circumstances facing the minerals and petroleum sectors that will
need to be addressed by policies and measures beyond the scope of this Agreement. In this context, the
Parties note that specific project proposals will be assessed according to environmental, economic and social
considerations, and that factors specific to resource development projects, such as isolation, relatively short
project duration, water quality issues, and obligations to remediate and offset impacts, may require specific
management arrangements outside the scope of this Agreement.
Environmental and Other Public Benefit Outcomes
35. Water that is provided by the States and Territories to meet agreed environmental and other public benefit
outcomes as defined within relevant water plans (paragraphs 36 to 40 refer) is to:
(i)
be given statutory recognition and have at least the same degree of security as water access entitlements
for consumptive use and be fully accounted for;
(ii)
be defined as the water management arrangements required to meet the outcomes sought, including
water provided on a rules basis or held as a water access entitlement; and
(iii) if held as a water access entitlement, may be made available to be traded (where physically possible) on
the temporary market, when not required to meet the environmental and other public benefit outcomes
sought and provided such trading is not in conflict with those outcomes.
Water Planning
36. Recognising that settling the trade‑offs between competing outcomes for water systems will involve
judgements informed by best available science, socio‑economic analysis and community input, statutory
water plans will be prepared for surface water and groundwater management units in which entitlements are
National Water Commission
477
issued (subject to paragraph 38). Water planning is an important mechanism to assist governments and the
community to determine water management and allocation decisions to meet productive, environmental and
social objectives.
37. Broadly, water planning by States and Territories will provide for:
(i) secure ecological outcomes by describing the environmental and other public benefit outcomes for
water systems and defining the appropriate water management arrangements to achieve those outcomes;
and
(ii) resource security outcomes by determining the shares in the consumptive pool and the rules to allocate
water during the life of the plan.
38. The relevant State or Territory will determine whether a plan is prepared, what area it should cover, the level of
detail required, its duration or frequency of review, and the amount of resources devoted to its preparation
based on an assessment of the level of development of water systems, projected future consumptive demand
and the risks of not having a detailed plan.
39. States and Territories will prepare water plans along the lines of the characteristics and components at
Schedule E.
40. In the implementation of water plans, the Parties will, consistent with the nature and intensity of resource use:
(i) monitor the performance of water plan objectives, outcomes and water management arrangements;
(ii) factor in knowledge improvements as provided for in the plans; and
(iii) provide regular public reports. The reporting will be designed to help water users and governments to
manage risk, and be timed to give early indications of possible changes to the consumptive pool.
Addressing Currently Overallocated and/or Overused Systems
41. The Parties note that existing commitments under National Competition Policy (ref. COAG Tripartite
Agreement Clause 1) arrangements require that allocations to provide a better balance in water resource use
(including appropriate allocations to the environment) for all river systems and groundwater resources which
have been overallocated or are deemed to be stressed and identified in their agreed National Competition
Council (NCC) endorsed individual implementation programs, must be substantially completed by 2005.
42. This Agreement will not delay nor extend timeframes for current National Competition Policy commitments.
43. The Parties further agree that with respect to surface and groundwater resources not covered by the individual
NCC endorsed implementation plans, and subject to paragraph 38, States and Territories will determine in
accordance with the relevant water plan, the precise pathway by which any of those systems found to be
overallocated and/or overused as defined in the water planning process will be adjusted to address the
overallocation or overuse, and meet the environmental and other public benefit outcomes.
44. Subject to paragraph 41, States and Territories agree that substantial progress will be made by 2010 towards
adjusting all overallocated and/or overused systems in accordance with the timelines indicated in their
implementation plans.
45. Parties agree to address significant adjustment issues affecting water users, in accordance with paragraph 97.
Assigning Risks for Changes in Allocation
46. The following risk assignment framework is intended to apply to any future reductions in the availability of water
for consumptive use, that are additional to those identified for the purpose of addressing known overallocation
and/or overuse in accordance with pathways agreed under the provisions in paragraphs 41 to 45 above.
47. The Parties agree that an effective risk assignment framework occurs in the context that: the new share‑based
water access entitlements framework has been established; water plans have been transparently developed to
determine water allocation for the entitlements; regular reporting of progress with implementing plans is
occurring; and a pathway for dealing with known overallocation and/or overuse has been agreed.
48. Water access entitlement holders are to bear the risks of any reduction or less reliable water allocation,
under their water access entitlements, arising from reductions to the consumptive pool as a result of:
478
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
(i)
seasonal or long‑term changes in climate; and
(ii) periodic natural events such as bushfires and drought.
49. The risks of any reduction or less reliable water allocation under a water access entitlement, arising as a
result of bona fide improvements in the knowledge of water systems’ capacity to sustain particular extraction
levels are to be borne by users up to 2014. Risks arising under comprehensive water plans commencing or
renewed after 2014 are to be shared over each ten year period in the following way:
(i) water access entitlement holders to bear the first 3% reduction in water allocation under a water
access entitlement;
(ii)
State/Territory governments and the Commonwealth Government to share one‑third and two‑thirds
respectively reductions in water allocation under water access entitlements of between 3% and 6%; and
(iii) State/Territory and Commonwealth governments to equally share reductions in water allocation under
water access entitlements greater than 6%.
50. Governments are to bear the risks of any reduction or less reliable water allocation that is not previously
provided for, arising from changes in government policy (for example, new environmental objectives). In such
cases, governments may recover this water in accordance with the principles for assessing the most efficient
and cost effective measures for water recovery (paragraph 79 (ii) (a) refers).
51. Alternatively, the Parties agree that where affected parties, including water access entitlement holders,
environmental stakeholders and the relevant government agree, on a voluntary basis, to a different risk
sharing formula to that proposed in paragraphs 48–50 above, that this will be an acceptable approach.
Indigenous Access
52. The Parties will provide for indigenous access to water resources, in accordance with relevant
Commonwealth, State and Territory legislation, through planning processes that ensure:
(i) inclusion of indigenous representation in water planning wherever possible; and
(ii) water plans will incorporate indigenous social, spiritual and customary objectives and strategies for
achieving these objectives wherever they can be developed.
53. Water planning processes will take account of the possible existence of native title rights to water in the
catchment or aquifer area. The Parties note that plans may need to allocate water to native title holders
following the recognition of native title rights in water under the Commonwealth Native Title Act 1993.
54. Water allocated to native title holders for traditional cultural purposes will be accounted for.
Interception
55. The Parties recognise that a number of land use change activities have potential to intercept significant
volumes of surface and/or ground water now and in the future. Examples of such activities that are of concern,
many of which are currently undertaken without a water access entitlement, include:
(i) farm dams and bores;
(ii) intercepting and storing of overland flows; and
(iii) large‑scale plantation forestry.
56. The Parties also recognise that if these 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.
57. Accordingly, the Parties agree to implement the following measures in relation to water interception on a priority
basis in accordance with the timetable contained in their implementation plans, and no later than 2011:
(i)
in water systems that are fully allocated, overallocated, or approaching full allocation:‑
(a) interception activities that are assessed as being significant should be recorded (for example,
National Water Commission
479
through a licensing system);
(b) any proposals for additional interception activities above an agreed threshold size, will require a
water access entitlement:
− the threshold size will be determined for the entire water system covered by a water plan,
having regard to regional circumstances and taking account of both the positive and
negative impacts of water interception on regional (including cross‑border) natural
resource management outcomes (for example, the control of rising water tables by
plantations); and
− the threshold may not apply to activities for restricted purposes, such as contaminated water
from intensive livestock operations;
(c)a robust compliance monitoring regime will be implemented; and
(ii)
in water systems that are not yet fully allocated, or approaching full allocation:
(a) significant interception activities should be identified and estimates made of the amount of water
likely to be intercepted by those activities over the life of the relevant water plan;
(b) an appropriate threshold level will be calculated of water interception by the significant interception
activities that is allowable without a water access entitlement across the entire water system
covered by the plan:
− this threshold level should be determined as per paragraph 57(i)b) above; and
(c)progress of the catchment or aquifer towards either full allocation or the threshold level of interception
should be regularly monitored and publicly reported:
− once the threshold level of interception is reached, or the system is approaching full allocation,
all additional proposals for significant interception activities will require a water access
entitlement unless for activities for restricted purposes, such as contaminated water from
intensive livestock operations.
Water Markets and Trading
Outcomes
58. The States and Territories agree that their water market and trading arrangements will:
(i) facilitate the operation of efficient water markets and the opportunities for trading, within and between
States and Territories, where water systems are physically shared or hydrologic connections and water
supply considerations will permit water trading;
(ii) minimise transaction costs on water trades, including through good information flows in the market and
compatible entitlement, registry, regulatory and other arrangements across jurisdictions;
(iii) enable the appropriate mix of water products to develop based on access entitlements which can be
traded either in whole or in part, and either temporarily or permanently, or through lease arrangements or
other trading options that may evolve over time;
(iv) recognise and protect the needs of the environment; and
(v) provide appropriate protection of third‑party interests.
Actions
59. The States and Territories agree to have in place pathways by 2004, leading to full implementation by 2006, of
compatible, publicly‑accessible and reliable water registers of all water access entitlements and trades (both
permanent and temporary) on a whole of basin or catchment basis, consistent with the principles in Schedule
F. The Parties recognise that in some instances water service providers will be responsible for recording
details of temporary trades.
60. The States and Territories agree to establish by 2007 compatible institutional and regulatory arrangements that
facilitate intra and interstate trade, and manage differences in entitlement reliability, supply losses, supply
source constraints, trading between systems, and cap requirements, including:
(i) principles for trading rules to address resource management and infrastructure delivery considerations,
as set out in Schedule G;
(ii)
480
where appropriate, the use of water access entitlement exchange rates and/or water access entitlement
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
tagging and a system of trading zones to simplify administration;
(iii) the application of consistent pricing policies (refer paragraph 64 below);
(iv) in respect of any existing institutional barriers to intra and interstate trade:
(a) immediate removal of barriers to temporary trade;
(b) immediate removal of barriers to permanent trade out of water irrigation areas up to an annual
threshold limit of four percent of the total water entitlement of that area, subject to a review by 2009
with a move to full and open trade by 2014 at the latest, except in the southern Murray–Darling Basin
where action to remove barriers to trade is agreed as set out under paragraph 63; and
(c)jurisdictions may remove barriers earlier than those in (b) above;
(v) subject to (i) above, no imposition of new barriers to trade, including in the form of arrangements for
addressing stranded assets; and
(vi) where appropriate, implementing measures to facilitate the rationalisation of inefficient infrastructure or
unsustainable irrigation supply schemes, including consideration of the need for any structural
adjustment assistance (paragraph 97 refers).
61. To support the above actions on trading, the Parties also agree to complete the following studies and to
consider implementation of any recommendations by June 2005:
(i) a study taking into account work already underway, on effective market and regulatory mechanisms for
sharing delivery capacity and extraction rates among water users, where necessary to enhance the
operation of water markets and make recommendations to implement efficient ways to manage changes
in water usage patterns, channel capacity constraints and water quality issues;
(ii) a study to facilitate cross system compatibility, that analyses the existing product mix, proposes possible
choices of product mix, makes recommendations on the desirable model and proposes a transition path
for implementation; and
(iii) a study to assess the feasibility of establishing market mechanisms such as tradeable salinity and
pollution credits to provide incentives for investment in water‑use efficiency and farm management
strategies and for dealing with environmental externalities.
62. Recognising the need to manage the impacts of assets potentially stranded by trade out of serviced areas, the
Parties agree to ensure that support mechanisms used for this purpose, such as access and exit fees and
retail tagging, do not become an institutional barrier to trade (paragraph 60(v) refers).
63. In regard to the Southern Murray–Darling Basin, the relevant Parties (Commonwealth, New South Wales,
Victoria and South Australia) that are members of the Murray–Darling Basin Ministerial Council agree to:
(i)
take all steps necessary, including making any corresponding legislative and administrative changes, to
enable exchange rates and/or tagging of water access entitlements traded from interstate sources to
buyers in their jurisdictions by June 2005;
(ii)
reduce barriers to trade in the Southern Murray–Darling Basin by taking the necessary legislative and
other actions to permit open trade and ensure competitive neutrality, and to establish an interim threshold
limit on the level of permanent trade out of all water irrigation areas of four per cent per annum of the
total water access entitlement for the water irrigation area by June 2005, including:
(a) in the case of NSW, making necessary legislative changes to give effect to a Heads of Agreement
between Government and major irrigation corporations to permit increased trade, including to
remove barriers to trade up to the above interim threshold limit; and
(b) in the case of Victoria and South Australia, bringing into effect change to permit increased trade
including to remove barriers to trade up to the above interim threshold level, in the respective
Authorities and Trusts, at the same time that NSW amends its legislation;
(iii) review the above actions in June 2005 to assess whether all relevant parties have met their obligations to
enable achievement of the interim threshold;
(iv) a study into the legal, commercial and technical mechanisms necessary to enable interstate trade to
commence in the Southern Murray–Darling Basin by June 2005;
(v) review the outcome of 63(ii)(a) by 2007 and, if the actions are shown to be insufficient to ensure the
desired level of open trade, to take any further action, including legislation, determined necessary to
National Water Commission
481
achieve the desired opening of water trading markets in the Southern Murray–Darling Basin;
(vi) the National Water Commission monitoring the impacts of interstate trade and advising the relevant
Parties on any issues arising; and
(vii) review the impact of trade under the interim threshold in 2009, with a view to raising the threshold to a
higher level if considered appropriate.
Best Practice Water Pricing and Institutional Arrangements
Outcomes
64. The Parties agree to implement water pricing and institutional arrangements which:
(i) promote economically efficient and sustainable use of:
(a) water resources;
(b) water infrastructure assets; and
(c)government resources devoted to the management of water;
(ii) ensure sufficient revenue streams to allow efficient delivery of the required services;
(iii) facilitate the efficient functioning of water markets, including inter‑jurisdictional water markets, and in both
rural and urban settings;
(iv) give effect to the principles of user‑pays and achieve pricing transparency in respect of water storage
and delivery in irrigation systems and cost recovery for water planning and management;
(v) avoid perverse or unintended pricing outcomes; and
(vi) provide appropriate mechanisms for the release of unallocated water.
Actions
Water Storage and Delivery Pricing
65. In accordance with NCP commitments, the States and Territories agree to bring into effect pricing policies for
water storage and delivery in rural and urban systems that facilitate efficient water use and trade in water
entitlements, including through the use of:
(i) consumption based pricing;
(ii) full cost recovery for water services to ensure business viability and avoid monopoly rents, including
recovery of environmental externalities, where feasible and practical; and
(iii) consistency in pricing policies across sectors and jurisdictions where entitlements are able to be traded.
66. In particular, States and Territories agree to the following pricing actions:
Metropolitan
(i)
continued movement towards upper bound pricing by 2008;
(ii)
development of pricing policies for recycled water and stormwater that are congruent with pricing policies
for potable water, and stimulate efficient water use no matter what the source, by 2006;
(iii) review and development of pricing policies for trade wastes that encourage the most cost effective
methods of treating industrial wastes, whether at the source or at downstream plants, by 2006; and
(iv) development of national guidelines for customers’ water accounts that provide information on their water
use relative to equivalent households in the community by 2006;
Rural and Regional
(v) full cost recovery for all rural surface and groundwater based systems, recognising that there will be some
small community services that will never be economically viable but need to be maintained to meet social
and public health obligations:
(a) achievement of lower bound pricing for all rural systems in line with existing NCP commitments;
(b) continued movement towards upper bound pricing for all rural systems, where practicable; and
(c)where full cost recovery is unlikely to be achieved in the long term and a Community Service Obligation
(CSO) is deemed necessary, the size of the subsidy is to be reported publicly and, where
practicable, jurisdictions to consider alternative management arrangements aimed at removing the
need for an ongoing CSO.
Cost Recovery for Planning and Management
482
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
67. The States and Territories agree to bring into effect consistent approaches to pricing and attributing costs of
water planning and management by 2006, involving:
(i)
the identification of all costs associated with water planning and management, including the costs of
underpinning water markets such as the provision of registers, accounting and measurement frameworks
and performance monitoring and benchmarking;
(ii)
the identification of the proportion of costs that can be attributed to water access entitlement holders
consistent with the principles below:
(a) charges exclude activities undertaken for the Government (such as policy development, and
Ministerial or Parliamentary services); and
(b) charges are linked as closely as possible to the costs of activities or products.
68. The States and Territories agree to report publicly on cost recovery for water planning and management as part
of annual reporting requirements, including:
(i) the total cost of water planning and management; and
(ii) the proportion of the total cost of water planning and management attributed to water access entitlement
holders and the basis upon which this proportion is determined.
Investment in new or refurbished infrastructure
69. The Parties agree to ensure that proposals for investment in new or refurbished water infrastructure continue to
be assessed as economically viable and ecologically sustainable prior to the investment occurring (noting
paragraph 66 (v)).
Release of unallocated water
70. Release of unallocated water will be a matter for States and Territories to determine. Any release of unallocated
water should be managed in the context of encouraging the sustainable and efficient use of scarce water
resources.
71. If a release is justified, generally, it should occur only where alternative ways of meeting water demands, such as
through water trading, making use of the unused parts of existing entitlements or by increasing water use
efficiency, have been fully explored.
72. To the extent practicable, releases should occur through market‑based mechanisms.
Environmental Externalities
73. The States and Territories agree to:
(i) continue to manage environmental externalities through a range of regulatory measures (such as through
setting extraction limits in water management plans and by specifying the conditions for the use of water
in water use licences);
(ii) continue to examine the feasibility of using market based mechanisms such as pricing to account for
positive and negative environmental externalities associated with water use; and
(iii) implement pricing that includes externalities where found to be feasible.
Institutional Reform
74. The Parties agree that as far as possible, the roles of water resource management, standard setting and
regulatory enforcement and service provision continue to be separated institutionally.
Benchmarking Efficient Performance
75. The States and Territories will be required to report independently, publicly, and on an annual basis,
benchmarking of pricing and service quality for metropolitan, non‑metropolitan and rural water delivery
agencies. Such reports will be made on the basis of a nationally consistent framework to be developed by the
Parties by 2005, taking account of existing information collection including:
(i) the major metropolitan inter‑agency performance and benchmarking system managed by the Water
(ii)
Services Association of Australia;
the non‑major metropolitan inter‑agency performance and benchmarking system managed by the
Australian Water Association ; and
(iii) the irrigation industry performance monitoring and benchmarking system, currently being managed by the
National Water Commission
483
Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage.
76. Costs of operating the above performance and benchmarking systems are to be met by jurisdictions through
recovery of water management costs.
Independent pricing regulator
77. The Parties agree to use independent bodies to:
(i)
set or review prices, or price setting processes, for water storage and delivery by government water
service providers, on a case‑by‑case basis, consistent with the principles in paragraphs 65 to 68 above;
and
(ii) publicly review and report on pricing in government and private water service providers to ensure that the
principles in paragraphs 65 to 68 above are met.
Integrated Management of Environmental Water
Outcome
78. The Parties agree that the outcome for integrated management of environmental water is to identify within
water resource planning frameworks the environmental and other public benefit outcomes sought for
water systems and to develop and implement management practices and institutional arrangements that will
achieve those outcomes by:
(i) identifying the desired environmental and other public benefit outcomes with as much specificity as
possible;
(ii) establishing and equipping accountable environmental water managers with the necessary authority
and resources to provide sufficient water at the right times and places to achieve the environmental and
other public benefit outcomes, including across State/Territory boundaries where relevant; and
(iii) optimising the cost effectiveness of measures to provide water for these outcomes.
Actions
79. Recognising the different types of surface water and groundwater systems, in particular the varying nature and
intensity of resource use, and recognising the requirements to identify environmental and other public benefit
outcomes in water plans, and describe the water management arrangements necessary to meet those
outcomes (paragraph 35.ii) refers), the States and Territories agree to:
(i)
establish effective and efficient management and institutional arrangements to ensure the achievement
of the environmental and other public benefit outcomes, including:
(a) environmental water managers that are accountable for the management of environmental water
provisions and the achievement of environmental and other public benefit outcomes;
(b) joint arrangements where resources are shared between jurisdictions;
(c)common arrangements in the case of significantly inter‑connected groundwater and surface water
systems;
(d) periodic independent audit, review and public reporting of the achievement of environmental and
other public benefit outcomes and the adequacy of the water provision and management
arrangements in achieving those outcomes;
(e) the ability for environmental water managers to trade water on temporary markets at times such
water is not required to contribute towards environmental and other public benefit outcomes
(consistent with paragraph 35(iii));
(ii)
484
(f) any special requirements needed for the environmental values and water management arrangements
necessary to sustain high conservation value rivers, reaches and groundwater areas;
where it is necessary to recover water to achieve modified environmental and other public benefit
outcomes, to adopt the following principles for determining the most effective and efficient mix of water
recovery measures:
(a) consideration of all available options for water recovery, including:
− investment in more efficient water infrastructure;
− purchase of water on the market, by tender or other market based mechanisms;
− investment in more efficient water management practices, including measurement; or
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
− investment in behavioural change to reduce urban water consumption;
(b) assessment of the socio‑economic costs and benefits of the most prospective options, including
on downstream users, and the implications for wider natural resource management outcomes (eg.
impacts on water quality or salinity); and
(c)selection of measures primarily on the basis of cost‑effectiveness, and with a view to managing
socio‑economic impacts.
Water Resource Accounting
Outcome
80. The Parties agree that the outcome of water resource accounting is to ensure that adequate measurement,
monitoring and reporting systems are in place in all jurisdictions, to support public and investor confidence in
the amount of water being traded, extracted for consumptive use, and recovered and managed for
environmental and other public benefit outcomes.
Actions
Benchmarking of Accounting Systems
81. Recognising that a national framework for comparison of water accounting systems can encourage continuous
improvement leading to adoption of best practice, the Parties agree to benchmark jurisdictional water
accounting systems on a national scale by June 2005, including:
(i) state based water entitlement registering systems;
(ii) water service provider water accounting systems;
(iii) water service provider water use/delivery efficiency; and
(iv) jurisdictional/system water and related data bases.
Consolidated Water Accounts
82. Recognising that robust water accounting will protect the integrity of the access entitlement system, the Parties
agree to develop and implement by 2006:
(i) accounting system standards, particularly where jurisdictions share the resources of river systems and
where water markets are operating;
(ii) standardised reporting formats to enable ready comparison of water use, compliance against
entitlements and trading information;
(iii) water resource accounts that can be reconciled annually and aggregated to produce a national water
balance, including:
(a) a water balance covering all significant water use, for all managed water resource systems;
(b) systems to integrate the accounting of groundwater and surface water use where close interaction
between groundwater aquifers and streamflow exist; and
(c)consideration of land use change, climate change and other externalities as elements of the water
balance.
83. States and Territories agree to identify by end 2005 situations where close interaction between groundwater
aquifers and streamflow exist and implement by 2008 systems to integrate the accounting of groundwater and
surface water use.
Environmental Water Accounting
84. The Parties agree that principles for environmental water accounting will be developed and applied in the
context of consolidated water accounts in paragraph 82.
85. The Parties further agree to develop by mid 2005 and apply by mid 2006:
(i) a compatible register of new and existing environmental water (consistent with paragraph 35) showing all
relevant details of source, location, volume, security, use, environmental outcomes sought and type; and
(ii) annual reporting arrangements to include reporting on the environmental water rules, whether or not they
were activated in a particular year, the extent to which rules were implemented and the overall
effectiveness of the use of resources in the context of the environmental and other public benefit
outcomes sought and achieved.
National Water Commission
485
Information
86. States and Territories agree to:
(i)
(ii)
improve the coordination of data collection and management systems to facilitate better sharing of this
information;
develop partnerships in data collection and storage; and
(iii) identify best practice in data management systems for broad adoption.
Metering and Measuring
87. The Parties agree that generally metering should be undertaken on a consistent basis in the following
circumstances:
(i) for categories of entitlements identified in a water planning process as requiring metering;
(ii) where water access entitlements are traded;
(iii) in an area where there are disputes over the sharing of available water;
(iv) where new entitlements are issued; or
(v) where there is a community demand.
88. Recognising that information available from metering needs to be practical, credible and reliable, the Parties
agree to develop by 2006 and apply by 2007:
(i) a national meter specification;
(ii) national meter standards specifying the installation of meters in conjunction with the meter specification;
and
(iii) national standards for ancillary data collection systems associated with meters.
Reporting
89. The Parties agree to develop by mid 2005 and apply national guidelines by 2007 covering the application,
scale, detail and frequency for open reporting addressing:
(i) metered water use and associated compliance and enforcement actions;
(ii) trade outcomes;
(iii) environmental water releases and management actions; and
(iv) availability of water access entitlements against the rules for availability and use.
Urban Water Reform
Outcome
90. The Parties agree that the outcome for urban water reform is to:
(i) provide healthy, safe and reliable water supplies;
(ii) increase water use efficiency in domestic and commercial settings;
(iii) encourage the re‑use and recycling of wastewater where cost effective;
(iv) facilitate water trading between and within the urban and rural sectors;
(v) encourage innovation in water supply sourcing, treatment, storage and discharge; and
(vi) achieve improved pricing for metropolitan water (consistent with paragraph 66.i)to 66.iv)).
Actions
Demand Management
91. States and Territories agree to undertake the following actions in regard to demand management by 2006:
(i)
legislation to implement the Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme (WELS) to be in place in all jurisdictions
and regulator undertaking compliance activity by 2005, including mandatory labelling and minimum
standards for agreed appliances;
(ii)
develop and implement a ‘Smart Water Mark’ for household gardens, including garden irrigation
equipment, garden designs and plants;
(iii) review the effectiveness of temporary water restrictions and associated public education strategies, and
assess the scope for extending low level restrictions as standard practice; and
(iv) prioritise and implement, where cost effective, management responses to water supply and discharge
486
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
system losses including leakage, excess pressure, overflows and other maintenance needs.
Innovation and Capacity Building to Create Water Sensitive Australian Cities
92. The Parties agree to undertake the following actions in regard to innovation:
(i) develop national health and environmental guidelines for priority elements of water sensitive urban
designs (initially recycled water and stormwater) by 2005;
(ii)
develop national guidelines for evaluating options for water sensitive urban developments, both in new
urban sub‑divisions and high rise buildings by 2006;
(iii) evaluate existing ‘icon water sensitive urban developments’ to identify gaps in knowledge and lessons for
future strategically located developments by 2005;
(iv) review the institutional and regulatory models for achieving integrated urban water cycle planning and
management, followed by preparation of best practice guidelines by 2006; and
(v) review of incentives to stimulate innovation by 2006.
Community Partnerships and Adjustment
Outcome
93. Parties agree that the outcome is to engage water users and other stakeholders in achieving the objectives of
this Agreement by:
(i) improving certainty and building confidence in reform processes;
(ii) transparency in decision making; and
(iii) ensuring sound information is available to all sectors at key decision points.
94. Parties also agree to address adjustment issues raised by the implementation of this Agreement.
Actions
95. States and Territories agree to ensure open and timely consultation with all stakeholders in relation to:
(i) pathways for returning overdrawn surface and groundwater systems to environmentally sustainable
extraction levels (paragraphs 41 to 45 refer);
(ii) the periodic review of water plans (paragraph 398 refers); and
(iii) other significant decisions that may affect the security of water access entitlements or the sustainability
of water use.
96. States and Territories agree to provide accurate and timely information to all relevant stakeholders regarding:
(i) progress with the implementation of water plans, including the achievement of objectives and likely
future trends regarding the size of the consumptive pool; and
(ii) other issues relevant to the security of water access entitlements and the sustainability of water use,
including the science underpinning the identification and implementation of environmental and other
public benefit outcomes.
97. The Parties agree to address significant adjustment issues affecting water access entitlement holders and
communities that may arise from reductions in water availability as a result of implementing the reforms
proposed in this Agreement.
(i)
States and Territories will consult with affected water users, communities and associated industry on
possible appropriate responses to address these impacts, taking into account factors including:
(a) possible trade‑offs between higher reliability and lower absolute amounts of water;
(b) the fact that water users have benefited from using the resource in the past;
(ii)
(c)the scale of the changes sought and the speed with which they are to be implemented (including
consideration of previous changes in water availability); and
(d) the risk assignment framework referred to in paragraphs 46 to 51.
The Commonwealth Government commits itself to discussing with signatories to this Agreement
assistance to affected regions on a case by case basis (including set up costs), noting that it reserves the
right to initiate projects on its own behalf.
National Water Commission
487
Knowledge and Capacity Building
98. This Agreement identifies a number of areas where there are significant knowledge and capacity building
needs for its ongoing implementation. These include: regional water accounts and assessment of availability
through time and across catchments; changes to water availability from climate and land use change;
interaction between surface and groundwater components of the water cycle; demonstrating ecological
outcomes from environmental flow management; improvements in farm, irrigation system and catchment water
use efficiency; catchment processes that impact on water quality; improvements in urban water use efficiency;
and independent reviews of the knowledge base.
99. There are significant national investments in knowledge and capacity building in water, including through the
Cooperative Research programme, CSIRO Water Flagship and Land and Water Australia, State agencies,
local government and higher education institutions. Scientific, technical and social aspects of water
management are multi‑ disciplinary and extend beyond the capacity of any single research institution.
Outcome
100. Parties agree that the outcome of knowledge and capacity building will assist in underpinning implementation
of this Agreement.
Actions
101. Parties agree to:
(i) identify the key knowledge and capacity building priorities needed to support ongoing implementation of
this Agreement; and
(ii)
identify and implement proposals to more effectively coordinate the national water knowledge effort.
Variation
102. This Agreement may be amended at the request of one of the Parties, subject to the agreement of all the
Parties.
103. All Parties agree to notify and consult each other on matters that come to their attention that may improve the
operation of the Agreement.
Monitoring and review
104. The Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (NRMMC) will:
(i) commencing in 2005 provide annual reports to COAG on progress with the actions being taken by
jurisdictions in implementing this Agreement; and
(ii) in consultation with the National Water Commission (NWC), develop by mid 2005, a comprehensive
national set of performance indicators for this Agreement. The indicators should, where possible, draw
on existing indicators and include initialisation of water access entitlements, environmental water, water
use efficiency, water pricing and water trading.
105. The NWC will:
(i) undertake a baseline assessment of the water resource and governance arrangements, based on
existing work by the Parties and undertaking further work only where required;
(ii)
accredit implementation plans to be developed by each jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 9, by
mid‑2005;
(iii) assess the implementation plans towards achieving the objectives and outcomes of this Agreement
within agreed timeframes on the basis of its baseline assessment above and jurisdictions’ self
assessment of their respective implementation plans;
(iv) report to COAG on accreditation of the implementation plans by 2006; and
(v) report to the Commonwealth Government on compliance with any outstanding commitments under the
1994 COAG framework.
106. The NWC will, commencing in 2006–07, undertake:
(i)
488
biennial assessments of progress with the NWI Agreement and State and Territory implementation plans,
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
(ii)
and advice on actions required to better realise the objectives and outcomes of the Agreement;
a third biennial assessment in 2010–11 in the form of a comprehensive review of the Agreement against
the indicators developed by the NRMMC referred to in paragraph 104(ii) above, and an assessment of
the extent to which actions undertaken in this Agreement contribute to the national interest and the
impacts of implementing this Agreement on regional, rural and urban communities; and
(iii) biennial assessments of the performance of the water industry against national benchmarks, in areas
such as irrigation efficiency, water management costs and water pricing.
107. The NWC reports to COAG will be publicly available.
108. Drawing on the NWC assessment in 2010–11, COAG will review the objectives and operation of the NWC in
2011.
National Water Commission
489
Signed for and on behalf of each of the parties by:
The Honourable John Winston Howard MP
)
Prime Minister of the Commonwealth of Australia
The Honourable Robert John Carr MP
Premier of New South Wales
)
)
The Honourable Stephen Phillip Bracks MP
Premier of Victoria
)
)
The Honourable Peter Beattie MP
Premier of Queensland
)
)
The Honourable Michael Rann MP
Premier of South Australia
)
)
Jonathon Donald Stanhope MLA
)
Chief Minister of the Australian Capital Territory
The Honourable Clare Martin MLA
Chief Minister of the Northern Territory
25 June 2004
490
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
)
)
)
)
Schedule A: Timeline for implementation of key actions
Date
IGA
paragraphs
Responsibility
• Establish a National Water Commission
end 2004
10
All Parties
• Jurisdictions to develop implementation plans.
June 2005
8
States1
• Substantial progress towards implementation of this Agreement
2010
8
All Parties
− substantial completion of plans to address any existing
overallocation for all river systems and groundwater resources
in accordance with commitments under the 1994 COAG water
reform framework
− Legislative and administrative regimes amended to
incorporate the elements of the entitlements and allocation
framework in this Agreement
end 2005
26 (i)
end 2006
26(ii)
• Water access entitlements to be defined and implemented
• Water to meet environmental and other public benefit outcomes
immediate
immediate
28–34
35
States
States
end 2007
end 2009
39–40
39–40
States
States
2005
end 2010
41
43–45
States
All Parties
immediate
46–50
States
immediate
52–54
States
55–57
States
Key Actions
Implementation
Water access entitlements and planning framework
• Implementation of the framework:
States
States
identified in water plans to be defined, provided and managed.
• Water plans to be prepared along the lines of the characteristics
and components at Schedule D based on the following priorities:
− plans for systems that are overallocated, fully allocated or approaching
full allocation;
− plans for systems that are not yet approaching full allocation
• Substantially complete addressing overallocation as per
NCC commitments.
• substantial progress toward adjusting all overallocated
and/or overused systems
• Risk assignment framework to be implemented immediately for all
changes in allocation not provided for in overallocation pathways in
water plans
• Water plans to address indigenous water issues
• Implementation of measures to address water interception
by land use change activities on a priority basis in accordance
with water plans
no later than
2011
Water markets and trading
• Adoption of publicly accessible, compatible systems for
registering water access entitlements and trades consistent with
Schedule F:
end 2004
59
end 2006
59
− pathways leading to full implementation; and
− full implementation.
1
470
For purposes of this Schedule “States” is an abbreviation for “States and Territories”
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
States
States
Key Actions
IGA
paragraphs
Responsibility
60
States
immediate
60(iv)(a)
States
immediate
60(iv)(b)
States
(except for
southern
MDB)
60(iv)(b)
States
June 2005
61(i)
All Parties
June 2005
61(ii)
All Parties
June 2005
61(iii)
All Parties
June 2005
63(i)
relevant Parties
June 2005
63(ii)
relevant Parties
June 2005
63(ii)(a)
NSW
June 2005
63(ii)(b)
Victoria and SA
June 2005
63(iii)
relevant Parties
June 2005
63(iv)
relevant Parties
end 2007
63(v)
relevant Parties
ongoing
63(vi)
NWC
end 2009
63(vii)
relevant Parties
end 2004
65
States
Date
Water markets and trading (cont.)
• Establish compatible institutional and regulatory arrangements that
facilitate trade, including arrangements consistent with principles in
Schedule G
− re institutional barriers to trade
− remove barriers to temporary trade
− remove barriers to permanent trade up to an annual
threshold of 4 percent
− review impact on trade of interim threshold
− full removal of barriers to trade
end
2007
2009
end 2014
• Complete the following studies and consider implementation of any
recommendations:
− review of water products
− new approach to sharing delivery capacity and extraction rates
among users
− feasibility of establishing market mechanisms such as tradeable
salinity and pollution credits to provide incentives for investment in
water‑use efficiency and farm management strategies and for
dealing with environmental externalities
• Relevant Parties (Commonwealth, NSW, Victoria and SA)
agree to:
− take necessary steps to enable the use of exchange rates
and/or tagging for interstate trade;
− reduce barriers to trade in southern MDB and establish an
interim limit on permanent trade out of water irrigation areas of 4
percent per annum
− NSW make legislative changes to remove barriers and permit
increased trade up to the interim limit;
− Vic and SA make change to remove barriers and permit
increased trade up to the interim limit
− review actions to assess whether relevant parties have
removed barriers to achieve interim limit
− study into mechanisms necessary to enable interstate trade
− review outcome of actions by NSW
− NWC monitor impacts of interstate trade
− review the impact on trade under the interim threshold.
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements
• Complete commitments under the 1994 COAG Water Reform
Framework to bring into effect pricing policies for water storage and
delivery in rural and urban systems
National Water Commission
471
Date
IGA
paragraphs
Responsibility
end 2008
66(i)
States
end 2006
66 (ii)
States
end 2006
66 (iii)
States
end 2006
66 (iv)
States
ongoing
66 (v)(a)
States
ongoing
66 (v)(b)
States
end 2006
67
States
ongoing
69
States
• Release of unallocated water
ongoing
70–72
States
• Environmental externalities managed through a range of
ongoing
73
States
ongoing
75
States
2005
76
All Parties
ongoing
77
All Parties
immediate
79(i)
States
ongoing
79(ii)
States
Key Actions
Best practice water pricing and institutional arrangements (cont.)
• Metropolitan
− Continued movement towards upper bound pricing;
− development of pricing policies for recycled water and
stormwater;
− review and development of pricing policies for trade
wastes; and
− development of national guidelines for water accounts.
• Rural and Regional
− full cost recovery for all rural surface and groundwater based
systems:
− continued movement towards lower bound pricing
per NCC commitments; and
− achievement of upper bound pricing for all rural
systems, where practicable.
• Consistent approaches to pricing and attributing costs of water
planning and management
• Investment in new or refurbished water infrastructure to continue
to be assessed as economically and ecologically sustainable
before being approved
regulatory measures
• Benchmarking efficient performance
− independent, public, annual reporting of performance
benchmarking for all metropolitan, non‑metropolitan and
rural water delivery agencies
− develop nationally consistent report framework
• Independent pricing regulator
− independent pricing bodies to set and review prices or
pricing processes for water storage and delivery and
publicly report.
Integrated management of environmental water
• Recognising the different types of surface water and
groundwater systems:
− effective and efficient management and institutional
arrangements to ensure the achievement of the
environmental outcomes; and
− where it is necessary to recover water to achieve
environmental outcomes, to adopt the principles for
determining the most effective and efficient mix of water
recovery measures.
472
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Key Actions
Date
IGA
paragraphs
Responsibility
mid 2005
81
All Parties
end 2006
end 2005
end 2008
82
83
83
All Parties
All Parties
All Parties
mid 2005
mid 2006
85
85
All Parties
All Parties
ongoing
86
All Parties
end 2006
88
All Parties
end 2007
88
All Parties
mid 2005
89
end 2007
89
end 2005
91(i)
States
end 2006
91 (ii)
States
end 2006
91 (iii)
States
end 2006
91 (iv)
States
Water resource accounting
• Benchmarking of accounting systems
• Consolidated water accounts
− Develop and implement robust water accounting
− Identify situations where close interaction between
surface and groundwater exist
− Implement systems to integrate the accounting of
surface and groundwater
• Environmental water accounting:
− develop an environmental water register and annual
reporting arrangements; and
− apply the environmental water register and annual
reporting arrangements.
• Implement information measures
• Metering and measuring actions:
− develop metering and measuring actions; and
− implement metering and measuring actions.
• National guidelines on water reporting:
− develop national guidelines on water reporting; and
− apply national guidelines on water reporting.
All Parties
All Parties
Urban water reform
• Implementation of demand management measures, including:
− implementation and compliance monitoring of WELS,
including mandatory labelling and minimum standards for
agreed appliances;
− develop and implement ‘Smart Water Mark’ for
garden activities;
− review effectiveness of temporary water restricts and associated
public education strategies, and consider extending low level
restrictions to standard practice; and
− implement management responses to water supply and discharge
system losses including leakage, excess pressure, overflows and
other maintenance needs.
National Water Commission
473
Key Actions
Date
IGA
paragraphs
Responsibility
end 2005
92(i)
All Parties
end 2006
92 (ii)
All Parties
end 2005
92 (iii)
All Parties
end 2006
92 (iv)
All Parties
end 2006
92 (v)
All Parties
ongoing
95
States
ongoing
96
States
ongoing
97
All Parties
ongoing
101(i)
All Parties
ongoing
101(ii)
All Parties
• Encourage further innovation in urban water use including:
− develop and apply national health and environmental guidelines
for water sensitive urban designs for recycled water and
stormwater;
− develop national guidelines for evaluating options for water
sensitive urban developments in both new urban
sub‑divisions and high rise;
− evaluate existing water sensitive urban icon developments;
− review institutional and regulatory models for integrated urban
water cycle planning and management and develop best
practice guidelines;
− review incentives to stimulate innovation.
Community partnerships and adjustment
• Open and timely consultation with all relevant stakeholders in
relation to: pathways for returning overallocated systems to
sustainable extraction levels, periodic review of water plans, and
other significant decisions affecting the security of water access
entitlements.
• Provision of accurate and timely information to all relevant
stakeholders in relation to the progress of water plan
implementation and other issues relevant to the security of water
access entitlements.
• Address significant adjustment issues affecting water access
entitlement holders and communities that may arise from reductions
in water availability as a result of implementing the National Water
Initiative
Knowledge and capacity building
• Identify the key science priorities to support implementation of the
National Water Initiative and where this work is
being undertaken.
• Implement any necessary measures to ensure the research effort
is well coordinated and publicised, and any gaps
are addressed.
474
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Schedule B(i): Glossary of terms
The words and phrases that are italicised in this intergovernmental agreement are to be interpreted according to the
definitions given below.
consumptive pool – the amount of water resource that can be made available for consumptive use
in a given water system under the rules of the relevant water plan.
consumptive use – use of water for private benefit consumptive purposes including irrigation, industry, urban and
stock and domestic use.
environmental and other public benefit outcomes – environmental and other public benefit outcomes are
defined as part of the water planning process, are specified in water plans and may include a number of aspects,
including:
− environmental outcomes: maintaining ecosystem function (eg. through periodic inundation of floodplain
wetlands); biodiversity, water quality; river health targets;
− other public benefits: mitigating pollution, public health (eg. limiting noxious algal blooms), indigenous and
cultural values, recreation, fisheries, tourism, navigation and amenity values.
Environmental manager – an expertise based function with clearly identified responsibility for the management of
environmental water so as to give effect to the environmental objectives of statutory water plans
− the institutional form of the environmental manager will vary from place to place reflecting the scale at which the
environmental objectives are set and the degree of active management of environmental water required
− the environmental manager may be a separate body or an existing Basin, catchment or river manager provided
that the function is assigned the necessary powers and resources, potential conflicts of interest are minimised, and
lines of accountability are clear
environmentally sustainable level of extraction – the level of water extraction from a particular system which, if
exceeded would compromise key environmental assets, or ecosystem functions and the productive base of the
resource.
exchange rate – the rate of conversion calculated and agreed to be applied to water to be traded from one trading
zone and/or jurisdiction to another.
extraction rate – the rate in terms of unit volume per unit time that water can be drawn from a surface or
groundwater system. Used in the NWI in the context of a constraint that might exist due to the impact of exceeding a
particular extraction rate at a particular point or within a specified system.
lower bound pricing – the level at which to be viable, a water business should recover, at least, the operational,
maintenance and administrative costs, externalities, taxes or TERs (not including income tax), the interest cost on
debt, dividends (if any) and make provision for future asset refurbishment/ replacement. Dividends should be set at a
level that reflects commercial realities and stimulates a competitive market outcome.
metropolitan – refers to water and wastewater services provided in metropolitan urban areas having in excess of
50,000 connections.
overallocation – refers to situations where with full development of water access entitlements in a particular system,
the total volume of water able to be extracted by entitlement holders at a given time exceeds the environmentally
sustainable level of extraction for that system.
overused – refers to situations where the total volume of water actually extracted for consumptive use in a
particular system at a given time exceeds the environmentally sustainable level of extraction
for that system. Overuse may arise in systems that are overallocated, or it may arise in systems where the planned
allocation is exceeded due to inadequate monitoring and accounting.
regional natural resource management plans – plans that cover specific regions like those developed under
the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.
reliability – the frequency with which water allocated under a water access entitlement is able to be supplied in
full. Referred to in some jurisdictions as “high security “and general security”.
rural and regional – refers to water and wastewater services provided for rural irrigation and industrial users and in
regional urban areas with less than 50,000 connections;
sharing delivery capacity – an approach to sharing of an irrigation supply channel capacity (supplemented
systems) or a water course capacity (unsupplemented) held by an entitlement holder and specified as a
National Water Commission
475
percentage share or volumetric supply rate at a particular time.
surface water – water that flows over land and in water courses or artificial channels and is able to be captured and
stored and supplemented from dams and reservoirs.
trading zones – zones established to simplify administration of a trade by setting out the known supply source or
management arrangements and the physical realities of relevant supply systems within the zone. Trade can occur
within and between zones without first having to investigate and establish the details and rules of the system in each
zone.
upper bound pricing – the level at which, to avoid monopoly rents, a water business should not recover more than
the operational, maintenance and administrative costs, externalities, taxes or tax equivalent regimes (TERs),
provision for the cost of asset consumption and cost of capital, the latter being calculated using a weighted average
cost of capital WACC.
water access entitlement – a perpetual or ongoing entitlement to exclusive access to a share of water from a
specified consumptive pool as defined in the relevant water plan.
water allocation – the specific volume of water allocated to water access entitlements in a given season, defined
according to rules established in the relevant water plan.
water irrigation area – the area under control of an individual water service provider (eg. an irrigation corporation,
cooperative or trust, or water authority).
water plan – statutory plans for surface and/or ground water systems, consistent with the Regional Natural
Resource Management Plans, developed in consultation with all relevant stakeholders on the basis of best
scientific and socio‑economic assessment, to provide secure ecological outcomes and resource security for
users.
water sensitive urban design – the integration of urban planning with the management, protection and
conservation of the urban water cycle, that ensures urban water management is sensitive to natural hydrological and
ecological processes.
water system – a system that is hydrologically connected and described at the level desired for management
purposes (eg sub‑catchment, catchment, basin or drainage division and/or groundwater management unit,
sub‑aquifer, aquifer, groundwater basin).
water tagging – an accounting approach that allows a traded water access entitlement to retain its original
characteristics when traded to a new jurisdiction and/or trading zone, rather than being converted into a form issued
in the new jurisdiction and/or trading zone.
476
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Schedule B(ii): National definitions
Recognising the importance of a common lexicon for water use and management, the Parties recognise the desirability
of adopting the following words and phrases, and their definitions, in their respective water management frameworks:
environmental and other public benefit outcomes – environmental and other public benefit outcomes are agreed
as part of the water planning process, are specified in water plans and may include a number of aspects, including:
− environmental outcomes: maintaining ecosystem function (eg. through periodic inundation of floodplain wetlands);
biodiversity, water quality; river health targets;
− other public benefits: mitigating pollution, public health (eg. limiting noxious algal blooms), indigenous and cultural
values, recreation, fisheries, tourism, navigation and amenity values.
overallocation – refers to situations where with full development of water access entitlements in a particular system, the
total volume of water able to be extracted by entitlement holders at a given time exceeds the environmentally
sustainable level of extraction for that system.
overused – refers to situations where the total volume of water actually extracted for consumptive use in a particular
system at a given time exceeds the environmentally sustainable level of extraction for that system. Overuse may arise
in systems that are overallocated, or it may arise in systems where the planned allocation is exceeded due to inadequate
monitoring and accounting.
reliability –the frequency with which water allocated under a water access entitlement is able to be supplied in full.
Referred to in some jurisdictions as “high security “and general security”.
water access entitlement – a perpetual or ongoing entitlement to exclusive access to a share of water from a specified
consumptive pool as defined in the relevant water plan.
water allocation – the specific volume of water allocated to water access entitlements in a given season, defined
according to rules established in the relevant water plan.
Schedule C: National Water Commission
The National Water Commission (NWC) will be established as follows.
Institutional Arrangements: The NWC will:
 be established by the Commonwealth as an independent statutory body;
 have the functions and responsibilities as set out below;
 be funded by the Commonwealth Government;
 have up to seven members including a Chair:
- appointed for up to 3 years and eligible for re‑appointment subject to agreement;
-

with expertise in the areas of: audit and evaluation, governance, resource economics, water resource
management, freshwater ecology and hydrology; and
- with the Commonwealth to appoint four members (including the Chair) and States and Territories to appoint
three members; and
have an office to carry out secretariat services for the Commission and to prepare or manage the preparation of
draft Commission reports as directed, including:
- an Executive Director and a small staff appointed by the Commission at its discretion;
- the ability to make use of staff employed by a Party with the agreement of the relevant Party; and
- the ability to use consultants.
National Water Commission
477
Role: To provide advice on national water issues and, in particular, to assist with the effective implementation of the
National Water Initiative (NWI) Agreement.
In particular, the NWC will provide advice to COAG on the following matters:
 a baseline assessment of water resources and governance arrangements nationally, based on existing work by
the Parties and undertaking further work only where required;
 accreditation of State and Territory implementation plans developed for the NWI Agreement by each jurisdiction,
in accordance with paragraph 9 of the Agreement;
 commencing in 2006–07, biennial assessments of progress with the NWI Agreement and State and Territory
implementation plans, and advice on actions required to better realise the objectives and outcomes of the
Agreement:
the third biennial assessment in 2010–11 will take the form of a comprehensive review of the Agreement;
 the performance of the water industry against national benchmarks, in areas such as irrigation efficiency, water
management costs and water pricing; and
 compliance with any outstanding commitments under the 1994 COAG strategic framework for the efficient and
sustainable reform of the Australian water industry;
The Parties agree to work cooperatively with the NWC including through providing open access to relevant officers and
timely provision of information necessary to assist the NWC in carrying out its role.
In preparing its advice, the NWC will consider the views of stakeholders. The NWC will provide annual reports of its
activities.
All reports of the NWC will be publicly available.
Review of the NWC: In 2010–11, COAG will review the ongoing role and function of the NWC following consideration of its
third biennial assessment. A report on the outcome of the review is to be tabled in each House of Parliament by the end
of 2011.
Schedule D: Principles for regulatory approvals for water use and works
1.
The Parties agree that regulatory approvals enabling water use at a particular site for a particular purpose will:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
be consistent with water legislation and related NRM and planning legislation;
be consistent with relevant water plans;
take into account environmental, social and economic impacts of use, including on downstream users;
(iv)
clearly state the conditions relating to the approval, including the circumstances and processes relating
to variations or terminations of the approval;
minimise application and compliance costs for applicants;
allow for applications to be assessed to a level of detail commensurate with the level of potential impact
of the proposed activity;
have transparent and contestable processes in place to establish whether a proposed activity is to be
approved; and
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
2.
The Parties also agree that the authority responsible for regulatory approvals needs to:
(i)
be separate from water users and providers;
(ii)
(iii)
478
have avenues for appealing approval decisions.
have the necessary legal authority and resources to monitor and enforce the conditions of a water use or
works licence; and
have its practices benchmarked periodically with peer authorities in other jurisdictions.
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
Schedule E: Guidelines for water plans and planning processes
1.
The following characteristics and components will guide States and Territories in preparing water plans: Descriptions
to include:
(i) the water source or water sources covered by the plan (ie. its geographic or physical extent);
(ii) the current health and condition of the system;
(iii) the risks that could affect the size of the water resource and the allocation of water for consumptive use
under the plan, in particular the impact of natural events such as climate change and land use change,
or limitations to the state of knowledge underpinning estimates of the resource;
(iv) the overall objectives of water allocation policies;
(v) the knowledge base upon which decisions about allocations and requirements for the environment are
being made, and an indication of how this base is to be improved during the course of the plan;
(vi) the uses and users of the water including consideration of indigenous water use;
(vii) the environmental and other public benefit outcomes proposed during the life of the plan, and the
water management arrangements required to meet those outcomes;
(viii) the estimated reliability of the water access entitlement and rules on how the consumptive pool is to be
dispersed between the different categories of entitlements within the plan;
(ix) the rates, times and circumstances under which water may be taken from the water sources in the area,
or the quantity of water that may be taken from the water sources in the area or delivered through the area;
and
(x) conditions to which entitlements and approvals having effect within the area covered by the plan are to be
subject, including monitoring and reporting requirements, minimising impacts on third parties and the
environment, and complying with site‑use conditions.
2.
Where systems are found to be overallocated or overused, the relevant plan should set out a pathway to correct
the overallocation or overuse (paragraphs 41 to 45 refers).
3.
A plan duration should be consistent with the level of knowledge and development of the particular water source;
and
4.
In the case of ongoing plans, there should be a review process that allows for
changes to be made in light of improved knowledge.
5.
Further consideration to include:
(i) relevant regional natural resource management plans and cross jurisdictional plans, where
applicable;
(ii)
an assessment of the level of connectivity between surface (including overland flow) and groundwater
systems
(iii) impacts on water users and the environment that the plan may have downstream (including estuaries) or
out of its area of coverage, within or across jurisdictions;
(iv) water interception activities as indicated in paragraphs 52–54;
6.
Water planning processes include:
(i)
(ii)
consultation with stakeholders including those within or downstream of the plan area;
the application of the best available scientific knowledge and, consistent with the level of knowledge and
resource use, socio‑economic analyses;
(iii) adequate opportunity for consumptive use, environmental, cultural, and other public benefit issues to be
identified and considered in an open and transparent way;
(iv) reference to broader regional natural resource management planning processes; and
(v) consideration of, and synchronisation with, cross‑jurisdictional water planning cycles.
National Water Commission
479
Schedule F: Guidelines for water registries
The Parties agree that water registers will be established in each State and Territory and will:
1.
contain records of all water access entitlements in that jurisdiction, and trades of those entitlements, including their
location;
2.
be of sufficient standard to achieve the characteristics of secure water access entitlements contained in the
Agreement;
3.
contain protocols for the protection of third party interests that:
(i) require the holder of a registered security interest to be notified prior to any proposed dealings in relation
to the water entitlement, and requiring the consent of such interests to any proposed transfers;
(ii) allow only authorised dealings;
(iii) require the registration of permanent transfers of the water entitlement and encumbrances that affect the
entitlement, such as mortgages and other security interests;
(iv) enable lenders to procure the registration of their interest independently of the holder of the entitlement (to
ensure the rights of the entitlement‑holder are sufficiently protected);
(v) prioritise competing dealings;
(vi) manage time lags between date of lodgement for registration and actual registration of dealings, as such
time lags may affect priorities; and
(vii) allow for the discharge of the security interest, in conjunction with the transfer of the entitlement to a new
registered holder;
(viii) ensure that lenders are only affected by a subsequently registered interest where the lender has
consented to the subsequent dealing;
(ix) assist in the process of identifying water specific or unregistered interests.
4.
be administered pursuant to certain procedures and protocols, based on land title office manuals and guidelines
that exist in various States and Territories that seek to minimise transaction costs for market participants;
5.
be publicly accessible, preferably over the internet, and include information such as the prices of trades and the
identity of entitlement holders; and
6.
enable resource managers to monitor and accumulate trade and water use volumes accrued under water
entitlements in a separate water accounting system.
Schedule G: Principles for trading rules
The Parties agree that water trading rules will be established consistent with the principles below.
1.
Water access entitlements may be traded either permanently, through lease
arrangements or through other trading options that may evolve over time where
water systems are physically shared or hydrologic connections and water supply
considerations would permit water trading.
2.
All trades should be recorded on a water register (Schedule E refers).
3.
Restrictions on extraction, diversion or use of water resulting from a trade can only
be used to manage:
(i)
environmental impacts, including impacts on ecosystems that depend on underground water;
(ii)
hydrological, water quality and hydrogeological impacts;
(iii) delivery constraints;
(iv) impacts on geographical features (such as river and aquifer integrity); or
(v) features of major indigenous, cultural heritage or spiritual significance.
480
Australia’s water blueprint: national reform assessment 2014
4.
A trade may be refused on the basis that it is inconsistent with the relevant water plan.
5.
Trades must not generally result in sustainable yields being exceeded. That is, trades shall generally not cause an
increase in commitments to take water from water sources or parts of water sources or increase seasonal
reversals in flow regimes above sustainable levels identified in relevant water plans such that environmental water
or water dependent ecosystems are adversely affected;
6.
Trades within overallocated water sources (including groundwater sources) may be permitted in some cases
subject to conditions to manage long‑term impacts on the environment and other users;
7.
Where necessary, water authorities will facilitate trade by specifying trading zones and providing related
information such as the exchange rates to be applied to trades in water allocations to:
(i)
adjust for the effects of the transfer on hydrology or supply security (transmission losses) or reliability; and
(ii)
reflect transfers between different classes of water sources, unregulated
streams, regulated streams, supplemented streams, groundwater systems
and licensed runoff harvesting dams.
8.
Water trading zones, including groundwater trading zones, should be defined in terms of the ability to change the
point of extraction of the water from one place to another, and protection of the environment. The volume of
delivery losses in supplemented systems that provide opportunistic environmental flows will be estimated and
taken into account when determining the maximum volume of water that may be traded out of a trading zone.
9.
Exchange rates will not be used to achieve other outcomes such as to alter the balance between economic use
and environmental protection or to reduce overall water use.
10.
Trade in water allocations may occur within common aquifers or surface water flow systems consistent with water
plans.
11.
Trade from a licensed runoff harvesting dam (ie. not a small farm dam) to a river may occur subject to:
(i)
a reduction in dam capacity consistent with the transferred water entitlement;
(ii)
retention of sufficient capacity to accommodate evaporative and infiltration losses; or
(iii) conditions specified in water plans to protect the environment.
National Water Commission
481