1 Introduction
- 1.1 Murray-Darling Basin Commission
- 1.2 Basin Salinity Management Strategy
- 1.3 Basin Strategy approach
- 1.4 Roles and responsibilities
- 1.5 Strategic decisions
- 1.6 BSMS Implementation Working Group considerations
The Basin Salinity Management Strategy (BSMS) provides a framework for communities and governments to work together to control salinity and protect key natural resources in the Murray-Darling Basin. It has established accountability arrangements and set river salinity targets.
The Strategy is the response of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council to the threat that salinity poses to water quality, environmental values, regional infrastructure and productive agricultural land.
1.1 Murray-Darling Basin Commission
The Murray-Darling Basin Commission (MDBC) is the executive arm of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council. The Council is a partnership of six governments – New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory, and the Australian Government.
The purpose of the partnership is to ‘promote and coordinate effective planning and management for the equitable, efficient and sustainable use of the water, land and other environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin’ [Strategic Plan 2005–2010].
It concentrates on issues that require the joint action of partners to deliver the best outcomes for the Basin’s communities, industries, and natural resource base – particularly related to its shared water resources.
The main functions of the MDBC are to:
- advise the Ministerial Council in relation to the planning, development, and management of the water, land and other environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin;
- assist Council in developing measures for the equitable, efficient, and sustainable use of the water, land and other environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin;
- coordinate the implementation of, or, where the Ministerial Council so requires, implement any measures authorised by the Ministerial Council;
- give effect to any policy or decision of the Ministerial Council that Ministerial Council requires the Commission to implement.
The partnership is enabled by the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement 1992. Chaired by an independent President, the Commission is an unincorporated joint venture, comprising representatives (Commissioners) nominated by partner government agencies responsible for land, water, and environment.
1.2 Basin Salinity Management Strategy
The Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001–2015 provides a comprehensive approach to addressing salinity – one of the most challenging environmental and economic issues facing the Basin. In-stream salinity targets have been established for each tributary valley and for the Basin as a whole (the Basin Salinity Target at Morgan). This approach reflects the shared responsibility for action between the partner governments and the valley communities. It provides an accountable framework for the partners’ joint efforts to manage salinity.
Protecting or restoring all affected parts of the Basin is not possible because of the high cost of salinity prevention and rehabilitation. This means different areas will make careful choices between the three approaches to salinity management: attempt to reverse it, limit its rate of spread and impacts, or let it take its course. The Strategy incorporates the view that a ‘business as usual’ approach is not acceptable and it focuses on reversing and limiting salinity. The Strategy will:
- maintain the water quality of the shared water resources of the Murray and Darling Rivers for all beneficial uses – agricultural, environmental, urban, industrial and recreational;
- control the rise in salt loads in all tributary rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin, and, through that control, protect their water resources and aquatic ecosystems at agreed levels;
- control land degradation and protect important terrestrial ecosystems, productive farm land, cultural heritage, and built infrastructure at agreed levels Basin-wide;
- maximise net benefits from salinity control across the Basin.
Achieving the Strategy requires actions at several levels. The partner governments are committed to salinity management within catchments to meet individual end-of-valley and salt load targets. This is undertaken in consultation with regional management bodies, primarily the Catchment Management Authorities.
The Commission undertakes Basin-scale activities to meet the Basin Salinity Target of 800 EC for less than 95 per cent of the time at Morgan, and protects other Basin-wide values and assets.
The Salinity Registers have been established using salinity credits and debits as a consistent currency to manage trade-offs and accountability. The Strategy also uses a scenario approach to predict salinity impacts at 2000, 2015, 2050 and 2100. The predictions are based on the current best available models and data. A program of rolling five-year reviews for Accountable Actions and for each valley provides the basis for Register updates, thereby assessing the long term impacts on stream salinity at Morgan.
1.3 Basin Strategy approach
There are nine elements to the Strategy, as set out below. The Strategy’s elements follow a logical sequence, similar to that used in catchment planning for salinity management:
- developing capacity to implement the Strategy;
- identifying values and assets at risk;
- setting salinity targets;
- managing trade-offs with the available within-valley options;
- implementing salinity and catchment management plans;
- redesigning farming systems;
- targeting reforestation and vegetation management;
- constructing salt interception works;
- ensuring Basin-wide accountability: monitoring, evaluating, and reporting.
1.4 Roles and responsibilities
The Commission is responsible for implementation of the Strategy within the terms of Schedule C and its Operational Protocols. While its overall task is to promote and coordinate implementation of the Strategy, the Commission’s primary responsibilities include managing accountability and joint investment in the salt interception schemes, as well as the monitoring and reporting provisions.
Managing accountability involves establishing and maintaining the Salinity Registers and verifying the credit and debit entries for each of the States and the Australian Capital Territory, and for joint works such as the salt interception schemes. The MDBC Office also manages the construction and maintenance of the joint salt interception schemes in consultation with the States’ constructing authorities, whose contractors carry out the work. An independent audit is carried out annually.
The jurisdictions, in collaboration with their regional bodies, have primary carriage of setting and managing the end-of-valley targets, implementing salinity and catchment plans, redesigning farming systems, and undertaking targeted reforestation and native vegetation management – that is, the programs of in-valley activities that impact on the end-of-valley flow and salinity outcomes.
These activities include developing, implementing and reporting on salinity and catchment plans, building capacity needed for implementation, identifying assets and values at risk, and making trade-offs as required.
There is a high level of cooperation and collaboration between the Commission and the jurisdictions in implementing the nine elements of the BSMS.
The Australian Government continues to provide funding support through the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality (NAP) and the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT). As both NAP and NHT are moving into a new stage, the regional delivery model is being used as the primary carriage for investment in on-ground activities, capacity building and resourcing. Bilateral agreements between the Australian Government and State governments support salinity and natural resource management strategies established in natural resource management plans.
1.5 Strategic decisions
The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council met in September 2005 and May 2006 to consider a range of matters concerned with implementing the BSMS Council:
- adopted the end-of-valley salinity targets nominated for Victoria;
- noted that the focus would move to catchment activities in all States to achieve the targets;
- noted that assessment of the expected outcomes of the end-of-valley targets would be initiated;
- released the annual and audit reports for 2004–05, noting both the significant progress by the Strategy and the process to address concerns which had emerged.
The Commission met three times during 2005–06: August and December 2005, and March 2006. Commission:
- approved a detailed workplan to address emerging risks and opportunities under the BSMS;
- agreed to streamlined reporting arrangements;
- noted the high priority actions to improve the Salinity Registers;
- directed that the process for assessment of Accountable Actions be reviewed and improved, particularly in terms of investment certainty.
As part of its improved business management, Commission established a revised committee structure which includes three high-level committees. The committees oversee natural resource management, Commission strategy and River Murray Water.
The Natural Resource Management Committee, inter alia, oversees salinity management in the Basin and the work of the BSMS Implementation Working Group. Figure 1 illustrates the decision-making structure for Basin salinity management. The NRM Committee:
- agreed to recommend release of the 2004–05 BSMS annual and audit reports;
- noted the concerns expressed by the auditors in relation to the process and quality assurance used in updating the BSMS Salinity Registers and recommended improvements be a high priority;
- agreed that investigation of additional dilution flows be undertaken;
- recommended Commission approval of credits for salt interception works.
Figure 1. Basin Salinity Management Strategy decision making processes and links
1.6 BSMS Implementation Working Group considerations
The BSMS Implementation Working Group (BSMS IWG) met five times during 2005–06: in July and October 2005, and February, May and June 2006. Significant issues considered and progressed by the group are listed below. A more detailed summation of BSMS IWG actions is provided at Table 14 in Appendix I. The BSMS IWG:
- agreed on a range of improvements to the BSMS Salinity Registers in both process and management;
- agreed to complete the transition from the Salinity and Drainage Strategy (S&DS) Registers by use of an S&DS Commitment Adjustment to the BSMS Registers;
- noted that, of the 61 EC to be provided by salt interception works, 40 EC are expected to be gained from the schemes in operation, under construction or approved during 2005–06;
- recommended salinity credits from Pyramid Creek and Loxton salt interception schemes be entered onto the BSMS Salinity Registers together with improvements at Buronga;
- endorsed further investigation work on Upper Darling, Pike, Murtho and Waikerie Stage II salt interception schemes;
- accepted rolling five-year reviews for Barr Creek, Tragowel Plains, Rufus River, Mallee Cliffs and Shepparton Irrigation Region, requesting peer reviews as necessary;
- recommended accreditation of models for Nyah-to-the-Border, Mallee Zone, Loxton SIS and Bookpurnong SIS;
- initiated assessment of the salinity impacts of expanded interstate water trade to include the Riverine Plains;
- considered a number of claims for salinity credits based on impacts at Curlwaa, Coomealla, Buronga and Lamberts Swamp;
- directed further work be undertaken to scope out salinity-related links between The Living Murray and the BSMS;
- considered potential investigations into future salinity management options;
- recommended consideration of a trial for new operating arrangements to optimise management of dilution flows;
- agreed to expand the role of 2Csalt modelling from pilot catchments to all upland dryland catchments;
- agreed to improved processes for management of modelling data;
- directed work to commence on the BSMS Mid-Term Review and endorsed development of the work plan and scoping study;
- agreed that activities would be more effectively and efficiently managed if they were considered by the Commission as a package on an annual basis in line with the BSMS Annual Implementation Report and the IAG-Salinity Report process. This would streamline the tasks, provide the opportunity for more integrated reporting in the BSMS, and allow a more strategic oversight of Strategy implementation.
In-river monitoring pontoon on the River Murray
Photo: A. Reid