The King’s Water Activity Hub is proud to announce our 2016-2017 Annual Lecture, featuring Professor Margreet Zwarteveen from one of our partner institutions, UNESCO-IHE. The Annual Lecture will be held Wednesday 1 February 2017 from 4:30-6pm in the Pyramid Room (K4U.04) of the Strand Building, King’s College London. A drinks reception will follow.
The Department of Geography at King’s College London is pleased to announce its Physical Geography Seminar Series for Spring 2017.
In particular, those interested in water issues may want to join the Department for the following seminars:
- “Unlocking the Archive”: Antarctic Peninsula Glacial change with Dr Lucy Clarke on Friday 27 January
- Hazards Under the Sea – Deep Waters Don’t Run Still… with Dr Michael Clare on Friday 3 February
- Sustainable intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability with Dr Nate Matthews on Friday 17 February
- Mind the gap: Bridging the divides between research, policy and practice in 21st Century freshwater conservation with Dr David Tickner on Friday 10 March
All seminars are held in the Pyramid Room (K4U.04, located near the Geography Office on the 4th Floor of the King’s Building in the Strand Campus) from 5:15-6:15pm and will be followed by a drinks reception. Seminars are free, open to the public, and do not require advance booking. Please join us!
Last month, the New South Wales Irrigators’ Council Policy Manager wrote about water reform in Australia in preparation for the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council Meeting in Adelaide. Today, Stefanie Schulte authors a follow-up piece reflecting on the meeting’s outcomes and the future of water reform in the region.
You can never be quite sure how a Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council (MINCO) meeting will turn out, but 2016’s final session was particularly unconventional. The ‘water is for fighting over’ adage certainly came to pass as the gloves came off in Adelaide on 18 November between Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin water ministers. They were supposed to be negotiating the next steps in the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012 – including progress on the non-flow “complimentary measures”.
A Tale of Two…
When you compare the official Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council meeting communiqué with the media reports that were released subsequent to MINCO, you might think these were two completely different meetings. Officially, water ministers acknowledged the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s work on the Northern Basin Review, discussed the impacts of the recent floods in Australia, and were briefed on the Sustainable Diversion Limit adjustment mechanism. In contrast, media coverage spread a sense of ‘doom and gloom’ for the future of Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin Plan and declared Australia’s long term water reform process all but dead.
Fact is, everyone had something to say about this last MINCO for 2016 – most of which was simply empty rhetoric. Reports included stories about heated debates – spiced with very explicit language – between different ministers; accusations from all sides of Australian politics; and polarising media claims from various opposing stakeholders. There was talk about pretty much everything…except the task at hand.
What is there still to do?
Although we are ‘nearly there’ in terms of the Australian government’s environmental water recovery, an enormous amount of work needs to be completed before the Murray-Darling Basin Plan comes into effect in 2019.
Firstly, we need to finalise the Northern Basin Review.
While the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has proposed reducing the total volume of planned environmental water recovery in the Northern Murray-Darling Basin from 390GL to 320GL, a further 42GL of water will need to be recovered to meet the target. The remaining water will need to come from water license holders in Queensland and New South Wales. Most of the recovery will come from the state of Queensland, but the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has proposed an additional 11GL in environmental water recovery from just two New South Wales valleys – even though the state has already recovered 7GL more than its required total reduction target.
Sounds odd? It should!
We are faced with this curious situation because the Murray-Darling Basin Authority sets ‘local reduction targets’ in individual valleys and ‘shared reduction targets’ across regions. The distribution of these reductions can be nominated by the respective Basin states. In the Northern Basin review, the Murray-Darling Authority has switched the ‘shared reduction targets’ to ‘local reduction targets’ – effectively locking individual valleys into specific environmental water recovery targets despite an overall over-recovery in the state.
The decision has led to some extraordinary circumstances. In New South Wales’ Barwon-Darling Valley, the original local reduction target was 6GL and the shared target 22GL. Now, its local target is 32GL and the shared reduction requirement zero. It should be mentioned that the current environmental water recovery target in the Barwon-Darling is 32GL. Convenient? Yes, a bit too convenient.
In addition, it has also meant that there are some valleys in New South Wales that have experienced an over-recovery of environmental water – including the Gwydir and Macquarie-Castlereagh valleys. Combined, these two valleys have recovered 18GL more than their proposed total reduction targets.
Unsurprisingly, questions have been raised as to how this over-recovery of environmental water will be addressed. This and other important issues still need to worked through over the 10-week consultation period for the Northern Basin Review, due to conclude on 10th February 2017.
Secondly, we need to settle on a package of projects around the Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment Mechanism.
As mentioned in my previous post, we only have six more months to agree to a package of ‘supply measures’ for the Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Diversion Limit adjustment mechanism. To date, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority has modelled only 19 of the currently 37 notified projects with an indicative offset figure of around 400GL. The total adjustment can be up to 650GL if other ‘suitable’ supply measures can be found. To recap, these supply projects can be works, revised river operations, river management rule changes, or ‘other measures’ that enable the use of less water but still achieve the Murray-Darling Basin Plan’s environmental outcomes.
A lot of work is yet to be done to scope and assess any further supply measures that could make up the remaining 250GL, including non-flow complementary measures like carp control, installation of cold water pollution mitigation infrastructure, and proactive wetland management. These non-flow measures are particularly important as they can lead to wide-scale environmental benefits without the need to recover more water. Unfortunately, they are difficult to assess, as we currently do not have ‘approved’ methodologies for calculating environmental equivalences.
Thirdly, we need to have a discussion around the ‘Pre-requisite Policy’ and the ‘Toolkit’ measures.
Pre-requisite (or unimplemented) Policy and Toolkit measures are broad range actions and rule changes that can maximise the use of the Australian Government’s licenced environmental water whilst at the same time ensuring the protection of water supply and reliability to other consumptive water users.
Three main measures that have received some attention:
- Environmental flow reuse – “the ability to use environmental flows at multiple sites”; and
- Piggybacking – “the ability to call on held environmental water from a storage during an unregulated flow event”; and
- Water shepherding – “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, after the consideration of losses, where it will be made available for extraction or use for the environment”.
It is yet to be determined whether (and to what extent) these measures or rule changes have adverse impacts on other water licence holders, how these might be mitigated, and who might pay for their implementation.
Finally, we need to ensure that the states’ water management arrangements are compliant with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan requires Basin states to prepare ‘Water Resource Plans’ for each valley that are consistent with certain accreditation requirements. In most cases, these Water Resource Plans will incorporate existing state water management legislation, water management protocols, and manuals, but they will also include a suite of new policies and documents around environmental watering, water quality standards, trade, indigenous values, and risk assessment.
20 surface water “Water Resource Plans”, 22 groundwater “Water Resource Plans” and 6 combined groundwater and surface water “Water Resource Plans” need to be developed by 30 June 2019. To date, none have been finalised.
And lastly…Where is the money?
All these tasks are still ahead of us and time and money is running out.
The Basin Plan 2012 is scheduled to be implemented by 2019 – two years from now. Significant work needs to completed, assessed, and accredited by various State and Federal departments and agreed by Murray-Darling Basin water ministers. However, funding for most Australian Government departments involved in water will run out by mid-2017 in line with the extant 10-year funding package. The Australian Government mid-year budget will be released next Monday. It may be a moment of elation or despair for those Departments tasked with implementing the Basin Plan. The figures have yet to tell.
Join King’s Intrepid Explorers this Friday for a seminar including an exploration of Mexico’s cloud forests.
From Cretaceous to Cosmos: Discover Mexico!
As a biology student and staff member at the Alfonso L. Herrera Zoology Museum, Claudia will take us on a journey of her time in Mexico to discover some of its little know beauties. These include work in northern deserts, central mountains and cloud forests!
This event is free and open to the public. Coffee, tea and biscuits will be provided. We hope you’ll join us from 1pm this Friday 9 December in the Pyramid Room (4th Floor of the King’s College London King’s Building, Strand Campus).
This piece was originally posted on the London NERC DTP blog. Several of our King’s Water PhD students are supported by the Doctoral Training Programme. Here, third year student David Smedley shares his experiences working on an interdisciplinary team during fieldwork in the Volta.
There is something strangely satisfying about conquering a full day of dirty, dusty fieldwork in the thorny African bush, in the kind of heat that cooks your lunch for you if you forget it outside. True story. Surviving hacking out soil samples in 45 degrees for many many hours does give you a serious sense of achievement and some epic tan lines to go with it, but why this trial by sunburn?
This particular field trip, to a section of the Volta river basin located in northern Ghana and southern Burkina Faso, aimed to collect baseline data for my PhD, as part of a larger project to improve livelihoods amongst smallholders, as well as the health and functioning of the ecosystems in which they exist. The Targeting Agricultural Innovation research group, part of the CGIAR Water Land and Ecosystems research program, is investigating agricultural systems with the duel ability to increase water use efficiency and enhance ecosystem services. Ecosystem services being those services provided by nature which society draws on, such was food, clean water, pollination, flood control, nutrient cycling and so on.
Smallholders dominate much of the landscape in Volta, where most exist in a state of extreme poverty. However, the ability of these small-scale agricultural systems to meet the demands of growing populations is under severe stress, as changing climates and rainfall patterns conspire to limit farming yields, with a devastating effect on local livelihoods.
My PhD is investigating the potential of zai, a traditional water harvesting technique used in the northern drier regions of the basin, to enable farmers to overcome dry spells in the growing season. This would allow them to increase their resilience to rainfall variability and increase crop yields, while also potentially having a positive effect on hydrological ecosystem services. In April 2016, members of the TAI team representing a host of institutions based in Europe, Africa and North America, congregated in the White Volta sub basin to collect a range of data. The linked blog post gives a great break down of the overall team’s activities.
For the purposes of my research, the aim of this field trip was to collect of soil samples and infiltration data (that rate at which water infiltrates into the soil), which will be used as a baseline indication of the soil’s ability to capture and hold moisture. Samples were taken at seven sites across the TAI study area in Burkina Faso and Ghana and then processed back in the lab at Kings College London. The full meaning of this data will only be apparent once a full field trial over an entire growing season has taken place, which will kick off later this year in South Africa. However, one unexpected result was a high organic matter content at a number of sites, which is encouraging as this indicates better than expected soil health.
Another aim of the trip was to demonstrate a FreeStation to a number of potential local partners. FreeStations, designed by Dr Mark Mulligan, are weather stations designed to generate reliable climatic information at the lowest possible cost, using open source hardware, software and 3D printing tech. A demo station was put together by Mark, Sarah Jones (of Biodiversity International & KCL) and myself and demonstrated to a range of potential partners from schools to local water managers. Since then, six more stations have been deployed by Sarah in the Volta and a further six are due for deployment in South Africa alongside my own field trials. The general response to the stations was extremely positive, and local partners clearly recognised the need, with large data gaps existing in weather records, particularly for the developing World.
The pricelessness of interdisciplinary teams
Spending time in the field with a multidisciplinary team, capturing data with everything from ground penetrating radar to drones was a fantastic experience, and not just because I got to use the drone for hours on end. Discussions while traveling or at the daily debrief and dinner table are where real conversations take place that immensely broaden your understanding of both the complexity of what it is you are tackling and what you can achieve by doing your bit and integrating it effectively with a larger team.
Field trips like these give rise to situations where ideas and suggestions flow, and these can be debated and tested in real-time, which is something unique. They also force a broad array of scientific disciplines into a confined space, where each individual has the opportunity to practically understand what the others are trying to calculate and achieve. The value of this from both a learning and, even more simply, from an appreciation point of view, is priceless.
For my own PhD the next step is to run a field-trial testing variants of zai under higher than normal rainfall conditions. The trials will monitor soil moisture, climate (using our FreeStations) and the health and final yield of the crop – maize. Simultaneously, I’ll be conducting a social study investigating the potential for creating climate data collection networks amongst farmers. Finally, on completion of the field trial, WaterWorld will be used to model the impacts of zai at larger scales, and predict what the large-scale adoption of the technique will mean for basin-wide hydrology.
1. Mulligan, 2016. Results from the WaterWorld Policy Support System [v2].
2. Google Earth Pro 7.1.7, 2016. Volta River Basin, 9°30’28.16“N, 0°46’05.90”W, (accessed 7.14.16).
The River Basin Processes and Management research cluster at the University of Leeds provides international leadership in understanding and managing environmental processes and feedbacks that control and link water, sediment, solute and biotic dynamics in river basins, estuaries and marine systems. The Cluster has recently announced a variety of funding opportunities for water research.
A fully-funded NERC Industrial CASE studentship will examine the hydrological function of organo-mineral soils in downstream flood risk.
We seek to understand hydrological processes operating in upland organo-mineral soils and how their management and vegetation cover influences river flow peaks. This novel field, lab and modelling project will expand our knowledge on the function and hydrology of upland soils which are of high conservation value. The project will directly provide urgently needed management decision-making evidence on upland soil management for flood peak reduction. Organo-mineral soils cover around 20 % of the UK, and are particularly common in upland areas with the main types being stagnohumic gleys and acid brown earths. Unlike peatlands, the function and hydrology of organo-mineral soils is globally very poorly understood with major gaps in the literature. These soils typically underlie upland heathland and grasslands in areas with high conservation value. It is unclear whether these soils are dominated by throughflow (and what their typical permeability range is), infiltration-excess overland flow or saturation-excess overland flow in different topographic contexts and rainfall events. It is also unclear how management of organo-mineral soils impacts their role in runoff generation.
There is an urgent need for evidence on ‘nature-based’ flood management solutions, particularly in UK uplands – source areas for the UK’s major rivers. Recent modelling work on peatlands by researchers at the University of Leeds has shown that controlling overland flow velocities by changing the surface cover conditions in key spatially identifiable parts of the catchment can play an important role in reducing flood peaks (by up to 20 % for some rainfall events) (Gao et al., 2016). However, we do not have data from organo-mineral soils, which are likely to function quite differently to peat, to inform such modelling and so practitioners have limited basis for upland management decisions which may benefit those downstream at risk of flooding.
The student will be part of the River Basins Processes and Management cluster in the School of Geography and water@leeds which is the world’s largest interdisciplinary university-based water research centre. water@leeds hosts 140 PhD students. These groups provide access to routine training through seminars, structured feedback on project ideas and technical training. The successful PhD student will have access to a broad spectrum of training workshops that range from technical through to generic skills building. The supervisory team will provide training on soil hydrological processes and modelling.
This is a fully-funded 4 year studentship providing full UK/EU level fees and a tax-free maintenance stipend of approximately £14,500pa. To apply, please submit an application for study and the required supporting documents listed here by 9 January 2017
Additional projects with water@leeds include:
Projects eligible for NERC DTP funding 2017/18
- Analysis, occurrence and effects of flubendazole in moorland river catchments
- Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) dynamics in the headwaters of the Amazon, Peru
- Surface melting of mountain glaciers: the effect of ice surface properties on melt rates
- Alpine river microbial community response to shrinking glaciers
- Hydrological processes, carbon fluxes and peatland gullies
- Closing the hydrological budget in tropical peatlands
- Using environmental tracers to test the effectiveness of Natural Flood Management techniques
- Investigating marine benthic ecosystem response to global environmental change
- Upland soil functions under organic grazing systems
- Global vulnerability of permafrost peatlands to rapid climate warming
Projects without funding
- Impact of long-term restoration on peatland hydrological processes
- Dynamics of flow resistance and sediment entrainment in gravel-bed rivers
- Estimating the carbon sink and greenhouse gas forcing role of China’s peatlands
- Ecohydrological response of peatlands to climate change
- What causes the formation of pipes within peat?
- Response of testate amoebae to peatland grip blocking: implications for biomonitoring of peatland restoration efforts
- Public participation and economic analysis in European water management: Ne’er the twain shall meet?
- International cooperation and UK water management: Rationales and Outcomes of a New Mode of Experimental EU Governance
West Virginia University is pleased to offer a Graduate Research Assistantship exploring the social elements of the hydro cycle. See below for more details and to apply.
Human Dimensions of Water in Appalachia
This study will focus on the dual nature of water in West Virginia: a resource towards economic transition and/or a source of concern due to its polluted and destructive nature. This study will be based on a case study methodology where experience with qualitative methods is required and knowledge of GIS is welcomed.
Faculty Information: Dr. Martina Angela Caretta, firstname.lastname@example.org
Applicants interested in the Graduate Research Assistantships described below are encouraged to contact the research faculty prior to applying. Applicants must submit a CV and research statement addressing specific interests and qualifications for the potential research topics outlined below. In addition to the specific qualifications for these positions, potential candidates must meet the admission standards and be fully accepted into the Geology & Geography Department at WVU. Transcripts, test scores, and all other completed application materials are due January 1, 2017 for Fall 2017 admission. You can access the application portal here: https://graduateadmissions.wvu.edu/.
WVU Geography offers both Masters and Doctoral degrees and a rigorous certificate program in Geographic Information Science. Our rapidly growing graduate program is composed of 19 core geography faculty with expertise in the interdisciplinary subfields of Human Geography, Environmental Geography and GIScience. WVU Geography faculty are engaged in local, regional and global research focused on human-environment relations, climate change, political geography, spatial science, digital humanities, forest ecosystem modeling, cultural and political ecologies, conservation science, feminist geography, science and technology studies, humanitarianism, land change science, critical cartographies, food justice, and development geography. Faculty are currently conducting research in South Asia, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, East Asia and the United States, including Appalachia.
The SOAS Political Ecology, Environment and Development (SEED) group is a network of academics and researchers across SOAS who take a political ecology approach to understanding global environmental change. One of their upcoming seminars may be of interest:
Political ecology of agricultural virtual water flows in Palestine during the Post-Oslo period
Dr María J. Beltran
Tuesday, 6 December, 2-4pm
Lower meeting room, London International Development Centre/Centre for Development, Environment & Policy (LIDC/CeDEP), SOAS, 36 Gordon Square, London WC1H 0PD
There is an exhaustive literature on Israel, Palestine and water, which has documented how the asymmetric power of Israel in the Oslo negotiations ensured its control of land and water over Palestine. Less attention however has been paid on the interface of water, trade and agriculture, and the ways in which controlling trade, Israel controlled the virtual flows of water too. The concept of virtual water makes the water-agriculture-trade relationship visible, shedding light on agricultural trade flows in terms of water. Applying a political ecology approach, this paper shows how socio-ecological conditions are sustained by and organised through both social and metabolic-ecological processes. A biophysical analysis- the agricultural flows of virtual water from and to Palestine in the Post-Oslo period- is combined with the examination of the power relations that governed these flows. The analysis reveals that virtual water flows are not static but instead evolve within the (geo)political-economic context in which they are embedded, bringing to light Israel´s control over the flow of Palestinian agricultural virtual water. We argue that a political ecology approach to virtual water offers a theoretical basis to move beyond the currently techno-managerial emphasis in the virtual water literature, illuminating the link between the control of virtual flows and the consolidation of political and economic power.
Registration is not required but do arrive early to be sure of a seat. Email email@example.com with enquiries.
Urban Futures is a new research domain in the department of Geography that is primarily concerned with examining how visions of the future shape contemporary urbanism. As a group of critical geographers, we are interested in the question of the ‘future’ as a conceptual, analytical and methodological lens into challenging current paradigms of urban theory, practice and research. With apocalyptic visions of an urban age predicted by experts, we are interested in examining how alternative visions of urban futures in planning, governance, citizenship and everyday life are being imagined, contested and lived by people across the world. Join the new Research Domain for a special seminar on cities and architecture along Oslo’s iconic waterfront.
Social Justice in the Compact City: The Role of Architectural Mediations and Visions of Social Life in the Transformation of Oslo’s Waterfront
Per Gunnar Røe, University of Oslo
Tuesday 13 December 2016
4:30-6pm, Room K0.20
Oslo’s waterfront is being transformed, as part of a compact city and urban entrepreneurial strategy. Iconic architecture and architectural imaginaries play important roles in this transformation, and in the construction of a collective future vision for a compact and livable city. In this lecture I address the question of social justice, based on an empirical investigation of the centerpiece in the transformed core of Oslo, namely the Barcode project in Bjørvika. How are issues concerning social equity and diversity treated and represented in policies, plans, design and architecture? What is the role of the architectural design process and architectural representations in staging the compact and livable city? What are the social implications of these spatial imaginaries and designs?
Stefanie Schulte, Policy Manager at the NSW Irrigators’ Council, reflects on the last 18 months of Australia’s water reform process, ahead of this week’s Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council Meeting in Adelaide.
Tomorrow, State and Federal water ministers will gather in Adelaide for another Ministerial Council meeting to discuss the next steps in the implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. It will be an interesting meeting – not only because the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is scheduled to brief the ministers on the recently completed Northern Basin Review but also because there are likely to be further discussions around the most recent amendments to Australia’s Water Act 2007 (Cth).
Where are we at?
Four years since the Murray-Darling Basin Plan was signed into law, we have “nearly” completed the Basin Plan’s environmental water recovery target. As of 30 September, the Australian Government has recovered 1996.1GL, or 73 per cent, of the 2750GL target. While that technically leaves 754 GL to be recovered, we could be as close as 104GL if Murray-Darling Basin states find suitable ‘supply projects’.
What are these projects?
These supply projects can be works, revised river operations, river management rule changes and other measures that enable the use of less water but still achieve the Murray-Darling Basin Plan’s environmental outcomes. Examples of projects that have been submitted by the states include infrastructure modification at the large Nimmie Caira wetlands in southern New South Wales, improved flow management works in the Murrumbidgee River and water saving operational changes at the Menindee Lakes storages on the Darling River.
In total, there are 37 projects to date – all of which are ‘flow’ related.
We nearly missed the chance to consider these supply projects. Prior to the last Ministerial Council meeting in April 2016, Basin states were scrambling to finalise their package of supply measures (as well as efficiency and constraints reduction projects) before the Federal Government went into caretaker mode due to the 2nd July Australian Federal election.
However, due to a shortened timeframe, Basin ministers requested amendments to the Australian Water Act to include a second notification period (extending final project deadlines to 30 June 2017) to give the states more time to develop further projects – including ‘no-flow’ complementary projects like carp control, installation of cold water pollution mitigation infrastructure, and proactive management of wetlands.
All these projects have the potential to lead to significant environmental benefits without the obsessive focus on flows and further water recovery from irrigated agriculture. We now have an opportunity to consider these and other ‘non-flow’ projects.
Last week, the Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016 was passed – amending the Water Act to allow for another 12 months to develop further supply measure projects, as agreed by the Basin state water ministers and Federal Government.
The amendment will be on the agenda tomorrow – giving irrigators hope that we are finally moving away from a ‘just flow’ discussion.
Flow vs Outcome
These ‘complementary projects’ are not new but they have not featured in Australia’s water reform process – until now.
Since the early days of the Water Act 2007 (Cth), we talked about flows, river heights, flow constraints and water recovery amounts on behalf of the environment.
We have a Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder who manages the largest portfolio of water entitlements in the Murray-Darling Basin; we have a Basin-wide environmental watering strategy that speaks of base flows and flow rates as ‘expected environmental outcomes’ and we have models that are unable to measure anything but flows.
However, the rhetoric in Canberra appears to be changing – there is more talk about ‘outcomes’ and less talk about ‘flows’ – and the recent legislative changes over the last 18 months appear to confirm this trend.
Aside from last week’s Water Legislation Amendment (Sustainable Diversion Limit Adjustment) Bill 2016, we have also seen two other legislative amendments that have shifted the discussion from ‘flow’ to ‘outcomes’ in the Basin Plan debate.
In late 2014, the Australian Government conducted the first statutory review of Australia’s Water Act. After extensive consultation, 23 recommendations were submitted by the review panel, two of which related to the trade restrictions of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH).
Under the original Water Act, the CEWH was constrained in trading water except in very limited circumstances. If he traded, he was required to use the proceeds for further purchases/sales of water elsewhere. The two recommendations and the subsequent legislative amendments to the Water Act 2007 (Cth) changed these trade restrictions and provided the CEWH with greater flexibility to use its extensive water entitlement portfolio to achieve broader environmental outcomes – including using the proceeds from trade for environmental infrastructure that better enables the delivery of environmental water.
In addition, the Australian Government legislated a cap on water purchases under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 2015. The intention was to focus the ‘remaining water recovery task on infrastructure upgrades, on-farm and supply efficiency projects, and environmental works and measures’ instead of simply removing more productive water from communities.
This legislative amendment did not change the overall environmental water recovery target of 2750GL but it changed the method by which the Federal Government was to acquire the water entitlements – acknowledging that previous water purchases have had a devastating social and economic impact on regional communities. In effect, the cap acknowledged the triple bottom line objective of the Australian Water Act 2007 (Cth) and actively considered regional communities in Australia’s water reform process.
I wonder whether we have finally opened a new chapter in Australia’s water reform process. A chapter that steps away from the narrow focus on ‘flow’ and is actively working towards achieving long lasting environmental outcomes for Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin that don’t leave regional communities behind.
Tomorrow will be a good indicator of whether we are progressing on this new path or whether we revert to the same old tool of ‘just adding water’.