Search

The Murray–Darling Basin Plan, a major initiative to return water from irrigators to the environment, has been lauded as world-class water reform. The enabling legislation for the Basin Plan, the Water Act, gains its constitutional legitimacy from international treaties such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. This Act mandated that water be returned from consumptive uses to the environment. An allocation of 2,750 GL/yr was set but has been reduced by the 'Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism' (SDLAM), intended to achieve equivalent environmental benefits with less water. We present a synthesis of changes in decision contexts that have led to water reforms being 'watered down'. We analysed the policy discourse of water reform to assess whether SDLAM projects will achieve outcomes congruent with Australia's international treaty obligations. We found little or no alignment between the purpose of the SDLAM projects and the principles of the treaties and the Water Act. As water scarcity increases under climate change, attempting to conserve wetlands (including rivers) with less water while maintaining or increasing irrigation diversions is likely to prove maladaptive. A major reframing of environmental water policy and management is required to enable meaningful and effective adaptation to climate change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide, floodplains have been alienated from river channels for flood protection and water resource development, but several recent programs have restored connectivity, generating considerable ecological and , socio-economic benefits. In Australia, under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, water purchased from irrigators is used to restore wetlands. Maximising ecological benefits with limited water requires constraints relaxation, whereby high flow volumes for ecologically effective floods are released from headwater dams and allowed to flood public and private land en route to wetlands downstream, requiring infrastructure works and rights to inundate private land. We examined five focal areas in the Basin Constraints Management Strategy to determine ecosystem services benefits generated by floods on land between dams and target wetlands We found multiple examples where significant co-benefits could be realised but had not been identified. Accordingly, the assessment of costs and benefits was primarily focussed on costs. We categorised ecosystem services for each focal area as of low, medium or high importance andassigned monetary values where possible. Regulating and cultural services, rather than provisioning services, ranked highest across all focus areas, including groundwater recharge, regulation of riparian habitat quality, aesthetic appreciation, recreation and tourism, Indigenous and community values. The business cases seek to maximise costs and thus the transfer of public funds in compensation to landholders. However, there are important public policy considerations of equity, accountability and transparency, including proof of damage prior to compensation, as well as offsetting losses against ecosystem services benefits. We consider that an ecosystem services approach could greatly improve acceptance of constraints relaxation amongst landholders and the development of novel policy options and instruments that can help advance the implementation of the Basin Plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]