Drought is not the only threat to the river system: the plan to save it is in doubt as states spar over the best way forward

Water wars: will politics destroy the Murray-Darling Basin plan – and the river system itself?

Water wars: will politics destroy the Murray-Darling Basin plan – and the river system itself?

The millennium drought led to the realisation Australia’s major river system would die unless there was united action to save it; the latest drought is threatening to undo the Murray-Darling Basin plan.

The basin states – Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia – as well as the federal government, are due to meet on Tuesday in Brisbane amid threats from the NSW Nationals that it will walk away from the plan unless major changes are made.

“We simply can no longer stand by the Murray-Darling Basin plan in its current form, the plan needs to work for us, not against us,” NSW Nationals’ leader John Barilaro warned last week.

“NSW is being crippled by the worst drought on record and our future is at risk. The plan should be flexible, 00adaptive and needs to produce good environmental outcomes for this state.”

Murray-Darling authority warns of 'dire' summer of mass fish deaths and blue-green algae Read more

NSW has already flagged that it will be asking to be relieved of its remaining contributions towards the environmental water target – it has committed to saving a further 450GL – while Victoria is balking at meeting its commitments as well.

There have also been calls from various ministers to end environmental flows during the drought and to instead allocate more water for agriculture. In particular is unhappiness from NSW at the amount of water stored in the lower lakes in South Australia. That will be fiercely resisted by SA.

And with record low inflows into the Darling from its tributaries, there will be questions asked about how Queensland (and NSW) have managed floodplain harvesting and the growth of on-farm storages, which are blamed for the fact that what little rain that’s fallen in the last two years has failed to reach the river.

Meanwhile, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission is investigating allegations of profiteering by companies that invest in water. Under the plan water has become a tradable commodity. In a drought, when water is scarce, the price has, unsurprisingly, gone up.

It adds up to an explosive cocktail of grievances about the way the Murray-Darling Basin plan operates.

But before anyone rips up the plan, it may also be a case of being careful what you wish for.

Walking away from the plan, even if it is flawed, could create worse problems, as it could trigger a free for all on water use.

“The basin plan is a long-term reform that remains a once in a lifetime opportunity to restore and protect the health of this great river system,” MDBA chief executive, Phillip Glyde warned this week.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Walking away from the Murray-Darling Basin plan, even if it is flawed, could create worse problems, as it could trigger a free for all on water use. Photograph: Dean Lewins/AAP

“It’s had the enduring support of all basin governments and this bipartisan commitment is more important than ever to deliver for communities from the top of the system to the bottom.”

But despite the pleas of the MDBA, Tuesday’s meeting could well be a turning point, with numerous potential flash points.

Politics rules OK

The Nationals in NSW have been the loudest critics of the plan, fuelled in part by the political heat they are feeling from the Shooters Fishers and Farmers and from One Nation, particularly in the Riverina.

The irrigators in the Riverina have got the ear of recently elected Shooters MP, Helen Dalton, who is being advised by Deb Buller, an irrigator and advocate for NSW Rice Growers and a former president of Murrumbidgee Food and Fibre.

One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts has also been conducting a “listening tour” of the region and is promoting a simplistic view that environmental water should be given back to farmers. NSW One Nation MP Mark Latham has also jumped on the bandwagon.

NSW is also the state that has the most left to do under the plan.

NSW still has to deliver up 450GL for environmental flows, much of which is planned to be achieved through efficiency projects, known as the sustainable diversion limit (SDL) projects. These aim to deliver equivalent environmental outcomes as water buybacks by using water more efficiently.

Communities have the right to water ski and fish. We can’t achieve those sort of savings without a rebellion. We have to listen to the community Melinda Pavey

NSW and Victoria plan to present a report to Tuesday’s meeting that criticises the program and explains why they cannot deliver on commitments. (In Victoria’s case it’s about removing constraints that prevent environmental water being used efficiently).

They can expect strong pushback from the federal government and the MDBA which warned the projects are progressing far too slowly to meet the 2024 deadline.

NSW is also running very late with its water resource plans. It has not completed any of the 20, while other states are nearly done. These plans contain the detailed rules on water extraction in each valley and effectively put the meat on the bones of the plan.

Lately Barilaro has upped the rhetoric, threatening to pull out of the plan if NSW is not given concessions. NSW water minister, Melinda Pavey (also a National), appears to have a more nuanced view and appears to appreciate the possible consequences of blowing it up.

The Nationals are also under pressure from their own tribe: major cotton growers in the north west who face tougher limits on their extractions under future NSW water sharing plans that must be drawn up by early 2020.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Deputy PM Michael McCormack addresses farmers from the “convoy to Canberra” protesting against the Murray-Darling Basin plan on the front lawns of Parliament House. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

The old plans have been criticised because they allowed irrigators to take water during low flow events. These rules have been blamed by scientists for the prolonged periods of no flows in the lower Darling which contributed to the mass fish deaths at Menindee and have left graziers and towns in the region on their knees.

Pavey has the former CEO of the National Irrigator’s Council, Tom Chesson, as her senior adviser. She is pushing for these new plans to be put on hold until the drought breaks.

Two weeks ago about 2000 farmers, organised by the Southern Irrigators, descended on Canberra to make their displeasure with the plan clear.

The farmers from around Griffith and the Murrumbidgee have always been sceptical about the plan. Farmers from Griffith burned copies of the plan back in 2010.

Previous buybacks have affected these communities but many farmers made choices to sell their high security water to the federal government for environmental flows during previous droughts.

Some chose to continue farming relying on less secure general security water entitlements. This year they received negligible allocations.

The southern farmers have been very effective lately in getting their views across. But there are many sides to this debate.

It has usually fallen to scientists such as the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists to put the case for the environment to receive its fair share of water. It just gets much harder to make politicians take notice during a drought.

The Murray is full, but farmers have no water

One of the big gripes from farmers in the Riverina is that the Murray is full but they are unable to take water from it.

A portion of this water is environmental flows but environmental allocations have also been reduced during the drought.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Water has been being purchased by agribusinesses growing the highest value crops. Along the lower Murray that has meant unprecedented development of almonds and grapes, both thirsty crops. Photograph: Mike Bowers/The Guardian

One reason for the full river is that much of the high security water has been bought by nut farmers downstream from Swan Hill to Mildura. A key part of the Murray-Darling Basin plan is that it allows water rights to be traded separately to land on a water market.

This has led to water being purchased by agribusinesses growing the highest value crops. Along the lower Murray that has meant unprecedented development of almonds and grapes, both thirsty crops. In the north, cotton has expanded, though this year will be one of the smallest cotton crops on record due to the drought.

Since 2016, almond plantations in the Sunraysia region have doubled to 32,000ha.

“The security of supply for irrigation and the environment is becoming more and more precarious due to unlimited developments further downstream from where water was historically used for agricultural production,” the Almond Board of Australia chief executive, Ross Skinner warned earlier this year.

There are fears that the Murray will not be able to deliver sufficient water from the Hume and Dartmouth dams to the lower Murray during this summer.

Borrowing environmental water for agriculture during the drought

This idea, advanced by One Nation and by some politicians, totally misunderstands the purpose of the plan, which is to redress historical overallocation of water to agriculture.

In a drought, everyone’s allocation is reduced – including the environment. In fact, the commonwealth environmental water holder has already given up a greater proportion of its allocation in the northern basin where key environmental assets, like the Macquarie Marshes are struggling to survive.

Most scientists say the major failing of the plan is it doesn’t go far enough in recovering water for the environment.

The SA Royal Commission into the Murray-Darling Basin plan this year found the plan was a political compromise that potentially breached the Water Act because it had failed to base the targets for water recovery on science and had taken into account other factors – like politics.

“Borrowing” water from the environment during the drought is sure to come up again next Tuesday.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest NSW water minister Melinda Pavey blames the MDBA for the fish kills last summer saying they mismanaged the lakes. But the picture is more complex because management of the lakes is a shared responsibility. Photograph: Robert Gregory/AFP/Getty Images

The Menindee Lakes saga

In the past the Darling river would have contributed flows to the Murray. But the drought, previous decisions to drain Menindee Lakes and chronic over-extraction upstream from the Bourke weir means that there have been no flows down the Darling.

Pavey blames the MDBA for the fish kills last summer saying they mismanaged the lakes. But the picture is more complex because management of the lakes is a shared responsibility between the federal government and NSW, with MDBA managing them when full and NSW taking over once the lakes fall to below 480GL.

NSW has been planning its major water-saving SDL project at the lakes. It involves shrinking them permanently to save on evaporation of water stored there. The idea was it would meet a quarter of its remaining water recovery target of 450GL though these measures. This plan was strongly supported by cotton irrigators upstream because it would take the pressure off them for further buybacks but its hated by the locals at Menindee and Broken Hill.

And a summer of dead fish, national media attention plus a community backlash have changed the view of the current minister, Pavey.

She is no longer a fan of the project.

“Communities have the right to water ski and fish,” she told the Guardian, noting that there was white hot anger in Broken Hill at the loss of the town’s playground. “We can’t achieve those sort of savings without a rebellion. We have to listen to the community.”

That leaves NSW with a big hole in its plans on how to reach its contribution to environmental water savings. Now it is looking for concessions.

The MDBA and the federal government are already signalling they won’t be giving ground. A letter sent from the MDBA to state ministers has already raised the prospect that if the states don’t deliver on their SDL projects, then the federal government will need to look at getting water for the environment through more buybacks.

Water quality will only get worse if we cut off the lower lakes. Salinity will creep up and up the river Sarah Hanson-Young

“The SDL adjustment projects are an important element of the basin plan, and seek to modernise the river for all water users. In addition to improving river management, projects also provide employment and supply opportunities for basin communities,” a spokesman for the MDBA said.

“Any shortfall in water recovery would need to be addressed by the Australian government Department of Agriculture and Water Resources, through supply measures, efficiency programs or strategic water purchases in communities across the basin,” they said, noting that the MDBA itself doesn’t have a role in water recovery, only in apportioning how much each state much contribute.

The MDBA also noted that the SDL mechanism was included in the plan at the request of the state, to reduce the need for more draconian buybacks.

It remains to be seen whether the federal minister for water, David Littleproud, would be prepared to run the gauntlet of more water buybacks.

“Wasted” water in the South Australian lakes

Facebook Twitter Pinterest NSW deputy premier John Barilaro and NSW water minister Melinda Pavey have called for the barrages that keep salt water out of South Australia’s lakes to be removed and to stop ‘wasting fresh water’. Photograph: Bianca de Marchi/AAP

According to the NSW Nationals the commonwealth environmental water holder and the MDBA are wasting fresh water by insisting on keeping the lower lakes in South Australia full.

Pavey is fond of saying that all this does is create “a breeding ground for millions of carp”.

She and Barilaro have called for the barrages that keep salt water out of the lakes to be removed and to stop “wasting fresh water”.

However, the two lakes are listed under the Ramsar treaty because of their importance as breeding grounds for international migratory birds.

They are also crucial for maintaining water quality well up the Murray and for ensuring that Adelaide has water fit to drink.

Before European settlement evidence shows that the lakes were predominantly fresh and flows were sufficient to fill the lakes and keep seawater from creeping in.

Forget big oil and big energy – on the driest continent, water is the new black | Gabrielle Chan Read more

But by the 1970s irrigation from the river system had so depleted flows that salinity had become a major problem for the river system, leading to a royal commission.

“The lakes are like the lungs of the river. They are needed to allow river and water quality to be maintained,” says Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, from South Australia.

“Water quality will only get worse if we cut off the lower lakes. Salinity will creep up and up the river.”

Ahead of next week’s meeting, the MDBA announced a review into the science of South Australia’s lower lakes by an independent team led by Australia’s lead science agency CSIRO and assisted by the MDBA.

NSW’s attack on SA is unlikely to be without consequences next Tuesday.

Two months ago, South Australia offered to give up 100bn litres of water to assist NSW and Victorian drought stricken farmers.

Under the deal, worth almost $100m, 100GL of water that was destined for South Australian farmers will instead be offered to farmers in NSW and Victoria for as little as 10% of the market price. It will be used to grow fodder.

In return, the federal government will give South Australia $10m in drought resilience funding and replace the water taken out of the Murray by paying to ramp up production at the state’s desalination plant.

There is every chance that SA could pull that offer off the table if NSW continues to demand that the MDBA abandons management of the lakes.

Pulling out of the plan could start a new water war that would potentially threaten the very foundations of the federation.