1

190322

Submission to Natural Resources Commission Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan Review

PERSONAL DETAILS

Name: Mr Geoffrey Wise Status: I am making a personal submission

My submission is not confidential I agree to have my name published

Relevant Organisations: o I am Chair, Western Lands Advisory Committee, appointed by and

answerable to NSW Minister for Lands, since 2013.

o I was a member of the Northern Basin Advisory Committee for its duration from 2012 to 2016, answerable to MDBA.

o I was General Manager Bourke Shire Council from 2007 to 2012.

o I was Regional Director, Western Region, NSW Department of Land and

Water Conservation, and simultaneously Western Lands Commissioner, from 1995 to 2006.

2

SNAPSHOT OF BARWON DARLING WATER MANAGEMENT

The five most critical elements necessary to be addressed through the Barwon Darling (BD) Water Sharing Plan (WSP) Review and Water Resource Plan (WRP) as a matter of urgency relate to:

1. Extractions from low flows must address the untoward negative changes created through the 2012 WSP, particularly relating to low flow connectivity. The key elements that were changed and must be effectively reverted are:

Abolition of pump size limits. o Alternatively, introduction of robust Individual Daily

Extraction Limits. See Attachment T. Introduction of a 300% of entitlement allowable annual extraction,

despite A Class (low flow) licences previously not having a widely fluctuating annual extraction rate. See Attachment S.

Introduction of water trading that has allowed activation of inactive licences, and aggregation of licences.

Introduction of a rule that allows traded water to be extracted in the year of trade, irrespective of simultaneous use of the 300% rule.

Allowing a holder of multiple licences to “trade with themself”. See below, Question 5, Other Comments, Point 5.2

2. Implementation of effective shepherding rules and associated water management. See below, Question 5, Other Comments, Point 5.3

3. Addressing flood plain harvesting to ensure any new policy does not have untoward consequences on all legislated priority users and uses other than the proposed extractive licence holders. No attempt to address this complex issue has been made in this submission.

4. Development of “flow event management rules”, including introduction of

“first flush rules”. See below, Question 5, Other Comments, Point 5.4

5. Making appropriate adjustments to rules applying to B and C Class licences.

See below, Question 5, Other Comments, Point 5.5 The most simple and holistic solution to address virtually all the critical elements of concern relating to low flow management is to retire (buy out) A Class licence entitlements and A Class Account Water at pre-determined fixed prices. This achieves:

Overcoming the massive increase in extractions created by the abolition of pump size limits and other rule changes.

Overcoming the 300% extraction rule for A Class licences. Preventing further increases in extraction through activation of inactive A

Class licences after trading. Preventing further aggregations of A Class licences. Preventing activation of the estimated 60 GL of A Class Account Water

currently held by licence holders. Significantly addresses water shepherding management for low flows.

3

Provides an “out” both for licence holders who have activated licences under the rules created by the 2012 WSP, and for inactive licence holders who otherwise have assets stranded by water policy changes.

Provides opportunities for Government to establish tangible water allocations for cultural purposes.

Significant increase in departmental efficiencies by removing approximately 90 inactive stakeholders (including inactive B Class) whom the Dept currently has no engagement with, other than issuing annual accounts.

Attachment Z elaborates on possible costs.

Complementary policy requirements, which provide incentives to encourage the buy-out mentioned above, include:

Immediate introduction of IDELs, thereby devaluing ongoing use of A Class licences for broad scale irrigation.

Revert the 300% rule back to 100% for all A Class licences. Abolishing water trading for A Class licences. Placing a maximum limit of Account Water able to be held associated with

each licence entitlement (eg 450% of entitlement).

xxxxxxxxx

The following graph produced by MDBA in February 2019 highlights the effect of changes to extraction rates from low flows created by the BD WSP in 2012.

EXTRACTIONS OF LOW FLOWS FROM BARWON DARLING

Prior to October 2012, these low flow A Class licences only ever extracted water using pumps up to 6 inch (150MM) diameter, for use on citrus, grapes, vegetables, lucerne, etc. The water was invariably pumped directly from the river to the plants.

AnnualA-classextrac ons–Barwon-Darling

Source:NSWDPI(pre2012);NSWWaterRegister(post2012)

4

The 22 years estimated average annual extractions since 1990/91 (converted to A Class licences under the Water Management Act) was 1,225 ML, with a maximum annual extraction of 3,532 ML In October 2012, NSW Government changed the rules to allow extractions using any size pumps, plus other changes to allow increased volumes of extraction. As a consequence, now A Class water is pumped in large volumes from small flow pulses into storages for use on annual cropping (cotton). During the four years since the enterprise that holds the greatest volume of low flow (A Class) entitlements changed hands in early 2014/15, the average annual A Class extractions have been 18,017 ML, with a peak annual usage of 32,623 ML. The flow bandwidth for extractions only of A Class licences is in the range of 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day at Bourke. Flows below 350 ML/day at Bourke can never guarantee reaching Menindee. Flows above 350 ML/day at Bourke reliably reach Menindee if not extracted. (There may be some implications from this relating to the recent fish kills at Menindee.) The historical rules still apply that allow licence holders with large pumps who hold B Class licences to pump from flows at Bourke above 1,250 ML/day. Reference: 190226.1a MDBA Graph with narrative

xxxxxxxxx

The following table of data produced by DPI Water and provided to Barwon Darling Stakeholder Advisory Panel members, effective from 24th September 2018, highlights that despite the huge increases in extractions from low flows since the BD WSP was introduced, the combined effects of the 2012 rule changes still allow for 60,250 ML of A class account water to be accessible for extraction. This Table also highlights that the combined effects of the 2012 rule changes has resulted in “the river owing 1,193GL of water to licence holders”, despite the gross licence entitlements being 189 GL and maximum annual extractions ever taken have been 269 GL.

BARWON DARLING WATER LICENCE ENTITLEMENTS AND ACCOUNT BALANCES

CLASS

"Cap Licence Entitlements"

ML Account Balances ML

Account Balances on 4/10/2012

WSP commenced

Current Account Balances

24/09/2018

Estimated Inactive Account Balances

Estimated Active

Account Balances

A Class 9,856 60,760 60,250 33,275 26,975

B Class 133,069 303,503 763,953 142,534 621,419 C Class 45,755 243,168 368,445 75,139 293,306

TOTALS 188,680 607,431 1,192,648 250,948 941,700

5

NUMBER OF LICENCE ENTITLEMENTS

CLASS

Total Licences

Estimated Inactive Licence

Estimated Active

Licences

A Class 111 61 50

B Class 83 29 54

C Class 15 1 14

TOTALS 209 91 118

MODELLED DAILY EXTRACTION RATES

A Class 183 ML/day

B Class 5,604 ML/day

C Class 4,165 ML/day

On Farm Storage Estimated Volume 260 GL Largest Annual Take since CAP 269 GL Largest A Class Annual Take since Cap 20,599 ML

Footnote by G Wise Largest Annual Take pre Cap is understood to have been 268 GL in 2003/04.

Since the above details were provided, the DPI website now quotes 32,623 ML of A Class Water having been extracted during 2016/17. Reference: 180924 A Scott Licences and Accounts

xxxxxxxxxxx

QUESTION 1: OBJECTIVES

There is irrefutable evidence that even before the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan 2012 (WSP), many of the Objectives of the Water Management Act 2000 and other relevant legislation were not being achieved, and therefore the WSP should have included initiatives to contribute towards addressing these failings.

Attachment K highlights the historic decreases in flow connectivity down the Darling River and Attachment L highlights relativities between Extractions and end of system flows.

The WSP has failed to meet its own Vision and the following of its own Objectives: a, b, c, d, g, i and j.

No effective priority considerations have been given to the highest priority rights for all recognised uses other than extractive industries.

The WSP has delivered opposite outcomes to the Objectives of the Basin Plan, yet both plans should be compliant with the same overarching legislation. A classic example is the failure to protect environmental water acquired from the tributaries to the Barwon Darling.

6

QUESTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES

A revised WSP is essential to better contribute to environmental outcomes. Key elements that should be included in a revised WSP include, but are not

limited to: o Effective shepherding of all environmental water acquired in tributaries,

flowing through tributaries, arriving into the Barwon Darling, and flowing down the Barwon Darling.

o Effective accountability of all environmental water acquired within the Barwon Darling through efficiency measures.

o Effective shepherding of all environmental water acquired in the Barwon Darling through both buy-back and efficiency measures as it flows down the Barwon Darling.

o Introduction of first flush rules. o Introduction of flow event management rules.

Attachment D draws direct linkages to the BD WSP Background Document, and to the BD WSP, identifying references of significance to better contribute to environmental outcomes. The WSP and its successor are best placed to address many of these problems and solutions.

Effective measurement, monitoring, evaluation, analysis, compliance and adaptive management are all critically necessary additional components to complement an improved WSP.

QUESTION 3: SOCIAL OUTCOMES

A revised WSP is essential to better contribute to social outcomes. The social licence for irrigators to grow cotton will continually be challenges

whilst ever the WSP and other policies ineffectively address community expectations for flow connectivity and flood plain harvesting.

Graziers who still hold sleeper licences that were originally issued as “drought proofing” licences see far greater personal social and community economic benefits in being able to retire these licences to Government rather than selling to active irrigators, at their mercy.

Key elements that should be included in a revised WSP include, but are not limited to:

o Providing clear and strong recognition of legislated priority rights for use of water, with extractive rights being the lowest priority.

o Providing clear and strong recognition of the meaning of “third party impacts”, emphasising that this term does not solely apply to impacts on licence holders.

o Establishing effective, tangible cultural water allocations and management.

QUESTION 4: ECONOMIC OUTCOMES

Provision of clear rules for extractive licences to allow certainty of business decisions is understood to be the primary objective for these licence holders.

Re-creating rules that applied prior to the WSP 2012 that allowed for small scale “market garden” irrigation enterprises that allowed for local

7

employment/occupation and supply of produce to the local towns and villages, virtually all of which have high proportions of Aboriginal populations.

o Re-creating these rules would be a significant step to allow and encourage economic opportunities from cultural water.

o Re-creating these rules should allow an option for licence holders to not participate in any strategy to retire (buy out) their A Class licences.

The economic and social rights of numerous graziers who hold Western Lands Leases specifically for grazing, or pastoralism, have been totally overlooked.

o These leases apply to virtually every landholder along the Barwon Darling system other than those primarily involved in irrigation.

o These leases, issued more than100 years ago, have numerous lease conditions, including annual rental fees, based on the principle that the land will be managed for its productive purpose.

o Progressive erosion of the productive purpose of these leases through decreased reliability of either river flow connectivity and river flow volumes or through decreased reliability of floodplain flows, has had huge impacts on the economic and social rights and consequences for the leaseholders that have never been effectively recognised or addressed.

Retirement of A Class licences from use for broad area annual cropping should not be considered to impact on the effective use of on farm infrastructure or on flow on effects to communities.

o The WSP has provisions to allow an A Class licence holder to convert their A Class entitlement to B Class entitlement, thereby maintaining their total entitlement volume.

o The only change recommended is to revert access conditions to pre BD WSP rules.

Whilst it may be easy to estimate the gross margin of economic gain from use of A Class water for cotton production, it is not easy to estimate either the effective community flow on benefits, or the downstream economic, social, environmental, cultural or political dis-benefits. These dis-benefits must not be ignored.

QUESTION 5: OTHER COMMENTS 5.1. Examples of Failure of BD WSP 2012

There are numerous examples highlighting how the WSP has failed, and been recognised to have failed. These include, but are not limited to:

o The WSP including changes that were not recommended by the Interagency Regional Panel who informed the Minister in developing the WSP. Reference: Background Document to the Barwon Darling WSP 2012 Tables 16 and

18. o The failure of Water Ministers to introduce IDELs as a direct offset to

removal of pump size limits o The inclusion of Clause 78 (b) providing the Minister delegated authority

to amend the WSP if the Minister is satisfied that current rules are having an adverse impact on an endangered aquatic ecological community.

It is understood that during the development of the WSP, Fisheries Department expressed direct advice that these adverse impacts would occur, and their advice was apparently ignored.

8

The recent fish kills highlight the failings of both the WSP and the Ministers responsible for exercising their delegated authorities.

o Failure to implement Water Shepherding. See Clause 5.3 below. o The NSW Government commitment to construct an alternate piped water

supply for Broken Hill is the Government’s acknowledgement that the WSP is failing its objectives. It is also an effective admission that the Government had no plan and no commitment to maintain or enhance any low flows downstream of Bourke.

o The massive increase in extractions of A Class Water (low flows) created by the WSP, with subsequent negative impacts on flow connectivity and on all priority water users and uses downstream of Bourke. See the graph and table in the introductory Snapshot.

5.2. Low Flow Considerations

Virtually every external review and media report of the Basin Plan and associated “happenings” associated with the Barwon Darling have high-lighted the impacts of low flows and their management. Examples include Matthews Report, South Australian Royal Commission, Productivity Commission, Four Corners, etc. Many of these draw direct connections to the changes created by the 2012 BD WSP.

Extractions from low flows must address the untoward negative changes created through the 2012 WSP.

The definition, or description, of low flows must be specified, based on best available science. o The report by Thoms et al 1996 commissioned by the NSW Government

concluded that at the Bourke gauge, there should be no extractions for any licenced irrigation below 500 ML/day, and no abstractions for broad scale irrigation below the 60%ile, being 1,820 ML/day. There has never been any new science produced to refute this best available science.

o The BD WSP allows extractions at Bourke from 350 ML/day for A Class, and 1,250 ML/day for B Class. Both these levels are less than the recommendations by Thoms et al.

o The BD WSP contradicts itself, where in one place it states that flows at Bourke below 390 ML/day should be protected for stock and domestic priorities, yet it allows A Class extractions at 350 ML/day.

Priority rights for access to flows, especially low flows, must be clearly defined and supported by appropriate rules and compliance.

To address flow connectivity, an amended WSP must be developed to comply with the intent in the Background Document to the BD WSP, which states that rules be established “to at least match existing (pre 2012 WSP) extraction rates.”

5.3. Water Shepherding for Environmental Water

The background Document to the BD WSP 2012 Page 39, states: “6.1.5 Water Shepherding

In July 2010, the Commonwealth and NSW Governments signed a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in relation to shepherding water for the environment. The MoU defines water shepherding as the delivery of a calculated volume of water that was created by the non- activation/reduced extraction at a nominated licence location to a more downstream location with consideration of losses and without causing adverse third party impacts on stakeholders, where it will be made available for extraction or use for the environment.

9

The implementation of water shepherding in the Barwon-Darling and its tributaries is being developed in two stages. Presently, Implementation Plan (Stage one) which is developing the proposed arrangements for water shepherding is due to be completed by September 2012. Following endorsement of Implementation Plan (stage two) by both the NSW and Commonwealth governments, a project will commence to enable water shepherding to be implemented.

The Plan can be amended to allow for the implementation of water shepherding in the Barwon- Darling.“

Nearly nine years later, we are no closer to having effective water shepherding. The only environmental water that the Commonwealth has any possible control

over to shepherd along the Barwon Darling is water assumed to be gained through buy backs and efficiency measures upstream of tributary storages.

There are no effective monitoring stations to measure environmental water assumed to be gained through buy back or efficiency measures immediately downstream of where these “acquisitions” took place, either downstream of any tributary storages or within the Barwon Darling.

o Even if this monitoring occurred, the water “acquired” as environmental water downstream of in-river storages flows passively downstream, with no ability for it to be shepherded from downstream extractions.

Removing ability for A Class licences to extract large volumes over short durations is a major step in protecting much of this passively flowing environmental water.

5.4. Flow Event Management Active management of individual flow events is a critically important means of

optimising the competing interests for the Unregulated Barwon Darling River system, a relatively unique system for water management.

Historically, this was achieved successfully. o During the period 1995 to 2006, as Regional Director, Land and Water

Conservation, I held the delegation of the NSW Minister for Water to manage the Unregulated Barwon Darling River system.

o The four primary tools for effective flow event management at the time were:

Clearly defined and known “rules” Effective front line staff Effective, inclusive, community and agency consultation groups

and structures An over-arching clause in the rules, called the “Not withstanding

Clause”, that effectively allowed me to decide whether: A licence holder could access water notwithstanding the

rules prevented the access, or A licence holder could be prevented from extracting water

not withstanding the rules allowed extraction. Introduction of a “first flush rule” being considered through the SAP process will

be a valuable new initiative that must be formalised. 5.5. Making appropriate adjustments to rules applying to B and C Class licences.

Examples include: Reviewing commence to pump thresholds Introducing appropriate Individual Daily Extraction Limits (IDELs)

10

Adopting the 450% total take over any three consecutive years as recommended by the Interagency Reference Panel for the BD WSP

Placing a maximum limit able to be held in a Water Account Offering to buy out Inactive B Class Licences and B Class Account

water at pre-determined prices. 5.6. Linkages between all Water Resource Plans for Northern Basin

It should be imperative that no WRP is fully endorsed until all draft WRP’s for the Northern Basin are developed to ensure that the inter-connectedness of flow management across the Northern Basin is understood and formally linked.

5.7. Interagency Intelligence Unit

A small "Interagency Intelligence Unit” should be formed with a role of carrying out investigative studies, reviewing all data sources and the data available from these sources, and critically analyzing and researching the significance of the findings with a focus on how the findings relate to current and continuing improvement of policies.

o This should not only be for the WSP and WRP, but also for integration of overall water management and policy evaluation and review.

5.8 Intersecting Streams The Intersecting Streams across northwestern NSW are a critically important

linkage between the Queensland and NSW sections of the Northern Basin. An expiring WSP applies to these streams. To my knowledge, there are no active irrigators in NSW within this WSP region,

predominantly influenced by limitations to flows created by extractions in Queensland.

Currently, no effort has been made to engage with licence holders to develop a WRP for these streams.

It is understood that if a WRP is developed, it must make provision for interstate trading with Queensland.

There is no logical reason for NSW to allow inactive licences in NSW to be traded upstream to Queensland, and activated, thereby further decreasing flows into NSW.

A logical solution is for offers to be made by NSW to buy out at fixed prices all licence entitlements on the Intersecting Streams.

o If they are all retired, there should be no need for a WRP to be developed for these streams.

5.9 Significant Attachments

Of the numerous attachments, the following ones that have not been referenced above may be of greatest interest.

o Attachments I, N, U, V, X, Y, Z All sent to Minister Blair, with some copied to other people.

o Attachments M and Q Personal views on Context and Strategic Future.

11

ATTACHMENTS Notes For my references, I use a “reverse date” of “year/month/day”. The attachments are roughly in age sequence, with the oldest first and the most recent last. I am sharing an excess of attachments, allowing you to appreciate my long-term commitments and contributions to addressing the BD WSP, predominantly through my role on the Northern Basin Advisory Committee. I falsely expected it was the role of MDBA to progress these issues with the NSW authorities.

Attachments A and B provide simple historic overviews of Barwon Darling (BD) water policies and management over recent decades.

Attachments C and D describe changes created by BD Water Sharing Plan (WSP) and contexts linked to the Background Document to the BD WSP.

Attachments E, F, G and H are papers I submitted through the Northern Basin Advisory Committee (NBAC) to the MDBA expressing warnings and evidence of the implications of changes created by the BD WSP that potentially impact on the Basin Plan.

Attachment I was my final letter to NBAC, MDBA, and copied widely, including to Minister Blair.

Attachments J, K and L are papers I submitted through NBAC to the MDBA expressing warnings and evidence of the implications longer trending flow considerations in the Barwon Darling.

Attachment M is a paper I submitted through NBAC to the MDBA expressing my context for the Northern Basin and the key policy needs.

Attachment N is a letter I wrote to Minister Blair in October 2016, that lead to a meeting on 16th December 2016 involving Minister Blair, Gavin Hanlon, Water Commissioner, Doug McKay, Alternate Chair, Western Lands Advisory Council and myself as Chair, Western Lands Advisory Council.

Attachment O is deleted. Attachment P is my submission to the NSW Status and Issues Paper for the

Barwon Darling Water Resource Plan. Attachment Q is a paper I prepared in August 2017 at the request of Mr Ken

Matthews AO and submitted to him, describing my strategic future for the Barwon Darling at that time.

Attachment R is deleted. Attachments S and T describe implications of 300% rule and IDELs. Attachments V and X are letters directly to Minister Blair. Attachment W provides a simple Performance Review of both the Basin Plan

and the Barwon Darling SWP. Attachments U, Y and Z have been distributed widely, including to Minsters

Blair and Littleproud, and heads of numerous Commonwealth and State Water Agencies.

End

190330 ATTACHMENTS to SUBMISSION to NRC Geoff Wise

ATTACHMENT A 161216 BARWON DARLING HISTORY 1970’s to 1995 Cap Announcement

Irrigation establishment and operating rationalisation Small volume A Class licences were issues to graziers as “drought

proofing licences” and to hobby farmers for small scale citrus, grapes and vegetables

Options for people holding both A and B Class licences o Install two different pump sizes o Convert B Class to A class at a differential of 4:1 (verbal advice)

Allowed increased flow access and potential for only one smaller pump

o Convert A to B at 1:1 Reduced flow access but allowed one larger pump

o Use smaller A Class pump for both A and B water at different thresholds

1995 to 2006 Cap Development

No requests for any changes between A and B Licences Commence to pump thresholds progressively increased. Eg at Bourke

o Step 1 B Class “voluntarily” to 1150 ML/day o Step 2 B Class to 1250 ML/day

A Class significantly “protected” through use of “not withstanding” clause 2007 Cap implementation

Concessional conversion provisions allowed make-up of disadvantaged A and B Class

2012 Water Sharing Plan

Pump size limits removed, proposed to be offset by IDEL’s , but second step neve implemented

Additional changes to rules freeing up extraction limits, including 300% use of annual entitlements, trading, etc

xxxxxx

Prior to 2012

A Class rarely to off river storages A Class directly to permanent plantings at small volumes throughout the

year B and C class invariably to off river storages for annual cropping

Since 2012

A Class to off river storages for any use

ATTACHMENT B 161018 Appendix B

DESCRIBING SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF NSW WATER LICENCE POLICY CHANGES in the BARWON DARLING RIVER

SYSTEM OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES. Irrigation licences on the Barwon Darling River system upstream of Menindee Lakes are classified into three classes, A, B and C. “A Class” licences have historically been referred to as “drought proofing licences” held by most property owners who have land fronting the river. Each has been a licence for a very small volume of water, able to be activated at the lowest specified flow levels, only able to be pumped though a small diameter pump, and invariably pumped directly to a permanent planting, such as grapes, citrus, jojoba or lucerne. During the ten years from 1995/6 to 2004/5, when these small licences were held by over 100 people, the average annual volume of water extracted using A class licences was 4,638 ML. This effectively translates to approximately 20 to 25 ML/day extracted over the half to two thirds of the hotter days of each year. B and C Class licences have historically been held and used by irrigators with primary interests in broad-acre annual cotton cropping, relying on off-river storages to accumulate water from higher specified commence to pump limits. During the ten years from 1995/6 to 2004/5, the average annual volume of water extracted using B and C class licences was approximately 191,000ML. These “history of use” figures for all classes of water were used in the development of Cap for the Barwon Darling, and the distribution of “Cap shares” amongst all licence holders.

During the protracted iterative process for development of Cap on the Barwon Darling River, the NSW Government commissioned an expert panel of independent scientists (Thoms et al 1996) to conduct assessments on the Barwon-Darling River for evidence of habitat degradation throughout the system.

In recognition of the declining river health of the major irrigation rivers in NSW (including the Barwon- Darling), the NSW Cabinet on 19 August 1997 endorsed recommendations from the then Minister for Land and Water Conservation and Minister for the Environment that would see environmental flow rules applied to each of these systems.

The Scientific Panel recommended that flows equal to or less than ten percent of river channel capacity were essential to maintain the river environment. Estimates based on cross sectional area and flow data indicate that this equates to flow in the 50th to 60th percentile range of flows throughout the river.

Therefore, it was proposed to increase pumping thresholds to the 60 percentile for B class and the 50 percentile for C class licences, thus meeting this requirement while preserving the distinction between these classes of licence.

In 1998, based on this scientific report, the majority of members of the River Management Committee, including representatives from the major broad-acre irrigation enterprises, recommended to the Minister that commence to pump limits for B and C Class licences be increased to reflect the need for environmental flow rules on the Barwon- Darling.

An example of the recommendations was to increase pumping thresholds for B Class licences at Bourke from 390ML/day to 1150 ML/day. The Minister endorsed these recommendations commencing in the 1998/99 water year. Subsequently, in the 2000/01 water year, further minor adjustments were made. For example, the B Class threshold for Bourke was increased to 1250 ML/day.

These rules were continued for many years, and incorporated with the introduction of Cap for the Barwon Darling, announced in 2006 and implemented from July 2007.

In October 2012, the NSW Government introduced a new Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon Darling.

Key changes included:

Abolishing pump sizes for each licence class, effectively allowing broad-acre irrigators to access A Class water from the low flow commence to pump thresholds.

Accepting that there were then approximately 10,000 ML of A Class access entitlement.

Allowing unused account water to be carried over in water accounts indefinitely.

Allowing all licences to be able to extract up to 300% of annual access entitlement each year, subject to having adequate volumes of account water. Thus, without considering water trading, up to 30,000 ML water can now be extracted each year at A Class flow conditions.

Introducing opportunities for water trading, and allowing all traded water to be extracted in the year traded, additional to the 30,000 ML mentioned above, with the only constraint being the commence to pump threshold.

Providing the Minister a right to introduce Individual Daily Extraction Limits on each licence, a right that has not yet been put into effect.

BARWON DARLING WATER SHARING PLAN OCTOBER 2012 In October 2012 NSW introduced a new Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon Darling.

Five of the 10 Objectives of the NSW Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon-Darling Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources (BD WSP) are stated to:

“protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the important river flow dependent and high priority groundwater dependent ecosystems of these water sources

protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the Aboriginal, cultural and heritage values of these water sources

protect basic landholder rights contribute to the maintenance of water quality, and contribute to the environmental and other public benefit outcomes

identified under the National Water Initiative”. Legislation acknowledges that Town Water Supply needs are a higher priority that other extractive uses. The Performance Indicators in the BD WSP state:

“The following indicators are to be used to measure the success of the strategies to reach the objectives of this Plan: (a) change in low flow regime, (b) change in moderate to high flow regime, (c) change in surface water and groundwater extraction relative to the long-term average annual extraction limits, (d) change in local water utility access, (e) change in the ecological value of key water sources and their dependent ecosystems, (f) the extent to which domestic and stock rights and native title rights requirements have been met, (g) the extent to which local water utility requirements have been met, (h) the change in economic benefits derived from water extraction and use, and (i) the extent of recognition of spiritual, social and customary values of water to Aboriginal people.”

ATTACHMENT C 161216 Submission from Wise through NBAC to MDBA

IRRIGATION EXTRACTION CHANGES INTRODUCED IN BARWON DARLING WATER SHARING PLAN, (BD WSP) OCTOBER 2012.

The Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon Darling significantly changed the past access and usage patterns and also the flow event management strategy. The main changes were:

Removal of a pump size restriction from each class of licence Introduction of opportunity for 300% of Access Entitlement being

extracted each year. Introduction of unlimited carry-over provisions

Introduction of water tradings Application of concessional conversions Removing the authority of the Minister to “embargo” access to A Class

licences No implementation of Clauses 51 or 52 of the WSP that provides the

Minister an opportunity to introduce Total and Individual Daily Extraction Limits on licences.

No attempt to use Clause 84 (c) to include rules for shepherding of environmental water

As stated in the BD WSP, Clauses 46 (15) and (16), in association with Section 324 of the Water Management Act, provide the Minister with authority to restrict or prohibit extracting of B and C class water, but not A Class, to protect flows needed to meet Basic Landholder Rights.

Clause 46 (16), read in association with the listed footnotes, specifies a flow of 390 ML/day at Bourke is the required minimum flow that should be protected to meet basic landholder rights requirements along the Barwon-Darling River. However, in contradiction, large volumes of A Class licences can be extracted at Bourke at 350 ML/day, without any stated ability for the Minister to intervene.

Specific consequences include:

The BD WSP has significantly changed the use of A Class licences: o from historic “drought proofing” licences held by all riparian

properties, plus a small number of small permanent planting owners and one large permanent planting irrigator,

o to extensive annual cropping irrigators seeking higher security water access.

The BD WSP has increased the reliability and security of access to low flows (both at A Class and B Class levels) for broad acre irrigators, irrespective of Cap constraints.

o The percentage of total Cap volume of annual access entitlement for A Class has effectively increased from 2.3% to 5.3%, and the equivalent increases for B Class are from 73.5% to 83.5%, whereas C Class has decreased from 24.2% to 11.2%.

The BD WSP has provided opportunities for huge and unpredictable volumes of A Class water (30 GL without trade, or approximately 70 GL with trade whilst ever available in accounts) to be extracted annually under A Class pumping conditions, compared to a annual average history of use of less than 5 GL of A Class extractions.

o Similarly, up to 393 GL of B Class can potentially be available for extractions annually without trade, or up to over 600 GL with trade, compared to a ten year average annual history of use (1995/6 to 2004/5) of 144 GL.

o Storage capacities will become the limiting factor regarding volumes extracted.

Security of stipulated minimum low flow requirements for basic landholder rights has been significantly compromised. (Clause 46 (16)).

Environmental Water acquired by the Commonwealth from all the tributaries to the Barwon Darling effectively loses its environmental status once it enters the Barwon or Darling Rivers, and becomes accessible for extraction subject to flow pumping thresholds.

Two family businesses have recently “moved into the valley” and currently hold at least two thirds of the entire licence volume for the entire Barwon Darling. The Commonwealth holds approximately 12% of licence volume.

The actions now allowable within the BD WSP appear contradictory to the Vision, Objectives and Performance Indicators of the BD WSP.

The significance of these changes is not yet being reflected in daily flow records in the lower Darling from Bourke to the Murray River.

The significance of the Darling River being the sole and fundamental connection between the north and south of the Murray Darling Basin requires consideration, including potential implications for reliability of access for licence holders on the Regulated Lower Darling River and in the Murray River.

There is substantial evidence that when there are good flows in the river at Wilcannia there is less social unrest amongst the Aboriginal population.

ATTACHMENT D 170803 BARWON DARLING WATER SHARING PLAN BACKGROUND DOCUMENT AND PLAN Google Water Sharing Plan for Barwon-Darling Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources, and also the directly related Background Document

SOME KEY SECTIONS IN THE BARWON DARLING WATER SHARING PLAN Commenced 4th October 2012

Page 37-9 Clause 52 Individual Daily Extraction Limits

Note. During the life of this Plan, it is intended that IDELs will be issued to water access licences that arose from Water Act 1912entitlements in accordance with the formula specified in clause 52 (2) or (3). These will not be adjusted as the result of a dealing under section 71O, 71Q or 71S of the Act. Access licence holders should be aware that new access licences that result from a dealing will not receive an IDEL and that where an access licence holder reduces the share component of an access licence to zero as part of a dealing, the access licence holder should continue to hold the access licence with a zero share component in order to receive an IDEL. Where an access licence is cancelled as the result of a dealing, the IDEL associated with that access licence will not be assigned to any access licence. Comment: As of 3rd August 2017 these IDEL’s have not been introduced

Page 44 Clause 62 General Notes.

1 Access licence dealings in these water sources are subject to the provisions of the Act, the regulations, the access licence dealing principles and the access licence dealing rules established in this Part. 2 The access licence dealing principles prevail over the access licence dealing rules in this Plan to the extent of any inconsistency, as provided under section 71Z (3) of the Act.

3 During the life of this Plan, it is intended that IDELs will be issued to water access licences that arose from Water Act 1912 entitlements in accordance with the formula specified in clause 52 (2) or (3). These will not be adjusted as the result of a dealing under sections 71O, 71Q or 71S of the Act. Access licence holders should be aware that new access licences that result from a dealing will not receive an IDEL and that where an access licence holder reduces the share component of an access licence to zero as part of a dealing, the access licence holder should continue to hold the access licence with a zero share component in order to receive an IDEL. Where an access licence is cancelled as the result of a dealing, the IDEL associated with that access licence will not be assigned to any access licence. 4 Once IDELs have been issued to access licences under clause 52, it is intended that the access licence dealing rules in this Part will be amended to allow dealings under sections 71O, 71Q, 71S and 71W of the Act between river sections above the share component limits currently specified in clauses 63 (3), 64, 65 and 69. IDELs will not be permitted to be traded between river sections or from unregulated river (C Class) access licences that arose from the Water Act 1912 entitlement 85SL105068 to access licences on the Barwon-Darling Unregulated River. Dealings under section 71W that involve access licences nominating water supply works in a different river section will not be permitted. Comment: Presumably it is these sections that are referred to in the Daily Telegraph article of 2nd August 2017 that the Minister is accused of wanting to amend and backdate.

SOME KEY SECTIONS IN BACKGROUND DOCUMENT First published September 2012

Page 2 First Objective is “to protect, preserve maintain and enhance the important water dependent ecosystem Second last objective is “to allow for adaptive management, that is, to allow changes to the plan to be made as a result of more information that will become available during the life of the plan” Last objective is “to contribute to the environmental and other public benefits identified under the national Water Initiative”

Page 26 5.2.1 “The definition of Cap for each of the basin states and territories is formalised in Schedule E of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. In NSW, the Cap is defined as the average yearly volume of water that would have been diverted under 1993-94 levels of development and management rules.”

Page 33 Riparian flow target under interim north-west unreg flow plan (released in Feb 1992) for Bourke 390 Ml/day Page 35 6.1.2.1.2 Enviro flow rules for 1998/99

Pumping thresholds for B Class licences to be raised from 390 to 1150 ML/day at Bourke endorsed by Minister for application in 1998/99 water year.

1. It is noted that all A class thresholds fall well short of the base environmental flow, that is the 60th percentile, however, it is assumed that the effect of this A class pumping has a comparatively negligible impact on the river system.

Page 36 6.1.2.1.4 Enviro flow rules for 2000/01

Pumping thresholds for B Class licences to be raised from 1150 to 1250 ML/day at Bourke

Page 39 6.1.5 Water shepherding

In July 2010 the Commonwealth and NSW Governments signed a bilateral MOU in relation to shepherding water for the environment. etc

Page 40-41 Evaluating the adequacy of the 2000/01 cease to pump rules for protecting in-stream values

THIS SECTION HAS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT COMMENTS, particularly the last para.

Page45 6.2.2.2 Management of Cap over the short term This section highlights the limitations of use of modelling over short term. Page 47-8 6.2.5.2Access Rules Simple explanations here Page 48 6.2.5.2.1 Amendment to access rules

Another critical section needing to be considered in total. States that the plan provides for “…. Provisions to amend the existing flow classes and access rules …… after 5 years …. Following a study that shows to the satisfaction of the Minister that the current access rules are having an adverse impact on endangered aquatic ecological community ……provided that ….. in the Minister’s opinion, such amendments do not substantially alter the long-term diversions under A Class, B Class and C class access licences…..”

Page 50 6.2.5.2.4.2 Enviro Implications Another critical section for context Page 52

In Section “b” the plan acknowledges that “A Class licences typically do not have the off-river storages to provide a buffer during times of low or no flow”.

Page 53

Allowing B class access to A class flows could distort the A class water market and extraction rates could have significant impacts on flows. B class licence off-river storages should provide supply when flows are in A class or the low flow class, alternatively B class licensees could use the water market to access A class flows if required.

This description effectively admits that allowing A Class water to be pumped with B Class pumps could have significant impacts on flows, A class water should not be pumped into storages, and A class should only be pumped with either small pumps sizes or with IDEL’s.

Page 54 6.2.6.1 Establishing individual daily extraction limits

Quotes: “…individual daily extraction limits are intended to provide a mechanism to limit extraction rates to those currently permitted through the authorised pumps…” Refer to Appendix 7 for “current authorised pumps.”

Page 54 6.2.6. Extraction components

Another critical section for context. Worth reading the whole section, and noting the last para

on page 57 which states”:

“During public exhibition of the draft plan, water users indicated that they would like time to discuss IDELs, as they are a relatively new concept. IDELs, as well as other changes that the IRP had recommended for the draft plan, were discussed at a meeting between staff from the NSW Office of Water and water users in Bourke in March 2012.”

The only water users who may have been consulted were irrigators, and as no decision has been made by any Minister to date to introduce IDEL’s, it is apparent that they are continuing to “like more time”.

Page 56 6.2.6.1.3 Changes to methods of establishing IDELs post public exhibition This section is not easy to understand.

Perhaps it is the use of this section that gave the Minister the opportunity to allow any sized pump to be used for any class of licence.

Page 60/61 6.2.9.3 re Trading

1. Under the provisions of the draft plan there was potential for assignment of rights or share component (71Q) between river sections, but the volume of water in accounts effectively prohibited any trades in allocation (71T) or nomination of works (71W) between sections. The IRP considered this issue as well as feedback from submissions when recommending the final rules for dealings between sections:

Prior to IDELs being established 60 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012

Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon-Darling Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources

o No restrictions on trades within a river section or management zone

o Trades permitted between river sections provided it does not cause total share

component held in a river section and class to exceed a volume equivalent to the total annual volumetric limit for that river section and class for concessional conversions (71O*), nomination of works (71W), or share component (71Q)

o No restrictions on trades in allocation (71T) Once IDELs are established

o No restriction for concessional conversions (71O*), nomination of works (71W),

allocation (71T) or share component (71Q)

o Trades in extraction component (71S) only permitted within a river section

Note that despite the recommendation that full trading should not be allowed until IDEL’s are in place, an article in the daily Telegraph, 2nd August 2017 states that the Minister is wanting to introduce this trade, without IDEL’s being in place, and introduced retrospectively.

Page 80-81 Table 8

Many examples of changes to the water sharing rules as a result of public exhibition

Page 115-120 Appendix 7: Works authorised to extract Barwon Darling unregulated water at commencement of the Plan (Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan or BDWSP)

Note from this list which appears to be all licenced pumps, no A Class licences appear to be greater than 150mm, whereas B Class are up to 760 mm and C Class up to 915 mm.

ATTACHMENT E 160524 GEOFF WISE INTERPRETATIONS FROM INFORMATION PROVIDED FROM ANDREW SCOTT AND RICHARD WHEATLEY, BOTH FROM DPI WATER, RECENTLY All relating to Barwon Darling Current entitlements from the public register today (April 2016), of each class are; A class, 9856 ML of entitlement in 112 licences B class, 131393 ML of entitlement in 81 licences C class, 47421 ML of entitlement in 16 licences

(Total entitlement = 188,670 ML) The increases to the entitlements (since last time DPI provided the data) are the result of the 9 percent increase from 173 GL .

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Total Account Water held by all licencees as at 1st July 2015”: A Class 9,856 ML x 7.5 = 73,920 ML B Class 131,393 ML x 4.7 = 617,547 ML C Class 47,421 ML x 6.7 = 317,720 ML Total Account Water as at 1st July 2015 =1,000,187 ML

= 1,000 GL Since 1st July 2015, there has been only a small proportion of annual average extractions taken from these gross figures. On 1st July 2016, an assumed 188,670 ML will be added to the total accounts. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx If it is assumed that of the 9.8 GL of A class entitlement, 5 GL is held by inactive licence holders, and of the 131.3 GL of B class licences, 12 GL is held by inactive licence holders, then the following estimates of Account Water held by Inactive licence holders may be realistic: A Class 5 GL x 9years = 45 GL ie 45GL of the 73 GL estimated total account B Class 12 GL x 9 years = 108 GL ie 108 GL of the 617 GL estimated total I cannot identify whether CEWH is considered active or inactive within these numbers. Xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Under “Concessional Conversion” opportunities available until 30th June 2017, the total potentially available volumes of water entitlement which can be converted to a more secure (lower pumping threshold) Class are understood to be the totals showing in the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan, Schedule 7, thus: Potential for conversion to A Class from B or C Class 285 ML Potential for conversion to B Class from C Class 25,677 ML Hence there remains a strong possibility that up to 25,677 ML of C Class may be converted to B Class before 30th June 2017. This represents 54% of the 47,421 ML advised C Class entitlements. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Using Bourke Gauge as a single reference point, the difference in commence to pump threshold between B Class and C Class is 1250 ML/day and 11,000 ML/day. The following is a copy from Part Eight of the Barwon Darling WSP: 10 For the Culgoa River Junction to Bourke Management Zone, flows greater than: • the top of the Low Flow Class (350 ML/day) are estimated to occur in excess of 56% of all days, • the top of A Class (1250 ML/day) are estimated to occur in excess of 42% of all days, and • the top of B Class (11,000 ML/day) are estimated to occur in excess of 12% of all days.

Using this reference, the probability of daily extractions for 25 GL/year has the potential to be increased from 12% of days per annum to 42% of days per annum. What additional impact may this have on site specific flow indicators? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The maximum amount of water that can be taken in any one water year is equal to 3 times the share component of that access licence at the commencement of that water year. Of the approx. 188GL of access entitlement, assume up to 150 GL is or may become active. Hence with opportunities for 300% of entitlement being eligible for annual extraction, up to 450 GL potentially could be extracted annually. The limit to this would be governed predominantly by availabilities of flow and storage capacities. By comparison, I recollect that the maximum annual extraction pre Cap was in the order of 266 GL. With a current Water Account Balance of 1,000 GL, which is topped up each July by 188 GL, it is realistic that very high levels of take could occur for several consecutive years of flows above the B Class pumping threshold of 1250 ML/day at Bourke as reference gauge. Xxxxxxxxxxxxx The bottom line is that with the changes introduced following the 2006 Cap decision and through the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan in 2012 of :

continuous annual carry-over of unused entitlement, concessional conversions, 300% “extractions” per annum, introduction of water trading, abolition of maximum pump sizes,

there is now well recognised opportunity for far greater volumes of water to be extracted over far longer durations of extractions from low flows in both the 350 to 1250 ML/day and in the 1250 to 11,000 ML/day flows (using Bourke gauge as a reference point) than ever occurred pre Cap.

The implications of this for all planning for the Basin Plan to achieve the determined environmental outcomes are significant.

ATTACHMENT F 160611 INFORMATION AND IMPLICATIONS

RELATING TO BARWON DARLING

On 9th June Northern Basin Advisory Committee (NBAC) Chair Mal Peters rang me seeking clarification on the volume of C Class licenced water in the Barwon Darling (BD) which has the potential to be converted to B Class before 30th June 2017. My response was that from my understanding, the total of the licences listed in Schedule 7 of the BD Water Sharing Plan (WSP) of about 25 GL can potentially be converted, theoretically at ML for ML. OTHER INFORMATION I THAT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION OVER THE LAST 8 DAYS WHICH I SHOULD HAVE ALSO SHARED INCLUDE:

It is probable that any of the above water that does get converted may effectively be converted at greater than ML for ML. ie the licence holder ending with more B Class than should occur.

The volume of A Class licences may have increased by 45% between 2006 and 2012

o Some of this may be explained by concessional conversions that may have occurred during this period. If so, it appears that volumes changed through the concessional conversion process may have inappropriately subsequently accumulated a 9% additional bonus.

I appears that one A Class Licence has, does and can continue to annually extract 215% greater volume of water than the combined total annual extractions by all A class licences during the period up to implementation of Cap.

o This can be extracted by any number of any sized pumps and accumulated into storage, compared to the pre Cap criteria of limited sized pumps extracted directly to crops over the duration of the year and total length of the BD.

The Technical Advisory Group to NSW associated with the development of the WSP strongly recommended the application of Individual Daily Extraction Limits (IDEL) and Total Daily Extraction Limits (TDEL). Whilst these are included within the WSP, they have not been put into effect.

o The background paper to the WSP states: “.. expect they will be in place within the first few years of this plan’s term”.

A representative for the largest licence holder on the BD has recently been seeking to acquire A Class Account Water on behalf of the licence holder at $50 per ML.

o If there are 40 to 50 GL of A Class water held by non-irrigators, the opportunities for this person to accumulate large volumes are significant.

A senior member from NSW DPI has recently stated that NSW has no interest in Water Shepherding.

Table 18 of the Background Document to the WSP states: o “Amendments to access rules (in the WSP):

must not substantially alter long term diversions under A, B and C Class access

must take into account any socio-economic impacts” In the immediate future there may be an announcement of a “mega” million

dollar project to secure the town water supply for Broken Hill, yet post Menindee Storage construction and pre expansion of irrigation extractions upstream it is understood that this water supply was relatively secure despite a larger population and with more active mining operation.

COMMENTS

For nearing as long as I have been a member of the NBAC I have been highlighting the significance of water policies in relation to achievement of triple bottom line outcomes, and equally importantly on the potential for such policies to impede any ability for the Basin Plan to deliver improved environmental outcomes for the BD.

o I have expected that the MDBA would have taken adequate initiatives to thoroughly understand both the historic background and the BD policies and the environmental consequences of the current WSP.

o The only feedback I have been given, on more than one occasion, is “it will all be fixed by Cap”; to which I have continually disagreed.

o In the absence of any evident initiatives, I have felt compelled to seek out some of this detail and pass it on to the MDBA. For examples:

Number and makeup of licence holders, such as only two people plus the Commonwealth potentially holding 80% of all licence volume.

Volumes of account water held Application of rules such as concessional conversion, 300%

annual extraction opportunities, etc The new information I have shared in this memo.

o I have consistently advised that I believe that my information may be incorrect, but I would expect that the implications of my information are sufficiently significant that the MDBA would follow it up to establish the correct data, and advise me if what I have provided is either irrelevant or inaccurate.

Presumably the best available science was used by NSW during the decade of water reform leading up to and including Cap, with any additional new science used by NSW in the lead-up to the WSP.

o The NSW documentation strongly and consistently states that low flows in the BD must be protected from extractions.

Reliability of low flows is paramount. o Presumably this same best available science was used by the MDBA in

the development of the Basin Plan, resulting in the decision that to achieve the Basin Plan an additional 6 GL of local reduction plus 143 GL of shared reduction for the Barwon Darling is necessary.

Presumably this was to increase the reliability of low flows above the heights of those being protected by the water policies applicable at the time the Basin Plan was being developed ie pre WSP. The Basin Plan presumably also considered other flow heights.

We now have additional new science provided through the recent studies commissioned by the MDBA.

o From these I have not observed any new information to suggest that there should be any reduction to the reliability of low flows.

In practice, I contend that the current WSP has taken the protection of low flows back to pre 1998 rules and policies, and that the Basin Plan has no effective ability to compensate for this.

I have consistently contended that there is no defendable argument for a “shared reduction” whilst ever Commonwealth Water from any tributary to the BD can be accessed by licence holders in the BD.

o This has become even more exaggerated with the more generous access changes introduced through the WSP.

I have also commented that “Water Shepherding” is the worst possible option to protect environmental water, but the only option if no attempt is made to address the WSP.

I believe that in relation to delivery of environmental outcomes for the BD, there are numerous contradictions between information in both the Background Document and the WSP, compared to what the WSP is effectively achieving.

o I consider it should be prudent for the MDBA to question the State on any such issues that the MDBA consider may impinge on the ability of the MDBA to deliver its desired outcomes through the Basin Plan.

Protection of low flows must be considered in relation to: o Town Water Supplies (note my speculation about a new scheme to

secure water for Broken Hill), o Stock and Domestic supplies, o Water quality (I recall that the arguments for both Cap and for the Basin

Plan included references to the largest ever Blue Green Algae outbreak, and to salinity)

o Environmental factors such as those for which recent studies have been undertaken.

I have given advice that understanding the implications of the WSP was potentially of greater significance in the review of the Northern Basin than any of the Environmental studies commissioned by the MDBA.

I have chosen to offer my advice and express my opinions only to the MDBA over the duration of my involvement on the NBAC, but my fear is that without radical and urgent consideration of many of the points I have raised, there is every expectation that the Basin Plan will totally fail in delivering any environmental reliability or security for the Barwon Darling Environment. o Conversely, a combination of the BD WSP plus the opportunities for

increased inflows to the BD created by the Basin Plan (Environmental water) has significantly enhanced two irrigators who have only effectively entered this river system because of the WSP and the Basin Plan.

I will not be proud of my achievement if my predictions come to fruition. o Whilst I have been loyal to the MDBA, I am at a point of considering

bringing all this information I have established outside of the information provided by virtue of my membership on NBAC to the attention of outside interests, such as Environmental Organisations.

It is not too late for the MDBA to explore these matters with the thoroughness I believe they deserve.

RECOMMENDATIONS. As a matter of urgency, the MDBA should:

1. Through engagement of appropriate support, establish all the implications created by the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan which potentially impact both on:

a. exposure to increased extractions of low flows, and b. the ability of the Basin Plan to achieve the environmental targets

sought through a reviewed Northern Basin Plan 2. Engage with NSW Agency personnel seeking them to explain or justify any

changes created by the WSP which the MDBA considers may have reduced the protection of low flows with consequent increased exposure for environmental flows, town water supplies, stock and domestic access and water quality.

3. Share the findings from the first recommendation with appropriate people including environmental organisations, individual environmentalists,

environmental scientists and Environmental Departments, in a similar way that the findings of the Environmental Science studies were shared with water extractor groups who were allowed to critique the studies.

4. Keep NBAC informed of actions 5. Provide a response to me by Friday 17th June indicating what actions, if

any, the MDBA proposes to take as a consequence of this memo. Footnote 1: On 6th June, whilst attempting to understand some of these issues, I compiled the following list of potential ramifications, some of which are duplicates of points above: There are several ramifications from this:

What evaluation of Town Water supplies and environmental impacts have been undertaken, or should be undertaken, by either the State Government or MDBA?

How can any environmental targets proposed by the MDBA for this river system be influenced by any Basin Plan strategies, including determination of an appropriate SDL?

What evaluation of managing Commonwealth held Environmental Water impacts have been undertaken, or should be undertaken, by either the State Government, CEWH or MDBA?

Can or should shepherding have any effective role? Is there anything to be gained by attempting to consider Linked Demand Time

Series whilst these opportunities remain for large volumes of low flows to be extracted from the Barwon Darling?

Has or should any review of the BD WSP be undertaken in relation to these implications or to accreditation?

What are any benefits of carrying out modelling for low flows in this river system unless the full implications of the changes brought about by Policy shifts are fully understood?

I do not currently have data relating to the cumulative increases that have occurred to date through implementation of the CCA provisions for A and B Class up to the time the BDWSP was printed in October 2012. However, my interpretation of Schedule 7 of this plan is that there may only be 215 ML of A Class water still eligible for conversion prior to end June 2017. However, there still remains 25 GL eligible for conversion from C Class to B Class. Using the Bourke river gauge as an example, this represents an opportunity for a further 25 GL to be extracted daily at a minimum commence to pump flow threshold of 1250 ML/day, rather than 11,000 ML/day. How might environmental implications of this possibility be assessed?

Footnote 2: I intended to make more enquiries regarding some of what I have included in this memo before distributing, but I advise all recipients that over the last eight days my Mother’s health has changed significantly and as a consequence I may not be available for any meetings, telephone conversations or email responses for an indefinite period, effective immediately. Hence my decision to share this immediately. Geoff Wise

ATTACHMENT G 160721 DARLING RIVER AT RISK or A DEAD DARLING During the Northern Basin Advisory Committee (NBAC) meeting on 12th and 13th July 2016 Geoff Wise presented further interpretations of information of concern relating to the Barwon Darling.

The 2012 Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan (BD WSP) has increased the security of access to low flows (both at A Class and B Class levels) for broad acre irrigators, irrespective of Cap constraints. o The percentage of total Barwon Darling Cap volume of annual access

entitlement for A Class has changed from 2.4% to 5.3%, and the equivalent changes for B Class are from 73.4% to 83.5%, whereas C Class has decreased from 24.2% to 11.2%.

The BD WSP has provided opportunities for huge and unpredictable volumes of A Class water (30 GL without trade, or 74 GL with trade whilst ever available in accounts) to be extracted annually over short periods of time under A Class pumping conditions, compared to a history of use of approximately 20 ml/day (4.6 GL/year) of A Class that were extracted relatively evenly extracted throughout the year. o Similarly, up to 393 GL of B Class could potentially be available

for extractions annually without trade, or up to 617 GL with trade.

o Storage capacities would become the limiting factor regarding volumes extracted.

o Some cotton growers have been enlarging their storages since 2012. To understand the potential impacts of these changes, there is a

need to understand and predict Irrigator Behaviour. o Once an irrigator starts to draw down water from storage at the

commencement of a new cotton season, every opportunity to “top up” the storage will be taken until the storage is filled at the end of the cotton season. Hence the most likely time that extractions will occur during low flows will be during summer and autumn periods. Once any storage is full after the end of the cotton season, there is unlikely to be the same demands on extraction throughout the winter period, unless a winter crop is planted.

o Thus access to large volumes of low flow events will be summer seasonal, which coincidently is the season of greatest risk for Algae outbreaks and greatest necessity for Basic Rights access.

Section 46(16) of the BD WSP describes circumstances allowing the Minister to reduce maximum daily volume limits for B and C Class Licences, but not for A Class. o Hence this massive shift in licence class from C and B Class to A

Class remains immune from this authority of the Minister. These changes are in defiance of the Scientific Report by Thoms et al

1996 that flows below the 60th percentile (1820 ML/day flow at Bourke) should be protected.

o A Class commence to pump threshold at Bourke is 350 Ml/day, and B Class is 1250 Ml/day.

These changes have inevitably decreased the security of Basic Rights (Town Water supplies, Stock and Domestic access), water quality and environmental considerations for the entire length of the Darling River below Bourke (Bourke roughly coincides with the most downstream large irrigation property). o The entire river community associated with the Unregulated

Darling downstream of Bourke (“Lower Darling Unregulated Community”), and the entire river community associated with the Regulated section of the Darling from Menindee downstream (“Lower Darling Regulated Community”) will inevitably be negatively impacted.

o These two communities include but are not limited to towns and villages, riparian landowners, stock and domestic licencees, Aboriginal families tied to these countries, fisherpeople and tourists.

o No social or economic evaluations have been undertaken for these communities by either NSW or the MDBA.

o Very limited engagement has taken place with these two communities throughout the Basin Plan process.

Without regular “top ups” to Menindee Lakes, there is an increased probability that the basic rights flows downstream of Menindee will also be significantly compromised.

These changes are contradictory to the Vision and Objectives of the BD WSP, and to the reference in the Background Document to the BD WSP, 8.4, which states “Amendments to access rules must not substantially alter long term diversions under A, B and C Class access licences.”

These changes significantly impact on any ability of water purchased by the Commonwealth from tributaries to the Barwon Darling remaining as environmental flows once in the Barwon Darling. o Hence these changes openly challenge the concept of the Basin

Plan specifying a “Shared Reduction” for the Barwon Darling”. I defy any ability to effectively model the consequences of these

changes, knowing that licence holders have so many opportunities to “manipulate” any low flow event in any number of different ways.

Theoretically, all these changes are “within Cap” when roughly described, using long term averaging to allow extraction volumes to balance out with Cap determination. o However, it is highly probable that use of these changes will be

compliant with any rigorous Cap audit. o Further, the changes appear to be in contradiction to the

following direct extract from the Background Document to the BD WSP, Clause 5.2.1:

“5.2.1 Murray-Darling Basin Cap management

Water diversions from rivers in NSW progressively increased throughout the last century, but most rapidly in the 1980s. Growth in water diversions:

takes more water away from the river and may threaten its environmental health

reduces water available to other legitimate businesses thus increasing competition and the potential for inequitable access

reduces flows from upstream river systems into downstream systems.

In 1994, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (MDBMC) undertook an assessment of water diversions across the basin. This found that the levels of diversions at that time were placing stress on both the environmental health of our river systems and the reliability of supply to water users; and that diversions were continuing to increase. In response, the MDBMC introduced a diversion limit – the Cap – in 1995.

The definition of Cap for each of the basin states and territories is formalised in Schedule E of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. In NSW, the Cap is defined as the average yearly volume of water that would have been diverted under 1993-94 levels of development and management rules.”

In summary, whilst the Basin Plan is aimed at creating a balance across the entire Basin, the NSW BD WSP has effectively created significant local impacts within the Barwon Darling, by increasing the security and regularity of access for extractions by irrigators, in volumes of extraction opportunities and potentially in seasonality of extractions. o Whilst we are aware of the natural variability of flows, the

additional impacts of Northern Basin Wide extractions have potentially reduced the Darling River to being at environmental risk in approximately 30% of years.

o The additional impacts created by the NSW BD WSP are anticipated to have a massive compounding impact on low flows during the periods when environmental flows are most vulnerable.

o Unless the NSW BD WSP is radically reviewed, our future societies may be looking at a “Dead Darling”, from Bourke to the Murray, with the occasional drowning by irregular large flood events. The influences of the Basin Plan within this section of the Darling River will be inconsequential, other than in increasing the securing of flows to irrigators through their access to environmental water acquired by the Commonwealth within tributaries to the Barwon Darling system.

o There is an opportunity within the NSW BD WSP for the NSW Minister to introduce Individual and Total Daily Extraction Limits. Such action should have a significant impact on addressing some of the issues raised above. The Minister has not exercised this authority.

Geoff Wise Written on 21st July 2016

ATTACHMENT H 161018 DARLING RIVER FLOWS AT WILCANNIA and BOURKE BACKGROUND The first three of 10 Objectives of the Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon-Darling Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources 2012 are stated to:

a) protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the important river flow dependent and high priority groundwater dependent ecosystems of these water sources

b) protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the Aboriginal, cultural and heritage values of these water sources

c) protect basic landholder rights. There is always an expectation that Town Water Supplies needs are a higher priority that other extractive uses. The following analysis of publically available data allows the reader to form their own conclusions on the effectiveness of:

the Commonwealth Government’s decision to implement a Cap on growth in irrigation extractions across the entire Murray Darling Basin, effective from July 1994, and

on the effectiveness of the State Government in complying with the objectives of the 2012 Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan.

Upstream extractions from the Northern Basin of the Murray Darling System continued to expand in Queensland for a number of years after the Commonwealth announced a Cap limiting further diversions across the entire Murray Darling Basin, effective from 1993/4 levels of development. This decision was made in recognition that the levels of diversion at the time were placing stress on both the environmental health of the river systems and the reliability of water supply to water users. In NSW, there has been no effective growth in extractions of water from the Barwon Darling since 1993/4. During the period of development of Cap, which was finally announced in 2006, there was progressive increase in commence to pump thresholds for licences held by broad-acre irrigators with off river storages, in recognition of the historic declining health of the river system. Similar changes were not considered necessary for the large number of small volume A Class licences, able to be activated at the lowest specified flow levels, only able to be pumped though small diameter pumps, and invariably pumped directly to a permanent planting, such as grapes, citrus, jojoba or lucerne, as their impacts on the overall river system were considered comparatively negligible. IRRIGATION EXTRACTION CHANGES INTRODUCED IN BARWON DARLING WATER SHARING PLAN, (BD WSP) OCTOBER 2012.

In 2012 NSW introduced a new Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon Darling that significantly changed the past access and usage patterns. The main changes were:

Removal of a pump size restriction from each class of licence Introduction of opportunity for 300% of Access Entitlement being

extracted each year. o In particular, this impacts on A Class Access, as at the baseline period

there would have been minimal variation in annual extraction of A Class volumes.

Introduction of unlimited carry-over provisions Introduction of water tradings Application of concessional conversions No implementation of Clauses 51 or 52 of the WSP relating to Total and

Individual Daily Extraction Limits. The effective consequence is that the security of access by broad-acre licence holders to lower flows using large pumps has been significantly increased, with a subsequent outcome anticipated to impact significantly on low flows in the river, particularly in the entire length of the Darling River downstream of Bourke. Specific consequences include:

The BD WSP has significantly changed the use of A Class licences o from historic “drought proofing” licences held by all riparian

properties, plus a small number of small permanent planting owners and one large permanent planting irrigator,

o to extensive annual cropping irrigators seeking higher security water access.

The BD WSP appears to have increased the security of access to low flows

(both at A Class and B Class levels) for broad acre irrigators, irrespective of Cap constraints.

o The percentage of total Cap volume of annual access entitlement for A Class has changed from 2.3% to 5.3%, and the equivalent changes for B Class are from 73.5% to 83.5%, whereas C Class has decreased from 24.2% to 11.2%.

The BD WSP has provided opportunities for huge and unpredictable volumes of A Class water (30 GL without trade, or 74 GL with trade whilst ever available in accounts) to be extracted annually under A Class pumping conditions, compared to a history of use of approximately 20 to 25 ML/day of A Class extractions.

o Similarly, up to 393 GL of B Class could potentially be available for extractions annually without trade, or up to 617 GL with trade.

o Storage capacities would become the limiting factor regarding volumes extracted.

These actions now allowable within the BD SWP appear contradictory to the Vision and Objectives of the BD WSP.

The significance of these changes is not yet being reflected in daily flow records in the lower Darling.

The significance of the Darling River being the sole and fundamental

connection between the north and south of the Murray Darling Basin requires consideration.

The significance of the substantial anecdotal evidence indicating that the

degree of social unrest amongst the Aboriginal population in Wilcannia is inversely proportional to the volume of local daily flows in the Darling River requires consideration.

ANALYSIS OF FLOWS AT WILCANNIA

The following is analysis of monthly flow records at Wilcannia over the last 96 years of data. This data has been divided into the 74 years pre July 1994 and the 22 years post July 1994. This coincides with the reference date adopted by the Commonwealth for introduction of a water diversion limit, called Cap, limiting average yearly volume of water that would have been diverted under 1993/4 levels of development and management rules. 41% of all financial (water) years since 1994 have recorded a zero flow at Wilcannia for at least month,

compared to only 8% years before 1994 13.3% of months since 1994 recorded less than 30 ML/month total flow (ie less than an average of 1ML/day total flow), including all the months of zero flow,

compared to only 1.7% of months before 1994. 11.4% of months since 1994 recorded total monthly flow volumes in the range of 31 ML to 1000 ML/month (ie daily average in range of 1ML to 33.3ML/day)

compared to only 1.9% of months before 1994. 24.6% of months since 1994 recorded total monthly flow volumes less than 1000 ML/month (ie daily average less than 33.3 ML/day)

compared to only 3.7% of months before 1994.

Since 1994,

17.3% of all months between October and February inclusive have

recorded zero flows

24.5% of all months between September and January inclusive have

recorded monthly flows in the range of 1 ML/Month to 1000 ML/month. These are the months most likely to be impacted by upstream increased A Class access to low flows following the extraction rule changes introduced in

the 2012 Water Sharing Plan, and hence most likely to reflect the possibility of increased months of zero or near zero flows at Wilcannia into the future.

Monthly Frequency of Zero Flows at Wilcannia

Since 1994 Before 1994

Jan 13.6% 5.4% Feb 22.7% 5.4% Mar 9.1% 0 Apr 4.5% 0 May 4.5% 0 June 4.5% 0 July 4.5% 0 Aug 0.0% 0 Sept 0.0% 0 Oct 4.5% 1.4% Nov 18.2% 2.7% Dec 27.3% 2.7%

ATTACHMENT I 161112 NBAC BUSINESS PAPER

ACHIEVING SUSTAINABILITY of the DARLING RIVER

DOWNSTREAM of BOURKE

CONTEXT During the four years I have been a member of the Northern Basin Advisory Committee I have found it necessary to understand the realities and contexts within which future water policies and management arrangements may operate to deliver desired outcomes for the Basin Plan. Critical initial steps for effective advising and planning for the future are to understand what “we” are dealing with, where “we” have come from, both in river flow outcomes and in historic policy influences, and understanding where “we” are currently at for river flows and policy influences. This paper provides my analyses of these contexts. To understand river flows in the Barwon Darling, I have accessed historic public records of monthly flows at Bourke and Wilcannia, as these downstream reference points provide for a pragmatic understanding of the environmental sustainability of the Barwon Darling System. Three experiences over the last year, all initiated by broad-scale irrigators on the Barwon Darling, have made me realise I must, and every member of NBAC and MDBA must, gain personal understandings of the implications for the Basin Plan of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan 2012. These experiences were:

In spring of 2015 I received a message indirectly from an irrigator querying why a fellow irrigator on the Barwon-Darling could be pumping water from the river, but the complainant could not legally pump. On enquiry from a Water Licencing Officer I was told that the extractions were legal.

On 3rd November 2015 I was present with the Chair, MDBA, a MDBA

Board Member and others, on a Bourke property when the owner advised us that he currently had a significant volume of water in storage pumped under A Class conditions from a recent small flow.

This volume intrigued me as I recollected that the extraction volume quoted was in the order of 250% of the 10-year average annual History of Use volume of all A Class water extracted by all A Class licence holders along the entire length of the Barwon Darling throughout the period from 1995/6 to 2004/5. It was this average annual History of Use data that lead to the distribution of Licence Shares within the Cap decision of 2006.

At the June 2016 meeting of the Western Lands Advisory Council, which I normally Chair but for which I was an apology, an agenda item was raised by an irrigator for our Council to discuss the non-irrigation implications of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan particularly for water use downstream of Bourke.

Throughout 2016, I have openly exchanged with staff from both Commonwealth and State agencies, allowing me to acquire the best available information and understanding of these issues. I have progressively shared my interpretations with Board members and staff of MDBA, with senior staff in NSW Department of Primary Industries Water Division, with members of the Northern Basin Advisory Committee, with members of the Western Lands Advisory Council, and with other people who have been in attendance at Northern Basin Advisory Committee meetings and various working group meetings. This report contains information previously shared plus additional data analyses that I have progressively “researched”. Hence I am now combining all of my relevant “research” into this single paper. There is no data or interpretations in the attached report gained through my membership of either of the Advisory Committees referenced. I have consistently requested that what I have presented be peer reviewed by the recipients, and if I have made any errors in what I have presented I will appreciate corrections. I am now sharing this as a Business Paper to the last meeting of the Northern Basin Advisory Committee, copied to Mr Neil Andrew, AO, Chair, and Philip Glyde, CEO, MDBA respectively, In view of the observations I have made which relate to the NSW Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan, I am sharing this paper directly with Hon. Niall Blair MLC,

Minister for Primary Industries and Minister for Lands and Water, and Gavin Hanlon, Deputy Director General, Water, Department of Primary Industries. Because there is an imminent announcement of the recommendations relating to the Review of the Northern Basin I am also sharing this with Local Members covering the Northern Basin in NSW, Mark Coulton, MP, Member for Parkes and Hon. Kevin Humphries MP, Member for Barwon. I will also be sharing it with people in the other groups referenced above.

ANALYSES OF RIVER FLOWS

SOME BOURKE RIVER FLOW STATISTICS This information is derived from analysis of 67 years of publically available annual (calendar year) flow data at Bourke from 1944 to 2014. Fours years of data during the period are not available. Flow conditions at Bourke provide indications of flow conditions for the remainder of the Darling River downstream of Bourke.

50% of years accounted for 11% total volume

13% of years accounted for over 50% total volume

33% of years accounted for less than 5% total volume ANALYSIS OF FLOWS AT WILCANNIA

Wilcannia reflects the cumulative impacts of all extractions upstream across the entire Northern Basin. Hence analysis of publically available monthly flow records at Wilcannia over the last 96 years of data provides an opportunity to consider the possible impacts of extractive developments, plus providing a context for potential influences of new policies. The data has been divided into the 74 years pre July 1994 and the 22 years from July 1994 to May 2016. There were dry years during both periods. July 1994 coincides with the reference date adopted by the Commonwealth for introduction of a Cap to limit water diversions to the average yearly volume of water that would have been diverted under 1993/4 levels of development and management rules. 41% of all financial (water) years since 1994 have recorded a zero flow at Wilcannia for at least month,

compared to only 8% years before 1994 13.3% of months since 1994 recorded less than 30 ML/month total flow (ie less than an average of 1ML/day total flow), including all the months of zero flow,

compared to only 1.7% of months before 1994. 11.4% of months since 1994 recorded total monthly flow volumes in the range of 31 ML to 1000 ML/month (ie daily average in range of 1ML to 33.3ML/day)

compared to only 1.9% of months before 1994.

24.6% of months since 1994 recorded total monthly flow volumes less than 1,000 ML/month (ie daily average less than 33.3 ML/day)

compared to only 3.7% of months before 1994.

Since 1994,

17.3% of all months between October and February inclusive have

recorded zero flows, compared to 3.2% before 1994.

24.5% of all months between September and January inclusive have

recorded monthly flows in the range of 1 ML/Month to 1000 ML/month. These are the months most likely to be impacted by upstream increased A Class access to low flows following the extraction rule changes introduced in the 2012 Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan, and hence most likely to reflect the possibility of increased months of zero or near zero flows at Wilcannia into the future.

Monthly Frequency of Zero Flows at Wilcannia

Since 1994 Before 1994

Jan 13.6% 5.4% Feb 22.7% 5.4% Mar 9.1% 0 Apr 4.5% 0 May 4.5% 0 June 4.5% 0 July 4.5% 0 Aug 0.0% 0 Sept 0.0% 0 Oct 4.5% 1.4% Nov 18.2% 2.7% Dec 27.3% 2.7%

Monthly Frequency of Wilcannia flows less than 1,000ML/Month (ie less than average daily flow of 33.3 ML/day)

Since 1994 Before 1994

Jan 22.7% 8.1%

Feb 27.3% 6.8%

Mar 9.1% 0

Apr 13.6% 0

May 13.6% 2.7%

June 18.2% 1.4%

July 13.6% 0.0%

Aug 13.6% 1.4%

Sept 31.8% 4.1%

Oct 40.9% 4.1%

Nov 45.5% 6.8%

Dec 45.5% 8.1%

POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

There is a general understanding that because of progressive increases in extractions, the Murray Darling Basin was considered unsustainable, and as a consequence:

The Cap was introduced in 1995 to limit further growth in extractions The Water Act was introduced in 2007 to facilitate both the development

of a Basin Plan and greater cooperation and coordination between Basin States and the Commonwealth in managing the Murray Darling Basin.

The Basin Plan was introduced in 2012 to reduce the levels of extraction to a sustainable diversion limit.

COMMONWEALTH CAP 1995 In 1995, the Commonwealth announced a Cap limiting further diversions across the entire Murray Darling Basin (MDB), effective from 1993/4 levels of development. This decision was made in recognition that the levels of diversion at the time were placing stress on both the environmental health of the river systems and the reliability of water supply to water users. Nevertheless, extractions continued to expand in Queensland for a number of years. This was based on Queensland's argument that it had allowed very little water resource development in its Murray Darling Basin catchments and that it had a right to “catch up”. During the extended period of development of Cap for the Barwon Darling in NSW, which was determined in 2006, there were progressive increases in commence to pump thresholds for licences held by broad-acre irrigators with off river storages (B and C Class licences), in response to the recommendations by a panel of Independent Scientists and the historic declining health of the river system, and generally supported by representatives of broad-acre irrigators. As referenced in the Background Document to the BD WSP, similar changes to pumping thresholds were not considered necessary in 2006 for the large number of small volume A Class licences, able to be activated at the lowest specified flow levels, only able to be pumped through small diameter pumps, and invariably pumped directly to a permanent planting, such as grapes, citrus, jojoba or lucerne, as their impacts on the overall river system were considered comparatively negligible.

During the ten years from 1995/6 to 2004/5, when these small licences were held by over 100 people, the average annual volume of water extracted using A class licences was assessed as 4,638 ML (less than 5 GL). This effectively translates to approximately 20 to 25 ML/day if extracted over the half to two thirds of the hotter days of each year.

At the time, NSW clearly recognised that whilst Cap is a gross long term average total of all licence classes, averaging the gross total effectively masks the impacts of low flow extractions.

The NSW water management operating rules at the time recognised that for the benefit of all “users”, including irrigators, town water supplies, stock and domestic users, water quality management and the environment, there was a requirement for active flow event management, rather than relying on plans based on long term averages and modelling.

BARWON DARLING WATER SHARING PLAN OCTOBER 2012 In October 2012 NSW introduced a new Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon Darling. Five of the 10 Objectives of the NSW Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon-Darling Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources (BD WSP) are stated to:

“protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the important river flow dependent and high priority groundwater dependent ecosystems of these water sources

protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the Aboriginal, cultural and heritage values of these water sources

protect basic landholder rights contribute to the maintenance of water quality, and contribute to the environmental and other public benefit outcomes

identified under the National Water Initiative”. Legislation acknowledges that Town Water Supply needs are a higher priority that other extractive uses. The Performance Indicators in the BD WSP state:

“The following indicators are to be used to measure the success of the strategies to reach the objectives of this Plan: (a) change in low flow regime, (b) change in moderate to high flow regime, (c) change in surface water and groundwater extraction relative to the long-term average annual extraction limits, (d) change in local water utility access, (e) change in the ecological value of key water sources and their dependent ecosystems, (f) the extent to which domestic and stock rights and native title rights requirements have been met, (g) the extent to which local water utility requirements have been met, (h) the change in economic benefits derived from water extraction and use, and (i) the extent of recognition of spiritual, social and customary values of water to Aboriginal people.”

IRRIGATION EXTRACTION CHANGES INTRODUCED IN BARWON DARLING WATER SHARING PLAN, (BD WSP) OCTOBER 2012.

The Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon Darling significantly changed the past access and usage patterns and also the flow event management strategy. The main changes were:

Removal of a pump size restriction from each class of licence Introduction of opportunity for 300% of Access Entitlement being

extracted each year. Introduction of unlimited carry-over provisions Introduction of water tradings Application of concessional conversions Removing the authority of the Minister to “embargo” access to A Class

licences No implementation of Clauses 51 or 52 of the WSP that provides the

Minister an opportunity to introduce Total and Individual Daily Extraction Limits on licences.

No attempt to use Clause 84 (c) to include rules for shepherding of environmental water

As stated in the BD WSP, Clauses 46 (15) and (16), in association with Section 324 of the Water Management Act, provide the Minister with authority to restrict or prohibit extracting of B and C class water, but not A Class, to protect flows needed to meet Basic Landholder Rights.

Clause 46 (16), read in association with the listed footnotes, specifies a flow of 390 ML/day at Bourke is the required minimum flow that should be protected to meet basic landholder rights requirements along the Barwon-Darling River. However, in contradiction, large volumes of A Class licences can be extracted at Bourke at 350 ML/day, without any stated ability for the Minister to intervene.

Specific consequences include:

The BD WSP has significantly changed the use of A Class licences: o from historic “drought proofing” licences held by all riparian

properties, plus a small number of small permanent planting owners and one large permanent planting irrigator,

o to extensive annual cropping irrigators seeking higher security water access.

The BD WSP has increased the reliability and security of access to low flows (both at A Class and B Class levels) for broad acre irrigators, irrespective of Cap constraints.

o The percentage of total Cap volume of annual access entitlement for A Class has effectively increased from 2.3% to 5.3%, and the

equivalent increases for B Class are from 73.5% to 83.5%, whereas C Class has decreased from 24.2% to 11.2%.

The BD WSP has provided opportunities for huge and unpredictable volumes of A Class water (30 GL without trade, or approximately 70 GL with trade whilst ever available in accounts) to be extracted annually under A Class pumping conditions, compared to a annual average history of use of less than 5 GL of A Class extractions.

o Similarly, up to 393 GL of B Class can potentially be available for extractions annually without trade, or up to over 600 GL with trade, compared to a ten year average annual history of use (1995/6 to 2004/5) of 144 GL.

o Storage capacities will become the limiting factor regarding volumes extracted.

Security of stipulated minimum low flow requirements for basic landholder rights has been significantly compromised. (Clause 46 (16)).

Environmental Water acquired by the Commonwealth from all the tributaries to the Barwon Darling effectively loses its environmental status once it enters the Barwon or Darling Rivers, and becomes accessible for extraction subject to flow pumping thresholds.

Two family businesses have recently “moved into the valley” and currently hold at least two thirds of the entire licence volume for the entire Barwon Darling. The Commonwealth holds approximately 12% of licence volume.

The actions now allowable within the BD WSP appear contradictory to the Vision, Objectives and Performance Indicators of the BD WSP.

The significance of these changes is not yet being reflected in daily flow records in the lower Darling from Bourke to the Murray River.

The significance of the Darling River being the sole and fundamental connection between the north and south of the Murray Darling Basin requires consideration, including potential implications for reliability of access for licence holders on the Regulated Lower Darling River and in the Murray River.

There is substantial evidence that when there are good flows in the river at Wilcannia there is less social unrest amongst the Aboriginal population.

BASIN PLAN NOVEMBER 2012 The following is a direct extract from the MDBA website: “What's in the Basin Plan? The Basin Plan is a coordinated approach to water management across the Murray–Darling Basin's 4 states (South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland) and the Australian Capital Territory. The Basin Plan was developed as a requirement of the Water Act 2007 (Cwlth) and is a significant step in the ongoing process of managing the Basin’s water for the benefit of all its users and the environment. At its heart, the Basin Plan determines the amount of water that can be extracted or taken annually from the Basin for consumptive use (urban, industrial and agricultural). The volume determined is called the long-term average sustainable diversion limit, or a volume of extraction that will not have a negative impact on the natural environments and the functions of the rivers, waterways, groundwater and wetlands of the Basin.

However, the Basin Plan is much more comprehensive than just determining a limit on water use. The Plan contains specific plans and frameworks to ensure: • good quality water is delivered to people, businesses and the environment • environmental water is used effectively • state governments are committed to the Plan • communities always have access to drinking water • water trade is efficient and fair • implementation of the Plan is monitored and evaluated”.

WORLD’S LARGEST BLUE GREEN ALGAE OUTBREAK The 1,000 Km long Blue Green Algae outbreak in the Barwon Darling in October/November 1991 has been frequently referenced as a need for enhanced environmental outcomes both by the Commonwealth through Cap of 1993/4 and the Basin Plan 2012, and by NSW through the 1992 Interim Unregulated Flow Management Plan for the North West Flow and the 2012 Barwon Darling WSP. During October and November 1991, the average daily flows were:

Bourke Wilcannia

October 293 ML/day 460 Ml/day

November 219 ML/day 184 ML/day. The Background Document to the BD WSP states, under “Algal Suppression”, 6.1.1.2

“Some restriction to supplementary access in the major tributaries and/or to B and C class access on the Barwon-Darling, prior to three months of below algal suppression flows at Wilcannia may be required to allow for the time it takes for flow to travel from the tributaries to the lower Barwon-Darling.”

The BD WSP provides the ability of broad-scale irrigators to rapidly extract A Class water above a threshold of 350 ML/day at Bourke, with the Minister having no specified authority to embargo such extractions. The Minister’s authority to embargo for B Class flows at Bourke is restricted to thresholds above 1,250 ML/day. Hence, should a repeat of the 1991 algal outbreak occur, the BD WSP provides little ability to contribute to any algal prevention or suppression. Prior to the 2012 BD WSP, the Minister had authority to create effective embargoes of all flows. Whilst-ever environmental flows or embargoed flows from the tributaries are not protected from extraction in the Barwon Darling, the Basin Plan also provides little ability to contribute to any algal prevention or suppression.

DISCUSSION

The comparative flow records at Wilcannia:

Provide no confidence that the Commonwealth decision to introduce a cap on growth in diversions from 1994/5 had any effect in limiting stress on either the environmental health of the Barwon Darling river systems or the reliability of water supply to all the system’s water users

Provide no confidence that the NSW Water Sharing Plan 2012 or the Basin Plan 2012 will deliver on several of their own respective objectives

Provide no confidence that the Basin Plan can return the river health to anywhere near pre 1994 conditions.

There has been a widely acknowledged recognition the flow variability is the unique feature of the Northern Basin. Consequences are:

We must acknowledge that whilst Cap is a gross long term average total of all licence classes, averaging the gross total volumes effectively masks the impacts of low flow extractions.

o A Sustainable Diversion Limit has similar limitations. Effective water management operating rules depend on active flow event

management for efficient beneficial outcomes for all “users”, including irrigators, town water supplies, stock and domestic users, water quality management and the environment.

Modelling has significant limitations, particularly for extremes of low and high flows.

The effective consequences of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan 2012 are expected that:

The reliability and security of access by a few broad-acre licence holders to lower flows using large pumps has been significantly increased

A few broad-acre licence holders in the Barwon Darling have increased opportunities to extract environmental water and water embargoed by the State entering the Barwon Darling from tributaries

Increased extractions of low flows and of environmental water from tributaries will impact significantly on low flows in the river, particularly in the entire length of the Darling River downstream of Bourke

The reliability and security will be decreased for many people entitled to Basic Landholder Rights, Town Water Supplies, and Aboriginal, Cultural and Heritage values, plus water quality, environmental and public benefit outcomes

The NSW Government gave notice before the release of the WSP that “it is expected that they (Individual Daily Extraction Limits) will be in place within the first few years of this (BD WSP) plan’s term. “

o Therefore NSW should still be in a strong position to initiate their introduction, which would significantly rebalance the above points.

From my perspective as a community member:

The changes introduced through the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan in October 2012 appear totally antagonistic to the plans and framework of the Basin Plan introduced one month later. This implies little coordination or cooperation between the two parties, and a consequence that the objectives of both plans are unlikely to be achieved.

The reliability of water extraction for productive uses appears to be treated as sacrosanct, whereas reliability of water for basic landholder

rights, all town water supplies, Aboriginal cultural considerations or the environment are consequential.

I will await with intrigue to witness effective improvements to consistent river flows at Wilcannia as a measure of the effectiveness of taxpayer investments into the Basin Plan.

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. MDBA engage in serious negotiations with NSW seeking that Clauses 51 and 52 of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan 2012 relating to Individual Daily Extraction Limits be implemented as soon as possible, as foreshadowed by the State.

2. MDBA engage in serious negotiations with NSW to develop a workable process for environmental water to be used effectively (Basin Plan objective) for its defined purpose (Water Act Definition: environmental watering means the delivery or use of environmental water to achieve environmental outcomes) once it enters the Barwon Darling system from any tributary.

2. MDBA work with all appropriate agencies and organisations to develop appropriate “toolkit strategies”

a. to ensure environmental water is used effectively in the Barwon Darling for its defined purpose and

b. to minimise drawdown of low flows from the Barwon Darling River.

3. MDBA immediately develop and implement monitoring and evaluation strategies based on individual flow events in the Barwon Darling to assess the consequences of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan and the Basin Plan relative to the defined objectives of each plan.

4. MDBA immediately develop a strategy to identify recommendations to NSW relevant to the foreshadowed review of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan.

5. MDBA engage and communicate on an ongoing basis with two communities downstream of Bourke which each have direct associations with water management decisions in the Northern Basin.

a. These are the composite community from immediately downstream of Bourke to Menindee, and the composite community from Menindee to Wentworth.

6. MDBA initiate actions to ensure effective monitoring and evaluation and adaptive management is carried out relating to Water Plans of the Basin States.

7. The data analysis I have provided in this report be peer reviewed for

accuracy, and the peer review be made public. Geoff Wise 12th November 2016

ATTACHMENT J

NORTHERN BASIN ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS REPORT ON MEMBER ISSUES

Report by NBAC member Geoff Wise as consequence of participating in

Environmental Science Working Group (ESWG) meeting on 15/02/16 and Environmental Science Technical Advisory Group (ESTAG) meeting on 16/02/16.

Background

MDBA staff held an interactive briefing session with all members of the NBAC ESWG on 15th Feb 2016 to discuss the recently completed Science Reports

Geoff Wise represented NBAC at the ESTAG meeting on 16/02/16 that focused on discussing the MDBA initial thinking towards the environmental outcomes as a consequence of the Science Reports.

Critical Concerns expressed by Geoff Wise

1. There are grave concerns that the use of long term average flows for the highly variable ephemeral river systems in the Northern Basin as the basis for determining a suitable SDL for the Northern Basin will not achieve any effective changes to targeted environmental outcomes.

2. There are grave concerns that any effective changes to targeted environmental outcomes can not be achieved without complementary changes to ancillary administrative considerations including:

a. Shepherding of environmental water from any Water Sharing Plan Region to downstream Water Sharing Plan Regions

b. Total integration of overland flow and water harvesting management c. Consideration of the implications of amendments to water extraction

rules introduced through the Cap Strategy in 2007 and into the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan one month before the Basin Plan was delivered, which allow for:

i. Unlimited progressive accumulation of water in “water accounts”, and

ii. Use of any sized pump to extract water irrespective of licence classification.

3. Release of any alternate scenario models for potential options for variation to the SDL in the Northern Basin must be considered from a communication and potential reactionary perspective.

Critically Important Recommendations by Geoff Wise

1. As a matter of urgency, the MDBA engage the services of an expert Statistician, preferably who has had no previous experience with water management, to provide advice to the MDBA of the statistical accuracy or otherwise of the way MDBA analyses the long term data held by MDBA to formulate water management policies across the highly variable ephemeral river systems in the Northern Basin.

a. This must consider variabilities of individual flows, not annual flows. b. This must consider intervals between flows. c. This must consider whether it is statistically sound to consider that any

gross variation to extactions may have direct responses to outcomes.

2a. MDBA urgently review the need to introduce shepherding of environmental water as it passes between Water Sharing Plan regions, and in the absence of this, review all modelling of anticipated outcomes for environmental targets, in the knowledge that environmental flows are currently not protected from extractions once they pass into a new Water Sharing Plan Region.

2b. No alternate scenario options should be taken to the wider public without

having considered the implications of overland flow and water harvesting management, or alternatively, any scenario options being made publically available should identify qualifying statements that further options may be needed to incorporate the implications of overland flow and water harvesting management.

2c. MDBA must develop a clear appreciation of the consequences of the changes

introduced associated with the Barwon Darling Cap Strategy and Water Sharing Plan that may impact on many of the modelling assumptions currently being used by the MDBA.

3 As a matter of urgency, MDBA develop an additional scenario for establishment

of a revised SDL for the Northern Basin, which offsets any considered reduction of SDL attributed to the Condamine Balonne (ie from 100GL local reduction to 60GL local reduction) with simultaneous deletion of the “Northern Basin Shared Reduction” of 143 GL, and the Shared Reduction replacement being distributing according to the originally proposed default for distribution of the 143 GL Shared Reduction.

a. Such action may alleviate a degree of anticipated inter-valley reaction to any considered changes.

Refer to Attachments of Analysis of data of Barwon Darling Flows and of personal opinion and communication by Geoff Wise Geoff Wise

18st February 2016.

ANALYSIS OF DATA OF BARWON DARLING FLOWS

KEY POINTS OVER THE 72 YEAR PERIOD 1944 T0 2015

47% of total flow was recorded during 5% of total months

1% of total flow was recorded during 12% of consecutive months

For the 12% of consecutive months (8.33 years) of low flows, the 5% of high flow months artificially increased the "long term annual average" for these each of these 8.33 years by over 400%

Over the 50 years from 1944 to 1993 the river recorded zero flow for 0.5% of months (3 months)

Over the 22 years from 1994 to 2015, the river recorded zero flow for 7% of months (18 months), with the longest consecutive period being 6 months of zero flow.

The figures used in these comments have captured 10 of the larger flow events over the 72 years period.

The intervals between these 10 larger flow events include:

Intervals over 12 years

2

Intervals 7 to 12 years

2

Intervals 5 to 7 years

2

Intervals under 5 years

3

PERSONAL OPINION BY GEOFF WISE Scenario Testing of Sensitivity of Options for possible change to the SBL limit for the Northern Basin

On 16th February three options were presented to the ESTAG, being 415 GL, 350 GL, and the current position of 390 GL

Advice was provided that there is very little difference in sensitivity between these three options.

Opinions by Geoff Wise o I am not surprised by the relative small differences in sensitivity, based

on my concern that use of long term averaging as a foundation for modelling is statistically flawed for such a highly variable set of data.

o I suspect that if similar scenarios were similarly modelled for even wider variations, such as 300 GL or 450 GL, there may be similarly small variation in sensitivity.

o Consideration of some of the examples of variability in the following communication my highlight my reasons for concern for how data is analysed.

COMMUNICATION BY GEOFF WISE Geoff Wise publically communicated the following in 2012. “On 5th March 2012 the flow of the Darling River at Bourke peaked at 13.81 metres, with nearly 240,000 ML per day flowing past Bourke. This peak lapped the bottom of the wharf deck (covered the top step) and lapped the bottom of the horizontal trusses of the Old North Bourke Bridge. It was the 6thlargest flow (at Bourke) in white man history, behind 1864, 1890, 1976, 1974 and 1950. This equates roughly to:

240,000 Olympic swimming pools daily 2.6 Olympic swimming pools per second Annual Bourke Town water Supply in 15 minutes

Annual flow (at Bourke) for whole of 2002 in 7 hours Annual flow (at Bourke) for whole of 2006 in 7 hours

2 days flow equals the cumulative total flow (at Bourke) for the four years of

2002, 03, 06 and 07. 13 days at this flow rate equals the cumulative total flow (at Bourke) for the eight

consecutive years from 2002 to 2009 inclusive.

Total maximum annual allowable water licence extractions by all irrigators and towns for the whole of the Barwon Darling system from Mungundi (on the Queensland border) to Menindee in 21 hours

2 days flow equals annual evaporation from Menindee Lakes 4 days flow equals Annual evaporation from Lower Lakes at mouth of the Murray

2 days at this flow rate would fill Sydney harbour 9 days at this flow rate would fill the total storage capacity of Warragamba Dam.”

ATTACHMENT K 161129 CHANGES IN RELIABILITY OF

FLOWS IN DARLING RIVER AT WILCANNIA There has been up to a 1,000% DROP IN RELIABILITY of river flows at Wilcannia over the last nearly quarter century (22 years) compared to the previous three quarters of a century (74 years). Over one quarter (27%) of all Decembers now experience zero flows

> 1,000% decrease in reliability

Nearly half (44%) of all Octobers, Novembers and Decembers experience

zero or very low flows (less than average daily flow of 33.3 ML/day or 1,000ML/month)

> 800% decrease in reliability

13.6% of all months of the year experience virtually zero flows

(less than an average of 1 ML/day total flow or 30 ML/month) > 800% decrease in reliability

A quarter (24.6%) of all months of the year experience zero to low flows

(less than 33 ML/day or 1,000ML/month) > 720% decrease in reliability

The river has stopped flowing completely for 20% (20.5%) of all months

between November and February > 550% decrease in reliability

The river has stopped flowing completely for at least one month in nearly

half (45.4%) of all years > 480% decrease in reliability

This compared the periods before and after the Commonwealth Government introduced a Cap to limit any further growth in extractions in recognition of the declining health of the river systems in the Murray Darling Basin. Despite this decision being agreed to at a State Ministerial Council meeting, Queensland chose not to introduce the decision for a number of years after 1995, and allowed massive growth in extractions particularly in the Condamine Balonne region. Through a long consultation process, the NSW Government introduced a cap on growth in extractions, consistent with the Commonwealth’s decision, retrospective to 1993/94 estimated levels of extraction, effective from July 2007. Whether you believe this decrease in reliability is influenced by climate change, climatic variability, changed dry-land farming practices or irrigation extractions, the facts are that the reliability of low river flows at Wilcannia have decreased massively since the united agreement by the Commonwealth and all Basin Plan State Governments that the levels of diversion at the time were placing stress on both the environmental health of the river systems and the reliability of water supply to water users. In 2012 the NSW Government introduced further changes through the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan. These changes effectively gave cotton irrigators access to low flow licences with the ability to annually extract up to 650% of the long term annual average usage when the users of these licences were a small number of people with permanent plantings and graziers aimed at drought proofing their properties. The significance of these 2012 changes in allowing

access to significant extra volumes from low flows in the river are not yet being reflected in daily flow records in the lower Darling from Bourke to the Murray River. All Commonwealth and State legislation including the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan have words to recognise that town water supplies, other domestic access requirements and livestock access requirements are of higher priority that access for irrigation or other productive uses. Five of the 10 Objectives of the NSW Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon-Darling are stated to:

“protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the important river flow dependent and high priority groundwater dependent ecosystems of these water sources

protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the Aboriginal, cultural and heritage values of these water sources

protect basic landholder rights contribute to the maintenance of water quality, and contribute to the environmental and other public benefit outcomes

identified under the National Water Initiative”. Despite these words, the reliability of low flows at Wilcannia appear to be on a continual downslide, with direct negative impacts on the identified highest priority objectives of the Water Act and relevant Plans. The ability of the multi billion dollar Basin Plan to create any tangible turn-around to these long periods of zero and low flow conditions in the “Artery of the Outback” which historically connected Queensland to Victoria and South Australia must be strongly questioned. Badger Bates, a member of the Barkinjie People, the River People of the Darling, states that if the river dies, the people and their cultures die. Is this a goal we should be aspiring to, not only for Aboriginal People, but for all people associated directly or indirectly with the Murray Darling Basin? Background to the data source and data analysis is available separately. Geoff Wise 29th November 2016

ATTACHMENT L

171128 COMPARISONS BETWEEN IRRIGATION EXTRACTION RATES

and END OF RIVER SYSTEM FLOW RATES

in the

UNREGULATED BARWON DARLING RIVER SYSTEM The following compares annual irrigation extraction rates from the Unregulated Barwon Darling to annual flow rates recorded at Wilcannia. For this exercise, the river gauge at Wilcannia was used as the surrogate to represent the “end of system” for the Unregulated Barwon Darling River System. Data relating to extraction rates for the 12 water years from 1997/8 to 2008/09 used for this analysis was made available by NSW Water (or current title at the time) and presented to a meeting of Barwon Darling Water (or Mungindi Menindee Advisory Council) in about 2009 or 2010. Wilcannia flow rates were accessed from the publicly available NSW Water reference site of “realtime water data”, and were used as an indicator of “end of system” flows within the Unregulated section of the Barwon Darling River system. CONCLUSIONS The graphic conclusions for the Unregulated Barwon Darling River system are:

The percentage of volumes of extractions compared to end of system flow volumes varies widely when assessed on an annual basis.

o Over a consecutive 12 years of records, the annual percentage of extractions compared to annual end of system flows ranged between 143% and 5%,

o For this period, extractions were at least 44% greater than end of system flows for half of the years, and at least 23% greater than end of system flows for three quarters of the years.

The percentage of volumes of extractions compared to end of system flows when assessed on cumulative records over 12 years is massively influenced by occasional large flows (floods), resulting in an meaningless interpretation that extractions account for a very low proportion of total flows.

o Over the same consecutive 12 years of records, the cumulative percentage of extractions compared to end of system flows was 15%.

This reduced comparative value created by long term averaging bears no resemblance to the annual averaging or to reality.

All water users, including irrigators, urban communities, basic rights users and the environmental attributes are dependent on individual flow events, not on long term averaged information which has no relevance.

Government and Departmental planning and policies tend not to recognise the importance of individual flow event analysis in the Barwon Darling River system that is so critical to all water users.

Commentators are doing themselves and their audiences a dis-service by quoting figures derived from long term averaging of data relating to a river system such as the Barwon Darling with extremely high variability of flows and of water usage.

ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS In comparing 12 years of recorded extractions from the Barwon Darling to annual flows at Wilcannia for each of the same 12 water years from 1997/8 to 2008/09:

One year had 143% greater extractions than end of system flows Five years had extractions between 72% and 44% of end of system flows

Three years had extractions between 24% and 23% of end of system flows Three years had extractions between 10% and 5% of end of system flows Whilst the cumulative long term average of extractions compared to end

of system flows was 15%, o The annual range was between 143% and 5% o The median was 34%, being midway between the two middle year

percentages of 44% and 24%. DISCUSSION

Using very long term comparisons between cumulative recorded volumes of extraction from the Barwon Darling River to cumulative total end of system flows over many years or decades provides extremely skewed and misleading understanding of reality.

A commonly quoted statement is that irrigators only use 6% of total flows in the Barwon Darling.

o It is assumed that this figure has been derived by comparing the current total annual entitlement of all irrigation licences on the Barwon Darling to the historic long-term average volume of flows at Bourke, or to some similar comparison.

o This long-term average includes a number of large volume flows during flood years, and also many decades of flow records prior to development of the large irrigation industries across the Northern Basin.

o Whilst 6% may be the conclusion from such long-term cumulative comparisons, it bears no relationship to explaining any understanding of the river system, to flow management, or to development or application of water policy.

The impacts of extractions on annual flows are most pronounced during periods of relatively low flows. However, percentages of annual extractions to annual end of system flows are not solely linked to very low flow years. Rather, they relate to opportunities for licence holders to legally extract flows according to pumping thresholds and other components of water policies relative to their requirements.

Compiled by Geoff Wise 28th November 2017.

ATTACHMENT M 160314 Northern Basin CONTEXT The Northern Basin of the Murray Darling Basin, unlike the Southern Basin component, has seen significant growth in dam constructions, water extraction rates, excessive water extractions, water reforms and restrictions, cotton and other cropping development and industry productivity efficiency improvements all within a single human lifetime. These changes have created winners and losers at individual, industry, urban and local community levels during a period when there has been a consistent trend across regional Australia of negative population growth and decreasing opportunities for unskilled labour. All these social, productivity and economic dynamics within only several decades have particularly impacted on both aboriginal people and on environmental resources. The Northern Basin is further differentiated from the Southern Basin by the high and unpredictable variability of naturally ephemeral flowing watercourses across most of the Northern Basin. The natural environment, and indeed first generation Australians, adapted to this variability over tens of thousands of years. However, over the last two centuries, second generation Australians have attempted to harness these rivers, wherever possible attempting to convert them into reliable and regular flowing systems to sustain urban communities and productive uses. Ironically, the Basin Plan is now also attempting to harness these systems to create more sustainability of the environment. The desired demands for optimising each of social, economic and environmental outcomes are indeed in direct competition. In 20011 I quoted that “we now have a little over two hundred years of white man experimentation, so we are more able to identify what works and what does not. This is the process of learning and progression, building on our experiences, intellectual knowledge and progressive changes in values.” We must not shy away from this. Some of the northern tributaries have been regulated by construction of dams during the same several decade period, resulting in downstream river reaches being managed as regulated water systems. However, large sections of the Northern Basin remain as unregulated river systems, fundamentally dependent on natural flow conditions. Policy and management tools available in regulated systems are significantly limited in the unregulated systems. The unregulated Barwon Darling river system becomes the drainage system linking the northern tributaries, whether regulated or unregulated, to the Southern Basin. Henry Lawson’s description of the Darling River being both a

muddy gutter and a second Missisippi remains apt, as do other descriptions such as being “the artery of the outback”. The large Northern Basin, being two thirds of the MDB (when including the Lower Darling reach), including multiple individual catchment tributaries (water makers), which ultimately feed into the Barwon Darling River System (water taker), highlights the difficulties in clearly identifying the key environmental assets needing to be sustained, but emphasises the importance of “connectedness” and responsible maintenance of flow variability. Effective intervention to flow regimes in these systems, whether for extraction for urban or productive uses or for environmental support is dependent on a wide variety of complementary strategies being applied in association with individual flow event management. Reliance solely on establishment of a Sustainable Diversion Limit is an extremely blunt and relatively ineffective tool. We must accept there are many other factors consistently at play that will continue to negatively and positively influence social and economic futures at individual, industry and community levels. With this background (context), the introduction of the Basin Plan in 2012 is a timely, if not belated, holistic necessity which recognises the importance of strategic actions to ensure the longer term sustainability of our country’s natural environment, and indeed on confidence for production, with minimal direct negative impacts on social and economic sustainability. WHAT NBAC HAS ACHIEVED NBAC has advocated that:

One size does not fit all; we must have multiple tools applied complementarily to influence outcomes.

o Hence the recommendations of a range of strategies in “the tool box”, and the need for adaptive management.

The “learnt skills” acquired by people living and working in the Basin are invaluable resources that must be harnessed.

o Hence the establishment of the Lower Balonne Working Group. Better understanding of what is at risk, and the current status of what is

at risk, is essential before development of strategies for change. o Hence socio-economic studies have been undertaken in a small

number of communities most likely to be at risk. o Hence environmental science studies have been undertaken within

the Condamine Balonne and Barwon Darling systems due to the identified local and shared reductions attributed respectively within the Basin Plan to these two systems.

Applying Southern Basin knowledge, assumptions, evaluation techniques, models and policies to the Northern Basin are not necessarily appropriate.

o Hence the need for targeted intervention, such as: New infrastructure Selective buy-back

Adaptive “management” of State Water policies Water shepherding Use of “different tools from the toolbox”.

Greatest attention should be given to the communities perceived to be most at risk of reforms through implementation of the Basin Plan.

o Hence the majority of visits and communications by NBAC and by the MDBA have been to only a small proportion of the Northern Basin. Most reports, meeting minutes, etc from the NBAC are invariably referring to these “at risk” urban and industry areas.

o Through silence, the NBAC has effectively acknowledged that there are large areas of the Northern Basin where there is minimal if any perceived “risk” which may be attributed to the Basin Plan for either individuals or urban communities.

o Similarly, it should be recognised that there are some individuals and communities who assume that the Basin Plan provides them with degrees of certainty.

For example, two irrigators have purchased over two thirds of all water licence volume on the Barwon Darling River system since the announcement of the Basin Plan, with access to full knowledge of the Plan and the opportunities it creates for them.

There is a large diversity of interests within each community, and indeed across the whole of the Northern Basin, despite the total population being relatively small and sparse.

o Hence there has become a recognised need to communicate individually to these various categories of interests, rather than assuming the “loudest voices” represent all interests within any community.

MY PHILOSOPHICAL GOAL FOR THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN In 1998 I gave an address at the Western Division Shires Association Annual Conference. I shared the following opinion, although for this purpose I have replaced the words I used previously “then the Western Division of NSW” with “then the Murray Darling Basin”: “If we can reconcile our attitudes to our environment, including our natural resources, climate, and sociological state, if we can accept a role of steward and partner, and depart from the role of conqueror or self interest, if we can recognize the view that man and nature are inseparable parts of a unified whole – and that production and ecology are mutual components of nature – then the Murray Darling Basin will continue to be a leading example of responsible environmental balance,( unmatched by the rapidly expanding urban spread, where our city based colleagues live in largely artificial, unsustainable, highly modified environments which were once also environmental havens)”. Geoff Wise

ATTACHMENT N

Hon Niall Blair MLC

Minister for Primary Industries Minister for Land and Water

GPO Box 5341

SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear Minister Blair

Western Lands Advisory Council PO Box 2185 Dangar NSW 2309

26 October 2016

Our Ref: Action 2016/37/002

Re: Barwon-Darling Water Sharing Plan Impacts Downstream of Bourke

A resolution from the recent meeting of the Western Lands Advisory Council (WLAC) was that Doug McKay (Alternate Chair), and I (Chair) of the WLAC should meet with you to discuss the non-irrigation implications of the Barwon-Darling Water Sharing Plan (WSP), particularly for water use downstream of Bourke.

The meeting agenda was raised by a landholder member of the WLAC who is an irrigator, has significant stock and domestic access rights, and has non-agricultural business interests on the Darling River.

Key issues which we would appreciate discussing 1. The apparent contradictions between the objectives of the WSP

and the newly introduced

operating rules within the WSP for irrigation extractions.

For example, the objectives of the WSP are to: • protect, preserve, maintain and enhance the important river flow dependent ecosystems; • protect basic landholder rights; •

contribute to the maintenance of water quality; and •

contribute to the 'environmental and other public benefit outcomes' identified under the

'Water Access Entitlements and Planning Framework' in the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative (2004).

However, changes made between the end of the public consultation period and the implementation of the WSP have potentially significant impacts on Basic Rights Water Users (Town Water Supplies and Stock and Domestic access).

Examples include: • Removal of pump size limits for different classes of water access- there was no

discussion on this throughout the public consultation process. • The introduction of a "300% per annum" extraction availability- the discussions were only

regarding relevance of allowing 450% take over three consecutive years.

DOC16/196677 Page 1

• Expectations as stated in the Section 8.4 of the Background Document to the WSP, that “Amendments to access rules

must: − not substantially alter long-term diversions under A,

B and C Class access licences; − undergo consultation; and

− take into account any socio-economic impacts.”

There has been no consultation with Basic Rights Water Users.

2. The apparent failure of Clause 46(16) of the WSP to "protect flows needed to meet basic landholder rights requirements along the Barwon-Darling River."

3. The anticipated timing of introduction of Individual Daily Extraction Limits, as specified in Clause 52 of the WSP.

The Background Document to the WSP states "It is expected that they (Individual Daily Extraction Limits) will be in place within the first few years of this plan's (WSP) term". The WSP commenced on 4 October 2012; it now more than 4 years and the Individual Daily Extraction Limits is still not in place.

Suggested ways forward:

1.

2. 3. 4. 5.

Those in accordance with Clause 52 of the WSP, the Minister immediately introduce Individual Daily Extraction Limits for all A Class Licences to reflect the volumes of water which were being extracted under A Class licence conditions prior to the commencement of the 2012 WSP.

It was foreshadowed throughout the consultation period, as well as from the date the WSP was introduced that this action could be expected to occur.

This action should have a major influence in minimising irrigator extractions from very low flows, thereby mimicking low flow management as applicable prior to the WSP.

This action should remove irrigator access to repetitive 300% volumes of A Class licence entitlements.

With this action being restricted only to A Class licences, it should be used to encourage holders of A Class licences to convert them to B-Class, the use of which Clause 63 (1) (d) was obviously intended.

Doug McKay and I look forward to meeting with you to discuss these matters, and we await your advice for arranging a

mutually convenient time.

Yours sincerely,

Geoff Wise ChairpersonWestern Lands Advisory Council

DOC16/196677

Page 2

ATTACHMENT O

Attachment O deleted

ATTACHMENT P 170331BD WRP S & I

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Please accept this as a submission to the Status and Issues Paper for the Barwon Darling Water Resource Plan.

DESIRABLE OUTCOMES FOR WATER RESOURCE PLAN

Complement the vision and objectives of the Basin Plan Provide fair sharing of water between all water users in accordance with

specified hierarchy of priorities Facilitate creation of efficiencies for licence ownership and operations

ACTIONS NEEDED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW WATER RESOURCE PLAN

Gain a clear understanding of issues of greatest conflict in achieving a balance between the rights of Town Water Supplies, Stock and Domestic Users and Aboriginal People compared to Licenced extractions.

Gain a clear understanding of policy issues that impinge most severely on low flows.

Gain a clear understanding of the make-up of holders of A Class licences. Ensure that all water users are afforded equal opportunities for ongoing

engagement

BACKGROUND This paper provides some background to the last two bullet points listed above, as I understand it to be. I urge that any points I raise that may be questionable to be formally checked with appropriate authorities to seek the correct background. CONTENTS OF SUBMISSION Historic enterprises associated with A Class licences

A Class licences have historically been referred to as “drought proofing licences” held by most property owners who have land fronting the river.

Each has been a licence for a very small volume of water, able to be activated at the lowest specified flow levels, only able to be pumped though a small diameter pump, and invariably pumped directly to a paddock.

Most of these licences were held by graziers, many of which have historically been inactive, with others used for small areas of lucerne or other pasture.

A small number of A Class licences were held by people who practiced intensive small scale “cottage industries”, such as citrus and grapes.

None of the above groups are known to have had off river storages Many of the enterprises involved in extensive broad-acre irrigation

predominantly for cotton also hold A Class licences, with one of these enterprises having developed significant permanent plantings of jojoba.

One enterprise, Back Of Bourke Fruits (BBF) accumulated a large entitlement of A Class licence volume used for the progressive development of large-scale permanent plantings of citrus and grapes.

Development of conversions through the cap process

As part of the process for the development of Cap on the BD, analysis was undertaken to develop average annual extractions associated with each licence during the period from 1995/6 to 2004/5. This was in recognition of the high variability of extractions rates that were particularly relevant to B and C class licences.

Although the annual rate of extraction for most of the constantly active A Class licences had minimal variation of annual usage, all but one of the A Class licence holders were also subjected to the 10 year annual averaging.

BBF was treated differently from all other enterprises, being given leniency, as it was a relatively new enterprise going through a continual developmental growth phase whilst the cap decision was being addressed.

In lieu of applying the 10 year averaging to BBF, they were given recognition for virtually their highest annual usage through the 10 year period, and this recognition was counted as though it was an average figure.

Because there has never been any widely varying volumes of annual extractions of A class water, there is no justification for A class

licences to be entitled to the “300% of entitlement” annual extraction as introduced in the 2012 WSP.

A Class entitlements as % of total licence entitlements

Historically, prior to introduction of Cap in 2006/7 the total volume of a Class entitlement was 4.1% of the total volume of all classes of entitlement on the BD.

During the ten years from 1995/6 to 2004/5, the average annual volume of water extracted using A class licences was 4,638 ML. This represented 2.4% of the total average annual extractions by all licences.

The “history of use” figures for all classes of water were used in the development of Cap for the Barwon Darling, and the distribution of “Cap shares” amongst all licence holders.

When the shares were announced in 2006/7, 6,131 ML of A class share were allocated, as a component of the 173,000 ML.

o This A class represented 3.5% of total shares. Additionally, nearly 1% was eligible for concessional conversion from

either B or C class to A class, and virtually all of this option has been exercised.

o Thus, following the exercising of these options, A Class total volumes would have represented 4.5% of total licenced volume post Cap implementation.

A Class licences now represent 5.2% of total volume of all licence. There is no obvious explanation for this apparent increase in % of A class

compared to total entitlements. Effectively, there has been a progressive increase in the proportion

of total water entitlement now eligible to be extracted at the lowest commence to pump thresholds.

It is understood that the enterprise that now holds the BBF licences, combined with other licences, accounts for approximately 40% of this total A class entitlement

On farm options for enterprises holding different licence classes.

Enterprises that have held both A and B Class licences have historically had three options in utilising their licences. These are:

o Convert the A class to B class, thereby being able to use a large pump diameter for all extractions

o Use a smaller diameter pump to pump both A and B class water at different commence to pump heights, or

o Operate a small diameter pump for A class and a larger diameter pump for B class.

There is no reference in the Background Document to the BD WSP regarding inefficiencies created by these options and I am unaware of any such concerns ever being expressed during engagement processes involving all water users.

o There is no reference in the Background Document that any change either to pump size limitations or to these historic options may be considered in the WSP.

o Despite this, the 2012 WSP removed the historic “pump size” limits previously in place for each licence class.

o The WSP introduced a new clause for Individual Daily Extraction Limits to be implemented as a direct offset to the removal of pump sizes.

To date, the Minister has chosen not to introduce this direct offset clause.

o The first evidence I am aware of referring to efficiencies was in an article by Gavin Hanlon in the Barrier Daily Truth newspaper article of 16 August 2016, stating: “In developing the new water sharing plan (implemented in October 2012) water users requested flexibility in how they can access their entitlements through different infrastructure options. Whilst this created efficiencies in how water is accessed, it is important to point out that this did not allow additional diversion volume beyond existing entitlements, nor did it change the flow triggers that allow access to water.”

o The newspaper article fails to admit that the “one-sided changes” created an opportunity for huge daily extraction rates from low flows, compared to historic maximum daily flows having only ever been in the range of 20 to 30 ML/day.

o “Water users”, as referred to in this article, obviously means broad-acre irrigators, as the consequences of such a “one-sided change” has massive negative impacts on downstream water users, including town water supplies, stock and domestic users, Aboriginal people, as well as environmental considerations.

o There is no evidence that any of these other higher priority water users were ever consulted in the engagement processes leading up to the WSP implementation.

o The single biggest water user able to benefit from this “one-sided change” introduced in 2012 is the current owner of BBF licences.

At one pump site alone, it is conceivable that there would be potential for daily extractions to drop the river height at Bourke from virtually the B class commence to pump threshold to the A class commence to pump threshold.

Make-up of A Class licence holders and differentiation between active and inactive licence users.

In March 2013, the Water Commissioner advised me that: o There were 112 A Class licences, two of which may have had On

Farm Storages (OFS), and 110 may have not had OFS o The Department estimated that these 112 A class licences may

have been held by 110 different individual holders o Of approximately 175 different licence holders, an estimate of 145

people holding A and/or B licences had no OFS.

From the above information, a rough assumption is that a very high proportion of the 145 licence holders without OFS would have held inactive licences. This may have been in the range of 120 to 130 holders of inactive licences.

Conversely, the Department advised that there were 30 individual holders with OFR, all of whom were presumed to have active licences.

o If there were an estimated 20 holders with active licences but no OFSR, plus these 30 with OFS, then there were approximately 50 holders with active licences and 125 holders with inactive licence.

Since March 2013, it is known that there has been some aggregation of active licences, thereby reducing the number of holders of active licences to well below 50. To the best of public knowledge, there have been only limited aggregations of previously inactive licences.

It is not unrealistic to estimate that one A class holder may now hold as much A class licence entitlement as 100 other A class licence holders.

It is imperative that through the public consultation process, accurate data is obtained to better understand the makeup of stakeholders in possession of all licences, with particular emphasis on differentiation between those with active licences and those without.

o Inactive licence holders, presumably totalling over 100 people, are equally deserving of being included in all stakeholder engagement processes and considerations.

o Inactive holders require different means of communications from active licence holders, many of whom are members of representation groups.

o These inactive holders never have been, and continue not to be, represented effectively through current engagement processes.

Re-Distribution of water entitlements

Through the cap process, the total of average annual extractions was redistributed between all licences of all classes combined, whether active or inactive.

The redistribution involved a weighing of 2.25: 1 in favour of history of use of active extractions verses inactive.

BBF was considered to hold the most highly developed licence, and as a consequence had the least % “reduction” compared to all other licences.

o Totally inactive licences had the greatest % “reduction”. Active licence holders justifiably state that “the entitlements held by the

inactive holders is their (the active users) water”. o Because there was no differentiation in the classes of water

during the cap redistribution process, any mechanisms contemplated to be introduced through the Water Resource Plan must facilitate build-up of the Active licences back to the original class of water held prior to cap, not a simple trade to allow activation of more A class water.

The Future of water sharing on the Barwon Darling

Licencing conditions of extractive users must ensure that adequate

low river flows can be met to satisfy both best environmental science considerations and moral and legal priorities for non-licenced water users.

o In practical terms, this effectively means that A Class licences must not be able to extract any water at a greater daily rate than was allowable prior to the 2012 BD WSP.

o The Background Document to the WSP, clearly and publically highlights the details and processes for the introduction of Individual Daily Extraction Limits (IDELs).

o The Water Sharing Plan 2012 clearly states that it was intended that IDELs “will be issued during the life of this plan”.

o Hence there can be no argument that any licence holder has not been advised of this existing expectation and obligation for the Minister to introduce the relevant clause to offset removal of pump size limits.

o A balanced representation of all water users on any advisory panel should be expected to support the immediate introduction of IDEL’s or the re-introduction of the pre WSP pump size limits as an essential element for the future sustainability of the Barwon Darling River system and its people.

It must be presumed that broad-acre extensive irrigation will dominate the extractive licence market for the foreseeable future.

o On this assumption, strategies should be conducive to encourage trade of inactive A and B class licences to B Class active operators

All water users, whether licence holders or non-licence holders, must be consistently and transparently engaged equally throughout all processes of water reform.

Geoff Wise

ATTACHMENT Q 170827 STRATEGIC FUTURE FOR THE BARWON DARLING

WRITTEN AND SHARED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

ULTIMATE OUTCOMES:

Facilitate broad acre irrigation without excessive impacts on the rights of other water users and uses, with confidence in significant protection of environmental water, and with minimisation of needs for enhanced monitoring and compliance.

STRATEGY AIMS Immediate short-term strategy should be to introduce Individual Daily

Extraction Limits (IDELs) for all A Class licences, using existing authority

given to Minister. This rule to be ultimately replaced by the following strategies.

Remove as many A Class licences as possible, and allow the volume of licenced water removed to be re-distributed for various purposes, including B Class, cultural water, Town Water Supply enhancements, new industries such as mining and abattoirs, and new small scale enterprises using new A Class conditions. Ultimate goal may be to eliminate by attrition all A Class if they serve no community benefits.

Re-introduce rules to all A Class licences including: o Maximum 150 mm (6 inch) pump o No Continuous accounting of unused water (ie no accumulation of

account water) o No pumping to off river storages o No 300% usage in any one year. (revert to 100% only)

Introduce telemetering on all pumps over 150 mm diameter as a matter of urgency

Explore benefits of allowing “free access” to water extractions during periods of large overland flooding (as a flood mitigation strategy)

Review the current commence to pump thresholds for B Class licences as it remains significantly below the level recommended by a Group of Scientists who were commissioned by NSW Government in the development of CAP.

Long term, there may be logic in consideration of merging of B and C class licences into a single category, therefore becoming the sole licence type needed for all broad acre enterprises.

PROCESS Have a Government Authority actively purchase as many as possible of all

A Class licences, including all associated account water, at a fixed price Eg $1500/ML

Subsequent Option A o Subject to the above acquisition being successful, allow the

acquired entitlements, but not the account water excess to the annual entitlement, to be sold back to the commercial industry as B Class at say $1,000/ML, or different determined values for TWS, Cultural Water, Mining, Abattoirs, etc

o Cancel out all A Class acquired Account Water excess to the annual entitlement.

Subsequent Option B o Subject to the above acquisition being successful, allow the

Current broad acre irrigators who hold A Class licences to convert their A Class to B Class at a rate of 1 ML of A Class to 1.5ML B Class.

This option may facilitate negotiations with one or more existing broad acre holders who hold A Class licences, but it comes at a greater cost to Government than option A.

o Cancel out all A Class acquired Account Water excess to the annual entitlement.

COMMENTS A Class licences were originally introduced for “drought proofing“ of

riparian grazing properties, plus to sustain small scale “hobby farm” irrigation. They were never intended for broad acre irrigation usage.

There is a need to understand the current makeup of A Class licences. It is understand that there are:

o About 110 A Class licences, held by maybe 100 people. o About 10 GL A Class entitlement o About 10 of these people/enterprises are broad acre irrigators, and

they may hold about 5 to 6 GL A Class o Of these 10, one enterprise may hold about 4 GL (See note below) o About 10 people may operate small-scale hobby irrigation

operations, using a very small volume of water. They would not have off river storages

o About 80 licences may be sleepers, representing up to 80 people and about 4 GL A Class entitlement, and maybe holding about 40 GL Account Water. These are the ones being recommended to be “bought out”.

The draft strategy offered above is aimed to: o Ensure there will be no reduction in the volume of water entitled to

be utilised o Redistribute water extractions from low flows to higher flows o Enhance protection of low flows to support the objectives of Basin

Plan, Water Sharing Plan and various legislation o Enhance protection of environmental water o Minimise opportunities for compliance breaches

Why there are greater compliance risks with IDELs than with Pump Size

limits o A 24 inch pump has 16 fold greater pumping capacity than a 6 inch

(150mm) pump. 90 minutes pumping through a 24 inch pump equates to one

day through a 6 inch pump. Hence the temptation to use a larger pump inappropriately is

significant, and the impacts of extraction from a low flowing river are more significant.

o IDELs provide the licencee a choice in retrospectively declaring whether he/she was declaring their extraction against their B Class or A Class entitlements.

Retrospective checking this against daily flow conditions at the time can be problematic.

By comparison, Pump Size limits are relatively self compliant for this aspect of compliance, as licencees have no practical choice in which entitlement they attribute each extraction to.

Large pumps extractions can only be attributed to B or C Class entitlements, and in practical terms,

licencees will only use a small pump for A class entitlements.

What the end result may look like

o Stock and domestic access unchanged No licences Very small pumps No monitoring or compliance

o A Class Reduced to a small number (from approx. 110 to approx. 10)

hobby irrigation farmers Ideally none held by broad acre enterprises. Continue to access flows down to a low river flow rate, but at

a very low rate of daily extraction Maintain licences, but little risk of compliance

o B and C Class Broad acre irrigator businesses able to access flows at

predetermined commence to pump thresholds. A progressively decreasing number of people/businesses

involved, currently anticipated to be no more than 20 (with multiple ownership these may be at up to a guestimate of 30 locations).

There is a single unique licence holder needing specific attention o The Webster Group purchased a combination of enterprises that

included Back O’ Bourke Fruits, who had been given preferential treatment through the Cap process.

o Websters currently hold from a relatively single extraction point an estimate of:

40% of all A Class Licence volume 60% of all active A Class water volume

o It would appear that Websters have done no more that purchase into an agreed opportunity, although allegations through the Four Corners program were that the vendor representative (to the Webster purchase) may have had influence to create the opportunity.

ATTACHMENT R Attachment R deleted

ATTACHMENT S 171204 300% RULE BACKGROUND

The 300% rule was presumably introduced to offset the “so called 67% cut” that took place when annual “use it or loose it” licences were changed

to a totally different “continuous accounting” licences through the Cap process.

o This was the change from pre cap annual licence entitlements totalling 524 GL, to initially 173 GL, subsequently increased to 189 GL

o Through this Cap change, an additional element called “concessional conversions” was introduced to assist all licence holders with more than one class of licence, or who acquired additional licences, to make good any reduction in their history of use within their “higher security licences” created through the cap process.

Most A Class licence holders eligible for these concessions took up the opportunity to restore their higher security entitlement to the equivalent to their history of use volumes.

Through the ten years history of use survey conducted during the Cap process for every licence, there was very little annual variation on volumes of water extracted by active a Class licences, whereas there was a large range of variations of extractions for B and C Class.

o A Class extractions reflected the need for continuous access to small volumes on a “daily basis” for permanent and semi permanent plantings.

o B and C Class extractions reflected the variability of accessible flows at higher commence to pump thresholds.

The ten years history of use survey was used to establish an average history of use for ach licence.

o All but one licence was subjected to this same 10 years average. o The exception was the A Class licence held by Back O’ Bourke

Fruits, as it was given a concession based on the argument that over the ten year period this business was in a planned phase of incremental growth.

Through the 10 year average History of Use project, including the concession granted to the enterprise mentioned above, the 10 years “average” annual extraction (usage) of A Class was determined to be 4.6 GL, being 2.3% of the total annual average extractions.

When Cap shares were allocated, A Class licence entitlements (whether active or sleepers) accounted for 3.5% of total volume of entitlements, and the concessional conversion option accounted for 0.98%. Hence with all concessional conversion options for A Class being taken up, A Class total volume entitlements accounted for 7,835 ML, or 4.5% of total entitlements.

CURRENT SITUATION

Currently, total volume of A Class entitlements have grown to 9,856 ML, being 5.2 % of total entitlements. There is no logical explanation for this growth in volume (from 7,835 GL) or % growth in volume (from 4.5%) of A Class entitlements.

Approximately 5 GL of A Class licence volume is held by active licence holders.

o If these licence holders annually extract 100% of their entitlement, they will be extracting roughly similar volumes to the historic long-term average of 4,638 ML.

If the active licence holders access 300% of their annual entitlement of 5 GL, they will be extracting from low flows at concentrated periods of the year, and from concentrated reaches of the river, over 300% greater volumes than the historic average extraction.

o If all the A Class licences are activated, namely 9.856 ML, and the 300% condition is applied, are then there is potential for annual A Class extractions to be over 600% greater than historic annual average extractions.

The impacts of the changes created by allowing A class licences to extract 300% of entitlement on downstream low flows is beyond the ability to effectively model, but speaks for itself, particularly since there has been a progressive increase in volumes of A Class entitlement, and percentage volumes of A Class, compared to total volumes of all entitlements.

During a number of public interviews over recent months, the Minister has reaffirmed his commitment for the adverse changes introduced through the 2012 BDWSP to be addressed.

RECOMMENDATION There has never been any logical reason to justify A Class licences being

granted the opportunity to extract 300% of entitlement in any year, and as such the 300% concessional clause should be removed for A Class licences.

ATTACHMENT T 171204 THE USE OF DAILY EXTRACTION LIMITS BACKGROUND

The concept of IDELs was proposed to be introduced into the BDWSP in 2012 as a direct replacement for previous pump size limits for different licence classes.

There were never any previously expressed concerns regarding pump size limits.

o Irrigators who held both A and B Class licences had and exercised choices, with different owners utilising each of these choices, such as:

Operating different sized pumps and distribution systems in parallel, invariably for totally different cropping enterprises

Converting their A Class licence to a B Class licence to allow use of a single larger pump size for their enterprise.

Using a small 150 mm maximum pump for both A Class and B Class licences

During the development of the 2012 BDWSP, there was never any effective engagement with or representation of, non-irrigation

communities and individuals downstream of Bourke regarding the pros and cons of changing the rules from pump size limits to IDELs.

o The most significant change has been that the use of A Class water has effectively changed from:

being small volumes of extraction taken by a large number of licence holders across a significant proportion of the river system throughout most of the year for use on a wide variety of permanent and semi permanent plantings, to

larger volumes of water now being extracted by a small number of licence holders across a small proportion of the river system in concentrated times of the year for use on cotton and other broad-acre crops.

o The only published information ever seen to justify the change that occurred was a quote from the Deputy Director General DPI Water in the Barrier Daily Truth, 16th August, 2016, thus “In developing the new water sharing plan (BDWSP 2012) , water users requested flexibility in how they can access their entitlements through different infrastructure options.”

o Such a request was never shared and considered with ALL water users, and there is no clarity as to how many “water users” were involved in making this request.

The Background Document to the BDWSP, and the BDWSP, both clearly indicate that IDELs would be introduced in the early stages of the plan, yet 5 years later no action has been taken not only to introduce IDELs, but even to develop the processes for this. There are many words in the Business Paper presented to the SAP meeting on 4th December 2017 implying there remains a degree of uncertainty regarding IDELs.

COMMENTS

Allowing any sized pump to be used to extract A Class licence has totally changed the historic intent for and use of A Class licences.

o Historically, they were considered and referred to as “drought proofing licences” for graziers, and as small licences for a variety of permanent and semi permanent crops, for owners with no off river storages with a need for small volumes of water throughout the year.

o The change created through the removal of pump size limits would be equivalent to changes to make Town Water Licences equivalent to licences for irrigation purposes.

By comparison with pump size limits, IDELs pose significant extra challenges for self-management, accountability, measurement, reporting, compliance and enforcement regarding encroachment below commence to pump thresholds at A Class level.

o A 24 inch pump has 16 fold greater pumping capacity than a 6 inch (150mm) pump.

90 minutes pumping through a 24 inch pump equates to one day through a 6 inch pump.

Hence the risk for inadvertent pumping below A Class threshold, or temptation to use a larger pump inappropriately, is significant, and the impacts of extraction from a low flowing river are more significant.

For example, inadvertent extraction by a 660 mm pump below commence to pump threshold for one day would be the equivalent water volume to inadvertent extraction by a 150 mm pump below commence to pump threshold for 16 days.

o IDELs provide the licencee a choice in retrospectively declaring whether he/she was declaring their extraction against their B Class or A Class entitlements.

Retrospective checking this against daily flow conditions at the time can be problematic.

By comparison, Pump Size limits are relatively self compliant for this aspect of compliance, as licencees have no practical choice as to entitlement they attribute each extraction.

Large pumps extractions can only be attributed to B or C Class entitlements, and in practical terms, licencees will only use a small pump for A class entitlements.

On 16th December 2016, during a meeting between Minister Blair and Gavin Hanlon, Deputy Director General DPI Water, with Doug McKay and Geoff Wise representing the Western Lands Advisory Council, Minister Blair gave an assurance that he wanted the matter created by the removal of pump size limits for A Class Licences and its replacement with IDELs to be resolved through the review of the BD WSP that was to occur in early 2017.

o During a number of public interviews over recent months, the Minister has reaffirmed his commitment for the adverse changes introduced through the 2012 BDWSP to be addressed.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In view of the fact that the Department has foreshadowed many issues needing to be resolved before IDELs may be a suitable strategy, the Minister be requested to immediately re-introduce the historic pump size limits for different classes of water on the Barwon Darling.

Through the SAP process, any ongoing discussions regarding the concept of IDELs should take into consideration the comparative advantages and disadvantages of pursuing the concept of IDELs compared to permanent reversion to pump size limits.

ATTACHMENT U

171214 “A WAY FORWARD FOR THE BARWON DARLING”

Written by Geoff Wise, Doug McKay and Terry Korn,

and shared without prejudice

BACKGROUND

Mr Ken Mathews has recommended that urgent steps be put in place to address critical elements within the Barwon Darling River system, without waiting for the Water Resource Planning process.

Simple evaluation of the 2012 BD WSP as an effective plan for flow event management outstandingly demonstrates that the Plan has totally failed its Vision, Objectives and Performance Indicators for low flows, particularly relating to highest priority needs of basis landholder rights, critical environmental needs, Town Water supplies and cultural rights. As an example, for low flows at Wilcannia, an indicator site for the end of the Unregulated Barwon Darling River system:

o The plan promised: There will be less than either 9% or 12% of all days

with flows less than 123 ML/day, o The Plan has delivered:

Zero flows for greater than 15% of all days, and Flows less than 123Ml/day for 37% of all days.

The following actions are proposed to influence corrections to the critical elements of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan highlighted by Mr Ken Mathews, and are not intended to justify any changes to the Basin Plan recommendations or strategies.

PROPOSED IMMEDIATE ACTIONS THAT SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS BY KEN MATTHEWS

1. Introduce Individual Daily Extraction Limits (IDELs) for all A Class

licences 2. Re-introduce embargoes on trading of both A Class licence entitlements

and of A Class Account Water. 3. Remove provision of allowing 300% of A Class Entitlements to be

extracted in any year, reverting back to 100%. 4. Remove provision for continuous accounting of unused A Class water, to

become effective from 30th June 2018. 5. Raise commence to pump thresholds for A Class Licences to say 500

ML/day at Bourke, with comparable adjustments at all other gauges. 6. Introduce sliding scale Individual Daily Extraction Limits (IDELs) for all B

Class licences based on predicted flow event announcements for all flows below 6,000Ml/day at Bourke, with comparable adjustments at all other gauges

7. Raise commence to pump thresholds for B Class Licences to say 1820 ML/day at Bourke, with comparable adjustments at all other gauges.

8. Re-introduce embargoes on trading of both B and C Class licence entitlements and of B and C Class Account Water between river reaches.

9. Establish a Government driven intervention strategy to reclassify water from A Class to B Class, through:

a. A buyback of all A Class Licence Entitlements and A Class Account Water at set prices,

b. Conversion of the acquired A Class Entitlements to B Class Entitlements

c. Converting a volume of acquired A Class Account Water equivalent to the new B Class Entitlements to B Class Account Water

d. Selling the converted B Class Entitlement back to irrigators within the reach that the purchase occurred, at set prices

e. The Government may decide to retain a small volume of the acquired Entitlements, before the above sale, for potential special uses such as Cultural Flows, mining, abattoir and other new industry developments, town water supply enhancements, etc.

f. Selling B Class Account Water to the purchasing irrigators at a volume equal to their new entitlement

g. The Government cancelling out the remaining A Class Account Water to offset the net transaction costs

h. Recognising an exception for a small number of licence holders who have no off river storages but who continue to irrigate small-scale permanent plantings.

i. Anticipating a net cost to Government of an estimated $5 million, with an offset of cancelling out an estimated 30,000 ML A Class Account Water.

Attachment A provides explanations and justifications for the nine actions recommended above. Attachment B provides detailed contacts for the authors. ATTACHMENT A to “A WAY FORWARD FOR THE BARWON DARLING”

EXPLANATIONS and JUSTIFICATIONS for the RECOMMENDATIONS

1. IDELs for A CLASS a. The Background Document to the Barwon Darling Water Sharing

Plan (B Doc BD WSP) published in 2012 prior to the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan 2012 (BD WSP or Plan) advised that IDELs would be introduced by the Minister during the early period of the Plan as a mechanism to offset the removal of pump size limits for each licence class. This is further reinforced in the BD WSP thus “During the life of this Plan, it is intended that IDELs will be issued to water access licences that arose from Water Act 1912 in accordance with the formula specified in Clause 52 (2) or (3)”.

b. Hence every licence holder, and every new licence holder, was on notice of this introduction.

c. It should be a very simple process for Departmental staff to determine from 2012 records the IDEL for each licence.

2. TRADE EMBARGO ON A CLASS a. This is essential to avoid any further increased aggregation of

access to low flows from a single reach of the river. b. This is also essential to coincide with the strategy referenced in

point 9.

3. 300% ACCESS a. There was never any justification for this provision to have been

introduced into the BD WSP for A Class licences, as there was no historic variation of A Class extractions.

b. Through the Cap implementation process, the combination of entitlements issued to A Class licence holders with the inclusion of the Concessional Conversion process, ensured that all A Class licence holders were provided the opportunity to have an A Class entitlement that represented their maximum annual history of use. Hence A Class access opportunities should never had been greater than 100% of entitlement.

c. Historic variations only occurred for B and C Class licences, which were used to capitalise on individual large flow events with water pumped into storages.

4. CONTINUOUS ACCOUNTING a. There was never any justification for this provision to have been

introduced into the BD WSP for A Class licences, as there was no historic variation of A Class extractions volumes. No water pumped under A Class conditions had historically been accumulated in large volumes in off river storages.

5. A CLASS PUMP THRESHOLDS a. Using Bourke as an example;

i. The current threshold is 350 ML/day, yet the BD WSP states that a flow of 390 ML/day at Bourke is the required minimum flow that should be protected to meet basic landholder rights requirements along the Barwon-Darling River.

ii. In the B Doc BD WSP, there is reference that the group of Scientists commissioned by the NSW Government recommended that there should be no extractions below the 60 percentile flow rate, but whilst the “A Class threshold falls well short of this base environmental flow, it is assumed that the effect of A class pumping has a comparatively negligible impact on the river system”. This assumption has proven totally false.

b. Increasing commence to pump thresholds are a simple means of having a significant effect on supporting flow connectivity

throughout the length of the river and potentially of shepherding environmental (community) water.

6. IDELs for B CLASS a. There is a need for constraints on extractions from individual flow

events that are in the lower half of B Class access range. Reasons include:

i. Allow for more equitable sharing between B Class licence holders

ii. Large extractions from these relatively low flows have significant downstream effects that significantly jeopardise higher priority water uses.

7. B CLASS PUMP THRESHOLDS a. In the B Doc BD WSP, there is reference that the group of Scientists

commissioned by the NSW Government recommended that there should be no extractions for B Class licence below the 60 percentile flow rate.

i. Using Bourke as an example, this was estimated to be 1820 ML/day at Bourke.

b. Increasing commence to pump thresholds are a simple means of having a significant effect on supporting flow connectivity throughout the length of the river and potentially of shepherding environmental (community) water.

8. B and C CLASS TRADE EMBARGOES BETWEEN REACHES a. Concentration of licences within one or more river reaches creates

significant compounding impacts on downstream users, communities and the natural riverine environment

9. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO CHANGE CLASS OF LICENCES a. The Government, through the introduction of the BD WSP in 2012

created a complete change of use and operating practices of A Class licences from special purpose licences for water having been used for drought proofing grazing properties and for permanent plantings, to general purpose water now being pumped into storages for cotton and other broad-acre irrigation.

a. This change was the equivalent of changing General Security water to High Security water within a regulated river.

b. Whilst the change may not affect the long-term (hundred years) average total volumes of extraction (Cap Objective), it created massive changes to rates of extraction from low flows over short periods of time.

c. Hence there is a need for direct Government intervention to revert the classification of this water from A Class to B Class.

d. The following example highlights the significance of these changes.

Prior to the introduction of Cap in 2007, the maximum annual extractions by all A Class licence holders from the entire river system and over an entire water year were less than 5 GL. Virtually none of this water was pumped into any off river storage.

Prior to 2012, Back O’ Bourke Fruits held approximately 3 GL of A Class licence (of the total of less than 5 GL), used for direct pumping to perennial plantings in small daily extractions extended throughout the year.

By 2015, this enterprise had changed hands, and the A Class licence volume increased through other acquisitions to 4 GL.

Immediately prior to the cotton planting period in 2015 this new enterprise extracted 12 GL (using the 300% clause) at one pump site under A Class pumping conditions and over a short duration of time. This water was pumped directly into an off river storage.

By contrast, the cumulative total flows at Wilcannia for the 4 months from November 2015 to February 2016, being the period following the upstream extractions, was less than 8 GL.

b. This strategic aims of the proposed recommendations are to

remove as many A Class licences as possible, and allow the volume of licenced water removed to be re-distributed for various purposes, predominantly including B Class, and potentially for cultural water, Town Water Supply enhancements, new industries such as mining and abattoirs, and new small scale enterprises using new A Class conditions. The ultimate goal could be to eliminate by attrition all A Class if they serve no community or personal benefits.

c. The process for this intervention could be: i. Purchase virtually all A Class entitlements at say $1250 per ML

Say 9,500 ML @ $1,250 $11,875,000 ii. Purchase virtually all A Class Account Water at say $60 per ML

Say 40,000 ML @ $60 $2,400,000 Comment: The volume of Account Water is only known to the Department, so this figure is no more than a guestimate.

iii. Re-sell 9,500 ML entitlement as B Class water at say $1,000/ML plus sell 9,500 ML B Class account water at say $25 per ML

Say 9,500 ML @ $1,025 $9,737,500 iv. Cancel say 30,500 ML A Class Account Water v. Hence net cost to Government of approximately $4,537,500

($11,875,000+$2,400,000=$14,275,000-$9,737,500 = $4,537,500) for a gain of approximately 30,500 ML A Class account water.

vi. Funds could be sources from where the Mathews Enquiry was funded, from the $500 Million committed to Broken Hill water supply changes, or alternate source.

10. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR FOR WILCANNIA FLOWS

The BD WSP states:

o “For the Tilpa to Wilcannia Management Zone, flows greater than the top of the Low Flow Class are estimated to occur in excess of 88% of all days”, and

o “For Wilcannia to Upstream Lake Wetherell Management Zone, flows greater than the top of the Low Flow Class are estimated to occur in excess of 91% of all days”

o In other words, the Plan effectively states that with this Plan, daily flows below A Class commence to pump thresholds at Wilcannia of 123 ML/day will only occur for less than either 12% or 9% of all days.

o By comparison, the actual outcome since the introduction of the BD WSP in 2012 relating to flows at Wilcannia has been evaluated directly from analysis of publically available Departmental flow records (realtimedata) for the period from 1st November 2012 to 30 November 2017, showing that there have been zero flows in excess of 15% of all days, and flows below 123 ML/day for 37% of all days.

End of Attachment A

ATTACHMENT V

Western Lands Advisory Council

PO Box 2185 Dangar NSW 2309

15th January 2018

Our Reference: DOC17/267545

Hon Niall Blair MLC Minister for Primary Industries, Minister for Regional Water and Minister for Trade and Industry GPO Box 5341 SYDNEY 2001 Dear Minister Blair,

Re: Need for urgent policy changes for Barwon Darling River. In the final report from Mr Ken Mathews to Mr Simon Smith, Mr Mathews recommended that urgent steps be put in place to address critical elements within the Barwon Darling River system, without waiting for the Water Resource Planning process.

Simple evaluation of the 2012 Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan (BD WSP) as an effective plan for flow event management outstandingly demonstrates that the Plan has totally failed its Vision, Objectives and Performance Indicators for low flows, particularly relating to highest priority needs of basis landholder rights, critical environmental needs, Town Water supplies and cultural rights. As an example, for low flows at Wilcannia, an indicator site for the end of the Unregulated Barwon Darling River system, and also for connectivity between the Northern and Southern Basins of the Murray Darling System:

o The BD WSP “promised” at Wilcannia: There will be less than either 9% or 12% of all days

with flows less than 123 ML/day, o The BD WSP has delivered at Wilcannia:

Zero flows for greater than 15% of all days, and Flows less than 123Ml/day for 37% of all days.

Our Council has agreed that we write to you requesting that you immediately take the following actions to influence corrections to the critical elements of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan highlighted by Mr Ken Mathews. These actions are not intended to limit the ongoing processes towards development of a Water Resource Plan for the Barwon Darling or to justify any changes to the Basin Plan recommendations or strategies.

PROPOSED IMMEDIATE ACTIONS THAT SUPPORT RECOMMENDATIONS BY KEN MATHEWS

10. Introduce Individual Daily Extraction Limits (IDELs) for all A Class

licences 11. Re-introduce embargoes on trading of both A Class licence

entitlements and of A Class Account Water. 12. Remove provision of allowing 300% of A Class Entitlements to be

extracted in any year, reverting back to 100%. 13. Remove provision for continuous accounting of unused A Class water,

to become effective from 30th June 2018. 14. Raise commence to pump thresholds for A Class Licences to say 500

ML/day at Bourke, with comparable adjustments at all other gauges. 15. Introduce sliding scale Individual Daily Extraction Limits (IDELs) for all

B Class licences based on predicted flow event announcements for all flows below 6,000Ml/day at Bourke, with comparable adjustments at all other gauges

16. Raise commence to pump thresholds for B Class Licences to say 1820 ML/day at Bourke, with comparable adjustments at all other gauges.

17. Re-introduce embargoes on trading of both B and C Class licence entitlements and of B and C Class Account Water between river reaches.

9. Establish a Government driven intervention strategy to reclassify water from A Class to B Class, through a buyback of all A Class Licence Entitlements and A Class Account Water, conversion of the acquired A Class Entitlements to B Class Entitlements and re-selling B Class water to irrigators to the equivalent volume of the licence entitlement.

Dependent on both costs per water unit determined and of volumes of account water only known to your Government Department, the anticipated net cost to Government should be less than $10 million, with an offset of cancelling out many thousands of megalitres of A Class Account Water.

We are acutely aware that should these strategies be shared with water licence holders prior to their introduction, there would be an opportunity for water trading to occur in anticipation of your implementation. This has the potential for “insider trading” activities that could seriously blemish the reputations both of the irrigators involved and of your Government. Accordingly, confidentiality in consideration of these proposed actions is essential. As representatives of our Council, we remain most willing to discuss any or all components of this letter with you and or with your senior staff. Attachment A provides explanations and justifications for the nine actions recommended above. Yours sincerely Geoff Wise Doug McKay Chair Alternate Chair Copied for information to Minister Toole and to Simon Smith

ATTACHMENT A

EXPLANATIONS and JUSTIFICATIONS for the RECOMMENDATIONS

10. IDELs for A CLASS a. The Background Document to the Barwon Darling Water

Sharing Plan (B Doc BD WSP) published in 2012 prior to the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan 2012 (BD WSP or Plan) advised that IDELs would be introduced by the Minister during the early period of the Plan as a mechanism to offset the removal of pump size limits for each licence class. This is further reinforced in the BD WSP thus “During the life of this Plan, it is intended that IDELs will be issued to water access licences that arose from Water Act 1912 in accordance with the formula specified in Clause 52 (2) or (3)”.

b. Hence every licence holder, and every new licence holder, was on notice of this introduction.

c. It should be a very simple process for Departmental staff to determine from 2012 records the IDEL for each licence.

11. TRADE EMBARGO ON A CLASS a. This is essential to avoid any further increased aggregation of

access to low flows from a single reach of the river. b. This is also essential to preceed the strategy referenced in point

9.

12. 300% ACCESS a. There was never any justification for this provision to have been

introduced into the BD WSP for A Class licences, as there was no historic variation of A Class extractions.

b. Through the Cap implementation process, the combination of entitlements issued to A Class licence holders with the inclusion of the Concessional Conversion process, ensured that all A Class licence holders were provided the opportunity to have an A Class entitlement that represented their maximum annual history of use. Hence A Class access opportunities should never had been greater than 100% of entitlement.

c. Historic variations only occurred for B and C Class licences, which were used to capitalise on individual large flow events with water pumped into storages, and hence justified the 300% clause.

13. CONTINUOUS ACCOUNTING a. There was never any justification for this provision to have been

introduced into the BD WSP for A Class licences, as there was no historic variation of A Class extractions volumes. No water pumped under A Class conditions had historically been accumulated in large volumes in off river storages.

14. A CLASS PUMP THRESHOLDS a. Using Bourke as an example;

i. The current threshold is 350 ML/day, yet the BD WSP states that a flow of 390 ML/day at Bourke is the required minimum flow that should be protected to meet basic landholder rights requirements along the Barwon-Darling River.

ii. In the B Doc BD WSP, there is reference that the group of Scientists commissioned by the NSW Government recommended that there should be no extractions below the 60 percentile flow rate, but whilst the “A Class threshold falls well short of this base environmental flow, it is assumed that the effect of A class pumping has a comparatively negligible impact on the river system”. This assumption has proven totally false.

b. Increasing commence to pump thresholds are a simple means of having a significant effect on supporting flow connectivity throughout the length of the river and potentially of shepherding environmental (community) water.

15. IDELs for B CLASS a. There is a need for constraints on extractions from individual

flow events that are in the lower half of B Class access range. Reasons include:

i. Allow for more equitable sharing between B Class licence holders

ii. Large extractions from these relatively low flows have significant downstream effects that significantly jeopardise higher priority water uses.

16. B CLASS PUMP THRESHOLDS a. In the B Doc BD WSP, there is reference that the group of

Scientists commissioned by the NSW Government recommended that there should be no extractions for B Class licence below the 60 percentile flow rate.

i. Using Bourke as an example, this was estimated to be 1820 ML/day at Bourke.

b. Increasing commence to pump thresholds are a simple means of having a significant effect on supporting flow connectivity throughout the length of the river and potentially of shepherding environmental (community) water.

17. B and C CLASS TRADE EMBARGOES BETWEEN REACHES a. Concentration of licences within one or more river reaches

creates significant compounding impacts on downstream users, communities and the natural riverine environment

18. GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO CHANGE CLASS OF LICENCES

d. The Government, through the introduction of the BD WSP in 2012 created a complete change of use and operating practices of A Class licences from special purpose licences for water having been used for drought proofing grazing properties and for permanent plantings, to general purpose water now being pumped into storages for cotton and other broad-acre irrigation.

a. This change was the equivalent of changing General Security water to High Security water within a regulated river.

b. Whilst the change may not affect the long-term (hundred years) average total volumes of extraction (Cap Objective), it created massive changes to rates of extraction from low flows over short periods of time.

c. Hence there is a need for direct Government intervention to revert the classification of this water from A Class to B Class.

d. The following example highlights the significance of these changes.

Prior to the introduction of Cap in 2007, the maximum annual extractions by all A Class licence holders from the entire river system and over an entire water year were less than 5 GL. Virtually none of this water was pumped into any off river storage.

Prior to 2012, Back O’ Bourke Fruits held approximately 3 GL of A Class licence (of the total of less than 5 GL), used for direct

pumping to perennial plantings in small daily extractions extended throughout the year.

By 2015, this enterprise had changed hands, and the A Class licence volume increased through other acquisitions to 4 GL.

Immediately prior to the cotton planting period in 2015 this new enterprise extracted 12 GL (using the 300% clause) at one pump site under A Class pumping conditions and over a short duration of time. This water was pumped directly into an off river storage.

By contrast, the cumulative total flows at Wilcannia for the 4 months from November 2015 to February 2016, being the period following the upstream extractions, was less than 8 GL.

e. This strategic aims of the proposed recommendations are to

remove as many A Class licences as possible, and allow the volume of licenced water removed to be re-distributed for various purposes, predominantly including B Class, and potentially for cultural water, Town Water Supply enhancements, new industries such as mining and abattoirs, and new small scale enterprises using new A Class conditions. The ultimate goal could be to eliminate by attrition all A Class if they serve no community or personal benefits.

f. The process for this intervention could be: i. Purchase virtually all A Class entitlements at say $1,500 per ML

Say 9,500 ML @ $1,500 $14,250,000 ii. Purchase virtually all A Class Account Water at say $100 per

ML Say 40,000 ML @ $100 $4,000,000 Comment: The actual volume of Account Water is only known to the Department, so this figure is no more than a guestimate.

iii. Re-sell 9,500 ML entitlement as B Class water at say $1,000/ML plus sell 9,500 ML B Class account water at say $50 per ML

Say 9,500 ML @ $1,050 $9,975,000 iv. Cancel say 30,500 ML A Class Account Water v. Hence net cost to Government of approximately $4,537,500

($14,250,000+$4,000,000=$18,250,000-$9,975,000 = $8,275,000) for a gain of approximately 30,500 ML A Class account water.

vi. Funds could be sources from where the Mathews Enquiry was funded, from the $500 Million committed to Broken Hill water supply changes, or alternate source.

10. PERFORMANCE INDICATOR FOR WILCANNIA FLOWS

The BD WSP states: o “For the Tilpa to Wilcannia Management Zone, flows greater

than the top of the Low Flow Class are estimated to occur in excess of 88% of all days”, and

o “For Wilcannia to Upstream Lake Wetherell Management Zone, flows greater than the top of the Low Flow Class are estimated to occur in excess of 91% of all days”

o In other words, the Plan effectively states that with this Plan, daily flows below A Class commence to pump thresholds at Wilcannia of 123 ML/day will only occur for less than either 12% or 9% of all days.

o By comparison, the actual outcome since the introduction of the BD WSP in 2012 relating to flows at Wilcannia has been evaluated directly from analysis of publically available Departmental flow records (realtimedata) for the period from 1st November 2012 to 30 November 2017, showing that there have been zero flows in excess of 15% of all days, and flows below 123 ML/day for 37% of all days.

End of Attachment A

ATTACHMENT W 181025 PERFORMANCE REVIEW

BASIN PLAN (Nov 2012) and

BARWON DARLING WATER SHARING PLAN (Oct 2012) RELATING TO THE BARWON DARLING

SIX YEARS ON

OBJECTIVES Outcomes do not adequately address Objectives. Legislation Basin Plan BD WSP

CONNECTIVITY as HIGHEST PRIORITY

Connectivity has not been adequately acknowledged or addressed Connectivity of flows from Northern to Southern Basin Supports legislated highest needs of TWS, Cultural, Basic Landholder

Rights, Environment, The Natural River Low flows are critically important

SCIENCE

Science reinforces need to address low flows and connectivity Thoms et al established need to protect low flows in 1996 Thoms work was never challenged during Northern Basin Review MDBA environmental studies reinforces need for connectivity of low

flows DUE DILIGENCE AND RISK ANALYSIS

Inadequate due diligence and risk assessment

Examples include Problem identification and issued beyond direct control of MDBA

CONFLICTING LEGISLATION

Paradoxical plans Commonwealth Basin Plan focused on retrieval of E water from all tribs

to support objectives for the Barwon Darling E water looses its identity once it flows from one NSW WSP region to the

BD WSP region

SHEPHERDING Water Shepherding has not yet been introduced, and remains problematic

Extract from Background Document to Barwon Darling WSP Sept 20126.1.5

“Water Shepherding

In July 2010, the Commonwealth and NSW Governments signed a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in relation to shepherding water for the environment. The MoU defines water shepherding as the delivery of a calculated volume of water that was created by the non- activation/reduced extraction at a nominated licence location to a more downstream location with consideration of losses and without causing adverse third party impacts on stakeholders, where it will be made available for extraction or use for the environment.

The implementation of water shepherding in the Barwon-Darling and its tributaries is being developed in two stages. Presently, Implementation Plan (Stage one) which is developing the proposed arrangements for water shepherding is due to be completed by September 2012. Following endorsement of Implementation Plan (stage two) by both the NSW and Commonwealth governments, a project will commence to enable water shepherding to be implemented.

39 | NSW Office of Water, August 2012

Water Sharing Plan for the Barwon-Darling Unregulated and Alluvial Water Sources

The Plan can be amended to allow for the implementation of water shepherding in the Barwon- Darling. “

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION – Flow Evidence

Wilcannia Flows Variability verses Long Term Averaging

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION 2012 BD WSP CHANGES

Massive growth in extractions of A Class low flows compromises connectivity. During the 22 whole years prior to the introduction of the Barwon Darling

Water Sharing Plan (BD SWP) in October 2012, o the average annual extractions of A Class water were 1,225 Ml/year, o with a maximum annual extraction of 3,532 Ml/year.

During the five whole years since the BD WSP, o the average annual extractions of A Class water were 11,933 Ml/year, o with a maximum annual extraction of 20,599 Ml/year.

IDELS

Total neglect by NSW has compromised the Basin Plan. In the 2012 Background Document prior to the BD WSP release, it was stated

that "individual daily extraction limits (IDELs) are intended to provide a mechanism to limit extraction rates to those currently permitted through authorised pumps" and" will be in place within the first few years of this plan’s term".

AVERAGING

Use of long term averaging for a highly variable ephemeral river system is a totally inappropriate means of achieving desired objectives

CAP SDL Business behaviour 6% Flow event management

MODELLING

Use of long term modelling for a highly variable ephemeral river system predominated by low flows is a highly questionable means of achieving desired objectives

NORTHERN CONNECTIVITY FLOW 2018 25,000 to 30,000 ML e water released upstream Flow peak at Bourke of 900 ML/day was within a Class pumping access Perhaps about 20,000 ML passed Bourke, being the equivalent of the growth in

A Class extractions during 3 of the last 5 years WATER HELD BY CEWH

Water acquired by Commonwealth in Barwon Darling is least valuable in contributing to highest priority needs

CEWH holds: o Only 0.7% of all A Class entitlements, yet 27% of all C Class entitlements

Of the Entitlements held by CEWH: o Only 0.3% is A Class, and 44% is C Class o This compares to 5% of all entitlements being A Class, and only 24% is C

Class MENINDEE BUY-BACK

The buy back from Tandou highlighted numerous inconsistencies and contradictions by Government, Departments and Irrigation Industry Bodies

Compiled by Geoff Wise 25th October 2018

ATTACHMENT X 3rd February 2019

Minister Niall Blair Minister for Primary Industry Macquarie St SYDNEY Dear Niall.

Re: Ministerial Opportunities to address untoward consequences of “No Meter No Pump” policy,

Individual Daily Extraction Limits, Basin Plan And Political Considerations

Your recent media responses relating to the “Menindee saga” of fish kills, and associated water reform, drought, etc have been to promote the worthy initiatives you and your Government have taken in introducing the “no meter, no pump” policy and proposing the introduction of Individual Daily Extraction Limits (IDELs) for the Barwon Darling River System. Whilst the theory and politics of these initiatives are extremely positive relating to the irrigation industry, the negative consequences for many inactive licence holders require immediate follow-up initiatives for the benefits of the licence holders, their communities, overall water management and I also suggest for the Government in an election mode. In my opinion, these negative consequences and proposed solutions are explained through this communication. One context is that over recent years there has evolved a strongly argued and apparently supported view that rights of irrigators should not be negatively affected by any water policy changes without compensation. Governments have worked closely with irrigators to minimise and address any negative impacts. Surely these rights, or apparent rights, and consultations, should equally apply to all water licence holders, if they apply to any. A second context is a widespread expectation that all constituents should be considered fairly, without bias.

INACTIVE LICENCES ON BARWON DARLING

I refer specifically to the large number of inactive licence holders on the Barwon Darling River. These licence holders, all of whom only hold small licence entitlements, have become inactive through progressive changes to water policies especially since about 2006. Despite some comments to the contrary, they have never been categorised as irrigators or effectively represented throughout all water policy considerations or consultations. They are predominantly graziers who lease their land from the Government with perpetual rights to graze (and hence depend on water reliability), and hobby farms that have historically provided small “market garden” fruits, vegetables and livestock fodder to their small population local communities. Legislation clearly identifies rights to these people. In relative terms, the volumes of water ever extracted by this large group of now inactive licence holders have been negligible relative to broad scale irrigation. The loss of the historic contributions to local communities from graziers and the small hobby farms has rarely been considered, either economically or socially. The impact of one suicide or of a wheelchair bound hobby farmer who was forced by these policy changes to cease small-scale irrigation operations went under the radar of water policy change. The dominant voices associated with policy amendments have been a small number of large volume licence holders, all of whom have owned large off river storage. Effectively, the progressive policy shifts have resulted in a practical (economic viability) outcome that now, no licence holder on the Barwon Darling can operate his/her licence without having off river storage. The “no meter, no pump” policy and IDELs are specifically targeted at active irrigators, and will introduce sound accountability and compliance principles relating to them. By contrast, the “no meter, no pump” policy and IDELs add no additional practical accounting or compliance benefit to this large number of small licence holders. This conclusion can be reinforced by an understanding that there have been no reported cased of alleged breaches of extractions by any of these small licence holders. However, the “no meter no pump” policy and introduction of IDELs will have further death knell impacts on inactive licence holders. Two of the greatest influences that killed off the small licence holders abilities to use their licences were the abolition of the “not withstanding” clause and the judgement (strongly influenced by cotton growing interests) that permanent plantings exclude lucerne. Both these major influences were concreted in place with the introduction of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan (BD WSP).

The “no meter, no pump” determination has now been the first nail in the coffin for these small licence holders as it totally constrains the practical usage of the licences by the licence holders. Their only currently remaining option is to be at the beck and call of large irrigators who can totally dominate the timing and price to buy out these licences, and activate at their convenience to increase the extraction rates from low flows from the Barwon Darling, thereby depleting small flows that would otherwise benefit downstream priority needs. This is not an appealing option to many people who acknowledge priority rights and needs. Hence, without pro-active initiatives by Government, the consequence will be that many small family-operated non–irrigator businesses will continue to be squeezed financially by Government policies and big irrigator operations, whilst a growth in extraction from low flows down the Darling will progress. When the NSW Government introduces IDELs as promised, and as is needed for the irrigation sector, indications are that there will be virtually no interest by irrigators in purchasing any further inactive licences. Hence this will be the second nail in the coffin, as these licences will be totally devalued by further policy change being introduced to address another issue solely relating to the large operators. Buy back of these inactive licences by some Government process is the logical follow-on step as a consequence of the ‘no meter no pump” policy and anticipated IDELs policy. I acknowledge that the vocal large scale irrigation voices have influenced Governments and their communities that buy back is a bad option, as it removes opportunities for growth in irrigation extraction and/or growth in security of irrigation extraction, and speculation that buy back of active water may negatively impact on local communities. So too did introduction by the cotton industry of genetically modified cotton and of round bale technology negatively impact on local communities, perhaps to a far greater extent than buy back may, but these industry induced community impacts were considered acceptable. Buy back of inactive licences:

Provides a significant mental health and economic benefit to the licence holder in being relieved of a stranded asset

Generates a potentially significant cash flow to the local community Has no negative socio economic impact on the existing irrigation industry

or community Avoids the risk of increased extractions from low flow events having

compounding negative downstream consequences Provides a “bail-out” or “compensation” offset equivalent to what

irrigators have come to expect from any change to water policies that negatively impact on their perceived rights

Provides a timely access to some cash for graziers suffering from the severe effects of ongoing drought

May remove the need for equivalent reduction of extractions from irrigators.

Whilst Governments may have established a position of opposing buy back of water entitlements, there is demonstrated room to accommodate consideration under special circumstances. This was highlighted by the acquisition of entitlements from Tandou Station, Menindee despite the Commonwealth and NSW Governments and Irrigation Industry all opposing buy backs at the time. Committed Governments can amend their positions, small acquisitions should still comply within the 1500 GL Government determined position, and attributing reductions to specific river systems should lend itself to adaptable amendments. Buy back of inactive licences are pro-active initiatives available in the best interests of the wider population, and provides a clear message that Governments are unbiased in relation to the subsets of communities they are elected to represent.

ACCOUNT WATER HELD ON BARWON DARLING Additional to buy back of inactive water entitlements, a first step should be to immediately develop a strategy to buy out all Account Water held at least by inactive licence holders on the Barwon Darling, if not also the account water held by all licence holders. Such purchases should not be under the umbrella of the understood current joint Government opposition to licence entitlement buy back. A source of funds other than through the Basin Plan may be needed. The NSW Farmers Western Division Council recommendation of using drought funding for such an acquisition deserves serious consideration. Inactive licence holders on the Barwon Darling who almost by definition do not have meters, and are therefore most impacted by the “no meter, no pump” decision, have already paid for their Account Water. By contrast, irrigators on the Barwon Darling with meters pay a two-part tariff, with their account water only being paid for if and when it passes through their meter. It could therefore be legally argued that the “no meter, no pump” policy has directly taken away or devalued to potentially zero an asset (Account Water) already acquired by the licence holder, whereas it has had no similar impact on irrigators who have not yet paid for their account water. It would be far more prudent for the State Government to constructively address this potential legal risk of de-valuation of a paid for asset through compensatory buy out of this Account Water than to ignore this opportunity. An initiative to buy out Account Water has identical outcomes to those listed above for buy back of water entitlements.

The most recent advice provided to Barwon Darling Stakeholder Advisory Panel (SAP) members was that there are approximately 60 GL of A Class Account Water held along the Barwon Darling, with 55% of this estimated to be held by inactive licence holders. Should the next flow event down the Barwon Darling (that could potentially occur immediately following the next rainfall event anywhere in the catchment) be within the pumping threshold for A Class extractions, and below B Class thresholds, and should irrigators choose to legally extract as much as they possibly can, including exercising their current opportunity to buy in account water from desperate inactive users, there will inevitably be a huge negative public reaction that will be hard to justify or defend, especially under the current media landscape.

CONSEQUENCES OF ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN THE BD WSP AND THE BASIN PLAN

The October 2012 BD SWP introduced the opportunity for water entitlements and for Account Water to be traded, and also introduced the opportunity for low flow (A Class) extractions to be extracted using any size pump. The November 2012 Basin Plan introduced the opportunity for irrigators to access funding for “Efficiency Measures”, with offset of surrendering agreed licence entitlement to the Commonwealth. As a consequence of these rules, at least one large irrigator has purchased significant volumes of A Class entitlements and account water from inactive licence holders at relatively low prices. Simultaneously, the irrigator has accessed funding through the Efficiency Measures to increase the storage efficiencies on the property, with the trade-off of surrendering high flow (B or C Class entitlement) at undisclosed but relatively high valuation. The simplistic outcomes are:

The irrigator has made a net profit from each megalitre of water acquired and traded off, a profit that the inactive licence holder had no ability to make

The irrigator has changed their ratio of licence classes to favour access to low flow conditions.

The irrigator has been subsidised to maximise the efficiency of, and potentially the volume of, his water storage.

There is a resultant increased impact of extractions from lows flows along the Barwon Darling, therefore in contradiction to the current Commonwealth and State water reform goals.

The financial cost to the Commonwealth is far greater than would have occurred had buy-back of inactive licences occurred.

Currently, there are no initiatives in place to halt this practice from continuing.

The following data provided to the Barwon Darling SAP highlights the significance of the increased extractions of low flow licence volumes (A Class, which operate in the flow range of 350 to 1250 ML/day at Bourke as an indicator example) since the introduction of the BD WSP in 2012:

The annual average extractions have increased from 1,225 ML/year (over 22 years of data) to 11,933 ML/year, a 974% increase and

The maximum annual extraction has increased from 3,532 ML/year to 20,599 ML/year, a 583% increase.

Flows in this range height are of historically significant importance in maintaining the connectivity of the river downstream to Menindee, an issue currently under the microscope of diverse media.

INTERSECTING STREAMS I am not aware of any publicly data available relating to licences on the Intersecting Streams. However, I understand that there are a significant number of licences, each of which is only a relatively small volume of entitlement. I also understand that there are virtually no water meters associated with these licences. Hence the “no meter, no pump” policy has effectively neutered each of these individual licences for any current use in NSW. I also understand that there has been absolutely no initiative to commence community engagement to develop a Water Resource Plan for these river systems, and yet there is an expectation that such a Plan will be formalised by June 2019. Further, I have been advised that a Water Resource Plan for the NSW Intersecting Streams will be obliged to allow interstate trading. If this is the case, one practical option for these licence holders will be to trade their licences upstream to Queensland irrigators. However, this may not be in their best interests because it will inevitably reduce in-stream and overland flows that otherwise may reach their properties. It is also unlikely to be in the best interests of NSW from either a Government or community perspective to allow inactive licences from NSW to be activated in Queensland. The only alternate option for these Intersecting Streams licence holders will be to amalgamate a number of licences, install a meter, and establish irrigation. The consequences of such action occurring on a critical river, such as the Narran, upstream of Narran Lake, has the potential to be in direct conflict with Basin Plan aspirations, and presumably also of those aspirations of your Government. This amalgamation option should not be lightly dismissed. I have heard that it is currently under consideration by a consortium of licencees. Further, there is public knowledge that one of the largest irrigator families in NSW, including being the largest licence holder on the Barwon Darling, and being involved in a current court case associated with water usage, has recently purchased a

floodplain property on one of the Intersecting Streams in NSW. I am not aware of the intensions for use of this property. With due respect, neither the option of selling licences to Queensland for activation or aggregating and activating licences on critically vulnerable rivers in NSW are likely to be in the best public interests for the NSW Government to defend. An obvious option is for all the licences on all Intersecting Streams in north- western NSW to be taken out of the system promptly, with appropriate compensation, through negotiated community consultation. This would be a far more beneficial and strategic process with numerous long-term beneficial outcomes than attempting to develop a Water Resource Plan during the next four and a half months. Such action would remove the need for any Water Sharing Plan. Genuine effective consultations and engagement with these people to address their issues would be a small commitment relative to the ongoing consultations held with irrigators.

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS Niall, Throughout my working career I have regularly provided frank and fearless advice that I consider to be in the best public interest to Ministers, irrespective of the Government in power. On the other hand, I have consistently avoided providing any political advice or opinion. However, under current circumstances I share a few observations. I notice in today’s (3rd Feb) Sydney Morning Herald you are quoted as saying that a move by the downstream irrigators is part of a “concerted effort” by groups seeking to oust incumbent National MPs in the state and federal elections. With due respect Minister, there are far more voting licence holders along the Barwon Darling and in the Intersecting Streams who hold inactive licences than there are active irrigators. Further, there appears to be a far greater number of opinionated voters who I am hearing believe there are opportunities for the NSW Government to take some pro-active initiatives relating to low flow management in the Darling River, and minimising any risks of increasing extractions of low flows in the western river systems. In my unqualified opinion, the diverse costs of taking actions such as recommended above will be far less than the diverse costs of inertia on these matters. Niall, in respect to you and your Government, I have chosen to currently only share this correspondence highlighting the untoward consequences of “no meter

no pump” policy, and imminent introduction of IDELs with you, selected members of your Party and the Premier. The recommended initiatives/actions in this correspondence are reinforcement of what has been shared with you and very widely with many other people over an extended period of time. An example is correspondence from Doug McKay and myself sent to you, Minister Littleproud and many others last November. Doug re-sent similar correspondence to you on 14th January 2019, immediately after we became aware of the significance of the initial Menindee fish kill. This was intended to assist you at a time of crisis. We are disappointed that other than an acknowledgement of receipt, we have received no formal feedback from anyone relating to this correspondence, even if only to be told our recommendations are inappropriate for explained reasons. Doug and I continue to believe that our opinions and recommendations shared prior to the Menindee fish kills provided pre-emptive initiatives that remain worthy of prompt follow through. In conclusion, I am most willing to discuss any issues raised in this long communication. In particular, if any or all of my recommendations are legally constrained, and if so, if the constraint cannot be amended, please let me know. Please note that this has been written solely from a personal perspective, aimed at being supportive of your demanding position. Yours sincerely, Geoff Wise

ATTACHMENT Y 190323 WITHOUT PREJUDICE

xxxxxx

IMPACTS of PARTLY INTRODUCED CHANGES to the BARWON DARLING WATER SHARING PLAN (2012)

On EXTRACTIONS from LOW FLOWS at and below BOURKE

And on LICENCE HOLDERS’ BUSINESS PLANNING

Failure of successive NSW Government Water Ministers to fully implement the Government’s Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan (BD WSP) since 2012 have allowed irrigators to legally extract two thirds of the most critically important water from low flow events passing down the Darling River system that would otherwise ensure reliable and effective flow connections to Menindee. In view of the diverse impacts on all A Class licence holders’ businesses whilst operating in a Government policy hiatus now into their seventh

year, new Government actions addressing the business impacts should be taken additional to previously committed yet un-implemented policies. A logical example is to offer compensatory buy-out of the A Class licences. All Government Departments and other co-operators who were involved with the Northern Connectivity Event (NCE) should now work cooperatively to establish what can be learnt by comparing the 4.8 GL benefits at Bourke in the 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day flow range from the NCE in autumn 2018 with the 5.863 GL of A Class extractions that occurred during 2017/18. This should include water policy, environmental, economic and social considerations.

xxxxxxxxxxxx The Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan (BD WSP) that was introduced in October 2012 changed the rules that limited extraction rates by removing pump size limitations and replacing them with individual licence daily extraction limitations. The first of these changes was immediately brought into effect, but the offsetting change is yet to be applied. The consequence has been that irrigators on the Barwon Darling River System have been given legal rights to allow opportunities for increased volumes of A Class water to be extracted at significantly increased rates of daily extraction. A Class licences are the only irrigator licences that allow extractions in the low flow range of 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day measured at Bourke. This paper analyses available data to gain an indication of the impacts of the applied rule changes allowing increases in extractions of flows from the Darling River in the range of 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day at Bourke. The analyses have been undertaken by use of monthly flow volumes as recorded in publicly accessible realtimedata.waternsw.com.au, which is only available up to early February 2016. Average daily flows have been determined from analysing the monthly flow data. Annual extractions, which are publically available departmental data, have been analysed using considered logic. Broad conclusions drawn from river flow rates and A Class extractions at Bourke are:

During the whole of 2014/15, approximately 36 GL of flow occurred in the range of 350 ML/day and 1,250 ML/day. (Note that “water years” coincide with financial years, being July to June).

o Of this, 13 GL of A Class extractions were recorded. o This equates to 36% of flows in the range of 350 ML/day to

1,250 ML/day having been extracted over twelve months.

o The only periods when extractions solely of A Class entitlements could occur were late summer and early winter.

o It is far more probable that the majority of this 13 GL of extraction occurred during the summer months, when only 19 GL of flow was within A Class pumping thresholds.

Under this scenario, this equates to 68% of flows in the range of 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day having been extracted over a couple of late summer months.

During the period from 1st July 2015 to 3rd November 2015,

approximately 18 GL of flow occurred in the flow range of 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day.

o On 3rd November 2015 one irrigator told the Chair and CEO of MDBA, and a number of other people, that he had recently legally extracted approximately 12 GL from this flow window.

o This equates to 67% of flows in the range of 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day having been extracted over up to three months.

During the whole of the 2015/16, monthly flow data has not been accessible to the author to estimate the total annual flows in the flow range of 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day.

o 20.6 GL of A Class extractions were recorded for the whole year. o Hence, additional to the above 12 GL, a further 8.6 GL were

extracted by other irrigators or by the above referenced irrigator some time after November. Lack of full data records for flow rates prevent further comments.

During the 22 years prior to the introduction of the BD WSP, the average annual extractions of A Class water from the Barwon Darling were 1,225 ML/year. The maximum annual extraction was 3,532 ML.

During the 4 years since the introduction of the BD WSP in 2012 and the sale of the enterprise with the largest volume of A Class entitlements in early 2014/5, the average annual extractions of A Class water from the Barwon Darling were 18,017 ML/year. The maximum annual extraction was 32,623 ML.

The significant change since the introduction of the BD WSP and sale of one major enterprise deserves considerable analyses and considerations for future policy setting in managing low flows along the Darling River.

No analysis of the A Class extractions in 2016/17 of 32,623 ML, or in

2017/18 of 5,863 ML have been undertaken due to lack of access to monthly or daily flow data. It could be assumed that similar conclusions may be found that large proportions of flows in the 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day range have been extracted during narrow time bandwidths.

Based on very limited data, there appears to be some inverse correlation

between volumes of extraction in the A Class 350 ML/day to 1,250

ML/day flow range at Bourke and irrigator access to higher flows through B Class licences to extract water into off river storages.

o During each of the 2012/13 and 2013/14 years, extraction opportunities under B Class (higher minimum height limits for extraction) pumping conditions to replenish storages following the end of the previous cotton season appear to have been available. In each of these two years, only small volumes of A Class extractions occurred, being 1,399 ML and 450 ML respectively.

o During 2014/15, there appears to have been no opportunity to pump any significant volumes of water until a small flow window in early 2015. In this year, 12,980 ML of A Class water were extracted.

o During 2015/16, it appears there was only A Class access to extractions during the first quarter of the water year, and then no further access for any licence class until the end of summer when availability of flow data ceased. In this year, 20,599 ML of A Class water were extracted.

All A Class licence holders have been operating in business vacuums of

uncertainty now into their seventh year. Through both the 2012 Background Document to the BD WDSP and the

2012 BD WSP, irrigators were made aware that rules would be put in place imminently to limit extractions at least to match pre-existing extraction rates.

Irrigators have to plan and implement their annual planting programs with the uncertainty of whether the outstanding rule will be implemented part way through their cropping season.

Irrigators have to make risk management decisions whether they should purchase additional A Class licences, and if so, at what price.

People holding inactive A Class licences have to make risk management decisions whether to activate their licence.

All A Class licence holders have to make risk management decisions whether they should attempt to sell their A Class licences. And if so, at what price.

All A Class licence holders have to make risk management decisions relating to the accounting value of these licences.

In view of the diverse impacts on all A Class licence holders’ businesses whilst operating in a Government policy hiatus now into their seventh year, new Government actions addressing the business impacts should be taken additional to previously committed yet un-implemented policies. A logical example is to offer compensatory buy-out of the A Class licences.

DISCUSSION For many reasons, considerable discussions are currently being held regarding low flow management in the Darling River.

Low Flows. The words “low flows in the Barwon Darling River” are used loosely, but generally to describe the flows that are considered critical in providing natural flow connectivity along the Barwon Darling River system to Menindee and potentially beyond. In a report commissioned by the NSW Government, Thoms et al 1996 effectively implied that low flows at Bourke are below 1,820 ML/day through their recommendation that low flows in the Barwon Darling should be protected through no abstractions for broad scale irrigation below the 60 percentile (1,820 ML/day at Bourke). Flows in the range of 350 ML/day to 1,250ML/day at Bourke have been used in this paper as an indicator of critically important low flows, as this equates to the flow rate at which only A Class licences are entitled to extract for irrigation. It is acknowledged that flows below 350 ML/day are also recognised as lower flows. The BD WSP refers to flows at Bourke below 350 ML/day as the “No Flow Class”. Flows below 350 ML/day at Bourke provide little guarantee of maintaining water connectivity downstream to Menindee, acknowledging that there are significant variations dependent on seasons and on preceding flow conditions. The BD WSP also references “The requirements of the Interim Unregulated Flow Management Plan for the North-West are … a flow of … 390 ML/day in the Darling River at Bourke. The intention of (this minimum limit on extraction) … is to protect flows needed to meet basic landholder rights along the Barwon-Darling River.” Hence this clause in the BD WSP contradicts the decision within the BD WSP that allows extractions at Bourke at 350 ML/day.

The Technical Report by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, February 2019 titled “Water Flows in the Murray-Darling Basin: Observed versus expected,” refers to flow rates below 1,000 ML/day at Wilcannia as being low flows, quoting that their study results reflect that observed low flows at Wilcannia are below that expected by the Basin Plan when flows are below 1,000 ML/d.

1,000 ML/day at Wilcannia could roughly equate to 1,250 ML/day at Bourke.

Bourke Site The Bourke site is chosen because a large proportion of all A Class licence entitlements draw water from the Bourke weir pool. Hence flow data at Bourke gauge reflects river levels before the local extractions occur. The greatest consequences of these changes to extraction rules are reflected in low flows in the Darling River downstream of Bourke. BD WSP “Implemented Rule Change”

Prior to the 2012 BD WSP, no extraction of flows below rates of 1,250 ML/day at Bourke could be made with any pump of greater than 150 mm (6 inch) diameter. These pumps had a capacity to draw a maximum of approximately 5 ML/day. These pumps were used to extract small volumes of water regularly for many days of each year, invariably flowing directly to small areas of perennial plantings such as citrus, grapes, and lucerne, or to opportunist annual plantings such as melons. The Background Document to the BD WSP acknowledged that these licences were never issued for or designed for use in broad scale annual plantings. Since the introduction of the BD WSP in 2012, pumps of any size diameter have been allowed to extract from flows at Bourke as low as 350 ML/day, thereby allowing the extracted water to be saved in storage and used for broad area annual cropping. 600 mm (24 inch) diameter pumps each have capacities to draw approximately 80 ML/day, a 16 fold greater rate of extraction than 150 mm pumps. BD WSP 2012 “Yet to be Implemented Rule Change” The Technical Working Group that provided advice to the State Authorities through the development of the BD WSP clearly recommended that removal of pump size restrictions should be directly and simultaneously replaced by limiting daily extractions to match existing extraction rates as applied prior to the BD WSP. As clearly stated in both the Background Document to the BD WSP and in the BD WSP, in 2012, the NSW Government committed to introduce rules to limit daily extractions “to at least match existing extraction rates” as applied prior to the BD WSP within the first few years after 2012. The NSW Government delegated to the NSW Minister for Water the responsibility to promptly introduce rules to limit extractions to what applied before 2012.

In the Final Implementation Report by Ken Mathews AO, dated 24th November 2017 of the “Independent investigation into NSW water management and compliance” commissioned by the NSW Government, strong recommendations included a range of both interim and enduring actions to address better management of low flows including addressing the un-resolved outstanding commitments from the BD WSP including extraction rates. The recommendations included that the interim solutions should be put into effect within three months from 24th November 2017, and should not wait until the Basin Water Resource plans are accredited and come into effect in 2019.

Since 2012, no Water Minister has put into effect any strategy to limit extraction rates to pre-existing rates. Most Water Ministers remained relatively silent on this issue.

The current NSW Water Minister has strongly and publicly advised that he will be taking actions to address the issue, not dis-similar to the message conveyed in

2012. The main differences are that in 2012, the commitment was by the Government, delivered in a widely distributed formal planning document, with an objective of at least matching pre-existing extraction rates, and with a clear maximum deadline for implementation.

Community Perspective Irrigators have extracted water totally legally when operating within the rules set by Government. It is totally inappropriate for these irrigators to be blamed for any negative downstream impacts on water flows. If anyone has influenced any Government Ministers to not carry out their delegated responsibility as committed by the Government through the BD WSP their actions deserve questioning. Many stakeholders, other than licence holders referred to previously, have also been operating in business vacuums of uncertainty now into their seventh year.

Downstream graziers have had to react to the impacts that reduced numbers of effective low flows have had on their livestock operations, including sourcing alternate water supplies, reducing stock numbers, constructing fences along the river to avoid stock crossing the river, etc. They have to make ongoing risk management decisions regarding how future rules may impact on their management operations.

Downstream Local Councils have had to make risk management decisions concerning the need to instigate alternate water security strategies for river communities. (The actions by the State Government in constructing a pipeline from the Murray River to Broken Hill have been the most extreme example of this. It is acknowledged that other factors were also considered).

Downstream Aboriginal people, water users and communities were re-assured that there would be no effective expansion of irrigation extraction access, with implementation of this being assured within a few years.

Other Commonwealth and State Government Departments and agencies, such as the MDBA, assumed there would be no further increase in extraction opportunities to impact on their strategic planning, such as the introduction of the Basin Plan.

The wider Australian community had no reason to suspect that a State Government would fail to act on its commitments, thereby jeopardising their balanced beliefs of responsible management of the Australian inland river systems.

Flow Event Management Comparisons Over very recent years, it has become recognised that flow event (freshes or pulses) management is a most critical requirement for policy setting and river management in unregulated ephemeral river systems such as the Barwon Darling. Ongoing learning and understandings of flow event management has been recognised. An example of this recognition and learning of flow event management was the implementation of a highly successful and promoted Northern Connectivity

Event (NCE) in autumn 2018. Managing this flow event occurring over approximately two months involved extensive coordination and cooperation between multiple agencies and with significant concessions by many licence holders. Informative analysis and reviews have been followed through. Comparisons between flows from the NCE and the increased extractions allowed through the partly implemented changes made in the BD WSP provide a context for the scale of water volumes involved. In the NCE, 25 GL of environmental water held by the Commonwealth plus 7.2 GL of water held by NSW were released from tributaries upstream of the Barwon Darling. Of this 32.2 GL, approximately 13 GL reached Bourke. Of this 13 GL, 4.8 GL was in the 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day flow range and the remaining approximately 8.2 GL flowing at below 350 ML/day. Some comparisons between the changes created by the BD WSP and the NCE relating to a flow range at Bourke of 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day are therefore that:

During the 2017/18, the same water year as the NCE occurred, 5.863 GL of A Class extraction occurred.

For the NCE, from a release of 32.2 GL of government held water in tributaries, 4.8 GL reached Bourke in this flow range in a complex highly organised management strategy.

The volumes of water for the environment released from tributary storages for the NCE (32.2 GL) to have a major contribution to downstream connectivity through to Menindee was marginally less that the volume of A Class extractions during 2016/17 (32.6 GL), with virtually all of this extraction understood to have occurred at Bourke.

All Government Departments and other co-operators who were involved with the NCE should now work cooperatively to establish what can be learnt by comparing the 4.8 GL benefits at Bourke in the 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day flow range from the NCE in autumn 2018 with the 5.863 GL of A Class extractions that occurred during 2017/18. This should include water policy, environmental, economic and social considerations. For example, questions should be asked such as, but not limited to:

Of the 5.863 GL of water extractions from the 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day flow range, what volumes were extracted from localised sites over short periods of time?

Where were the localised sites? Of the large proportions extracted over short periods of time, does any

one or more of these allow any comparison to be drawn with the NCE that delivered 4.8 GL at Bourke in the 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day flow range?

If any comparisons can be drawn, were there seasonal differences or similarities?

Can comparisons be drawn between the outcomes from the NCE and what the outcomes may have been if the comparable large proportion of extracted water had not been extracted?

o Can these comparisons include environmental, social and economic comparisons? For example, the economic and social benefits to the irrigator/s who extracted A Class flows compared to the economic and social dis-benefits for irrigators who forfeiting opportunities to exercise their rights with the NCE.

Had the high proportions of extraction not taken place, would the NCE have been necessary?

What can be learnt from water policy management perspectives? Other comparisons between the NCE flow of 4.8 GL at Bourke in the flow range of 350 ML/day to 1,250 ML/day and extractions created by the BD WSP changes relating to the same flow range at Bourke include:

The BD WSP changes have legally allowed 12 GL to be extracted by a single irrigation operation at Bourke over a relatively similar timeframe but in a different water year.

The BD WSP changes have allowed irrigators to extract an average of 18 GL per annum over the four years since the BD WSP was introduced and one enterprise changed ownership.

The BD WSP changes have allowed irrigators to extract a maximum of over 32 GL during one year since the BD WSP was introduced.

The NCE provided approximately an 8.2 GL base flow below 350 ML/day, with the highly beneficial 4.8 GL crest above 350 ML/day boosting connectivity benefits downstream.

The BD WSP changes have allowed irrigators to extract up to two thirds of equivalent beneficial crests.

A greater volume of A Class water being extracted during 2016/17 than the volume released from tributary storages as a desperate strategy to create connectivity to Menindee.

Limitations of Long Term Averaging Use of long term averaging may mask critical elements relating to individual flow events. Examples of use of long term averaging where this masking occurs are critical policy elements in both the introduction of a Cap in growth of extractions introduced to apply from 1993/4, and a Sustainable Diversion Limit introduced with the Basin Plan in 2012. Both of these whole of Murray Darling Basin strategies depend on long term averaging. Similarly, the two greatest weaknesses in the analyses in this paper are that it relies both on averaging daily flow information from monthly data, and on annual extraction data rather than on actual time and event extraction data. Best Available “Science”

The broad conclusions drawn in this paper should only be considered as indicative consequences of the opportunities given through the changes introduced in the 2012 BD WSP to A Class licence holders to allow extractions of large volumes of low flows over a short extraction windows that invariably coincide with small freshes, or pulses, flowing down the river system. This paper should trigger water managers at Commonwealth and State levels, and involved scientists, to analyse daily flow records, hydrographs, other appropriate data sets and time and event extraction records of all A Class irrigator licence holders to more accurately analyse the impacts on low flows in the Darling River as a consequence of changes partly introduced through the BD WSP. From this analysis, or from updated more precise analyses, new considerations should be given to extraction rules in the Barwon Darling River to determine low flow management priorities and needs, taking into account all contemporary and emerging considerations. Until this greater analytical rigour occurs, the indicative conclusions drawn in this paper should be accepted as “the best available science”. The conclusions from these analyses can be summarised as: Failure of successive NSW Government Water Ministers to implement a 2012 commitment to limit water licence extraction rates on the Barwon Darling to at least match previously existing maximum rates have allowed irrigators to legally extract two thirds of the most critically important water from low flow events passing down the Darling River system that would otherwise ensure reliable and effective flow connections to Menindee. Geoff Wise 18th February 2019. (Amended on 23rd March 2019) Footnote: This paper highlights the beneficial need for a small "Interagency Intelligence Unit” being formed with a role of carrying out investigative studies, reviewing all data sources and the data available from these sources, and critically analyzing and researching the significance of the findings with a focus on how the findings relate to current and continuing improvement of policies. File: 190323 BD Use v Total in A Class Flow Range

ATTACHMENT Z

UNDERSTANDINGS of A CLASS LICENCES on the BARWON DARLING RIVER SYSTEM CHALLENGES the RELAVENCE and RISKS of

LONG TERM AVERAGING of WATER FLOWS and AGGREGATED WATER LICENCE CLASSES

in addressing FLOW CONNECTIVITY (Ref 190128.1)

along the BARWON DARLING RIVER SYSTEM

with options for SOLUTIONS

OVERVIEW Maximising restoration of flow connectivity in the Darling River, Australia’s longest river connecting the two parts of the Murray Darling Basin, will be a major indicator used for community evaluation of the performance of Governments in implementing the $13 billion Basin Plan. Government reliance on both long term averaging and aggregations of water licences have little relevance to delivering flow connectivity in the highly variable flowing ephemeral Darling River system, with high risks of inappropriate conclusions. The implications of A Class licenced water on the Unregulated Barwon Darling River system are hereby explored, exposing the risks associated with this reliance. A Class licences provide the greatest security for extractions by water users, but these extractions have the greatest impact on the ability of the Basin Plan and Barwon Darling Water Sharing/Resource Plans to deliver on their key objectives. Protecting flow connectivity and low flows through limiting extractions from low flows, particularly within A Class access rules, has been identified in the Barwon Darling River system as the most critically important environmental, social, basic landholder rights and town water supply needs for this river system, supported by legislation and water plans. Conclusions drawn from analysing A Class licenced water provide a totally different perspective from conclusions and outcomes drawn from use of aggregated data of all three licence classes combined with long term averaging of this aggregated data. Analysis of publically available Departmental records lead to the following observations occurring since the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan (BD WSP) and Basin Plan were introduced in 2012, and since change of ownership of the enterprise holding the greatest volume of A Class entitlements in early 2014/15, challenge the ability of the BD WSP and the Basin Plan to deliver on their legislated objectives:

Barwon Darling water entitlements acquired by the Commonwealth

through the Basin Plan are a totally ineffective mix of licence categories to have any significant effects on improving connectivity of flows down the Darling River.

o The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) holds 14.8% (28,004 ML) of total licenced entitlements on the Barwon Darling, but only holds 0.7% (73 ML) of all A Class entitlement.

o Of the 14.8% of entitlements held by CEWH, only 0.3% of CEWH’s held water is A Class.

Changes introduced through the BD WSP in 2012 have allowed for a massive shift for irrigator access to flows that are most critical in sustaining flow connectivity down the Darling River, despite these changes not necessarily affecting long term average extractions of aggregated classes of water entitlements. These risks and a potential solution were brought to the attention of MDBA by Northern Basin Advisory Committee members in August 2014.

o Since the 2012 BD WSP and Basin Plan commenced, and one enterprise changed ownership in 2014/15, the average annual extraction of A Class water on the Barwon Darling has increased by 1,470% and the maximum annual extraction has increased by 924%.

o During a single low flow event in the Barwon Darling over a few weeks during spring 2015, one irrigator legally extracted the equivalent of 164 years of cumulative savings of A Class water acquired by the Commonwealth to deliver on the Basin Plan objectives.

o During three consecutive water years the volume of A Class water extracted was the equivalent of 907 years of cumulative savings of A Class water acquired by the Commonwealth to deliver on the Basin Plan objectives.

In view of the above findings, prudent recommendations are made regarding:

o The need for all Barwon Darling stakeholders to be informed of the modeling implications of these findings relating to A Class licenced water.

o The benefits of reviewing and sharing with all stakeholders the effectiveness of “Shared Reductions” from the tributaries contributing to flow connectivity in the Barwon Darling.

Four options are provided for solutions to the matters presented. 1. A complex and complicated option currently being pursued by Governments is resource demanding both currently and into the future should it be adopted. 2. A simple option of adjusting commence to pump thresholds for A Class

licences is considered, with significant anticipated opposition by all A Class licence holders.

3. Revert A Class rules to those existing prior to the BD WSP 2012. 4. The fourth simple option of an A Class water buyback is explored,

including consideration of its social and economic considerations. Based on comments by irrigators, this fourth option may cost approximately $25

million for acquisition of all A Class licence entitlements if purchased as an incentive to cooperate. Further, acquisition of all A Class Account Water may cost approximately $9 million, with this funding presumably needing to come from a source other than the Basin Plan. A NSW Farmers Western Division Council recommendation to incorporate this fourth option as a drought assistance strategy has strong merit worthy of immediate consideration as it should provide approximately 100 to 150 graziers with a practical alternative to feeding or selling their livestock and dependency on other drought support strategies. The NSW Farmers resolution also includes buy-out of all licences on the NSW Intersecting Streams, both to avoid risk of these licences being activated as has occurred in the Barwon Darling, and as a drought assistance measure. The combined estimated costs and beneficiaries for the Barwon Darling and Intersecting Streams may be:

Acquisition costs of all A Class and Intersecting Streams Licence Entitlements

o $19 million to irrigators and $31 million to graziers Acquisition of all A Class Account Water may be:

o $3 million to irrigators and $6 million to graziers. Failure of Governments and the irrigation industry to address these considerations of flow connectivity only erodes the extractive industry’s social licence to extract water, a social licence that is already being regularly questioned.

CONSIDERATIONS

1. PRINCIPLES for CAP and SUSTAINABLE DIVERSION LIMITS (SDL’s)

Both Cap (on growth in use) and SDL’s depend on aggregated data combined with long-term accountability of this aggregated data. (Ref 1)

Cap was introduced across all river systems in the Murray Darling Basin to limit long-term average annual extractions to 1993/4 levels of irrigation development. (Ref 1)

SDL’s have been introduced across all river systems in the Murray Darling Basin through the Basin Plan in 2012 to limit long-term average annual extractions to environmentally sustainable levels. (Ref 1) Both Cap and SDL’s only consider aggregated volumes of water, irrespective of either the licence classes or the significance of the different irrigation access rules for the different licence classes. Similarly, water entitlements acquired by the Government through the Basin Plan only consider the aggregate total volume, irrespective of licence classes and associated access rules.

2. OUTCOMES from CAP and SDL’s IN LIMITING GROWTH in

DEVELOPMENT and CONSTRAINTS on ANNUAL EXTRACTIONS to ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE LEVELS

Cap Outcomes Reliance on long term averaging of aggregations of water licences provides virtually no indication of flow connectivity changes in the Darling River since the introduction of Cap, despite Cap being introduced to limit further extractions. However, comparisons of monthly departmental records for the three quarters of a century prior to introduction of Cap to the quarter century since its introduction provides startling significant changes to flow connectivity (Ref 2). Examples at Wilcannia as an indicator site include:

1,000% increase in number of Decembers when zero flow connectivity occurred

800% increase in number of consecutive Octobers, Novembers and Decembers when zero or very low flow connectivity occurred

720% increase in all months of the year experiencing zero or very low flow connectivity

550% increase in consecutive months from November to February when zero flow connectivity occurred

480% in the number of years when flow connectivity has ceased for at least one month.

Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan and Basin Plan Outcomes The following demonstrates changes in irrigator extraction behavior in extractions of A Class water comparing 22 years prior to introduction of the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan and Basin Plan (Ref 3) to 4years since their introduction and since the change of ownership of the enterprise that holds the largest proportion of all A Class entitlements. (Ref 4): 1990/91 to 2011/12

Total number of full water years 22 years Cumulative total A Class extraction 26,949 ML Annual average A Class extractions 1,225

ML/year Maximum annual take 3,532

ML/year 2014/15 to 2017/18

Total number of water years 4 years Cumulative total A Class extraction 72,066 ML Annual average A Class extractions 18,017

ML/year Maximum annual take 32,623

ML/year

Simplistically, since the introduction of the BD WSP and Basin Plan, the average annual extraction of A Class water on the Barwon Darling has increased by 1,470% and the maximum annual extraction has increased by 924%.

Long term averaging of extractions of aggregation of volumes of all licence classes does not reflect this massive degree of changed behaviour of the most critically significant flow rates that impact on flow connectivity.

These risks and a potential solution were brought to the attention of MDBA by Northern Basin Advisory Committee members in August 2014.

3. RELEVANCE OF LONG TERM ACCOUNTABILITY The Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH) holds 28,004 ML of total entitlement in the Barwon Darling, being 14.8% of total licenced entitlements on the Barwon Darling, (Ref 5) This water has been acquired by the Commonwealth Government through buy-back and efficiency measures as a component of achieving SDL’s. However, only 0.7% (73 ML) of this is A Class entitlement, and only 0.3% of entitlements held by CEWH are A Class. This is despite A Class entitlements being the most critically important for the Government on behalf of the community to achieve the multiple essential priority needs, including flow connectivity. Since both the BD WSP and the Basin Plan were introduced in 2012, during a single low flow in the Barwon Darling over a few weeks, one irrigator legally extracted 12 GL of A Class water (Ref 6).

This single extraction over a few weeks is the equivalent of 164 years of cumulative savings of A Class water acquired by the Commonwealth to deliver on the Basin Plan objectives.

During the three consecutive water years 2014/5 to 2016/7, 66,203 ML of A Class water have been extracted (Ref 4).

This total extraction over three consecutive years is the equivalent of 907 years of cumulative savings of A Class water acquired by the Commonwealth to deliver on the Basin Plan objectives.

The questions must therefore be asked whether the benefits of the A Class water acquired by the Commonwealth to address the most high-risk legal requirements for the Barwon Darling will:

Offset a few week’s extraction over the next 164 years? and Offset 3 years extraction over the next 907 years?

This highlights why questions must also be asked in relation to relevancy of long term averaging of highly variable natural data. In regard to accountability for the SDL’s in the Basin Plan, if long term averaging

of hypothetical practice behaviour is an acceptable scientific approach to assume outcomes, then use of “reverse logic” long-term accountability of actual data must also be an acceptable scientific approach, as exemplified above. Conversely, if use of “reverse logic” long-term accountability of actual data is not an acceptable approach to determine outcomes, then use of long term averaging of hypothetical practice logically should not be an acceptable approach. 4. EFFECTIVENESS OF SHARED REDUCTIONS FROM TRIBUTARIES In view of the findings of A Class licences on the Barwon Darling when separated from the aggregated and long term averaged data involving all licence classes, it would be prudent to more critically analyse the “Shared Reduction” water held by CEWH in all tributaries to the Barwon Darling, to establish if any significant conclusions can be drawn of their effectiveness in addressing flow connectivity in the Barwon Darling. The implications of this analysis should be shared with all stakeholders. Potential examples could include, but not be limited to:

Which tributaries will/will not make any effective contribution to flow connectivity in the Barwon Darling?

To what extend will CEWH water acquired from upstream of major irrigation water storages, the Macquarie Marshes and the Gwydir Wetlands make any effective contribution to flow connectivity in the Barwon Darling?

To what extend will CEWH water acquired from downstream of major irrigation water storages make any effective contribution to flow connectivity in the Barwon Darling?

Of the water held by CEWH, what volumes are from low flow licences (eg High Security licences, which presumably are most likely to contribute to flow connectivity) compared to what volumes are from high flow licences (eg General Security licences, which presumably are far less regular flows and less likely to contribute to flow connectivity)?

5. EFFECTIVENESS OF MODELLING In view of the findings of A Class licences on the Barwon Darling when separated from the aggregated and long term averaged data involving all licence classes, it would be prudent for all stakeholders to be informed of the modeling implications of these findings. 6. OPTIONS FOR SOLUTIONS The logical goal to deliver on Basin Plan priority issues in the Barwon Darling River system, being a priority river system for the whole of the Murray Darling Basin, is to revert the level of A Class licence extractions at least back to the

maximum daily and annual extraction levels that occurred prior to introduction of both the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan and the Basin Plan in 2012. Several options are available to achieve this. The following are examples. Option 1. Implement complex rules requiring ongoing high management inputs.

Through cooperation of all Commonwealth and NSW Government Authorities, complex rules are currently being attempted to be introduced, including but not limited to:

o Individual daily extraction limits As committed to by NSW Government in 2012 but not yet

implemented (Ref 7), with “individual daily extraction limits (IDELs) intended to provide a mechanism to limit extraction rates to those currently permitted through authorised pumps” (Quote: Ref 8).

o Total daily extraction limits o Water shepherding of environmental water from tributaries

As committed to through an MOU between Commonwealth and NSW Governments in July 2010 but not yet implemented (Ref 9)

o Water shepherding of all A, B and C Class environmental water entitlements in the Barwon Darling held by CEWH

o First flush rules o Flow event management o Regular reviews to assess whether the rules deliver the intended

outcomes Associated management requirements must be introduced, including but

not limited to: o Critical need to ensure no Water Resource Plans from any

tributaries to the Barwon Darling are adopted until all Northern Basin draft Water Resource Plans are considered simultaneously to ensure environmental water will be managed appropriately to deliver the environmental objectives, including connectivity.

o Permanent dedicated staff for flow event management o Permanent dedicated staff for monitoring, evaluation, regulation

and compliance o Sophisticated timely hydrography o Potential increase in number of river gauges and regular

monitoring and re-calibration of river gauges. Establish an effective engagement strategy through a “River management

consultancy committee”. o Anticipate frustrations by membership typified by past

experiences of community engagement. This option has been the approach Governments have been attempting to

pursue over recent times, with ongoing difficulties in arriving at adequate suitable and practical, robust policies, and with no apparent consideration of alternate options.

o Governments and Departmental staff appear to have been

focused on delivering final Water Resource Plans by a 30th June 2019 deadline, rather than delivering the best Water Resource Plans.

Estimated Cost of Option 1 o Impossible to estimate, as costs are related primarily to the

increase in servicing costs, and the cost of risks in not delivering desired outcomes.

o Delays in establishing certainty are an inevitable hidden cost. o Environmental and social costs of outcomes may be huge (eg fish

kills).

Option 2. Through the Barwon Darling Water Resource Plan (BDWRP), raise Commence to Pump Thresholds for all A Class Licences to be identical to B Class Commence to Pump Thresholds.

This strategy provides a simple means of re-dressing the changes introduced through the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan in 2012, namely removing pump size limits and committing to introduce Individual Daily Extraction Limits as a direct offset.

A special exemption could be incorporated into the BDWRP to maintain current A Class pumping thresholds to any licence holder wishing to use a pump size up to a maximum of 150 mm diameter.

This option aligns to some extent with the recommendations made to NSW Government in 1996 that there should be no abstractions for any commercial use below 500 ML/day at Bourke gauge (using Bourke as an indicator site), and no abstractions below the 80% (approximately 1820 ML/day) for water pumped into on- farm storages. (Ref 10)

This option is likely to raise enormous objections from all A Class licence holders. Active irrigators are likely to argue their licences have been devalued, and inactive (sleeper) licence holders will end up with totally valueless stranded assets.

Estimated cost of Option 2 o Miniscule dollar value, but huge personal cost to every A class

licence holder, and significant credibility cost to Governments.

Option 3. Revert to rules applicable prior to the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan

2012 Rules to be reversed would include, but not necessarily limited to:

o Re-instate a maximum pump size limit of 150 mm for all A Class licences

o Revert the “300%” annual take option for all A Class licences to “100%” allowable take

o Remove all strategies that allow water trading between river reaches.

Estimated cost of Option 3 o Miniscule dollar value, but anticipate strong opposition from at

least one holder of large volumes of A Class entitlements. o A large number of inactive A Class licences will become totally

stranded assets.

Option 4. Initiate a strategy to remove all A Class Water Licences

This can be as simple as Government acquisition of all A Class Water Entitlements and Account Water at fixed prices, not by tender.

This gives recognition to: o A Class licences historically were designed as small “drought

proofing” licences for grazing enterprises with riparian rights, and for small intensive irrigation enterprises with no practical use of off river storages, each only extracting very small daily extractions spread across most of each year.

o For A Class licences, it was “assumed that the effect of this A class pumping has a comparatively negligible impact on the river system” (Quote: Ref 11).

o Historically, “A class licences typically do not have the off-river storages to provide a buffer during times of low or no flow” (Quote: Ref 12).

Several options are potentially applicable to develop and implement a simple strategy for all A Class licences to be removed.

A special exemption could be incorporated into the BDWRP to maintain current A Class pumping thresholds to any licence holder wishing to use a pump size up to a maximum of 150 mm diameter.

Following activation of a simple removal strategy of all A Class licences, review and implement what other rules may be necessary for the Barwon Darling River system to deliver the objectives of the Basin Plan.

Estimated cost of Option 4 Based on comments by irrigators, A Class entitlements could be

worth about $2,500 per ML as an incentive for sale to the Commonwealth, and A Class account water about $150 per ML.

On this basis, all 10 GL of entitlements would cost $25 Million, and all 60 GL of Account Water would cost $9 Million.

Thus total cost on Barwon Darling could be an estimated $34 Million if purchased as an incentive to cancel out A Class licences.

7. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS OF A STRATEGY TO REMOVE

ALL A CLASS LICENCES Regrettably for the irrigation industry, failure of Governments and the

irrigation industry to address these considerations only erodes the extractive industries social licence to extract water, a social licence that is already being regularly questioned.

As all current irrigation operations on the Barwon Darling are effectively for broad area annual cropping primarily of cotton, there should be no structural change to these operations, and therefore no significant negative flow-on effects to third party business operations.

Conversely, a buy-back cash injection through licence holders is likely to have a significant flow-on benefit to the business houses and wider communities throughout and beyond the Northern Basin in NSW.

Commonwealth buy-out of licences on both the Barwon Darling and the

Intersecting Streams should be able to be attributed to the shared reduction for the Northern Basin. As such, this buy-back has potential to relieve pressure on all northern river systems of the current expectation of them needing to contribute an equivalent contribution to SDL reduction.

The growth in use of A Class water over the life of the Basin Plan has been significantly created by the introduction through the Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan 2012 of allowing active irrigators to trade in both water entitlements and account water from inactive licence holders. Hence, unless inactive licences and account water are “bought out” by the Government at fully active prices, there is little reason to think this growth in use will not continue.

Engagement of approximately three water trading agents who are currently involved in negotiating water trading along the Barwon Darling would be the optimum means of achieving a “buy-back “option. Conversely, failure to engage these agents would impact on their current business operations.

A recommendation by NSW Farmers Western Division Council for “sleeper licences” and associated account water (on both the Barwon Darling and Intersecting Streams) to be bought out as a drought relief strategy has enormous merit, as there are likely to be in the order of 100 to 150 graziers who hold these entitlements and water accounts as stranded assets on their own drought stricken grazing properties.

o NSW Farmers recommended that this would be an appropriate use of Government drought funds.

o Urgent action in implementing this recommendation provides these graziers with a practical alternative to having to drought feed or sell their livestock and depend on other drought support strategies.

o Estimated costs and beneficiaries 10 GL of A Class entitlements would cost $25 million, of

which an estimate of $19 million would benefit irrigators and $6 million would benefit drought stricken graziers

60 GL of A Class Account Water would cost $9 million, of which an estimate of $3 million would benefit irrigators and $6 million would benefit drought stricken graziers.

This acquisition may need to come from a funding source other than the Basin Plan, such as Drought Assistance funds.

With an estimate of 10 GL of water entitlements held in the Intersecting Streams, and valued as per A Class licences, an additional cost of $25 million would possibly occur.

There is no separate Account Water held by licencees in the Intersecting Streams.

Drought affected graziers would benefit from the entire estimate of $25 Million proceeds in the Intersecting Streams.

In summary, the estimated costs and beneficiaries may

be: Acquisition costs of all A Class and Intersecting

Streams Licence Entitlements: $19 million to irrigators and $31

million to graziers Acquisition of all A Class Account Water may be:

$3 million to irrigators and $6 million to graziers.

RECOMMENDATIONS Initiative be taken through coordination of all levels of Government

and appropriate representatives of both the Irrigation Industry and Grazing Industry to develop a process for A Class licences on the Barwon Darling River system to be removed.

Simultaneous consideration be given to Buy Back of all licences on the NSW Intersecting Streams, thereby removing risks of their activation an alleviating any need for a Water Resource Plan for this system.

REFERENCES

o Ref 1. MDBA Basin Plan Factsheet 3 o Ref 2. Wise to MDBA 161129 o Ref 3. Extracted from data provided by Amy Burgess NSW Dept of Industry o Ref 4. Extracted from:

https://waterregister.waternsw.com.au/water-register-frame o Ref 5. CEWH data o Ref 6. Pers com: J Robinson, P Glyde, G Wise et al) o Ref 7. Background Document to Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan Sept

2012 Page 53 o Ref 8. Background Document to Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan Sept

2012 Page 54 o Ref 9. Background Document to Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan Sept

2012 Page 39 o Ref 10. Thoms et al 1996 o Ref 11. Background Document to Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan Sept

2012 Page 35 o Ref 12. Background Document to Barwon Darling Water Sharing Plan Sept

2012 Page 52

Geoff Wise and Doug McKay

28th January 2019. Revised on 23rd March 2019

Reference: 190128.1 BD A Class, Averaging and Aggregations