Fight looms between commonwealth and nsw over water-sharing plans

A dispute between NSW and the federal agency overseeing the $13 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan is likely after the state government submitted water sharing plans that challenge how

environmental flows are counted. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority said it had received the remaining nine water resource plans from NSW just before the June 30 deadline. The plans, among

33 being assessed by the authority across the basin, treat the extraction of water during floods in line with other water uses for the first time. "The MDBA has to do a detailed

assessment of each plan against 55 requirements in the Basin Plan, so it can take some time to ensure it’s done thoroughly and accurately – there’s no set timeframe," an authority

spokeswoman, said. "If the plans are inconsistent with the Basin Plan, further delays are likely." Among those 55 tests is a demand that each plan does not reduce the protection of

planned environmental water flows, compared with conditions prior to the Basin Plan's 2012 introduction. Draft plans by NSW indicated the Berejiklian government intended to battle the

authority over key definitions. "NSW has different definitions of planned environmental water than the Commonwealth," a spokeswoman for NSW Water Minister Melinda Pavey said. The

Namoi Water Sharing Plan could become one flashpoint. Under current rules, irrigators are only permitted to take 10 per cent of any so-called supplementary flow – or floods – with the

environment collecting the rest. Such flushing flows are important for fish breeding and water quality. The NSW government, though, has proposed to increase the proportional take by farmers

to half. "There was overwhelming [community] support for 50:50 sharing of supplementary water events throughout the water year with some modification in threshold flows to minimise

potential environmental impacts," Ms Pavey's spokeswoman said. Independent NSW MP Justin Field said NSW had submitted "substandard plans" and the authority "should

stamp 'RESUBMIT' on the cover and send them back". "These plans are not fit for purpose. They fail to prepare NSW rivers for the impacts of climate change, don't

adequately protect environmental flows and haven't implemented many of the [NSW] Natural Resources Commission's critical recommendations for the Barwon Darling River," Mr

Field said. He said the NSW Nationals were relying on "constant brinkmanship" over the Basin Plan, including removing NSW, as a method to get the Morrison government to weaken its

targets. Emma Carmody, a special counsel with the Environmental Defenders Office, said the authority's comments on holding the water plans to account were encouraging,

"particularly as our clients would prefer to avoid litigation". "However, we will be carefully scrutinising final water sharing plans on behalf of various clients to ensure

that they meet all legal requirements, including in relation to planned environmental water, and rules to protect first flows after drought, low flows and environmental flows," Dr

Carmody said. "Any water sharing plans gazetted under state laws but which are inconsistent with the Water Act and Basin Plan would need to be remade to bring them into line with those

national laws," she added. "Failure to do so would open them up to the possibility of a constitutional challenge." GET OUR MORNING & EVENING EDITION NEWSLETTERS