· Web viewThis appendix contains a summary of the main comments made throughout the written submissions received on EMLR WAP during consultation. Each comment has a unique

Appendix C2 Summary of comments from submissions on the draft EMLR WAP, with responses

This appendix contains a summary of the main comments made throughout the written submissions received on EMLR WAP during consultation. Each comment has a unique number (in the C# & topic column). Comments are grouped by topic. References to page, principle, table, figure and section numbers relate to those in the consultation draft EMLR WAP (given in Appendix A1).

Contents

Topic Page Topic PageAboriginal water requirements 2 Prescription approach 113Aquifer storage and recovery 4 Prescription impacts 123Compliance 5 Returning low flows 130Consultation process & engagement 7 Review 156Costs 12 Rollover 157Dam construction and works 17 Roof runoff 161Environment 24 Stormwater 162Existing users 33 Surface water and watercourses 166Forestry 51 Technical concerns 181General comments 58 Transfer 183Implementation 58 Underground water 188Imported water & effluent 63 Urban water use and population growth 192Integrated management 66 WAP areas - other 194Interactions 71 WAP development process 200Legislative issues 77 WAP editorial 200Licensed and non-licensed purposes 80 WAP format and readability 210MERI 85 WAP overall 213Metering 99 Water affecting activities 217New allocations 102 Water availability and limits 219Other NRM issues 106 Water use efficiency 228Other water issues 110

1

Commonly used acronyms and abbreviations throughout the document

AMLR Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges MERI Monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvementASR Aquifer storage and recovery NRM Natural Resources ManagementCUL Consumptive use limit PWRA Prescribed Water Resources AreaDEWNR Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources SAMDB South Australian Murray-Darling BasinDFW Department for Water (former) TER Theoretical Enterprise RequirementsDWLBC Department for Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation (former) WAA Water affecting activityEMLR Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges WAP Water allocation planEPA Environment Protection AuthorityGRO General Registry Office

C# & topic Comment summary Response

555 - Aboriginal water requirements

The EMLR WAP does not include or adequately address indigenous needs.

The prescription of a water resource under the NRM Act does not detract from any native title rights which may exist over a particular water resource. In addition, access to, and use of, water from prescribed water resources by Aboriginal people for the purpose of social, cultural or spiritual use is exempt from licensing, provided that the taking does not involve stopping, impeding or diverting the flow of water from water resources. Water used for business purposes is generally managed through the water licensing system for all users.Identifying and quantifying cultural water requirements, and incorporation into water planning, is an emerging field. Policy at a state level will be informed through current work by bodies including the National Water Commission, Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the National Cultural Flows Planning and Research Committee, including work with Aboriginal communities to identify and quantify cultural flows in the Murray-Darling Basin that will help inform water resource plans. The Board plans to work with local Aboriginal communities to build on this work for incorporation into the EMLR WAP as it is reviewed.


Why have current and future Aboriginal water needs not been identified?

As per comment # 555 - Aboriginal water requirements

2



Business SA recommends development and adoption of a clear definition of cultural water within SA to ensure all water consumers understand the terminology and its associated impact. Policy related to cultural water must be transparent and consistent as WAPs are reviewed across SA.



Recommends that cultural water needs are identified through sensitive liaison with local aboriginal communities, and that this be taken into account in the management of the water resources.



Concerned with failure to address Indigenous rights.



It is not good enough that current and future Aboriginal water needs have not been identified or quantified. It would not be hard to determine the flows required to support activities and to keep up traditions and responsibilities. An allocation should also be made for aboriginal peoples to also use for business enterprises. This could start with a presumed figure which is adapted as more information becomes available. The EMLR WAP needs to treat all people equitably, and all users need to be included. The Peramangk people need to be included in the list of aboriginal peoples with an interest in the district. In section 4.1.1, the risk assessment needs to include the impacts on indigenous peoples' rights and responsibilities by taking the water.

As per comment # 555 - Aboriginal water requirementsRecommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to include the Peramangk people in section 1.5.1.

3


495 - Aquifer storage and recovery

In relation to principle 238 (discharge into a well causing adverse impacts), the Department is of the opinion that the draft EMLR WAP cannot on its own require certain activities to cease. There are other powers in the NRM Act that may be used if there are environmental concerns. DFW will work with the Board to determine a means to achieve the proposed outcome.

Agreed.Recommend altering principle 238 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to outline that a condition may be placed on a permit requiring the holder to take specified action where drainage or discharge into a well results in specified adverse impacts.In reviewing this principle, it has been noted that some of the adverse impacts identified in this principles are not included in the general list of potential impacts that a water affecting activity must not cause, and this oversight should be amended.Recommend altering principle 147 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include all the potential adverse impacts identified in principle 238.


Principle 234 requires ongoing monitoring of artificially recharged water, but what happens next?

Principle 238 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP sets out that that a condition may be placed on a permit for draining or discharging water into a well, that requires action to be taken if monitoring shows adverse effects as a result of artificial recharge (note the wording of this principle has been modified in accordance with advice provided by DEWNR - see comment # 495 in section 'Aquifer storage and recovery'). The monitoring results from principles 234-236 provide information that helps the relevant authority to determine whether adverse impacts are occurring and whether action is required, but it is not clear that these monitoring results need to be reported to the relevant authority.Recommend amending principles 234-236 and 260 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to state that monitoring results are to be reported as required by the relevant authority.Also note that section 135 (15) of the NRM Act provides that the relevant authority may revoke a permit to drain or discharge water into a well if the risking level of underground water is damaging soil, rock or other structures, damaging ecosystems, or affecting the natural drainage of surface water.


An attenuation zone for artificial recharge should not overlap an environmental buffer at all.

A water allocation plan generally applies to new activities that start after the plan is adopted. The draft EMLR WAP includes principles that aim to protect environmental assets from potential negative impacts of new artificial recharge activities through the use of buffer zones.There may be significant negative impacts on an existing business if they are required to cease artificial recharge activities that were in place before adoption of the EMLR WAP. The potential negative impacts of existing artificial recharge activities are likely to be small scale and localised in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. Therefore it was considered that existing activities should be able to continue as part of achieving a balance between social, economic and environmental needs for water.

4



Recommend that water for artificial recharge be good quality.

The Board believes that this is adequately covered by principle 224 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP. Principle 224 requires water that will be artificially recharged to meet water quality standards as set out under the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003 (linked to the Environment Protection Act 1993). Principles 231-234 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP set out water quality monitoring requirements to check the quality of water to be recharged, and the receiving underground water.


Principle 233 a) ii) (parameters to be tested in water to be artificially recharged) should include herbicides.

Agree.Recommend adding herbicides to principle 233 a) ii) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.


Recommend that for principle 235, that sampling of source water for artificial recharge from roof runoff, surface water and watercourses should continue, at least annually.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP allows the relevant authority issuing permits for discharge into a well to require more regular water quality testing of source water if appropriate (principle 235). It is considered appropriate to take a risk assessment approach that considers the circumstances for each case.


Principles 224-227 deal with exemptions from the water quality criteria in the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy 2003. Only the Environment Protection Authority has the power to grant an exemption from the water quality criteria in respect of the discharge of waste into underground water.

Acknowledged.Recommend that principles 225-227 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be re-drafted based on recommendations provided by DEWNR, such that they no longer provide an exemption to the Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy (EPP). However, where the EPA has provided an exemption on the basis of improvement of water quality via an attenuation zone, principle 227 d) and e) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP will continue to apply. Note that the requirements of principle 227 a)-c) are already covered by the EPP.The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes the concept of an attenuation zone in principle 226, but the definition in that principle is different from the definition for an attenuation zone in the EPP, and there is no definition for an attenuation zone in the glossary of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.Recommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to include a definition of attenuation zone that reflects the definition of this term in clause 15 of the EPP.

333 - Compliance

Plan needs to mention penalties for abuse of water taking rules, and penalties for not installing low flow bypasses. These areas are important in the ability of the plan to succeed in providing end of system flows and

Under the water planning system in South Australia, the enforcement provisions, including the penalties for illegally taking water or non-compliance with various requirements, are set out in the NRM Act rather than in individual water allocation plans. The advantages of this approach are that it ensures a uniform system across the State and it gives the enforcement rules legislative authority set by Parliament.

5


water for the environment. Very concerned that the plan is under-resourced for compliance.

DEWNR has a specialised compliance group whose role is to ensure that the NRM Act and water allocation plans are complied with. The NRM Act provides for a range of penalties depending on the seriousness of the infringement. An additional penalty charge per kilolitre is charged for small volumes of water taken over allocation. For serious offences fines apply of up to $35,000 for an individual or $70,000 if the offender is a body corporate.

109 - Compliance

Important to enforce compliance with water management rules and limits.

As per comment # 333 - Compliance

213 - Compliance

Concerned that it is not made clear what happens if monitoring shows that some irrigators are not doing the right thing. There seems to be no particular Minister in charge. Concerned that ownership of water issues have been unclear.


515 - Compliance

Penalties must be made clear, be severe and applied to the letter of the law.


565 - Compliance

Recommend full penalties for non-compliance.


167 - Compliance

River water allocations need to be quantified, rigorously controlled and monitored, with transgressors being heavily fined.

The prescription process provides a mechanism to allocate water to users by volume while taking into account the needs of water dependent ecosystems. DEWNR has a published metering policy titled the 'South Australian Licensed Water Use Metering Policy'. A key element of this policy is that all licensed water use shall be metered. Licensed water use from watercourses (as well as surface water and underground water) will be required to meter their water use and must not take more than the allocation given. The NRM Act provides for a range of penalties depending on the seriousness of the infringement. An additional penalty charge per kilolitre is charged for small volumes of water taken over allocation. For serious offences fines apply of up to $35,000 for an individual or $70,000 if the offender is a body corporate.DEWNR will be implementing a program to ensure that metered use is within allocations.

185 - Compliance

Ensure present dams are metered and are operating within licence capacity and

DEWNR has a published metering policy titled South Australian Licensed Water Use Metering Policy. A key element of this policy is that all licensed water use shall be

6


conditions [example provided where conditions are not being complied with in submission].

metered. The Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Notice of Prohibition required meters to be installed upon issue of authorisations to existing users. Approximately half of the licensed sources in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges have already been metered. Of the remainder, a number have been granted an extension of timeframe for metering.Upon issue of water licences, the remainder of individuals who haven’t installed meters on licensed sources will need to do so to comply with licence conditions. While the implementation of meters on licensed sources will be phased in across the region over a period of time, DEWNR is committed to having meters installed on all water sources and takes non-compliance with licence conditions seriously.With regards to the information you provided in your submission about a potential non-compliance issue, it is recommended that you write to DEWNR at GPO Box 2834 Adelaide 5001 or [email protected] so this matter can be investigated.

56 - Consultation process & engagement

draft EMLR WAP has generated anger in the farming community which is an unhealthy situation. In order to be effective, NRM must work in an atmosphere of mutual trust with farmers.

The draft EMLR WAP has been developed in close consultation with two voluntary community advisory committees made up of local people representing a range of areas, enterprises and stakeholder groups. The consultation process for the draft EMLR WAP aimed to be open and informative, and to provide a range of different opportunities for people to share their views on the plan. The Board acknowledges that there is always room to improve communication and partnerships with the community. The Board has invested recently in finding better ways to work with the community and increasing their engagement in Board activities. The Board is committed to placing community at the centre of the decisions that impact on their lives, and is embarking on changing the way it engages and connects with community to build more trust and explore solutions to complex problems in partnership. The Board will be adopting this approach as it works with the community and other agencies towards practical implementation of the EMLR WAP.Everyone shares the responsibility for management of natural resources, and the Board wants to keep working together with the community to continue building partnerships and to support sustainable natural resources management.The Board acknowledges that the draft EMLR WAP has generated anger and concern. The plan is complex and change is difficult, there are also some unanswerable questions at this stage, which all contribute to generating frustration. The Board will continue to invest in having constructive dialogues with the community about the EMLR WAP and its implementation, and importantly will do increasingly more community based decision making.

96 - Plan is divisive and promotes adversarial As per comment # 56 - Consultation process & engagement

7


Consultation process & engagement

atmosphere between responsible farmers and government. Government is in danger of losing farmer's loyalty in leading environmental reform.


Do not agree with process of water management zones overlaid on the climate zones used to determine theoretical crop requirements. Very upset with process and outcome in term of potential final allocation and the time taken to be given this information. The detail is non-transparent in any fact sheet. Feels that that this is part of the EMLR WAP (although hidden discreetly) and therefore is a matter for the Board, not the water allocation authorities.

The details of the water management zones have been outlined in consultation material (for example, the zones are discussed in the "extraction limits must not be exceeded" section of the 'Allocation and transfer policy overview factsheet') and the zones are mapped and discussed in the draft EMLR WAP and at the public meetings in May 2011. The water-taking limits at the management zone scale apply to both the existing user allocation process (managed by DEWNR), and to new allocations and transfers as guided by the EMLR WAP developed by the Board. The Board recognises that the process to arrive at these critical decisions may not have been perfect, however we are committed to improvement and also open to ideas for how the process could be more engaging.


Policy needs to be justified and reflect local observations and available data - community becomes disenchanted with process when this doesn't happen. Encouraged to see that there has been a change in direction in the lower Angas-Bremer area (e.g. no longer proposing cut to underground water limit, recognising importance of flood diversion to red gum swamp health). Good result that indicates information from local community has been accepted - helps to keep faith in the process.

Noted.


Thanks for meeting with a small group of SAFF members to discuss concerns, and for providing information for the SAFF website. SAFF congratulates and supports the Board in making the submissions on the plan on-line prior to closing date.

Thank you.

149 - Will the submissions be considered, given The submissions have been considered and as a result, the Board will recommend to the

8


Consultation process & engagement

that at the public meetings it was obvious that the plans were set in concrete, and consultation was only done to adhere to government protocol, and to make it look like the government was interested in landholders' opinions?

Minister that over 120 changes be made to the plan. A wide range of opinions were expressed, and in some cases these were conflicting opinions. The Board has carefully considered and balanced the community's comments in order to develop the recommended changes. It should also be noted that some very significant policy changes have been made as a result of community input, including policies relating to new allocations in the region. The community plays a major role in holding the Board to account, and ensuring that the best possible policy decisions are made, using the broadest representation of community.


Careful consultation, and not "bullying" as has been reported, is the way to do it.

The Board undertook a genuine and open consultation process, with a range of different opportunities for people to share their views on the draft EMLR WAP. The Board is also constantly reviewing this, and adopting innovation in engagement to ensure that community has a greater role in the decision making process.


Encouraging to see many people attend consultation meetings and provide comment on various aspects of the proposed plan. It is however disappointing that some key outcomes of this consultation do not seem to be supported in the draft EMLR WAP (e.g. roof runoff allocations, tank metering, installation of low flow bypasses).

These were the first public meetings held by the Board to consult on the draft EMLR WAP. The consultation process was open and genuine. The Board has carefully considered the comments and submissions made during consultation, and as a result has recommended over 120 changes to be made to the plan to the Minister. It is important that the Board ensures that where community have not changed the outcomes, that there is good understanding about the reasons why. The Board recognises that not everyone will agree all the time, but it does seek to ensure that the community can accept the policies in the plan as much as possible.


Has been involved in development of the draft EMLR WAP and believes people have mostly worked well together to get a good result for existing users, the environment and future users - congratulations on good consultative skills and sound reasoning. Trust has been built up and needs to be maintained through implementation - this can be at risk when agency people move on and new staff don't have the history.

Thank you. The Board is keen to keep working together with the community to help practical implementation of the plan.


Commends the Board and DFW in the provision of a range of public meeting opportunities, individual appointments and targeted briefings. Enabled greater

Thank you.

9


understanding of the water allocation planning process and its associated limitations.


at the public consultation meetings we were told that it would take about three weeks to get back to everyone

The large interest and the scale of the response meant that it took longer than expected to collate and distribute responses to the public meeting comments. We apologise for the delay. The Board is conscious of its commitments to respond, but also needed to balance this with the time needed to do justice to the efforts taken by the community in providing input. A document outlining more than 350 comments, question and answers from the public meetings was distributed in August 2011 and is available on Board's website (www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au).


What is the process for providing feedback on submissions? What mechanism will be used to continue discussion on the development and final adoption of the WAP?

The Board will provide direct feedback on submissions via letters to respondents and more general feedback through publication of a consultation report outlining comments made and responses to them (available on request or at the Board's website www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au). The Board worked closely with the Community Advisory Committees to consider the consultation responses and develop recommendations to the Minister on changes to the draft EMLR WAP as a result. The Board submits these recommended changes and the consultation report to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation for consideration, further consultation with the State NRM Council and eventual adoption (with or without further changes).


Don't have confidence in the ability or intent of personnel at the NRM Board or Department for Water to advise the Minister honestly or impartially. The adversarial attitude taken by officers is unnecessary and polarising, and delays amicable resolution of differences. Some officers attending the public meetings were identified as engaging in bullying and harassment of farmers and were arrogant and sometime insulting. Speakers took the opportunity to discourage questions, avoided answering questions in the open forum, looked to others for assistance in answering, and many answers were vague or contradicted previous

The Board believes its staff carry out their duties professionally and in line with the public sector code of conduct. We are interested to hear of any specific cases where it is believed that its staff did not act appropriately, and will follow up accordingly. The Board acknowledges that there is always room to improve communication and partnerships with the community. The Board supports a principle of greater community-based decision making to ensure improved ways of working with the community and increasing their engagement in Board activities. The consultation process on the plan was genuine and open, and the Board was authentic in its intent to balance the needs of many people, with many needs. In general, the Board approached the public meetings to maximise the needs of many in a limited time. The many varied and broad other engagement opportunities (shed discussions, one on one briefings, sector and industry meetings and the community advisory process) provided considerable opportunity for questions to be asked and answered in different settings. During the public meetings, different staff responded to questions depending on their area of expertise. Some questions were outside the scope of the prescription

10


information. Bald statements were made without being backed up. Those with decades of experience pointed out anomalies in the plan but were ignored. The respondent's members feel the consultation process was an exercise in patronisation where those who attempted to outline flaws were ridiculed. Concerned that some questions were answered with "we never thought of that" or "we haven't got that far".

process and so could not be answered. Others we can't answer yet because we need to keep working together with the community to develop implementation solutions, as the formal consultation process is just one step in the path along sustainable water management at the regional scale. The plan is underpinned by a considerable body of data and analysis as outlined at the public meetings and in the plan, and the Board is happy to provide the basis for specific issues raised about the plan. The Board has carefully considered the comments and submissions made during consultation, and as a result has recommended over 120 changes to be made to the plan to the Minister.The Board is always willing to hear your ideas and suggestions on how it can improve its engagement processes.


Applaud the SAMDB NRM Board for presenting data on the EMLR and for the reports available on the website.

Thank you.


Thanks for bringing the plan to those affected for comment rather than taking it straight to the legislators. Has utmost regard for those farmers and unpaid people who took the time to organise meetings and spend time explaining and looking at the best way to achieve a better outcome than we were heading for if left unchanged.

Thank you. The Board also recognises the considerable investment of many in the community who have attended and contributed to all engagement activities.


The assertion that the plan is owned by the community is false when words such as prohibition, prescription and force are used in its implementation. The public image on the NRM Board is extremely negative. Change is required to avoid a negative and long-standing conflict developing. The best way for this process to begin is for the various Departments to shift their adversarial perspective to water users to one of cooperation and respect.

The draft EMLR WAP has been developed for the benefit of the whole community so that the water resources are managed sustainably for all users, both now and into the future. Everyone shares the responsibility for management of natural resources, and the preferred approach is to work together cooperatively towards a common outcome. When managing a valuable communal resource like water that is under high demand, including a regulatory approach in the mix helps to provide for equitable sharing between users, including the environment, and potential users in the future. It is the Board's intention to work with communities in a relationship built on trust, mutual respect and collaboration to get the best results for our water resources. Regulation and enforcement are not the tools of choice deployed by the Board to get great natural resources outcomes.

11



Rules on use of early flows in lower Bremer River need to be practical and accepted by the locals if they are to be effective and complied with. Local management and work by the Angas-Bremer Water Management Committee shows the paramount importance of protecting the environment to local irrigators. Need to continue to work with locals (through a local peak body) to develop credible policies that will be locally supported.

Acknowledged. The Board recognises the important role that the Angas-Bremer Water Management Committee plays in supporting sustainable water management in the area and will continue to work with the Committee and the local community on implementation of water policy.

182 - Costs All costs to landholders and irrigators to be abolished, including the levy, cost of water meters and installation, and the implementation of installing low flow bypasses.

It is appropriate that those who directly benefit from the sustainable management of a particular resource bear a proportion of the costs associated with the management of that resource, for example by purchasing meters and contributing through the payment of the NRM water levy.The purpose of the water levy is to contribute to the funds required to implement the Board's Regional NRM Plan to assist sustainable natural resources management in the region, for the benefit of the community and environment that supports natural resource users. The EMLR WAP will be part of the Regional NRM Plan, and levy funds will contribute to a range of monitoring activities, annual water use reporting and continual review of information recommended in the EMLR WAP.The consumptive use limits set out in the EMLR WAP are based on what is environmentally sustainable if low flows are returned from licensed dams and watercourse diversions; and non-licensed dams 5ML and greater. Returning low flows benefits all existing users, because without returning low flows, the consumptive use limits would be lower and allocation would need to be reduced.We will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows across the Mount Lofty Ranges. An important part of this program will be developing an appropriate cost sharing model together. The agencies are pursuing funding to assist with the costs of returning low flows.

458 - Costs Why should we pay money for the government to protect the environment

A healthy environment is essential for supporting the community, including businesses that depend on natural resources through provision of ecosystem services like nutrient recycling and water quality improvement. It is appropriate that those who directly benefit from the sustainable management of a particular resource contribute a proportion of the costs associated with the management of that resource.

12


Prescription of water resources provides a mechanism for current users to be protected from the impact of future unregulated water resource development, and to have better security of access to water. Prescription also helps to promote a healthy environment.

193 - Costs Farmers have low enough returns without having more costs imposed to further lower returns (levies, meters, returning low flows). Increasing costs to farmers will increase the cost of food being produced. Farmers have already invested significant resources to be able to retain water to run their business. Land use change legislation already restricts farmers from getting the best production from their farms, therefore restricting farm income.

As per comment # 182 - Costs

413 - Costs Landholders should not pay for a licence as they have already paid for the infrastructure to collect water and the meter.

The water licensing system is an essential tool to protect the water resource from overuse and to protect the rights of individual water users to access a share of that resource. The price of infrastructure or meters do not have any component that contributes towards funding the licensing system. The water licence fee is an administration fee as payment towards the processing of an application.

768 - Costs If the NRM or DFW own the water, the Crown should be responsible for all management and infrastructure costs.

Neither the Crown, DEWNR or the NRM Boards own the water. However, the community, through democracy, regulates the right of people to take communal prescribed water resources for the benefit of all water users and the broader community. As per comment # 182 - Costs

796 - Costs Will not tolerate being told to pay for infrastructure that the Government and NRM Board wants.

It is appropriate that those who directly benefit from the sustainable management of a particular resource contribute a proportion of the costs associated with the management of that resource.Prescription of water resources provides a mechanism for current users to be protected from the impact of future unregulated water resource development, and to have better security of access to water.

693 - Costs Clarification is sought for the costs of licences for [use/transfer of stormwater and treated wastewater] and associated compliance costs, which could be a

The fees for permit and licence applications are set state-wide and included in the South Australian Government Gazette. Relevant fees for 2012-13 are given below, but these change from time to time.

13


considerable disincentive for worthwhile projects.

In relation to the use of imported water or effluent, the application fee for a water affecting activity permit is $49.25 (for 2012-13). In relation to stormwater, which is part of the prescribed surface water resource, the cost of a water licence application is $206, and for a water licence transfer application is as $383 plus a technical assessment fee of $257 (for 2012-13). Costs associated with providing support for the application or complying with ongoing conditions will vary depending on the potential risks of the situation, and may include investigations and monitoring. It is important to manage the water resource sustainably and protect users and the environment from negative impacts, and to monitor impacts of higher risk activities so that problems can be detected and addressed.

194 - Costs Concerned that government charges for water. Is the government going to pay for the water that goes to the environment?

As per comment # 171 - CostsThe government is not paying for the water that goes to the environment, but has a key role, together with the community, in providing stewardship of the environment. An important aim of the prescription process is to support a healthy environment that supports businesses and the community that depend natural resources and the ecosystem services provided by a healthy catchment.

197 - Costs If the dam is not full, will the water levy be adjusted, or can we expect the Government to supply the water to fulfil the allocation?

As per comment # 171 - CostsHaving an allocation means that the licensee can take that water if it is available from their licensed sources. It does not guarantee that the water will be available.

223 - Costs Would be fairer to consider concessions for water levies for licensees who don't use allocations but want to retain them for property values. Will receive a reasonable allocation to reflect previous practices as a dairy but don't irrigate with current beef enterprise due to cost pressures. Annual water levy likely to be $1000 for water that is not used, but would like to keep the allocation to add value to the property on sale. Consider this cost excessive, especially when the environment is already the winner from not using the water.

As per comment # 171 - CostsAs per comment # 414 - Costs

414 - Costs The proposed water levy is a charge for water that has no restriction to further

The levy rate is proposed each year by the Board through their business plan, and consulted upon with the community during consultation on the business plan, usually

14


increases. around the end of the calendar year. The Board then seeks approval for the levy rate from the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. If there is a new levy (for example, for a new area where licences have been issued for the first time), or any levy increase is above the CPI, the levy needs to be endorsed by the Natural Resources Committee of Parliament. This Committee is made up of a mixture of members from both major parties, minor parties and independents. Once the Minister adopts the final levy rate, it is published in the South Australian Government Gazette. The Board's 2012-13 Business Plan proposed a CPI increase in the water levy rate for 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15. The water levy for 2012-13 for the region has been gazetted at 0.535 c/kL or $5.35/ML.

272 - Costs The levy rate of $5.30/ML/y on licensed water volume is acceptable provided funds are exclusively used for EMLR water resource management and monitoring, but that any increase in levy rate over time should not exceed rate of CPI increase (resolution 3).

The water levy raised across the SAMDB contributes to the costs of natural resources management programs throughout the SAMDB, rather than being confined to being spent on water management in the region in which it was raised. Having said that, the Board already funds a significant flow and environmental monitoring program in the EMLR (amongst other activities). This work is expected to continue and other projects added, such as monitoring water use through annual water use reporting. As per comment # 414 - Costs

144 - Costs Do not agree with the levy rate of $5.30/ML, which is twice as much as the SE region.

Each NRM region sets its own levy rates for prescribed water resources in their region to reflect the requirements to contribute to funding their Regional NRM Plan. Water levy rates for irrigation use in 2012-13 range from $2.64/ML to $23.90/ML in different prescribed areas, with the rate for other prescribed areas in the SAMDB region for that period being $5.35/ML of water allocated (e.g. River Murray, Marne-Saunders).

478 - Costs Seek confirmation of no levies for water captured for stock and domestic use. There is a contradiction between public documents citing no levies for stock and domestic and another technical report that states reasonable use at 30%. This is unacceptably low as it will lead to farms becoming unviable.

Section 101 (13) of the NRM Act sets out that a water levy can't be imposed for domestic use or watering stock that are not intensively farmed.There is no contradiction between these statements. The technical reports have no relationship to the water levy. These reports outline the measurement and modelling of water resource capacity, including the assumption that stock and domestic use is 30% of dam capacity. The volume of water used for stock and domestic purposes is not managed through the prescription process in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges.

171 - Costs Farmers will have to pay for water whether it is in the dam or not.

The water levy is not a charge on water use. The purpose of the water levy is to contribute to the funds required to implement the Board's Regional NRM Plan to assist sustainable natural resources management in the region for the benefit of natural

15


resources users, the wider community and the environment. The EMLR WAP will be part of the Regional NRM Plan, and levy funds will contribute to a range of monitoring activities, annual water use reporting and continual review of information recommended in the EMLR WAP.For more information on how the water and NRM levy is spent, please visit the Board's website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au

183 - Costs If the water levy must be imposed, it should be based on volume, not allocation, which is quite counter-productive.


749 - Costs The levy based on $/ML of licensed allocation should not be payable if the water is not used.


64 - Costs Doesn't sound prudent to charge water levy on volume allocated rather than volume used. If people are charged the same if they use 3% or 100% then they might as well use 100%, which doesn't encourage people to save a valuable and limited commodity.

As per comment # 171 - CostsOver-use of water can lead to local scale problems (e.g. perched or rising water-tables), and the costs associated with extracting the water (e.g. electricity or fuel for pumps) are other factors that may discourage users from using all of their allocation for the sake of it.

41 - Costs Concerned with paying water levy - unfair as the landholder has borne all the costs for installing and running water infrastructure.


792 - Costs Water needs to be monitored, but charging farmers extra for water to produce something we all need is criminal. Farmers already pay more for land with water, or to put in water-taking infrastructure.


42 - Costs Unfair to pay a levy that supports NRM staff on good wages and conditions when farmers work long and hard to feed the community.

The water levy provides funds to help support sustainable natural resources management in the region for the benefit of natural resources users, the wider community and the environment.

455 - Costs Existing users should not have to pay a fee to be recognised and this is unconstitutional.

The water licensing system is an essential tool to protect the water resource from overuse and to protect the rights of individual water users to access a share of that resource. The

16


The only time this fee should be charged is for new users.

NRM Act (section 147(1)(b) requires that a water licence application be accompanied by the prescribed fee. This fee is an administration fee as payment towards the processing of the application. DEWNR is not aware of any inconsistency between the NRM Act and the Commonwealth constitutions.

287 - Dam construction and works

Approvals for dam developments need to be managed in an expedient and flexible manner for best economic and environmental outcomes (recommendation 14). Dam construction is expensive, often involving contractors, and needs to be seasonally timed. Developers need to be able to liaise with the approval agency quickly and effectively when unforeseen circumstances arise (e.g. redesigning or resiting dams if excavated materials provide unsuitable for construction).

In some cases, dam construction requires development approval which is managed by local councils. This approval needs to be referred to the relevant authority (generally the Minister or the Board) for comment and direction, which has a maximum turnaround time of 6 weeks as part of that development assessment.Where dam construction doesn't require development approval, it requires a water affecting activity permit issued by the Board. The Board’s customer service ambition to have these matters assessed and finalised within 40 days.


Dam design requirements must be supported by funding.

The responsibility for design costs for dams is considered to lie with the proponent. Providing financial incentives or setting out funding requirements is outside the scope of a water allocation plan.


The Board must make sure that landholders catch water in proportion to their property size. Subdivision of land with existing dams into parcels with and without dams can mean that new parcels with large existing dams may hold much more water than the landholder can use, while other new parcels may not be able to get a licence for a dam.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP already provides that new dam capacity is restricted so that total dam capacity is within 30% of property runoff (principles 166-168). The EMLR WAP is only able to manage the size of new or enlarged dams through the water affecting activity permits system, and can't manage the size of existing dams on sub-divided properties.Principle 169 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP is a dam capacity limit that restricts new dam construction on a sub-divided property if the original property (before sub-division) has reached its property-scale limit. It has been identified that this principle may exacerbate the problem you have raised by preventing a landholder from building a dam on a sub-divided property because of the size of their neighbour’s dams – even if the new dam wouldn’t break any sustainability limits. The draft EMLR WAP contains a number of other principles that aim to keep dam capacity within sustainable limits and minimise impacts on other users and the environment. It is considered that principle 169 adds complexity and potential negative impacts on landholders, with limited additional protection of the water resource on top of that already provided by other principles.

17


Recommend deleting principle 169 from the consultation draft EMLR WAP.


An explanation should be given in the plan for the justification for the 200m buffer for new diversion structures from significant environmental assets.

The 200 m buffer for new diversion structures from significant environmental assets aims to provide the potential for the delivery of a more natural flow regime to these key assets. Following careful consideration by the Board, it has been decided that the general water affecting activity principles in section 7.1, and the other dam construction principles in section 7.2.1 (including the requirement for new diversion structures to return low flows) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP, provide sufficient protection for water-dependent ecosystems from potential impacts of dam construction.Recommend that principle 149 a) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP and associated explanatory information be altered to remove the reference to "within 200 m upstream of" and to add "where this will cause or be likely to cause significant detrimental impacts".


Concerned that new urban development could reduce access to water for primary production as a result of the potential exception to the dam capacity limit provided for the case where additional runoff is generated by new urban development. Suggest explaining the rationale for additional runoff being returned to the environment vs. other consumptive purposes.

The intent of this policy is that dams built on new urban developments can be sized such that, at a maximum, they can catch all the additional runoff generated as a result of the increased runoff caused by the development, and return what would have runoff/recharged to the water resources from the site before development. That is, the development has a water-neutral impact, and should make no difference to water available for primary production at worst, and there may be additional runoff generated if the dam is smaller than maximum. The water returned to the environment becomes part of the water resources and hence is available for consumptive use within the EMLR WAP rules.


The EMLR WAP needs to enunciate the right of users to replace pre-existing, structurally failed dams (with permit approval), where the work does not directly or indirectly enlarge a dam beyond its pre-existing size, irrespective of any zone management controls (recommendation 13).

Agree.Recommend inserting new principles into section 7.2.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP that allow reconstruction of failed dams, based on similar principles in the existing Marne-Saunders WAP.


Why is the limit for a new dam twice the size of the reasonable requirements from the dam? This seems excessive and probably should be equal to the reasonable requirements.

Allowing dam capacity to be twice reasonable requirements allows for changing requirements from year to year, such as increased requirements during dry years. This provision also allows for carryover of supply between years, where water captured in wet years can be stored for use in dry years. It is important to note that the proposed dam will also need to meet the other dam capacity limits that aim to minimise impacts on other users and the environment, such as the limits at the scale of the catchment, zone, significant environmental asset and property, and also principles aiming to minimising

18


impacts on downstream users.


Regarding principle 173 b) iv) - suggest adding to the end: "demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Minister by a suitably qualified ecologist or environmental engineer". (in relation to returning pre-development runoff and recharge from new dam capacity in new urban development in manner that doesn't cause detrimental environmental impacts including erosion)

Agree. Recommend amending principle 173 b) iv) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include "demonstrated to the satisfaction of the relevant authority by a suitably qualified environmental engineer".


Suggest that the design of stormwater basins and wetlands should incorporate the requirements for on-stream dams as detailed in principle 155.

Agree.Recommend amending principle 155 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include underlined text "On-stream dams, including stormwater basins and wetlands, must be designed and constructed..."


Suggest that wording be added to principles that refer to dam capacity that include adequate freeboard (or the distance between the capacity water level of a dam and the top of the dam wall).

Agree.Recommend adding new principle after principle 154 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP that new or enlarged dams shall be designed to include adequate freeboard to minimise the risk of water flowing over the dam during periods of heavy rainfall.


Regarding principle 182 (dam desilting) - detention basins and other constructed water-sensitive urban design features should be included within the definition for dam maintenance.

Agree.Recommend amending principle 182 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include reference to detention basins.


The removal of vegetation within a dam, detention basin or other structures should not require a permit.

In South Australia, native vegetation (including native reeds and rushes) are protected by the Native Vegetation Act 1991. In most cases, the clearance of native vegetation requires the consent of the Native Vegetation Council. Water affecting activity permits issued under the Regional NRM Plan or the water allocation plan can't override this requirement. Water affecting activities are supplementary to other relevant legislation.


The property-scale dam capacity limits (principles 166 and 168) do not make any provision for the construction of an off-stream

Principle 168 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP already allows a larger dam capacity to be constructed under the property scale limit where the dam will be constructed as an off-stream dam. This will apply regardless of the source of the water stored in the dam.

19


dam for the storage of treated wastewater or other water derived off-site.

Dams used to store treated wastewater are generally likely to be turkey nest dams (a type of off-stream dam, with no natural catchment area). The dam capacity limits are generally intended to keep the volume and impact of dam interception within sustainable limits. It is acknowledged that turkey nest dams are essentially tanks that don't intercept water from the environment except for the rain falling on their surface. Therefore it is considered reasonable to exclude turkey nest dams from the dam capacity limits. This will provide more flexibility for the construction of such dams for the storage of treated wastewater or other water derived off-site. In the case of turkey nest dams used to store water diverted from a watercourse for licensed purposes, the volume taken is managed via the allocation to take water from the watercourse rather than by the size of the vessel used to store it.Recommend that the reference to turkey nest dams is deleted from principle 168 and from the definition of "dams" in the glossary of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.


Would like to see provisions in the EMLR WAP for dam removal, and concerned the plan is under-resourced for this.

As per comment # 234 - Dam construction and works


Existing on-stream dams to be removed prior to sale of property.

A water allocation plan is to provide an equitable balance of social, economic and environmental needs for water. The work underpinning the draft EMLR WAP shows that environmental targets can be met with on-stream dams in the landscape, particularly where low flows are not taken or returned from dams. Most dams in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges would be considered to be on-stream. Requiring the removal of all on-stream dams (on sale of property or otherwise) is likely to have a significant impact on the landholders (e.g. reduced land value, reduced or no access to water).


All on stream dams should be removed ASAP to allow free water flow and movement of water creatures.



Incentives should be given for removal of redundant dams (recommendation 3). Many former dairy dams now have limited use, and many farmers now provide stock water via troughs. Returning early season flows via low flow bypasses is good to help the environment, and removing dams would achieve this even more effectively.

It is outside the scope of a water allocation plan to provide financial incentives for removal of dam capacity, but this is an option for the Board to consider as part of a larger NRM program. However, a water allocation plan is able to provide policy incentives and it is proposed that two policy changes are made to the draft EMLR WAP to provide for this as follows.'Net benefit' proposalRecommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to include a "net benefit" principle to section 7.2.1 that allows the dam capacity limits to be exceeded in the

20


case where multiple dams are consolidated together, provided that the status of none of the dam capacity limits gets worse than the current state, and at least one of them is at least 20% better than the current state. That is, there is a net improvement on the current situation. If the improvement is less than 20% then this principle may still hold provided that the relevant authority believes there is sufficient improvement over current conditions, as otherwise the improvement may be so small that it is outweighed by the uncertainty in the calculations.This approach provides an incentive for removal of excess dam capacity (e.g. via consolidation of multiple existing dams into one). The result may not be as good as anticipated by the dam capacity limits set out in the draft EMLR WAP, but gives an outcome that is better than the current state. If this exception is not provided then the current situation, and impacts, are likely to continue. In cases where dam capacity is removed to allow construction of new dam capacity (as may occur under this recommended amendment), there needs to be confidence in the accuracy of the original dam capacity, and that the works have been carried out as authorised, to minimise the risk of impacts on other users and the environment.Recommend that a principle is included in the consultation draft EMLR WAP setting out that where dam capacity is removed in order to allow construction of new dam capacity, that the removed and reconstructed dam capacities must be demonstrated to the relevant authority's satisfaction to ensure that the works are carried out as authorised. Directly counting evaporation from dam against the limit proposalAnother policy incentive to encourage removal of excess dam capacity is to directly count evaporation from dams against the water-taking limit for surface water and watercourses, as described in comment # 499 (section 'Surface water and watercourses'). If excess dam capacity is removed, this would reduce the amount of evaporation to be counted against the limit, and may make more water available for consumptive use (if the limits and taking rules in the EMLR WAP can be met). The net volume taken from the water resource would not increase, so the impacts on downstream users and the environment would be similar or reduced.Recommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to modify the surface water and watercourse water limit to become an "evaporation and consumptive use limit", where evaporation plus consumptive use is accounted for against the limit (described in comment # 499 in section 'Surface water and watercourses').

543 - Dam construction

Dams are an ecosystem in their own right. Dams do provide habitat, however they also capture water that would otherwise support natural habitats including permanent pools. Natural habitats are generally more suitable

21


and works for native species, and allow access to flowing habitats which is important for many species.


Dams themselves create habitat which would not have been available throughout summer before clearing and dam construction.



Dams support native wildlife as well as agriculture and add water to the aquifer. How is a dam different from a "wetland" constructed in a new urban subdivision?

As per comment # 543 - Dam construction and worksWetlands constructed in new urban subdivisions are often designed differently to dams, because they are constructed for different purposes. Dams are commonly constructed primarily for water capture and storage, and often have steep banks to minimise surface area and maximise depth to reduce evaporative loss. Such a design reduces habitat values because it limits the area that water-plants can grow in. Urban wetlands are commonly constructed to retain water for a short period to slow the release of runoff from impervious surfaces and to improve water quality. Urban wetlands are commonly designed to support growth of water-plants as they can help to improve water quality.


In regard to the principle where new non-licensed dams can only be constructed where there is not reasonably practical access to other suitable water supply (principles 179-181) - (1) there appears to be no assessment of the relative or assumed costs of the requirement to exhaust alternative water supply (may be prohibitively expensive); and (2) needs more specific criteria on what constitutes "uncertainty" regarding suitability of water quantity and quality for intended use - currently too open to interpretation.

The Board has re-assessed principles 179 - 181 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP in the light of comments received, and considers that the other dam construction principles in section 7.2.1 provide sufficient protection to the water resources and other users including the environment. Principles 179-181 place additional complexity and may have the undesirable effect of increasing non-licensed underground water use in high-demand underground water zones. Therefore it is recommended that principles 179-181 be deleted.Recommend deleting principles 179-181 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.


Principles 179c and 180 - Unclear whether this section is referring to the licensee having access to suitable water from an existing source, or the likelihood of them finding suitable water regardless of whether they have access to an existing well or not.


22



Recommend more funded plans for limiting dams in the area.

The draft EMLR WAP already includes plans for limiting dams in the area through water affecting activity permit policies which apply to new dam construction and enlargement.A water allocation plan is a regulatory document, and it is outside the scope of a water allocation plan to provide, attract or direct funding.


It is recommended that landowners be allowed to undertake de-silting and urgent repair work to dams without the need for permit approval where such work does not directly or indirectly enlarge a dam beyond its pre-existing size (recommendation 12). Repair work is sometimes urgent and we need to avoid the situation where unnecessary red tape compromises the timeliness of repair or maintenance work.

In some cases, dams are managed through the development approval process managed by local councils rather than directly through the water affecting activity permits system under the NRM Act.In cases where dams are managed through the permits system, a permit is not required for desilting a dam in the EMLR under the current Regional NRM Plan and the EMLR WAP. A permit is required under the NRM Act for dam construction in prescribed areas, and "construct" is defined under the NRM Act to include repair. The EMLR WAP is not able to weaken the definition of terms that are defined in the NRM Act and so is not able to address the issue of permit requirements for minor or urgent dam repairs for existing dams. DEWNR will consider whether there are any exemptions that may be applied at a broader scale.For new dams, there may be scope to include permit conditions that allow minor repairs without additional permit requirements and the Board will explore this option.


No approval should be necessary for maintenance and repairs of dams.



There should be no further dams constructed in the EMLR as we have too many already.

The level of development varies across the landscape. It is agreed that additional dam capacity should not be constructed in areas that have reached sustainable limits, and this is reflected in the dam capacity limits in the draft EMLR WAP (see section 7.2.1 and Table 4.2 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP).However, some areas are not fully developed and it is seen to be reasonable to allow further development within sustainable limits in such areas.


Questions whether any permits should be issued for new off-stream dams at all.


633 - Dam A total ban of all construction of on-stream As per comment # 138 - Dam construction and works

23


construction and works

dams to be implemented immediately. It is not always possible or practical to construct dams off-stream because of factors such as topography and soil. The draft EMLR WAP requires new or enlarged dams to be off-stream unless there is no suitable location for an off-stream dam on the property (principle 150 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP). Dam construction is a water affecting activity. The general principles applying to all new water affecting activities (section 7.1 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP) set out that an activity must not have adverse impacts on water-dependent ecosystems or water resources, which provides an additional level of management to keep dams off-stream in cases where on-stream dams may significantly affect other users or ecosystems.

626 - Environment

Page 134, Principle 59 - water taken from location with significant environmental assets - need to review and offset.

The water allocation plan generally applies to new activities that start after the plan is adopted. The draft EMLR WAP includes principles that aim to protect significant environmental assets from potential negative impacts of new water taking by not allowing new allocations or transfers to be taken from locations containing significant environmental assets.There may be significant negative impacts on an existing business if they are required to cease taking water where that practice was in place before adoption of the EMLR WAP. The potential negative impacts of existing water-taking activities at significant environmental assets are likely to be localised. Therefore it was considered that such existing activities should be able to continue as part of achieving a balance between social, economic and environmental needs for water.

379 - Environment

Recommend that significant environmental assets be protected. Water from these areas can be taken by existing users.

As per comment # 626 - Environment

664 - Environment

Welcome policy of no new allocation and returning low flows, but more is needed. Returning low flows to the environment is critical but medium pulses and full flows are also required.

The threshold flow rate (at or below which low flows need to be returned) includes low flows throughout the year, as well as freshes (pulse flows) in the in the transitional flow seasons leading up to, and down from, the high flow season (as outlined on page 66 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP). High flows are generally not significantly affected by the level of development in the EMLR, as dams are generally full and spilling early in the high flow season. In addition, the consumptive use limits have been set to allow reasonable consumptive use from dams while also allowing an adequate pattern of dam filling and spilling over time to provide water to downstream users and to support environmental processes that depend on moderate to high flows as well.Note that, following careful consideration of responses during consultation, the Board has decided to recommend that new allocations be allowed within the limits and rules set out

24


in the draft EMLR WAP (see comment # 75 in 'New allocations' section).

351 - Environment

There is a need to look at ways to increase water for the environment in the transitional periods as well as the low flow season. This could include incentives for voluntary action to reduce the number or capacity of dams and watercourse diversions, increasing the threshold flow rate, and providing incentives for water use efficiency.

As per comment # 664 - EnvironmentAs per comment # 234 - Dam construction and worksAs per comment # 352 - Water use efficiency

460 - Environment

FLAGSA supports the introduction of endangered fish and other native fauna into dams, and continued access to dams by land-based native fauna.

Agree. Selected dams have been used as temporary habitats for threatened fish populations during the recent drought (e.g. through programs run by Native Fish Australia (SA) and the former Department for Environment and Natural Resources, now part of DEWNR). This was carried out as a temporary measure to maintain back-up populations as a stepping stone back to reintroduction into more suitable natural habitat once flow was restored.

54 - Environment

Believe Bremer River water quality has improved over last 30 years with reduced pollution from Brukunga mines, Mt Barker tanneries and effluent ponds. Initial water flows have been retarded from the 1980s with the construction of dams.

Thank you for sharing your observations. The policy for returning low flows under the EMLR WAP and existing user allocation process aims to allow initial flows to get back into the system earlier.

166 - Environment

Flows need to be ensured to allow survival and reproduction by native fauna.

Agree. The EMLR WAP aims to improve the flow pattern provided to the environment through water taking limits and rules, which have been set based on investigations of the environmental water requirements needed for survival and reproduction of native flora and fauna.

195 - Environment

Seems that irrigators and farmers are being held responsible for fish habitats and other environmental changes - there can also be natural changes.

Agree that there are both human-induced and natural changes to the environment. The EMLR WAP aims to mitigate the human-induced changes on the water regime so that water-dependent ecosystems in the current landscape can survive and be resilient to natural stresses such as drought. The EMLR WAP is not trying to re-create pre-European conditions.

345 - DFW is to be commended for developing Thank you.

25


Environment environmental water requirements for surface waters for the region.

362 - Environment

Recommends that there be greater representation of the life sciences on the team dealing directly with ecosystems, given that there was only one ecologist present on the team that worked on environmental water requirements for this WAP.

The environmental water requirements for the EMLR were determined by a 21 member expert panel, including 13 ecologists as well as hydrologists, hydrogeologists and geomorphologists. The expert panel membership is given in appendix A of VanLaarhoven and van der Wielen 2009 (available on the Board's website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au).

667 - Environment

Asks that the Board develop more site-specific modelling of water-dependent ecosystems.

The environmental water requirements have been developed based on site-specific assessments for a limited number of sites. The expert panel that determined environmental water requirements visited sites representing a range of different habitats and identified important flow components for those sites. Cross sections were then measured and relationships developed between flow rate and flow depth to identify the flow rates that wetted up different types of habitats and would be associated with environmental processes for that site. The region was divided into reach types with similar characteristics, which was used to scale-up the site specific environmental water requirements across the region. It is acknowledged that this work has only been carried out at a limited number of sites, and it will be important to extend our understanding across the region. The monitoring and evaluation section of the EMLR WAP (section 8) outlines the intention to develop integrated monitoring sites representing different habitat types to improve our understanding and help inform review of the EMLR WAP within five years of adoption.

382 - Environment

The requirement for a management plan for water allocated to ecosystems may be a disincentive to do this (principle 17) - encouragement is needed rather than disincentives. This could be encouraged with an online form to make the application process easier.

The Board will work with DEWNR on implementation of this policy to make it as straight-forward as possible. However, it is critical that these allocations are given and used appropriately as they are part of the water that is set aside to provide for the needs of the environment as a whole. Granting this type of allocations may reduce the water available for other ecosystems so they need to be granted and managed carefully, hence the requirement for a management plan.

493 - Environment

Principles 14 -22 are very broad, making implementation difficult as the draft EMLR WAP provides no specific criteria to assess applications against. DFW happy to work with Board to develop appropriate operational

Noted. This is an implementation issue so no changes to the draft EMLR WAP are recommended as a result. The Board will work with DEWNR on developing operational policy.

26


principles to enable implementation.

363 - Environment

Impacts on connectivity of watercourses by structures other than dams needs to be assessed and managed as part of this WAP to allow full operation of water-dependent ecosystems (e.g. wells, watercourse diversion, bridges, culverts and fords).

Agree that connectivity across the landscape is an issue that affects water-dependent ecosystems.Section 7 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP includes water affecting activity policies that guide permits for new activities such as structures in watercourses. These policies include provisions to allow for connectivity for new water affecting activities (e.g. principle 147 f)). The scope of a water allocation plan is limited to dealing with taking and use of prescribed water resources for licensed purposes, and new water affecting activities. A water allocation plan doesn't have the power to affect existing structures in watercourses. The Board's Regional NRM Plan recognises the ecological importance of connectivity across the landscape, and includes management action targets in relation to connectivity between the River Murray and its floodplain (MAT W3.7), and between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems of the Lower Lakes, Coorong and marine environments (MAT B2.3). The issue of the impact of in-stream structures on connectivity in the EMLR catchments is an issue that can be considered in revisions of the Regional NRM Plan.

375 - Environment

It would be helpful to have a list of environmental assets in the appendix (p. 72).

The consultation draft EMLR WAP defines significant environmental assets (SEAs) and Environmental Assets (EAs), and gives indicative maps of those currently known. It is expected that a database of SEAs and EAs will be developed and maintained as a living database that can be added to as new information becomes available. Listing specific assets in the EMLR WAP may limit the ability to continue to add information to the database.

376 - Environment

The draft EMLR WAP states that many risks to the environment are outside the scope of the plan and will be addressed by other mechanisms (p. 77-8). It would be helpful to know what these mechanisms will be.

Agree.Recommend expanding on the other types of mechanisms outside the EMLR WAP that address risks to the environment (including the Board's Regional NRM Plan which has a much broader scope than the EMLR WAP) in section 4.1.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

378 - Environment

Page 81 - Questions why catchment scale management objectives only provide for water-dependent ecosystems at the end of catchments.

The catchment scale limits can only control the total volume taken in the whole catchment, and don't provide any local-scale management of water taking. If there were only catchment scale limits, all of that volume could be taken in one place and cause local-scale environmental problems. In this case, the only point in a catchment where we can be certain that the environmental water needs will be provided for is at the end of the system, and hence catchment scale limits are generally set to provide for end of system (and downstream) requirements. The draft EMLR WAP also includes local scale limits

27


(e.g. at the scale of the management zone and significant environmental asset) to provide water to local assets within a catchment.

485 - Environment

In relation to section 2 of the draft EMLR WAP, the Department has recently been advised that it is not sufficient that a water allocation plan refers to another document that may contain relevant information. The Department will work with the Board in relation to this issue to ensure this section adequately describes each water-dependent ecosystem in the PWRA, and provides details as to the quantity, quality, times and periods of water required by these ecosystems.

Noted.Recommend to amend section 2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include further information on the types of water-dependent ecosystems and their water requirements (description of the functional groups and tables of their water requirements), and emphasise the link to the table in Appendix B that outlines the water regime requirements (timing and flow bands).

590 - Environment

Page 52, section 2.2.1.4: Of the 858 wetlands, how many are in the Finniss, or the EMLR?

Of these 858 mapped wetlands identified in that particular report, 231 are in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, of which 76 are in the Finniss catchment.Recommend that the section on "Fleurieu wetlands" in section 2.2.1.4 (page 52) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP is amended so that the last part of the sentence reads "including 231 within the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA".

598 - Environment

Page 47: Add water quality to section 2.1.1. Agree.Recommend amending section 2.1.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include reference to water quality, and include an environmental water requirements example that illustrates impact of flow on water quality

602 - Environment

Page 79: Which Minister is referred to in section 4.1.4 (discussion on ecosystem allocations)? Example?

The Minister referred to is the Minister responsible for administration of the NRM Act, currently the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. Recognise this is not clear at this location in the consultation draft EMLR WAP.Recommend including a definition of "Minister" in the glossary (as per abbreviation list) and also at the first use of the abbreviation in the consultation draft EMLR WAP. Agree that it would be more informative to include an example of how an ecosystem allocation may be used.Recommend including an example of where an ecosystem allocation from the environmental water provisions may be used in section 4.1.4 to the consultation draft EMLR WAP (e.g. to capture winter flow into a tank which can then be drip-fed back into a

28


threatened pool over summer).

604 - Environment

Where are significant environmental assets (SEAs) mapped and defined? Why are SEAs identified by the Department for Water - does it include all assets?

Figure 1.5 (page 15 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP) gives an indicative map of currently known SEAs, based on applying the definition given in the draft EMLR WAP. The locations of SEAs will be stored in a living database that will continue to be updated as new information becomes available. The consultation draft EMLR WAP proposes that the (now former) Department for Water hold the database, rather than that the Department identifies SEAs. Note that discussions on custodianship of the database are continuing. It is expected that the database to be populated with data from a range of sources for assets that meet the SEA definition.

81 - Environment

Why are local water-dependent assets only restored (as per section 4.1.4) if the whole system is being over-used?

The draft EMLR WAP makes provisions to maintain water-dependent ecosystems across the whole region, through setting consumptive use limits and water-taking rules that aim to meet environmental targets. This water is set aside as part of the system provisions when determining how much water is available for consumptive use, and sits outside the licensing system as "planned" environmental water rather than licensed or "held" environmental water. This means that local water-dependent assets should generally be maintained and potentially restored through these provisions of the plan. The consultation draft EMLR WAP also makes provision for water to be specifically allocated for ecosystem needs through the licensing system if required or desired (as outlined in section 4.1.4), in addition to the water already set aside or provided as above. Providing water to the environment through the licensing system in addition to the water already set aside may be important in cases where environmental water needs to be actively taken or provided to the environment (e.g. captured in winter and stored in a tank to provide drip-feeding to a pool containing threatened species over summer). Water capture for anything other than non-licensed purposes requires a licence, including environmental provisions.

252 - Environment

There appears to be no assessment of the relative values of the locally indigenous water-dependent assets to help support a decision on which of these ought to be maintained, restored or rehabilitated via an ecosystem allocation from the environmental water provisions (as per principle 14-22). In some cases, the level of degradation may be so high that the costs of their restoration is

The draft EMLR WAP makes provisions to maintain water-dependent ecosystems across the whole region, through setting consumptive use limits and water-taking rules that aim to meet environmental targets. This means that local water-dependent assets should generally be maintained and potentially restored through these provisions of the plan. The "ecosystem allocations from the environmental water provisions" are not intended to be used at a broad-scale to maintain ecosystems. Rather, this is additional water that may be licensed to be used for ecosystem provisions at a local scale as desired or appropriate, in addition to the provisions set aside as above. These allocations will be applied for by individuals, groups or perhaps agencies as need arises. Applications for

29


prohibitive. this type of allocation will be assessed on the merits of each case.

348 - Environment

Water-dependent ecosystems should be identified in the EMLR WAP that require engineered supply of water to pre-determined volumes, rates and times, as may sometimes need to occur in highly modified landscapes.


85 - Environment

Would like inclusion of discussion on generous end-of-system flow (in addition to the existing discussion on environmental water requirements), and a scientific study into the importance of this flow (e.g. role of winter Finniss River flow in freshening Point Sturt during the drought). Generous end-of-system flow likely to represent a healthy catchment, and it is hypocritical to blame upstream states for over-allocation without ensuring local flow contribution to the lower lakes.

It is recognised that the local impact of the EMLR is very important for maintaining unique aquatic habitats at the interface between the EMLR streams and Lake Alexandrina/River Murray, and also for provide flowing stream habitats used by migratory species (e.g. fish species that use marine and stream habitats for different parts of their lifecycle), and for providing aquatic refuge habitat during times of low water level in the River Murray and Lake Alexandrina.The work to determine environmental water requirements for the EMLR (as described in section 2 of the EMLR WAP) included consideration of reach types across the EMLR catchments, including the terminal wetlands at the end of the catchments.These connections are identified in sections 2.2.1.4 and 3.4.1, but the nature and importance of the linkages should be further emphasised.Recommend that text be added to section 3.4.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to emphasise the nature, importance and role of the connections between the EMLR catchments and the River Murray and Lake Alexandrina, and connected systems.It seems reasonable for all connected catchments to contribute a share of water to ensure the health of downstream systems. The consumptive use limits in the draft EMLR WAP have been set to provide water to the environment of the EMLR, including the terminal wetlands at the end of the system. These limits will also provide a significant flow contribution to the River Murray and Lake Alexandrina, flowing onto connected systems. The environmental health of the River Murray, lower lakes and Coorong needs to be achieved through a coordinated approach under an overarching instrument such as the upcoming Basin Plan.Flow and ecosystems at the end of the EMLR catchments are significantly influenced by factors that may operate independently of the EMLR and are unable to be managed by the EMLR WAP (e.g. upstream climate and water management in the Murray-Darling Basin). For this reason, it is seen to be important to monitor flow in locations that reflect local conditions in the EMLR, in addition to flow at the end of the EMLR catchments. Environmental assets are scattered across the whole EMLR, and experience different

30


levels of water resource development. An adequate flow pattern at the end of the system does not necessarily mean that there are adequate provisions to the environment across the catchment.

326 - Environment

Concerned that end-of-river flows have not been given enough importance in the draft EMLR WAP - would like to see this addressed. These flows are important for keeping local areas alive (e.g. end of Finniss flow important for freshening end of Point Sturt for breeding birds and fish).


550 - Environment

Recommend sufficient end of river flow for a healthy environment is a required outcome, given the draft EMLR WAP's stated objective. An emphasis on end of system flows places an emphasis on establishing long-term sustainable environmental outcomes and economic returns.


119 - Environment

Plan doesn't appear to recognise environmental assets away from watercourses (e.g. assets away from watercourses dependent on underground water which could be threatened by over-extraction).

Agree that underground water dependent assets need protection too. The consultation draft EMLR WAP already provides that significant environmental assets (SEAs) and Environmental Assets (EAs) have environmental buffer zones that minimise the impact of new wells, new underground water allocations and transfers on them. Environmental assets that are away from the watercourse will be considered as SEAs where they meet the SEA criteria, and where these have been identified will be included in the SEA database. Recommend amending the EA definition in the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include other types of underground water dependent ecosystems (such as stygofauna and phreatophytes), so that they will also be included in the buffer zones rules that already apply to EAs. The Board will need to work with other agencies, institutions and the community to identify locations of underground water dependent ecosystems. The database identifying SEAs and EAs is intended to be al living database that can be updated as information becomes available.Recommend that the definition of "Environmental Asset" and "Significant Environmental Asset" and associated explanatory text and map references be modified in the

31


consultation draft EMLR WAP by deleting the reference to "held by the Department for Water". The custodian of the database is an operational issue and is not required to be specified in the EMLR WAP.

346 - Environment

Underground water-dependent ecosystems should be identified and environmental water requirements should be developed for underground water systems for the region (establish program to identify and register GDEs). Baseflow is crucial for maintenance of water-dependent ecosystems, especially during the low flow season, and for the maintenance of springs and wetlands including Fleurieu Peninsula swamps. Appears that limited knowledge of stygofauna and phreatophytic vegetation means that the environmental water requirements of these systems will not be further investigated or provided for.

The consultation draft WAP identifies baseflow as being of critical importance for environmental water needs, and aims to protect this provision by setting aside the estimated baseflow volume when determining the consumptive use limit for underground water (as outlined in section 4.3.3 on page 107 ). Recommend adding information to beginning of section 2.2.1.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP that makes it explicit that this section includes baseflow as part of "water on the surface", and hence has been considered as part of the environmental water requirements.The draft EMLR WAP includes buffer zones around environmental assets (EAs), significant environmental assets (SEAs) and main watercourses to minimise the impact of new underground water allocations, well construction and transfers on underground water dependent ecosystems. Fleurieu swamps fall under the definition of significant environmental assets (SEAs) and so are included in this provision. Any known underground water dependent ecosystem that meets the SEA criteria is similarly protected. Recommend amending the EA definition in the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include other types of underground water dependent ecosystems (such as stygofauna and phreatophytes), so that they will also be included in the buffer zones rules that already apply to EAs. The Board will need to work with other agencies, institutions and the community to identify locations of underground water dependent ecosystems. The database identifying SEAs and EAs is intended to be al living database that can be updated as information becomes available.

666 - Environment

WAP needs to include environmental water requirements for underground water-dependent systems. How is baseflow impacted by extraction from underground water? How will the precautionary principle be applied to underground water-dependent ecosystems?


712 - Page 47, section 2.1: This section indicates The Board aims to work with the community, other agencies and institutions to improve

32


Environment that the water resources of the area will require further investigation [in relation to water-dependent ecosystems that depend on underground water that are not associated with watercourses]. It would be useful to refer to work to be undertaken to progress this. (3rd paragraph, last sentence)

our knowledge of water resources and the users and environment that depends on them to help inform review of the EMLR WAP within five years of adoption. Investigations into underground water dependent ecosystems is an area of interest, and can build on the work carried out by DEWNR into risk assessment for underground water dependent ecosystems from underground water extraction (see DEWNR Technical Report 2012/03 at www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au).

791 - Existing users

Face further uncertainty as it will take 12-15 months to determine allocations in high demand (orange) zones. No details disclosed (e.g. actual vs. theoretical water use), so landholders can't assess economic impact - affects economic security and viability.

As per comment # 409 - Existing users


Consideration needs to be given to the relocation of unsustainable industries with large consumptive use to other, more capable locations.

The Board's view is that the role of the prescription process is to set out limits and policies that provide for sustainable water taking and use. It is not seen at the role of the prescription process to specify what types of enterprises should be able to use water within those limits and policies - instead that is the business decision of the licensee.


It is recommended that licensed users have a six month period to appeal allocations after being issued their volumetric licence (recommendation 18).

It is expected that in the second half of 2012, DEWNR will write to existing users detailing their proposed allocation and providing existing users the opportunity to discuss their allocations and the volumes assigned to their water resources. Existing users will be given a specified period in which to discuss any issues with DEWNR, after which a water licence will be issued. The licensee then has a period of six weeks under the NRM Act within which to lodge an appeal with the Environment, Resources and Development Court. The appeal only needs to be initiated during this period. An information sheet on a licensee’s right of appeal is included with the licence.


Council flags its intention to take a proactive approach to the identification, potential consolidation and use of wells on community land and within the Mt Barker, Littlehampton and Nairne growth areas, and to work for community and environmental outcomes in negotiation with current landholders, developers and the licensing authority.

Noted.

33



Council submits that, in the case of community land, the licence should be issued to the respective Council irrespective of the occupier of the land, with the ability for Council to allow the occupier to use the water allocated. This would avoid the situation where a water allocation could be taken elsewhere, leaving land without an irrigation source.

A water licence is a separate entity to land. A water licence is always issued to the licence applicant rather than land owner. In the case where the licence applicant leases the land, the transfer of the water licence at the end of the lease to either the owner of the land or a subsequent occupier is a matter for negotiation between those parties.

61 - Existing users

The draft EMLR WAP allows the same basic allocation of water (nominally for stock and domestic use) to all landholders in a way that is unrelated to the size of their property or local rainfall. That is, a farmer will be allowed a 5 ML stock and domestic dam on a small or large property, or in low or high rainfall. This has no rational foundation and is inequitable and discriminatory. The proposed solution is to give each landholder a basic allocation based on the rainfall that falls on that property for whatever use they see fit (stock, domestic, irrigation etc). Permission might be given to take this from surface and/or underground water, depending on the local resource availability. The final allocation procedure would be to divide up the remaining available water. This approach reflects the natural capacity of the land and local water availability, and treats users equitably. This is contrasted with the draft EMLR WAP's approach that gives users in low rainfall areas more water to grow a given crop than users in high rainfall areas.

It is not correct that all properties are allowed a basic allocation of a 5 ML dam for stock and domestic use. Stock and domestic use is not licensed in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. Stock and domestic requirements have been estimated across management zones based on the number of rural households, information on land carrying capacity and information on non-licensed dams and wells, These estimated stock and domestic requirements are set aside from the sustainable limits to work out how much is available for licensed purposes such as irrigation.Any new or enlarged dams, including stock and domestic dams, require a permit or development approval, and these approvals will be guided by the dam construction rules set out in the EMLR WAP. The plan does not set a fix limit of 5 ML of dam capacity per property. Instead, the capacity of all new dams (stock, domestic, irrigation etc) is based on a range of factors including limits at the scale of catchment, management zone, property, reasonable requirements and also limits to protect downstream users and the environment. These provisions recognise that the amount of water available for all purposes, including stock and domestic use, is limited.The process that allocates water to existing users for licensed purposes is separate from the EMLR WAP, and is managed by DEWNR. The existing user allocation process under the NRM Act considers the needs of existing users before future use. This process requires that existing licensed users be given an allocation that meets their reasonable requirements, within sustainable resource limits, allowing those businesses to continue. If water was allocated based on a percentage of runoff from a property, then many of the more intensive water users (such as irrigators) may not get enough water to continue their existing businesses. They may then need to spend substantial sums to purchase water (if it is even available) to be able to continue their existing business. Part of the process of considering the reasonable requirements of existing users is consideration of the fact that more water is required to grow the same crop in a drier area

34


(with less rainfall and higher evaporation) than in a wetter area.


The policy to divide bore and river water (Langhorne creek) is inflexible particularly for the lower reaches of the river. Need flexibility to take what we need from either source at our discretion dependant on season.

The existing user allocation process, which is separate from the EMLR WAP, aims to provide existing users with a volumetric allocation that will meet their reasonable requirements within the sustainable capacity of the water resources. The amount of water available for use is limited. For existing users with access to multiple water resources, allowing complete flexibility to take the entire allocation from either water resource would mean that the entire allocation would need to be counted against the use limit of each resource, increasing the total demand against the limit. This means that it is more likely that demand may exceed the limit, and allocation reductions may be required. If reductions are required, this is likely to particularly disadvantage those users who rely on that resource only and don't have access to other water resources. At the time of issuing licences, DEWNR negotiates with landholders as to the most appropriate split of the allocation between the resources available to the particular water user. Interaction between underground water and watercourse is considered in the scientific investigations undertaken to determine the capacity of the resource. For the purposes of licensed allocation they must be treated as discrete resources and managed within their own consumptive use limit. Consequently once that split is decided upon, it is fixed. A water allocation plan provides for ongoing management of allocations after the needs of existing users have been considered. The draft EMLR WAP provides some flexibility for users to manage their allocations from multiple water resources, within constraints aimed at sustainable management. For example, the rollover provisions of the plan allow users that haven't used all of their allocation in a year to take some of the unused allocation (capped at 10% of allocation) in the following year (for surface water and watercourses), or following two years (for underground water). Users may also increase the volume they can take from a resource by transferring in an allocation from another user within the rules of the plan. In addition, it is recommended that further flexibility be provided by allowing transfer of allocations between underground water and surface water or watercourses, within the limits and rules set out in the EMLR WAP. This change gives further flexibility to conjunctive users to be able to move part or all of their allocation from one resource to the other, provided that this will not breach any of the water-taking limits or rules for the resource that the water would be transferred to.Recommend amending principles 112 and 124 and 134 and associated explanatory text of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to allow transfer of water between resources, within

35


the rules and limits in the plan. Restrictions on transfer of stormwater and roof runoff will remain (as per comment 497 - stormwater section).Also note that, as per comment 75, the Board has recommended that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to allow new allocations within the plan's rules and limits. Obtaining a new allocation is another way that an existing user may improve their flexibility by increasing the volume that can be taken from a given resource.


Water users use a whole range of practices in terms of accessing different water resources at different times as appropriate. WAP is rigid. Need flexibility to allow licensees to manage their water resources within reasonable limits to limit impacts on production and viability.


10 - Existing users

Would like their existing user allocation to be sourced from underground water only, and for this option to be available to other nurseries as well. Have a dam which they have used in the past, but need pathogen-free water for propagation nursery activities. Have invested significant resources in the business and underground water infrastructure.

During the Land and Water Use Survey process, DEWNR collected information on enterprise types and sizes and the water sources used. This information was then recognised on an authorisation. These authorisations have been issued to existing users.The process of allocating water to existing users includes converting the existing enterprise to a volumetric allocation; this allocation will be split between the recognised water sources. Prior to issuing you a water licence, DEWNR will write to existing users detailing their proposed allocation and providing existing users the opportunity to discuss their allocations and the volumes assigned to their water resources. This will provide the opportunity for you to discuss assigning the majority or all of your allocation against underground water. It is expected that this process will commence in the second half of 2012.Please note that the draft EMLR WAP proposes rollover of surface water and underground water. This means that if you do not use all of a particular resource’s allocation in a given year, you can save and use up to 10% of the resource’s allocation within a timeframe specified in the plan (i.e. for surface water, the ‘life’ of rollover is 1 year, while for underground water, it is 2 years).


Concern about when user takes only from dams and the consideration is that only 70% of dams are considered the maximum available volume, fails to recognise that dams top up in winter and available capacity of

Following community feedback, DEWNR has recently conducted a review of the 70% cap on the volume of water that can be allocated from dams as part of the existing user allocation process. While it is still considered that, in an average year, the volume of water available from a dam is 70% of a dam’s capacity due to evaporation and seepage, it is acknowledged that there may be some years when greater than 70% of a dam’s

36


dam increases as water is drawn from dam in top up period.

capacity can be accessed (particularly in years where there is greater than average rainfall during the period of extraction from the dam). It is also acknowledged that the limitation of 70% of dam’s capacity may have a particular affect on those with dams only, who do not have other water sources to fulfil their water requirement. As a result, DEWNR has now revised its position so that for those with dams only, up to 100% of dam capacity is available for allocation (capped at the volume of the existing user's reasonable requirements for their enterprise). The 70% cap on the volume allocated from dams still applies to those with multiple resources as the remainder of these user’s entitlement will be assigned to alternative resources (underground water and/or watercourse water) and any increase in the volume assigned to dams has the effect of reducing the volume assigned to other resources. The 70% figure is still believed to be realistic of the volume of water available from dams, on average.

In the case of new allocations or transfers under the EMLR WAP, principle 42 (from the consultation draft EMLR WAP) provides some flexibility by capping such allocations at 70% of dam capacity, unless the applicant can demonstrate they can get more out of the dam on average.


Our dam is covered to reduce evaporation, receives water from springs keeping it topped up all year therefore ask that the 70% rule not apply in our circumstances

As per comment # 408 - Existing usersYou will have the opportunity to discuss the allocation assigned to your dam, including the significance of any spring inputs with DEWNR during the coming ‘consultation phase’ prior to licence issue.


70% allocation limit from dams does not take into account variability in dam water loss - should include variable evaporation factor based on dam type. No reference has been made to covered or lined dams. Limiting allocation to 70% of dam capacity also disadvantages those who transfer other water into the dam (e.g. from a watercourse or bore, including placing underground water in dams to remove iron reducing bacteria).

As per comment # 408 - Existing usersThe allocation from the dam discussed above relates to the water captured by the dam only. If water from another licensed source is put into the dam (e.g. from a bore or watercourse), that other water will need to be metered and accounted for separately prior to being stored in the dam and would be in addition to the volume allocated from the dam. DEWNR is happy to discuss metering arrangements that adequately measure water from other from other resources and minimise the cost burden on water users (ph: 8463 6876).As per comment # 408 - Existing users

59 - Existing users

The draft EMLR WAP is inequitable and unjust to the majority of landholders because

The process aims to recognise existing users as those who have a current water using enterprise or have made significant commitments to a water using enterprise at the time

37


water is only allocated to those who were irrigating within a specified period. This is a significant cause of antagonism amongst neighbours. The gift of a capital asset (free water allocation to existing users) distorts land values, increasing the value of land owned by those receiving allocations, and decreasing the land value for those that don't. The plan to detach water licences from land, which gives licensees the ability to sell something they were given and don't need, makes this injustice even more unacceptable.

of introducing the Notice of Prohibition. The reason for this is to ensure that those businesses that currently rely on water and those that have made significant investment towards such a business are able to continue their practices by allocating them sufficient water to meet their reasonable requirements. The three year period is considered a reasonable timeframe in which to recognise water using enterprises that are currently in operation. Further water allocations may be available under the policies set out in the EMLR WAP through a transfer from another user. In addition, after careful consideration of the consultation responses, the Board has decided to recommend that new allocations be allowed under the limits and taking rules set out in the EMLR WAP (as per comment # 75 in section 'New allocations'), providing another opportunity for users to obtain an allocation.


Concern about when and how the water allocation was established and how it was measured. The allocation of water requirements based on the use between 1 July 2000 - 15 October 2003. If reasonable requirement exceeds sustainable capacity of the resource, the Minister for Environment and Conservation may reduce their reasonable requirements. When and how was the water allocation established and how was it measured?

The process of providing allocations to existing users aims to protect their business needs at the time of prescription, and is based on historical use within a three year period leading up to prescription. In determining the reasonable requirements of existing users, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation first establishes the size and type of existing enterprises, for example, 10 hectares of grapevines or a 100-sow piggery. An existing enterprise is considered to be a water using enterprise during the period 1 July 2000 – 15 October 2003, with this three year period considered to be a reasonable timeframe in which to recognise water using enterprises that are currently in operation.Once the user’s enterprise has been established, the user’s reasonable water requirements are calculated. With regards to crops, water requirements have been determined using the internationally recognised Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations methodology which determines the maximum volume of water that needs to be applied to a crop in an average year. These volumes are multiplied by the area of crop to determine the total water requirement. With regards to non-irrigation enterprises (industrial/commercial water use), reasonable water requirements have been determined using either a standard method using figures obtained from industry or is determined on a case by case basis in consultation with the existing user.The NRM Act states that the Minister may reduce existing user entitlements if the aggregate of existing user entitlements exceeds the capacity of the resource.A more detailed explanation of how a water allocation is established is set out in the information sheet 'The Allocation of Water to Existing users' available from the Board's website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au

38


In addition, in the second half of 2012, it is expected that DEWNR will write to existing users detailing their proposed allocation and provide more information on the process for determining water entitlements. Each existing user will have the opportunity at this time to discuss their individual allocations with DEWNR.


People have already invested in irrigation properties in the EMLR at a higher cost that non irrigation properties. Local governments do not allow unrestricted access to water for irrigation. Owners of irrigation properties are now not having their right to irrigate recognised by the State Government. This is causing people to express their anger towards the SA Government water policy and subsequently causing us considerable stress.

Local Councils are not the authority that controls access and usage of water resources; this is governed under the NRM Act and is the responsibility of DEWNR under the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation.The process of allocating water to existing users aims to recognise ‘existing users’ as those who have a current water using enterprise or who had made significant commitments to a water using enterprise during the establishment period (1 July 200 to 16 October 2003). The reason for this is to ensure that those businesses that rely on water are able to continue operation by allocating them sufficient water to meet their reasonable requirements. The three year period is considered a reasonable timeframe in which to recognise water using enterprises that are currently in operation. The volume of water available for allocation is limited and this volume is to be distributed between all existing users. If the definition of an ‘existing user’ were expanded to include users who have no current water-using business or no significant investments towards a water-using business, this would mean there is less water available to individual users as the same volume of water would have to be distributed more thinly. This has the potential to provide insufficient volumes of water to those with current businesses, and allocating water to those who currently do not have a business relying on water, which is not the intention of the existing user process. Those who do not qualify as an ‘existing user’ will still have the opportunity to obtain a water allocation through a new or transferred water allocation, subject to the rules in the EMLR WAP.


It is public knowledge that a number of land owners along the Bremer River and elsewhere upstream from Langhorne Creek are zoned for irrigation. The use of irrigation water from these people affects the water users at Langhorne Creek and further downstream. We have all invested significant money in our properties and feel that the investment in the property is relevant not the particular time you irrigated. This is a human rights violation and is outrageous that one

The process of allocating water to existing users aims to recognise ‘existing users’ as those who have a current water using enterprise or who had made significant commitments to a water using enterprise during the establishment period (1 July 200 to 16 October 2003). The reason for this is to ensure that those businesses that rely on water are able to continue operation by allocating them sufficient water to meet their reasonable requirements. The three year period is considered a reasonable timeframe in which to recognise water using enterprises that are currently in operation. The volume of water available for allocation is limited and this volume is to be distributed between all existing users. If the definition of an ‘existing user’ were expanded to include users who have no current water-using business or no significant investments towards a water-using business, this would mean there is less water available to individual users as

39


sort of investment have greater claim to water than another.

the same volume of water would have to be distributed more thinly. This has the potential to provide insufficient volumes of water to those with current businesses, and allocating water to those who currently do not have a business relying on water, which is not the intention of the existing user process. Those who do not qualify as an ‘existing user’ will still have the opportunity to obtain a water allocation through a new or transferred water allocation, subject to the rules in the EMLR WAP.


The establishment period was too short and unfairly disadvantaged some growers who intended to further expand but could not demonstrate sufficient commitment. This may have long-term effects on future growth of the wine industry based on limited access to water or additional costs of water purchase.

The process of allocating water to existing users aims to recognise existing users as those who have a current water using enterprise or have made significant commitments to a water using enterprise at the time of introducing the Notice of Prohibition. The reason for this is to ensure that those businesses that currently rely on water and those that have made significant investment towards such a business are able to continue their practices by allocating them sufficient water to meet their reasonable requirements. The three year period is considered a reasonable timeframe in which to recognise water using enterprises that are currently in operation. The amount of water available for use is limited. However the introduction of a licensing system and the adoption of a Water Allocation Plan will enable water allocations to be traded. This means that over time, water allocations will tend to move to industries which generate more income for a given volume of water. This in turn may result in an increase in the proportion of the water resource being used by the wine industry.In addition, once a water allocation has been granted, it can be used for any purpose, provided the allocation is not exceeded. If water efficiencies can be implemented, this may allow for future expansions. There will be opportunity to secure a greater allocation, in addition to that granted to you under the existing user process, subject to the rules in the EMLR WAP.


Consider existing user demands may be excessive, and recommend checking against figures from the Angas Bremer Water Management Committee.

The use of theoretical crop water requirements (plus management factors) was selected as the basis for determining the reasonable requirements of existing users following community and industry consultation in which a number of options were tabled, including metered use, historical estimates of use and Australian Bureau of Statistics data. While the use of metered data to determine water requirements was considered at this time, it is not widely and reliably available for all crops throughout the entire region. In the interests of providing existing users their reasonable requirements in an equitable, consistent and transparent manner, DEWNR is therefore using a consistent methodology that is available for all crops throughout the prescribed region – being theoretical enterprise requirements. This method was favoured by the community and industry as it considers the variation in climate across the region, considers the reality of different management

40


factors across enterprise types, uses an internationally recognised method (Food and Agricultural Organisation methodology from Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56, 1998) and is socio-economically sensitive because it has been based on the needs of commercial, rather than non-commercial users.An identical methodology was used in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area and a similar methodology used in the Marne Saunders Prescribed Water Resources Area.


The theoretical enterprise requirements listed in table 1 of the of the fact sheet The Allocation of Water to existing Users are extremely generous. These figures should be compared to the Angas Bremer Water Management Committee Annual Reports. The figures should be reviewed.


47 - Existing users

Do the reasonable requirements rates include the requirements in drought situations?

The Theoretical Enterprise Requirements (TERs) for crops have been determined using the internationally recognised Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) methodology and has taken into account the various climatic conditions in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. While the TER is based on the maximum volume of water required to grow a given crop in an average year (based on climatic data over 50 years), TERs are considered generous as they have been calculated on the assumption that the crop is grown for maximum production under non-restricting conditions (for example, sufficient nutrients, non-limiting soil conditions etc) with exceptions for crops where irrigation levels are controlled for quality reasons (such as wine grapes). In addition to the volume of water required by the crop, TER also includes a volume of water for management factors such as delivery of the water and crop management, which have been identified following extensive industry consultation. It is therefore considered that this volume of water is sufficient to enable both commercial and non-commercial operators to grow their crop for maximum production.If additional water is required in a drought year, rollover provisions have been built into the draft EMLR WAP which enable up to 10% of each resource type (surface water or underground water) to be saved and used in subsequent years (as specified in the plan, for surface water, the ‘life’ of rollover is 1 year, while for underground water, it is 2 years). This will enable the user to access additional water if required (i.e. in years of drought).

41



Think the base allocation per hectare for vines is a fair and reasonable amount for the long-term production of grapes.

Noted.


It is recommended that dairy sheds be allocated 140 L/cow/day based on 2000-2003 herd size (recommendation 6) ( justification provided within submission).

DEWNR has adopted this figure and method as the means for determining reasonable requirements for dairy water use. This figure was adopted through consultation with key industry representatives in 2011.


We recommend that our commercial dairy operation continue with existing water use for dairy shed and irrigated pasture.

The process of providing allocations to existing users aims to protect their business needs at the time of prescription, and is based on the maximum area of irrigation and the maximum herd size within a three year period leading up to prescription. The process of allocating water to existing users aims to provide users with an allocation that is sufficient to enable the user to continue with their existing practices.As a result, crop water requirements have been calculated on the assumption that the crop is grown for maximum production under non-restricting conditions (for example, sufficient nutrients, non-limiting soil conditions etc) with exceptions for crops where irrigation levels are controlled for quality reasons (such as wine grapes). In addition to the volume of water required by the crop, allocations also include a volume of water for management factors such as delivery of the water and crop management, which have been identified following extensive industry consultation. It is therefore considered that this volume of water is sufficient to enable both commercial and non-commercial operators to grow their crop for maximum production. Water requirements for dairy operations have determined in consultation with key industry representatives to ensure that the volume allocated is sufficient to enable dairy operators to continue to use water for industrial purposes in dairy sheds.In light of the above, it is considered that the volume of water allocated will be sufficient to enable the continued operation of existing enterprises.It is expected that in the second half of 2012, DEWNR will write to existing users detailing their proposed allocation and providing existing users the opportunity to discuss their allocations and the volumes assigned to their water resources.


We recommend that our commercial cheese and milk manufacturing business continue with its existing use, which is in the order of 6 litres per litre of milk processed.

For specialist manufacturing and unique enterprises, reasonable water requirements will be determined on a case-by-case basis using information obtained by the applicant, and with consideration for available reference data to ensure allocations are reasonable. It is expected that in the second half of 2012, DEWNR will write to existing users detailing their proposed allocation and providing existing users the opportunity to discuss the basis

42


of their allocations.


Do not agree with the TER for Almonds and 5 different climate zones (has provided details and data on why doesn't agree). Recommends that the area around Bletchley be moved into the EMLR Zone 3 or 4 as weather is more consistent with Murray Bridge.

With regards to the TER for almonds, the use of theoretical crop requirement rates (plus management factors) was selected as the basis for determining the reasonable requirements of existing users following community consultation. This position was favoured as it considers the variation in climate across the region, considers the reality of different management factors across enterprise types and is socio-economically sensitive because it has been based on the needs of commercial, rather than non-commercial users.Water requirements have been determined using the internationally recognised Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) methodology (FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56, 1998) which uses meteorological data and crop specific information to estimate crop water requirements. The EMLR PWRA was divided into five climate zones to ensure calculated crop requirements were appropriate for local rainfall and evaporation. In early 2012, the Department of Primary Industries and Regions conducted a review of climate zones in the EMLR (including EMLR5) and whether irrigation requirements are adequately represented in each climate zone. During this review, the area east of Langhorne Creek (which includes Bletchley) was reviewed and it was determined that based on the climate and conditions, the TER is adequately representative of the irrigation requirement for users in this zone. Crop water requirements have been calculated on the assumption that the crop is grown for maximum production under non-restricting conditions (for example, sufficient nutrients, non-limiting soil conditions etc) with exceptions for crops where irrigation levels are controlled for quality reasons (such as wine grapes). In addition to the volume of water required by the crop, TER also includes a volume of water for management factors such as delivery of the water and crop management, which have been identified following extensive industry consultation.It is considered that this volume of water is sufficient to enable the commercial and non-commercial operators to grow their crop for maximum production and the calculations of crop water requirements for climate zone 5 are appropriate.


Even though there is provision for frost protection in the TERs, concerned that some vineyards may be disadvantaged, especially in years of high frost risk. Request one-on-

DEWNR has quantified the volume of water required for frost protection through a process of identifying values and methods used in other regions and then refining the volumes through consultation with local industry representatives and a review of water use estimates provided by those frost protecting crops in the Mount Lofty Ranges. As a

43


one meetings to ensure allocations fair. result, a standard ‘frost protection’ management factor will be allocated to users that is considered to be sufficient for the majority of water users whom have been recognised through the Land and Water Use Survey process as having a frost protection system in place in the relevant period (1 July 2000 – 15 October 2003). DEWNR will commence the issuing of licences to existing users in the second half of 2012 detailing their proposed allocation, giving users an opportunity to further discuss their allocations one on one, if required.

26 - Existing users

If an area is already over-allocated, the government should consider buying intensive farms as they come onto the market, with a view to returning the excess water to the environment and other base users [only keeping its base allocation of 15% runoff].

The existing user allocation process under the NRM Act allows the Minister to limit water allocations to within sustainable limits when licences are first issued, and other tools under the NRM Act allow reduction of allocations if required at a later time. This avoids the need to regain water in over-allocated areas through buying properties as suggested.


Important to apply principles of fairness and commonsense, including in the situation where allocations may be seriously reduced in an over-used catchment, where the majority of water usage is by non-licensed stock and domestic users. In addition, if downstream zones are under-allocated, then any adverse impacts of the upstream water use may well be quite minor, especially in contrast to that farm's economic investment and wider contribution to the community.

Any decision on treatment in high demand management zones will be made on a case by case basis with consideration for the types of uses that are present in that zone. DEWNR acknowledges your concerns regarding zones where demand may consist of predominantly stock and domestic water users that cannot be reduced and that it may not be fair to reduce licensed users in all instances. This will be considered in any management strategy for that zone.


If Minister reduces existing user reasonable requirements in high demand areas when will this be made available and what is the impact on the TER.

Information on the approach in high demand management zones will be communicated to existing users in high demand management zones in the second half of 2012. Existing users will be given the opportunity to have input into the approach with DEWNR prior to any final determination being made by the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation.


The draft EMLR WAP doesn't provide for review and clawback of high intensity water use zone water.

Allocations to existing users (and potential reductions) are dealt with in a process that is separate to the EMLR WAP, which is why these matters are not discussed in the EMLR WAP. The role of the initial water allocation plan in an area is to deal with new allocations, transfers and new water-affecting activities.Through the process for allocating water to existing users, The Minister for Sustainability,

44


Environment and Conservation balances both the needs of existing users and the needs of water dependent ecosystems. A measured and careful approach to any decision to reduce existing user entitlements needs to be taken with consideration for the impacts on existing enterprises/businesses and the risks to the resource.Any decision on reductions in high demand management zones will be made on a zone by zone basis with consideration for the types of uses that are present in that zone, the level of risk to the environment associated with issuing full entitlements in that zone and any impacts to existing users. Reductions may occur in future, once detailed information has been collected at the zone level on resource capacity and usage. This option, together with other management options (including immediate reductions, where appropriate), is currently being considered in high demand management zones.High demand zones will be treated as priority areas for monitoring and the installation of meters. This will enable additional information to be collected to inform whether reductions are required.


There is no mention in the draft EMLR WAP of any proposed reduction in the capacity or number of dams or reduction in number of wells or volume of underground water use. The power of this WAP is limited if bound to protect the rights of existing users. Ideally, water use should be significantly reduced to levels that are adequate to meet environmental needs, especially where ecosystems may already be deteriorating or degraded.

As per comment # 629 - Existing usersLimiting the extraction volume is considered a preferred policy position to reducing number or capacity of dams or number of wells in areas where reductions are needed. Reducing the number of wells is not likely to reduce the impact on the water resource, as the same volume could still be extracted from fewer wells. The tools under the NRM Act for reducing or removing dams are limited and generally only apply to dams constructed before July 1997. The consumptive use limits for surface water and watercourses have been set to meet environmental water provision targets with the existing network of dams and watercourse diversions. It is recognised that reducing or removing dam capacity would further assist water-sharing and environmental provisions. It is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP to provide financial incentives for removal of dam capacity, but this is an option for the Board to consider as part of a larger NRM program. However, the EMLR WAP is able to provide policy incentives and it is proposed that two changes are made to the consultation draft EMLR WAP to provide for this, as outlined in response to comment # 234 ('Dam construction and works' section).


Concerned by the privileging of existing users. The draft EMLR WAP acknowledges that EMLR ecosystems are degraded and the requirement of section 76 (4) (a) (i) (to identify the quantity and quality of water

As per comment # 629 - Existing usersAs per comment # 332 - Existing users

45


required by ecosystems) yet it does not recommend any cuts in existing use or examine the bases of those allocations. Ask why and how the SAMDB NRM Board has interpreted section 76 of the NRM Act? Nor are there any incentives provided to induce a shift in water consumption. Rather, inducements appear to work in favour of making more water available for allocation rather than returning water to the environment. Welcome the policies of no new allocations and returning low flows, but more is needed. Why not review the bases of existing allocations alongside new proposals? Why are we not learning from past mistakes?


With limited understanding of EMLR water resources and that continued, more comprehensive monitoring will allow better informed modification of the EMLR WAP at its five year review, existing WAP proposals should take a cautious and measured approach to reductions for existing individual users. For management zones deemed to be over-allocated, the Dairy Industry proposes 'conditional allocations' to users at or near their existing consumption levels issued on the proviso of further change at the five year review when the extra monitoring delivers actual measured data to ground-truth the modelling (recommendation 1). Where there is uncertainty about resource capacity or environmental impacts, severe immediate restrictions to existing users are not justified. This approach also allows users time to adjust their activities where necessary.

Allocation of water to existing users occurs through a separate process from the EMLR WAP. This process is managed by DEWNR.Through the process for allocating water to existing users, DEWNR aims to balance both the needs of existing users and the needs of water dependent ecosystems that depend on the resource. It is acknowledged that a measured and careful approach to any decision to reduce existing user entitlements needs to be taken with consideration for impacts on existing enterprises/businesses and the risks to the resource.Any decision on treatment in high demand management zones will be made on a case by case basis with consideration for the types of uses that are present in that zone, the level of risk associated with issuing full entitlements in that zone and any impacts to existing users. DEWNR acknowledges your statement that reductions should occur in future, once further information has been collected on resource capacity and usage. This option, together with other management options (including immediate reductions, where appropriate), is currently being considered in high demand management zones. Information on the approach in individual high demand management zones will be communicated to existing users in these zones in the second half of 2012. Existing users will be given the opportunity to have input into any approach to reduce entitlements with DEWNR prior to any final determination being made.Allocations to existing users, and potential reduction of those allocations, is outside the

46


scope of the EMLR WAP. However, the EMLR WAP can include provisions to help mitigate potential risks in high demand zones. Three amendments to the consultation draft EMLR WAP for this purpose are outlined below.Conditional allocations with limited transfer propertiesThe role of a water allocation plan is to provide for new allocations and manage transfers. It is recognised that transfer of allocations has the potential to increase use in an area by moving an allocation that is not used to a new location where it is. This is generally managed under the rules in the EMLR WAP, which only allow transfers within sustainable limits. However, this may create risks to the water resources and users in high demand zones. To help reduce this risk, it is recommended that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to include the possibility of "conditional" allocations that have limited transfer properties. Including this approach in the EMLR WAP provides an additional option that may be used as part of the existing user allocation process in high demand management zones.Recommend amending the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include transfer principles in relation to 'conditional' allocations that have the following properties: they are only able to be transferred if they continue to be taken from the same

location (e.g. on sale of property) if the associated "standard" allocation granted to that user is permanently transferred

away, the associated conditional allocation reverts to the Minister if the associated "standard" allocation granted to that user is temporarily transferred

away, the associated conditional allocation is not able to be taken during the temporary transfer.

'Conditional allocations' would only be granted as part of the existing user allocation process, and then only if seen as an appropriate tool for the circumstances of a given management zone.Joint resource limits for Tookayerta catchmentThe water taking limits in Tookayerta catchment have been re-examined in the context of high water demand, coupled with the strong interactions between underground water and surface flow in that area. Underground water discharge into the watercourse is a significant flow component in Tookayerta catchment. It is anticipated that there will be a high demand for underground water in this area, which may reduce watercourse flow. The close relationship between the water resources also means that there is some scope to have a joint limit for both resources, potentially allowing more to be taken from one resource which is offset by taking less from the other. There is still a need to have caps

47


on the volume taken from each resource to ensure that system and environmental processes are maintained for each resource.Recommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to include provision for a limit that applies to surface water, watercourses and underground water in the Tookayerta catchment (set as the sum of the consultation draft EMLR WAP limits for each relevant management zone from these resources); and also that individual caps remain for each resource as follows: the consumptive use limit for surface water management zones in Tookayerta

catchment stay the same as under the consultation draft EMLR WAP the consumptive use limit for the Tookayerta Permian underground water

management zone and the Tookayerta catchment stay the same as under the consultation draft EMLR WAP; except in the case where the joint limit and either the underground water or catchment limit is exceeded. In this case, the limit for the resource that has not exceeded its limit is the level of current use.

The proposal for joint limits with resource caps provides more flexibility for allocating to existing users in that area. It also helps to mitigate potential impacts of high demand as part of the existing user allocation process, continuing into the EMLR WAP in terms of managing new allocations, transfers and new water affecting activities such as dam construction.For Tookayerta catchment, the unique nature of the water resources (close and rapid exchange between underground water and watercourses ) and the way that water is taken (majority of water taken from the surface is directly extracted from watercourses, rather than taken from dams) makes this approach reasonable here, but much less applicable to other catchments in the EMLR. Considering future reductions for no new net water use in Angas and Bremer catchmentsThe Angas and Bremer catchments are recognised as being fully developed by the consultation draft EMLR WAP, which allows no new net use in these catchments from the use at the date of WAP adoption including existing user entitlements. If existing user entitlements are later reduced to protect the resource and users, it will be important for this to be recognised in the EMLR WAP to avoid the situation where allocations are reduced but new allocations are allowed in areas in those catchments that may be below the limit.Recommend amending principle 47-48 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include recognition of later reductions in allocation when determining the volume of use that should not be exceeded in the Angas and Bremer catchments.

48



The EMLR WAP should recognise that a number of users may not have made applications and should establish secondary users that get priority for an allocation if there is surplus water (as per WMLR WAP). Some Council sites were missed in the existing user allocation process - will need to find alternative water sources or buy a licence under current policy.

DEWNR is keen to work with relevant local government authorities regarding council sites that did not apply for a licence during the existing user allocation process. A policy position is yet to be finalised and DEWNR is investigating the best ways to manage this type of situation. Possible solutions may include potential recognition as a secondary user or through application for a new water allocation or transfer, subject to the rules and limits in the EMLR WAP. This of course is dependent on sustainable water availability and allocations will be established accordingly.The purpose of the EMLR WAP is to allow sustainable water management, and it is not seen as the role of the plan to make judgements about who or what purpose the water should be allocated for unless for resource management considerations.


When we put meters on, provisional licences were issued which halted our planned development due to allocation limits. Why can others get away with not having to be provisionally licensed, I feel this is an injustice.

While licences have yet to be issued in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area, authorisations have been issued under the Notice of Prohibition.The Notice of Prohibition essentially puts a hold on any new development but allows any existing enterprises to continue operating at their existing level of use. The purpose of this is to hold water use at current levels while a better understanding is gained of water use in the region and the capacity of the resource to support future needs. The authorisations issued under the Notice of Prohibition recognise the size and type of existing enterprises. In circumstances where water is taken from a watercourse in the EMLR, a condition has been placed on the authorisation which limits the volume that can be taken from watercourses. These volume limitations have been calculated to reflect current practices and have been specifically included on authorisations where a watercourse is used due to concern regarding the ability of watercourses to sustainably provide sufficient water to all existing users. All users must adhere to the same rules under the Notice of Prohibition, being that they are able to continue with their current practice and must not increase their water use development. While there are specific conditions to limit take from watercourses, the volume limitation has been calculated with the same intent – to enable current practices to continue but to limit any increase in extraction.DEWNR expects to commence the issuing of water licences to existing users in the second half of 2012. Once water licences are issued, existing users will have the flexibility to use their allocation for any purpose, provided they do not take more than their allocation. There will also be the opportunity to obtain additional water for development expansions, subject to the rules in the EMLR WAP.

49



We received an authorisation for 25.7 ha from 38 ML Dam and request that we receive no less than 38 ML per annum based on our existing use.

Following community feedback, DEWNR has recently conducted a review of the 70% cap on the volume of water that can be allocated from dams and has now revised its position so that for those with dams only, up to 100% of dam capacity is available for allocation (still limited by Theoretical Enterprise Requirements).This has been revised in acknowledging that there may be some years when greater than 70% of a dam’s capacity can be accessed and acknowledging that those with dams only do not have other water sources to fulfil their water requirement. In your case, your allocation from your dam will therefore be Theoretical Enterprise Requirements (25.7ha multiplied by the relevant crop water requirement (see fact sheet ‘The Allocation of Water to Existing users’ at the Board's website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au) but limited to 38ML (100% dam capacity).


Concerned / seeking clarification on how allocations will be given in the Angas-Bremer Prescribed Wells area where users have bought and sold underground water. If someone has sold all of their underground water allocation, will they get the full volume back through the Bremer River allocation? Have bought extra underground water to give 6.2 ML/ha for the property, and think it is unfair that they will only be given a further 0.8 ML/ha (to bring allocation up to TER of 7 ML/ha) - but if they had not bought extra underground water then they would receive a greater allocation from the watercourse (to make up the larger difference between existing underground water allocation and TER).

The process of providing allocations to existing users aims to protect their business needs at the time of prescription, and is based on historical use within a three year period leading up to prescription. It is acknowledged that watercourse water users in the Angas Bremer Prescribed Wells area may utilise multiple prescribed resources and that dependence on relative resources may vary year to year dependent on availability. The need for flexibility will therefore be considered in the determination of these users reasonable requirements and your concerns regarding the impact of underground water allocations on reasonable requirements from EMLR water resources has been noted. It is expected that in the second half of 2012, DEWNR will write to existing users detailing their proposed allocation and providing existing users the opportunity to discuss their allocations and the volumes assigned to their water resources. Further information on the methodology for determining allocations to those using both watercourse water from the Angas or Bremer river and other prescribed water (for example, underground water from the Angas Bremer Prescribed Wells Area) will be available at this time.

262 - Forestry

The draft EMLR WAP doesn't provide substantiation for the buffer zones around new forestry, and in the absence of substantiation the plan should adopt the buffer guidelines set out in the State-wide policy framework and the Guidelines for plantation forestry in SA.

As per comment # 436 - Forestry

50


439 - Forestry

In the MLR Forestry SA has a limited plantation base, any reduction of which will have a negative economic impact upon our business and our customers through reduced long term production of sawlog. Policies and planning framework can have significant implications on commercial operations, and this is especially true of long term, capital intensive industries such as plantation forest growing and processing.

As per comment # 437 - ForestryIt is important to note that the permit policies for commercial forestry in the draft EMLR WAP are not retrospective, and only apply to new development once the EMLR WAP is adopted and the relevant NRM Act amendments regulating commercial forestry as a water affecting activity become operational.It is acknowledged that introducing a new management approach can affect current operations. The prescription process is intended to protect the water resources for all users in the long term, including irrigators, stock and domestic users, forestry and the environment. It provides a way of sharing the communal water resource for the benefit of the whole community. It will help to protect the investment of water-using businesses from the impacts of unregulated water taking.

139 - Forestry

When commercial forestry is replanted under a water affecting activity permit, the species planted needs to be taken into account as some are thirstier than others.


389 - Forestry

Recommend that a commercial plantation forest should not be allowed to be replanted if it is in a location that is detrimental to water-dependent ecosystems such as Fleurieu Peninsula wetlands.

Where a new commercial forestry operation is proposed after the adoption of the EMLR WAP and once the relevant parts Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests) Amendment Act 2011 come into operation, approval for a water affecting activity permit is likely to be refused if it would have a significant detrimental effect on a water-dependent ecosystem such as a Fleurieu Peninsula wetland. Therefore replanting is not an issue in this case as the forest is not likely to be approved in the first place.For a existing forest that existed before the EMLR WAP is adopted, the permit requirements in the WAP can't manage replanting, as permits don't apply retrospectively to existing activities. Existing forestry is likely to have been authorised by a development approval which is likely to provide for replanting. Having development approval generally overrides the need for a permit under a water allocation plan or Regional NRM Plan.

245 - Forestry

Page 44, section 1.5.6: Future forestry demand example is inappropriate and incorrect. Recommend replacing text to reflect likely increase in forestry in the area of up to 2,000 ha (as per CSIRO report), which is only expected to have small impacts on the region's water resources.

Agree. Recommend replacing the text on future forestry demand in section 1.5.6 consultation draft EMLR WAP with the following:"No substantive increase in plantation forestry is expected in the region for the life of this plan. Current predictions indicate an increase in the area of plantation forestry to 2,000 ha by 2030 (CSIRO 2007).

51


263 - Forestry

The draft EMLR WAP does not make it explicit what land uses are acceptable within the buffer zones around new forestry areas (which are not to be ripped, planted or ploughed). It is envisaged that some form of land management is required in the buffer zone to avoid other NRM issues such as weeds and soil erosion.

Principle 147 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP (which applies to all water affecting activity permit applications, including new commercial forestry) set out that such an activity must not cause soil erosion or watercourse bank stabilisation, adverse impacts on water-dependent ecosystems or unacceptable deterioration in water quality (amongst other things). These outcomes may be achieved in different ways and it is not seen as appropriate for the plan to specify how these outcomes should be achieved in every circumstance.Recommend that principle 255 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be deleted as the outcomes that this principle is aimed at are already covered by principle 147.

430 - Forestry

Supports the Board that with plantations being less than 10% of the landscape in EMLR the effects of plantations is only likely to be localised. Future expansion of forestry in the MLR is likely to be limited, and plantation expansion does not pose a risk to water resources in the foreseeable future. Increased regulation of plantations is not warranted under NWI principles.

Interception or extraction of water by forestry can have significant local effects on other users and the environment. It is considered to be equitable to regulate future interception activities, as occurs for other interception activities such as dams.

434 - Forestry

The Plan should articulate the significant benefits that trees and plantations provide in the landscape including recreational opportunities and an important role in catchment management by reducing salinity and storing carbon.

Agree.Recommend amending section 1.5.3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include comment on benefits of forestry (recreational, catchment management (salinity, storing carbon)

435 - Forestry

The principles applying to commercial forestry (239 - 255) within the plan are ambiguous in intent compared with the WMLR WAP. The Principles can only apply if the NRM Act is amended, and apply to 'commercial forests after the date of adoption" of the Plan. It is unclear whether the principles only apply to new commercial plantations, or are retrospective.

The intent is that these principles only apply to new commercial forestry applications made after the date of adoption of the EMLR WAP, or once the relevant provisions of the recent Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests) Amendment Act 2011 come into operation. It is not intended that these principles are retrospective. New commercial forestry may also be regulated by the Development Act 1993, and a water affecting activity permit (under the EMLR WAP) is not required if appropriate development authorisation is held. It is expected that as part of making the Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests) Amendment Act 2011 operational, that links will be made with the development approval referral process to allow inclusion of assessment of development applications against the relevant principles in the EMLR WAP.

52


Recommend amending the first and second paragraph of section 7.2.9 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP and associated explanatory text to make it clearer that a water affecting activity permit is only required for new commercial forestry after adoption of the plan and once the relevant provisions of the Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests) Amendment Act 2011 come into place, and identify the linkages to the development authorisation process.

438 - Forestry

Plantation areas given the draft EMLR WAP can't be verified as they are not given by management zone. Areas appear to be gross area (including firebreaks, setbacks and buffers) rather than net areas, and would hence over-estimate impact by 10-15%. Query the lack of forest runoff interception in Angas catchment when 56 ML of recharge interception occurs in that catchment (Table 1.9, p 41). Inclusion of environmental plantings at Monarto as commercial is inappropriate - not commercial.

The ”South Australia Land Use 2008” data, from which the EMLR forestry data was extracted, was created using the best available data in 2007 for each land use type. For example, data from Forestry SA was used to define forestry extent. This does not necessarily follow parcel boundaries, but parcels showing road extents were used to exclude any overlapping area of road classed as forestry. The discrepancy between estimated forest water use between surface water and underground water has been investigated, and small differences between the datasets have been found.Recommend amending the volumes of underground water interception by forestry included in Tables 1.9 and 4.7 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP to updated figures reflecting the dataset used for surface water.The EMLR forestry data does not include any forestry areas in the vicinity of Monarto.

557 - Forestry

The draft EMLR WAP does not include or adequately address forestry. What is the real impact of forestry? Cost and economic value? More attention to forestry impacts is required.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes provisions for addressing the impacts of commercial forestry as far as it is able to under current legislative arrangements. The current impact of forestry has been included in the water budget in the WAP (see section 1.5.3, Table 4.7 (underground water limits, which subtract water used by forestry from the total recharge as part of the process of determining the volume available for allocation), and principle 35 d) (which includes forestry use as part of total consumptive use from surface water and watercourses)). The Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests) Amendment Bill 2011 allows commercial forestry to be included as a water affecting activity that requires a permit. Once the relevant parts of that amendment bill come into operation and the EMLR WAP is adopted, then the water affecting activity permit policies in section 7.2.9 of the EMLR WAP will apply to new commercial forestry in the region. It is expected that development approvals for new commercial forestry will be assessed against these WAP policies via the referral requirements under the Development Act regulations.

753 - Forestry

Uncertain if the commercial forestry principles apply to existing forestry (as per

The permit requirements only apply to new commercial forestry (after the EMLR WAP is adopted and the relevant provisions of the forestry amendment to the NRM Act come into

53


comment 435). Principle 239 would suggest these principles don't apply to existing plantations provided there is no increase in the area, as there is no change in overall water use from felling and replanting. Many of the Kuitpo plantations were planted on land cleared of native vegetation (not pasture) and their water use is already accounted in the long-term stream records.

operation). Water interception by existing commercial forestry is treated like other existing non-licensed consumptive use as a volume to be accounted for against the consumptive use limits when assessing new allocations and transfers, and permits for new dam capacity construction and new commercial forestry.The consumptive use limits have been set to meet environmental provisions (balanced with consumptive use) on the basis that the current runoff characteristics reflect a mixed-use landscape. The impact of existing forestry, dams and watercourse diversions are reflected in the long-term stream records and these have been accounted for to determine the flow expected to occur in a mixed-use landscape if they were not present.

787 - Forestry

Assumed plantation interception of 3% of total surface water, and 2.4% reduction of underground water recharge, represents a potentially larger impact on the water resources than a forestry area of <2% would suggest.

If forestry areas were evenly distributed over the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, their percentage impact on water resources would be expected to reflect the percentage of forestry landcover. However, forestry areas are largely concentrated in areas of higher rainfall, so their percentage impact on the water resources is higher.

436 - Forestry

No scientific basis is provided as to why drainage paths must remain unplanted or why buffer widths have been adopted. Such buffers provide little or no water quantity benefit unless actively managed as pasture - so who will fund the costs of this management? Have own program to establish and manage buffers on significant watercourses over time which seek to restore native vegetation for water quality (not quantity) benefits.

Further analysis has been taken out of the potential impact of forestry on water resources. It is recommended that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended so that buffer distances between new commercial forestry and water-dependent ecosystems are consistent with the approach set out in the state-wide policy framework for managing the water resource impacts of plantation forests, and on further modelling into impact of water extraction on discharge to streams, as follows:Recommend deleting principle 253 of the consultation draft EMLR WAPRecommend amending principle 254 consultation draft EMLR WAP so that the forestry setback distances are as follows: 5 m from the edge of drainage paths 20 m from the centreline of a watercourse or edge of an environmental asset or

significant environmental asset, where the watertable is more than 6 m below ground level

Where the watertable is within 6 m of ground level, the buffer distance from the centreline of a watercourse or edge of an environmental asset or significant environmental asset is 50 m for a forest area of 5 ha or less; 200 m where the forest area is 20 ha or more; or else the value, in metres, calculated as the forest area (in ha) x 10. The forest area is to include any adjacent forest area, which is forest where the average distance between the areas is less than the sum of the specified buffer

54


distances that would be assigned to each area in isolation.

437 - Forestry

Principles 239 - 255 are onerous to any new commercial forest activity and Forestry SA queries why some of these principles do not apply more to other activities rather than specifically to plantation forestry - discriminatory and inequitable. Timber plantations should be treated on an equitable basis with all other land uses, and any policies such as buffers or those that attempt to account for forest interception activities should include all similar water interception activities. Forestry SA strongly supports risk based approach to policy development, however, this needs to be equitable to all stakeholders to ensure rational economic decisions can be made.

Commercial forestry has the potential to have a significant impact on water resources, particularly at the local scale, as identified in the state-wide policy framework for managing the water resource impacts of plantation forests. Water affecting activity permits can only be required for the specific activities set out in section 127 of the NRM Act and associated regulations, which includes commercial forestry following the passage of the Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests) Amendment Bill 2011. Other water-intercepting land uses may be considered in future reviews of the NRM Act, , based on scientific investigation of potential risks and impacts.

258 - Forestry

Why does commercial forestry require a water affecting activities permit, but not other activities with similar interception characteristics?


634 - Forestry

Regarding commercial forestry - the type of trees used and the age of the trees changes the water requirements. Replanting should not be with trees that use more water. Monoculture crop should be avoided.

The state-wide policy framework for managing the water resource impacts of plantation forests sets out that the estimated water use by a plantation forest should be based on the maximum water use over the life cycle of the forest. It is understood that the water use rates included in principle 241 b) ii) reflect this, taken from research on water use by trees in the south east of South Australia (see comment # 432 in 'Forestry' section). The difference between the given rates for hardwood and softwood is small, and it expected that the variation over time and between sites is likely to blur any differences between species use at replanting.

The draft EMLR WAP doesn't seek to manage the mix of species used in other types of water-using enterprises like irrigation, and likewise it is not seen as appropriate for the plan to include requirements on species mix for commercial forestry. The Board's view is that the role of the prescription process is to set out limits and policies that provide for

55


sustainable water taking and use. It is not seen at the role of the prescription process to specify what types of enterprises should be able to use water within those limits and policies - instead that is the business decision of the licensee.

432 - Forestry

The use of South East commercial plantations direct extraction rates in the EMLR is not appropriate and not based on science or fact because the significant differences in climate and the underlying geology, soils and topography between these regions. The proportion of underground water directly sourced by forests varies considerably in space and time (seasonally and over forest life). Net usage depends on position in landscape, and is nil when water is saline.

The direct extraction of underground water by plantation forestry is only considered in the draft EMLR WAP for areas where unconfined underground water table exists within 6 m of the land surface. The CSIRO researchers who undertook the research in the South East from which the direct extraction rates proposed in the EMLR WAP were derived, undertook similar research in a blue gum plantation over shallow underground water in the southern Fleurieu Peninsula between 2008 and 2010. In their report on the results of this work (Holland and Benyon, 2010) they concluded that“…for healthy, rapidly growing, closed-canopy E. globulus plantations on the Fleurieu Peninsula at which fresh or low salinity underground water is always present within 6 m of the ground surface, it is probably acceptable to apply the average uptake rates observed in the Green Triangle (South East SA), particularly if a precautious approach to water allocation is adopted.”No similar research is available for pine plantations in the Fleurieu Peninsula. However, in view of the findings and recommendations of Holland and Benyon regarding blue gum plantations in the Fleurieu Peninsula, it is considered that the rates derived by Benyon and Doody (2004) in the South East are also appropriate to apply to both blue gum and pine plantations in the EMLR, until more specific research findings are available.Ref: Benyon RG and Doody TM 2004, Water use by tree plantations in south east South Australia, CSIRO. Canberra. Holland KL and Benyon RG 2010. Water use by Eucalyptus globulus plantations over shallow underground water on the Fleurieu Peninsula. CSIRO: Water for a Healthy Country National Research Flagship. 23 pp.

433 - Forestry

Forestry SA concurs that there is "currently insufficient information in relation to shallow water tables to estimate the volume of annual direct extraction of underground water by plantations forests in the area" The insignificant area of existing plantations; the low probability of future expansion in the EMLR; and the lack of robust scientific

Disagree that the inclusion of direct extraction of underground water by commercial forestry is unnecessary and overly precautionary. As outlined in the state-wide policy framework for managing the water resource impacts of plantation forests, direct extraction by forestry has potential to have a significant impact, particularly at local scale. The limited information on the depth to the water table across the EMLR means that direct extraction of underground water by commercial forestry has not been included in estimates of underground water use by current forestry. However, it is considered reasonable to account for this for new commercial forestry in order to protect other users

56


information on plantation water use (especially ground water), makes the inclusion of direct extraction unnecessary and overly precautionary.

and the environment, in the same way that the draft EMLR WAP seeks to protect other users and the environment from the potential underground water drawdown impacts associated with new wells, and new licensed underground water extraction from wells in an area.

440 - Forestry

Question the inclusion of any purported underground water use by commercial plantations across EMLR given that 85% provision for streamflow reduction for forest and together they may double-count water use. Any underground water use in dry years is likely to be already accounted for within the 85% surface water reductions given the conservation of mass balance within the base hydrologic equation.

Do not agree that considering reduction in runoff, underground water recharge and direct extraction of underground water by forestry is double-counting the impacts of water use by forestry. The state-wide policy framework for managing the water resource impacts of plantation forests adopts the position that rainfall interception by plantation forests can be assumed to reduce runoff to surface water and recharge to underground water by 85%. In addition, where plantation forests have direct access to underground water, they may also extract underground water that has been recharged. The state-wide policy framework's position is that plantation forests may access underground water through direct extraction when the depth to the underground water table is less than six metres. The EMLR WAP is consistent with both of these positions. The reduction in baseflow by existing plantation forestry (as a result of reduced recharge) has also been accounted for by using baseflow figures that are based on the existing forestry being in place for the surface water modelling and underground water limit calculations.

235 - Forestry

Supports the inclusion of forestry as a controlled water use under the EMLR WAP (recommendation 4).

Noted.

316 - Forestry

Supports the need for permits for new commercial forestry. Carbon policy means that there is a risk that commercial forestry could increase resulting in an impact on the water resource.

Noted.

372 - Forestry

Recommend that legislation be passed to regulate the plantation forestry industry given that underground water extraction by forestry threatens the already critically endangered Fleurieu Peninsula swamps and wetlands.

The Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests) Amendment Bill 2011 was recently passed, allowing commercial forestry to be considered as a water affecting activity (or licensed activity). The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes policies for assessment of new commercial forestry proposals which aim to minimise the impact of forestry on the water resources and other users, including the environment. These policies will be activated once the EMLR WAP is adopted and the relevant parts of the amendment bill become operational.

57


423 - General comments

We support all recommendations and resolutions made in the "Dairy Industry Submission" by the South Australian Dairyfarmers Association [submission 18], such as our primary commercial dairy business.

Noted.


Support the SADA response to the draft EMLR WAP. [submission 18]

Noted.


Supports the SADA submission [submission 18].

Noted.


Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure will not be making a formal submission on the draft EMLR WAP.

Noted.


Supports and endorses submission by Silver Moon. [submission 26]

Noted.


Barossa Council only has a very small area within the EMLR PWRA and therefore won't be submitting specific comment in relation to the draft EMLR WAP. Appreciate the opportunity to review the plan.

Thank you for your interest.

268 - Implement-ation

The EMLR WAP needs to recognise and articulate the need for commonsense and flexibility when implementing WAP proposals at the individual user level. As part of this, dairy farmers recommend that individual 'Implementation Officers' be nominated for each catchment or management zone, as the first point of contact for both users and other authorities for any WAP issue within each

DEWNR and the Board agrees the value of establishing collaborative and strong relationships between the community, DEWNR and the Board throughout the implementation process for the EMLR WAP cannot be under-estimated.The Board and DEWNR work closely together to ensure policy and implementation synchronise, even though the organisations have responsibility for different aspects of the process. From a licensing perspective, the approach being taken is that a single Water Licences Enquiries number will be attended during business hours by the Water Planning and Management Division of DEWNR (ph: 8463 6876). The team of officers who will manage all calls and queries through that line have a mix of skills and knowledge ranging

58


zone (recommendation 2). This will facilitate engagement of the community and ownership of the EMLR WAP, and better information sharing.

from field specialists to licensing and water levy specialists. The intent is to ensure that every query is responded to by the most appropriate officer.This Water Licensing number will be promoted to the EMLR community as a way to progress any issues or provide help they may need as the EMLR WAP is rolled out. From DEWNR’s perspective, it is also a useful way to monitor feedback from the farming and irrigation communities and ensure decision-making within individual catchments and managements zones is appropriate and fair.


Supports SA Dairy Industry response [submission 18], in particular the recommendation that individual 'Implementation Officers' be nominated for each catchment or management zone.

As per comment # 268 - Implementation


A standard form could be developed by the relevant agency to advise all landholders in the region of their current water allocation. The appropriate sections of the completed plan could be highlighted to ensure clear understanding relative to amendments to current use. Regular monitoring is essential, and if deviation is detected by other landholders then an immediate investigation should be mandatory.

A land holder’s current water allocation is shown on their water licence. In addition the NRM Register (http://www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au/wlpr/Pages/default.aspx) administered by DEWNR provides web based access to information about current Permits, Licences, Allocations and Approvals. Permits and licences can be searched for by either the reference number or land title reference. The information provided includes the land title reference, the land owner, and the volume of water allocated.It would not be practical to highlight which sections of the plan are appropriate for each individual landholder as they will vary depending on how a particular landholder decides to manage their allocation in a particular year. For example a particular landholder may decide part way through the water use year to transfer part of their allocation to a neighbour. In that case the transfer rules will apply.Licensed water users from watercourses will be required to meter their water use and must not take more than the allocation given. DEWNR will be implementing a program to ensure that metered use is within allocations.If a landholder becomes aware of a water use that they suspect may be illegal, they should write to DEWNR at GPO Box 2834 Adelaide 5001 or [email protected]. The matter can then be investigated.


In table 4.1 - [transfer] between surface water catchments - how will this be done? By whom? Which department?

DEWNR assesses applications to transfer the right, to take a particular quantity of water, from one catchment to another. Transfers can be either permanent transfers of allocation or temporary transfers. Applications are made via the appropriate form and need to be accompanied by an application fee. The applications are then assessed against the policies in the water allocation plan using information provided on the form and

59


information available to DEWNR. In some cases an additional technical assessment is also carried out.The assessment of the transfer of water with the criteria in the water allocation plan is a separate process to acquiring the water. This transaction needs to occur between the transferor and the transferee, including any negotiations on volume transferred and pricing.


How is good practice rewarded for sustainable water use?

This is an area where the Board thinks the community could play a pivotal role in scoping ideas right through to how incentive based programs could work. The nature of the licensing system and the water allocation plan as set out under the NRM Act is more of a regulatory approach, which tends to operate such that there are consequences for unsustainable water use, rather than rewards for sustainable water use.Options could be explored with the community outside the water allocation plan to reward good practice. For example, the Angas Bremer Water Management Committee has developed an irrigation Code of Practice against which growers can be accredited to demonstrate good practice irrigation management. Benefits of accreditation include the right to promote their good environmental management by use of a new logo; minimising data collection and reporting requirements; and automatic compliance with the water module of a new grape grower's environmental management system (for more information, see www.angasbremerwater.org.au/code_of_practice.php).


Recommend that the EMLR WAP describe the process of how water allocations will be monitored and assessed against the general allocation criteria (p. 117-123). This process should be transparent and available to the public to view and to participate in.

Metering and the use of annual water reporting are the main tools to monitor individual allocations. The State metering policy dictates that all licensed water use is metered. Water use must remain within the licensed allocation and penalty charges apply if a licensee exceeds their allocation. This processes are managed outside the water allocation plan. The draft EMLR WAP sets out annual water use reporting requirements in section 8. A water allocation plan sets out the principles in relation to how new water will be allocated. The Minister (through his delegate) allocates water in accordance with the plan. In relation to the assessment of new allocations, the principles set out in the allocation section of the draft EMLR WAP provide clear direction to the delegate in the determination of any allocation. However if during the operation of the plan, it becomes apparent that further direction is required, then there will be an opportunity to amend the plan during the five yearly review.

672 - Recommend investment in best practices - Great idea! The Board is keen to keep working together with the community and other

60


Implement-ation

e.g. a "focus on the Finniss" - the NRM Board could consider supporting creative locally driven initiatives that could reinforce best practices and ultimately change attitudes regarding the importance of water reform and the benefits to the community and economy of a healthy river system. This could be a way of establishing 'model farm dams' and exploring the best practices to address this end.

agencies towards practical implementation of the plan, including engagement and demonstration sites throughout the region to develop and support best practice. This idea is a great example of the initiatives that the community could develop to provide inspiration and innovation in water resources management.


Council would prefer a "one-stop shop" approach to approvals, including mixing of stormwater and treated wastewater (e.g. WAA permit not required if have EPA approval, but also need Department of Health approval for reuse of treated wastewater).

Section 129 of the NRM Act sets out the cases where a water affecting activity permit is not required because another type of approval is held for an activity. The desire for a "one-stop-shop" for approvals is acknowledged and is something for the Board and DEWNR to consider exploring with other approval agencies.


Forcing primary producers to use only prescribed personnel in construction of dams and low flow bypasses is a breach of free trade and civil rights. Prescribed stocking rates, types of products and the amount of water to be used in production of these, without reasonable scientific justification, are breaches of our societal norm and values.

The EMLR WAP doesn't require or specify any of these things.The existing user allocation process allocates water to existing users based on the reasonable requirements of their enterprises (and/or significant commitments) in the period before prescription. The water is allocated as a volume and licensees can use their allocation volume for whatever type of product they choose.


Faith of farmers has been shattered by unfair decisions, in particular two separate cases where large dams have been approved apparently in contravention of restrictions on dams. Trust to administer fairly must be earned.

Without details it is difficult to comment on the specific cases that you raise, however it is possible that the proponents were able to demonstrate that they had made a significant legal or financial commitment to building the dams during the establishment period (1 July 2000 to 16 October 2003), in which case, under the NRM Act, they would have the same rights as an existing user who had an established dam.


Recommend a management system that is properly resourced to monitor water use in the EMLR, has the power to enforce recommended measures of the EMLR WAP

Water use will be monitored through a requirement for licensed water use to be metered, complemented by a system of water use reporting by licensees as well as monitoring and evaluation of water resources and dependent ecosystems. Monitoring and evaluation outcomes will be made available through mechanisms such as regional water use

61


and is accountable to local communities. reporting and status and condition reporting.The EMLR WAP will be implemented through the water licensing and water affecting activity permits systems for activities commencing after the plan is adopted. The NRM Act provides potential enforcement measures which may be used where voluntary compliance approaches have not worked.


An estimate of adequate funding for implementation should be an integral part of WAPs, including MERI, flow monitoring, costs for provision of low flow bypasses (at various levels of co-contribution from landholders), and cost of buying out or reducing the size of existing dams. These areas seem inadequately funded or not funded.

The Board's funding programs are determined through the Business Plan component of the Board's Regional NRM Plan on a yearly basis, not through the water allocation plan which is essentially a regulatory instrument. The Board will work together with the community and other agencies toward implementation of the EMLR WAP, including monitoring and evaluation requirements. Incentives or other approaches to encourage voluntary dam removal or reduction is an issue for the Board to consider to complement the requirements set out in the EMLR WAP.We will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows across the Mount Lofty Ranges. An important part of this program will be developing an appropriate cost sharing model together. The agencies are pursuing funding to assist with the costs of returning low flows.


Consider payment of incentives for better water management, including grants to speed up installation of meters and low flow bypasses, including incentives for low flow bypasses for those not required to install them with dams with significant impacts.

Thank you for the suggestion. The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows across the Mount Lofty Ranges. Incentives and other approaches to encourage voluntary return of low flows from infrastructure not required to do so is something to be considered as part of this program.


It would help the democratic process by making all information about water trading, transfer and ownership publically available.

The NRM Register (http://www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au/wlpr/Pages/default.aspx), administered by DEWNR, provides web based access to information about current Permits, Licences, Allocations and Approvals. Permits and licences can be searched for by either the water licence reference number or land title reference. The information provided includes the land title reference, the land owner, and the volume of water allocated.The Board will include a link to the NRM Register on the Board's website.

The rules regarding transfer of water allocations are stated in the draft EMLR WAP.

294 - It is recommended that a register of intending As per comment # 133 - Implementation

62


Implement-ation

EMLR licensed water sellers and buyers be established promptly at the commencement of the EMLR WAP (recommendation 19). This will facilitate development of an operational water market to help farmers adjust to WAP implementation.

Water brokers help to bring together buyers and sellers. This is not seen as the role of the Board. However this is a good idea that community or stakeholder groups could further explore to assist in helping farmers adjust.


Recommend that all water ownership needs to be made public. Transparency of information on all aspects of the system is important, including water ownership and breaches of standards of quality and contamination.

As per comment # 133 - ImplementationTransparency however needs to be balanced with the generally accepted practice that a person’s business transactions are afforded a degree of privacy.With respect to breaches of quality and contamination standards, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) issue licences for activities which lead to pollution or have a risk of pollution including activities that may impact on water quality or cause contamination. A public register is available to search these licences at: http://www.epa.sa.gov.au/what_we_do/public_register_directory/environmental_authorisations_licences.


Information on water ownership must be made public.

As per comment # 133 - ImplementationTransparency however needs to be balanced with the generally accepted practice that a person’s business transactions are afforded a degree of privacy.

261 - Imported water & effluent

Suggested that the plan includes the basis for the volumetric thresholds set for requiring a permit for use of imported water and effluent.

The risks associated with use of effluent and imported water are highly variable from case to case, as influenced by water quality, soil characteristics, land slope, depth to watertable, proximity to watercourses and so on. The threshold above which a permit is required for use of these types of water was set for the consultation draft EMLR WAP using a conservative approach to minimise potential impacts on resources, other users and the environment, based on expert opinion of likely risks associated with different volumes of use. The approval process and permit conditions can be responsive to the level of risk for a particular case. For example, a low-risk case may have minimal permit conditions included.It is considered more appropriate that information on the basis for the volumetric threshold be included in the intended explanatory document, rather than in the EMLR WAP. The explanatory information in section 4 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP is focused on key policy areas such as the consumptive use limits.It is acknowledged that setting the threshold above which a permit is required as a fixed annual volume don't allow flexibility to exclude permitting requirements in the case where there is a low rate of usage over a larger area (likely to be lower risk), or include

63


permitting requirements for high intensity use over a small area (likely to be higher risk). The EMLR WAP would be more flexible and responsive if it included consideration of the rate of use as well as the annual volume.Recommend changing the rate at which a permit is required for use of effluent or imported water in section 7.2.6 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP as follows:Effluent: change from 0.5 ML/y to become 0.5 ML/y or 0.5 ML/ha/yImported water: change from 1 ML/y to become 1 ML/y or 1 ML/ha/yIt is important to note that the use of effluent is commonly governed by other approval processes such as environmental authorisations under the Environment Protection Act 1993. A water affecting activity permit under a water allocation plan or Regional NRM Plan is only required if an environmental authorisation isn’t required.


Recommend that objectives for section 7.2.6 on use of effluent should include no harm to ecosystems from effluent.

The general objectives and principles that apply to all water affecting activities (section 7.1) already include requirements that water affecting activities must not have adverse effects on water-dependent ecosystems (e.g. principle 147 f) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP). These principles apply to all water affecting activities in addition to the activity-specific principles such as those set out in section 7.2.6.


The definition of effluent and domestic wastewater in the NRM Act is unclear in regard to treated wastewater and needs to be clarified in the EMLR WAP.

The EMLR WAP needs to be consistent with the NRM Act. If you have specific concerns with the definitions of these terms, it is recommended that you seek to have the definitions given in the NRM Act amended.


An objective should be added to section 7.2.6 (use of imported water and effluent) that recognises the potential to use treated wastewater for positive environmental benefit (e.g. Laratinga wetland).

A water allocation plan is a regulatory document that guides assessment of applications for new allocations, transfers and water affecting activities. Encouraging or requiring use of treated wastewater is outside the scope of a water allocation plan. An objective on the potential for use of treated wastewater for environmental benefit is more appropriate for documents that set broader targets and directions, such as regional and state-wide NRM Plans and the state's Water for Good plan. However, the potential for environmental benefit from use of treated wastewater should be acknowledged in the explanatory section of the draft EMLR WAP that outlines water re-use opportunities. Such benefits may be in terms of potential habitat provision, and also because use of alternative water sources like treated wastewater may reduce the demand on the local prescribed water resources.Recommend that text be added to section 1.5.6 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to recognise the potential for environmental benefit from appropriate, authorised use of

64


treated wastewater.


Water allocation planning may not currently take into account potential regional water use efficiency gains by utilising treated and quality regulated excess mine waters - would like to see this activity included (as per allocation objective a to encourage efficient use of water resources in a sustainable manner). Suggest that treated water from the Terramin mine site be used in the Angas River and tributaries to supplement depleted environmental flows or to provide water for irrigators downstream. Between 150 - 350 ML/year of low salinity treated water is produced via reverse osmosis treatment to standards suitable for irrigation or aquatic ecosystem standards, as per EPA 2003 water quality standards - sourced from ingress underground water and tailings storage facility. The water is currently released into the local sewage pond system or re-injected into a highly saline aquifer, where it is of no use to the environment or regional businesses.

A water allocation plan is a regulatory document that guides assessment of applications for new allocations, transfers and water affecting activities. Encouraging or requiring use of treated wastewater is outside the scope of a water allocation plan. Broader strategic documents such as the Board's Regional NRM Plan and also the state Water For Good plan include targets encouraging water re-use. It is recognised that appropriate re-use of suitable wastewater can have environmental benefits by reducing the demand on the local prescribed water resources, and production benefits by increasing the amount of water available for sustainable consumptive use. Industrial wastewater is generally not part of the prescribed water resources, and so use of wastewater is not included in the water licensing system. The allocation limits and rules in the draft EMLR WAP are based on the characteristics of the prescribed surface water, watercourse water and underground water resources.Use of wastewater and discharge into waterways generally requires other types of approvals, in the form of an environmental authorisation under the Environment Protection Act 1993, or a water affecting activity permit under the NRM Act. The Board's Regional NRM Plan and the draft EMLR WAP set out policies for assessment and conditions for permit applications for such activities in the case where an environmental authorisation is not required.


Where the use of effluent or imported water is proposed, strict monitoring of the water should be enforced, as well as monitoring of soil and underground water at the usage site.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP provides that monitoring of potential impacts should occur where appropriate for water affecting activities, which includes use of effluent and imported water (principle 146 f)). It is intended that a risk based approach is taken rather than a blanket approach, with the type and intensity of monitoring requirements set in relation to the level of potential risk of the activity. For example, the level of monitoring required may be lower in the case of use of very small quantities or water sources of reliably good quality, compared with high intensity use or poorer quality water.

200 - Imported water &

The draft EMLR WAP does not go far enough in identifying a whole-of-region target for wastewater re-use and key areas of

A water allocation plan is a regulatory document that guides assessment of applications for new allocations, transfers and water affecting activities. Encouraging or requiring use of treated wastewater is outside the scope of a water allocation plan. Targets on regional

65


effluent opportunity. Water planning should have a holistic framework that plans for integration of all water sources, while also focussing on water allocations and future licensing.

wastewater re-use are better suited to documents that set broader targets and directions, such as regional and state-wide NRM Plans and the state's Water for Good plan. The Board's Regional NRM Plan includes water reuse targets that apply at the scale of the SAMDB region (e.g. Management Action Target W2.3 - 70% of treated wastewater generated in Region to be reused by 2014), and the Board works towards achieving these targets in partnership with the community, stakeholder groups and other agencies and bodies such as local government. An example is the 'Strengthening Basin Communities' program, which is a partnership between 11 Local Councils in the SAMDB and the Board that aims to plan for an uncertain climate future, with a particular focus on water availability. As part of this program, Integrated Water Management Plans are being developed for 10 of the 11 Councils, which include consideration of current and future water demands, sources of water (including stormwater and wastewater), and proposed projects to enhance integrated water management including use of a range of water sources including stormwater and wastewater. This program is supported by funding from the Australian Government's Water for the Future Initiative through the Strengthening Basin Communities program.


Recommend that effluent should not be permitted in the buffer zone of a significant environmental asset.

A water allocation plan generally applies to new activities that start after the plan is adopted. The draft EMLR WAP includes principles that aim to protect significant environmental assets from potential negative impacts of new use of effluent through buffer zones.There may be significant negative impacts on an existing business if they are required to cease using effluent where that practice was in place before adoption of the EMLR WAP. The potential negative impacts of existing effluent use are likely to be localised. Therefore it was considered that such existing activities should be able to continue as part of achieving a balance between social, economic and environmental needs for water.

580 - Integrated management

Recommend that planning for water resource use must take precedence in all planning developments at all levels of government. The EMLR WAP must include and inform other decision makers on the impacts of town and housing developments to ensure sustainable management of the natural resources.

As per comment # 353 - Integrated management

652 - Concerned with piecemeal approach to As per comment # 353 - Integrated management

66


Integrated management

planning and multiplicity of agencies, planning instruments and policies that impinge on the plan but remain unarticulated.

The Board also works across prescribed areas within its region to promote consistency and linkages between water allocation plans. For example, the draft EMLR WAP builds on the learnings from the adjoining Marne-Saunders WAP developed earlier by the Board; and it is expected that issues and linkages with the EMLR will be considered during the upcoming review of the River Murray WAP. The Board has also worked with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, through the South Australian Government, to ensure that linkages and local EMLR issues are considered as part of the development of the proposed Basin Plan.


Recommend an integrated governance system which takes responsibility for managing the system as a whole, including underground water.

The underground water, surface water and watercourse water resources are all prescribed in the EMLR. The draft EMLR WAP takes an integrated management approach between the resources by setting water taking limits and rules with consideration of the interactions with other resources. For example, buffer zones have been set around streams and other underground water-dependent ecosystems to minimise the potential for interference from new wells and underground water transfers.The Board's Regional NRM Plan has a broader scope that the EMLR WAP, and sets out targets and actions for integrated natural resources management across the region. The Board works in partnership with the community, stakeholder groups and other agencies towards achieving these targets and setting the best policies and plans in place.


The State Government needs to make it clear who is responsible for what, and hold everyone at all levels of responsibility to account within strict time-lines. Should not see a repeat of scenario of the lack of enforcement of conditions at the Terramin mine (regardless of which department or minister is responsible).

The NRM Act sets out responsibilities for the various sections of the Act. The Board and DEWNR will continue to work meet their responsibilities as set out under the NRM Act, working together with other bodies and the community.


Recommend all decision making to be concentrated and undertaken by one Minister. The split of responsibilities between several departments does not lend itself to good integrated policy development and management as it fragments decision making.

The main state government agencies in relation to water management in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges are DEWNR, Environment Protection Authority and the Board. All of these agencies report to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation. Your concerns with fragmented decision making through the split of responsibilities between different bodies is acknowledged. The Board will endeavour to continue to work together with the community and other bodies to work towards integrated sustainable natural resources management.

67



Recommend a review and updating of relevant policies to avoid a lack of internal consistency. Policies for water, wetlands, biodiversity and conservation, industries, development, roads, energy, waste and population need linkage and integration for effective implementation and consistency between separate arms of government. The linkage between council development plans and the EMLR WAP is critically important, and the aim of having different arms and levels of government acting consistently and synergistically should be given prominence and support.

The Board agrees that consistency of policies and an integrated approach across different parts and levels of government is important. This is the intent of government and is supported by the Board. The Board's Regional NRM Plan includes targets to improve the alignment of local government, state government and industry planning policy with NRM goals, and to support local government to ensure development decisions are consistent with NRM goals (Management Action Targets P3.2 and 3.3). Working with local government is a key aspect of these targets, and the Board works with local government by: reviewing and contributing to development plan amendments providing NRM-related support and advice in relation to development applications contributing to the development of planning resources assisting local government to develop plans and actions relating to natural resources,

such as the Strengthening Basin Communities program which is helping 11 local councils in the SAMDB to plan for an uncertain climate future, with a focus on water availability (funded through the Federal Government's Water for the Future program). This program includes activities such as development of integrated water management plans and water conservation plans for councils, contribution to development plan amendments and a horticultural/rural lands study.

The Board is constantly reflecting on and sharpening its engagement with local government, to ensure seamless and aligned policies and timing that help assist communities better manage the water resources.


Recommend that Federal, State and Local Governments must work together following the same rules and procedures. Future developments require different inputs from PIRSA, EPA, local councils as well as DENR, DFW and NRM Boards (e.g. local council are often the approving body for activities such as change of land use).



The WAP should identify any policies reflected in a Development Plan that should, in the opinion of the Board, be reviewed under the Development Act. Insist that the EMLR WAP provide clear definition of its role

The Board is working towards incorporating NRM principles, including links to water management process, into development plans and development plan amendments via other mechanisms such as the Strengthening Basin Communities project, and through working with local government directly. The NRM Act and the water allocation plan are the primary instrument for setting the rules

68


in the development plan amendment process and responsibilities and relationships to other legislation which can be considered by Council.

and limits for taking and using prescribed water resources for licensed purposes. Some activities affecting water resources are managed by other processes, and the water allocation can "fill the gaps" in some cases. For example, draining water into a well requires an environmental authorisation from the EPA in some cases (in certain areas or over certain volumes), and where an environmental authorisation is not required, a water allocation plan or NRM Plan can manage this activity via a water affecting activity permit instead.The referral process for development approvals (as per the Development Act - schedule 8) is a key mechanism that links the development process with water allocation plan policies. For example, dam construction requires development approval in some cases, and the referral process requires that such applications be referred by the local council to the relevant authority for administering dam construction permits for direction in some cases (e.g. where the proposed dam is in a prescribed area). It is anticipated that the direction provided by the relevant authority would be based on the principles in the EMLR WAP.


There is a need to develop an agreed referral system [in relation to new urban development, and water affecting activities]. How will referrals operate under the EMLR WAP? If the Board or Department for Water [now DEWNR] is the relevant authority for referrals, how will Council know when to make referrals? Insist that the EMLR WAP provide clear definition of its role in the development assessment process. Further information is required on the relationship between water affecting activity permits and the Local Government Act and Development Act. Council needs to be sure that the permit system supports its processes and is consistent with legislation and regulations it is responsible for.

Section 129 (1) (e) of the NRM Act sets out that a water affecting activity permit is not required for activities that are development for the purposes of the Development Act 1993 and that are authorised by a development authorisation under that Act. However, some types of development that affect water resources are to be referred to bodies such as the Board or the Minister administering the NRM Act or River Murray Act 2003, as set out under Schedule 8 of the Development Act regulations. The referral system is set out under the Development Act and associated regulations, not the water allocation plan The Board works with local government, including elected members and staff such as planners, to engage and build capacity in NRM issues, including advice and assistance with the referral process.


The Department recommends that the Board provide some information on the relationship between the Basin Plan and the draft EMLR

Agree.Recommend amending section 3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include some text on the relationship to the Basin Plan.

69


WAP to improve understanding within the community in sections 3.4.1 and 4.


Recommend that Federal, State and Local Governments must work together following the same rules and procedures. The EMLR WAP needs to be synchronised with adjacent WAPs and the MDB Basin Plan.

The Board agrees that it is important that an integrated approach be taken with water allocation plans for adjoining areas (e.g. through the upcoming review of the River Murray Water Allocation Plan) and for overarching plans such as the Basin Plan. The Board has recommended some changes to the draft EMLR WAP to better recognise these linkages (see comment # 491 ('Integrated management' section), comment # 552 ('Interactions' section) and comment # 492 ('WAP areas - other' section)) and will continue to work with the community and other agencies at a local, state and federal level to ensure the linkages and inter-dependencies between systems are recognised and accounted for.


Concerned with the absence of a clear, transparent and reviewable plan regarding how the EMLR WAP articulates with the MDBA Plan (yet to be released) and how potential conflicts will be negotiated.

The state government has been working with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on integration of South Australian statutory instruments, including the EMLR WAP, with the Basin Plan. The next version of the EMLR WAP will need to be compliant with the requirements of the Basin Plan. Under current Basin Plan proposals, compliance with the sustainable diversion limits (SDLs) set out in the Basin Plan will commence in 2019. The proposed SDLs for the EMLR region in the draft Basin Plan reflect the consumptive use limits across the whole EMLR in the consultation draft EMLR WAP. To avoid the risk of total allocation in the EMLR exceeding the proposed SDLs, it is recommended that an additional regional-scale limit be included in the EMLR WAP to cap total use at the proposed SDLs.Recommend that additional limits be added to the consultation draft EMLR WAP at the scale of the whole region, for underground water and for surface water + watercourses. These limits will be the sum of the limits for the management zones for the relevant resource(s). New principles setting out these principles are to be added to sections 5.2.1 (surface water + watercourses) and 5.3.1 (underground water) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.As per comment # 491 - Integrated management


Recommend that there is a more detailed integration between the EMLR WAP and the federal Murray-Darling Basin Plan, given that the adjacent stretch of the River Murray has not been included in the EMLR PWRA.


551 - WAP currently presents a position that The Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, together with the Marne and Saunders catchments,

70


Interactions manages only within the EMLR PWRA, and doesn't give clear statements on how WAP strategies will impact on the River Murray, Lake Alexandrina and consequently Lake Albert and the Coorong - does not meet legislative requirements to consider impacts on connected water resources.

generate about 0.5% of the total runoff of the Murray-Darling Basin (as reported in the report for the EMLR for the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields project). At this scale, the contribution of the EMLR to the River Murray, the lower lakes and Coorong is small and the impact of the EMLR WAP is difficult to measure compared with the variables that affect the remaining inflow to these systems. It is difficult for the EMLR WAP to contribute to the water requirements of connected systems in isolation, and it is important that an integrated approach be taken with plans for adjoining areas (e.g. through the upcoming review of the River Murray water allocation plan) and for overarching plans such as the Basin Plan. The Board will continue to work with other agencies and the community to ensure these linkages are recognised and accounted for.It is recognised that the local impact of the EMLR is very important for maintaining unique aquatic habitats at the interface between the EMLR streams and Lake Alexandrina, and also for provide flowing stream habitats used by migratory species (e.g. fish species that use marine and stream habitats for different parts of their lifecycle), and for providing aquatic refuge habitat during times of low water level in the River Murray and Lake Alexandrina.The work to determine environmental water requirements for the EMLR (as described in section 2 of the EMLR WAP) included consideration of reach types across the EMLR catchments, including the terminal wetlands at the end of the catchments.These connections are identified in sections 2.2.1.4 and 3.4.1, but the nature and importance of the linkages should be further emphasised.Recommend that text be added to sections 2.2.1.4 and 3.4.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to emphasise the nature, importance and role of the connections between the EMLR catchments and the River Murray and Lake Alexandrina, and connected systems.

117 - Interactions

Essential for WAPs for EMLR and River Murray to recognise connection between the areas.

As per comment # 551 - Interactions

793 - Interactions

Flow from the EMLR (and Marne Saunders) contributes about 0.5% of the total runoff for the Murray-Darling Basin. Over-allocation in the EMLR can't be treated in isolation as flows from the EMLR have been critical in sustaining freshwater-dependent species in times of low flow in the River Murray (e.g.


71


Lower Finniss, flow-on effects to Murray Mouth).Why is the decision making process for a system that relies on connectivity being approached in such a fragmented fashion?What strategies might the NRM Board pursue to ensure community consultation with all stakeholders in returning catchments to health?

651 - Interactions

The boundary of the EMLR ends at the 1956 flood line and does not include the lower reaches of the Finniss River, but the water regime of downstream areas (including Ramsar site) is linked to EMLR. It makes little sense for landholders in one catchment area to practice good water management if users downstream in another area are not bound by similar responsibilities for responsible and fair water usage. How will the NRM Board ensure that the allocations of adjacent catchment articulate with those of the EMLR?


601 - Interactions

Angas and Bremer catchments must put 6 GL into the Murray, but only managing to put in 1.8 GL. Is this an issue? What are the implications for the River Murray WAP?

As outlined on page 75 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP, over the period 2005-2008, the discharge from the Angas River was 1.8 GL and the discharge from the Bremer River was 3.66 GL from Bremer, given a total discharge of almost 5.5 GL. This is short of the 6 GL required, but this is expected to improve under the water taking limits and rules set out in the EMLR WAP. It will be important to continue to monitor outflows once the EMLR WAP is implemented. No implications are expected for the River Murray WAP.

552 - Interactions

Recommend that the boundary of the EMLR PWRA is changed to include the end of the Finniss. Current boundary is approximately 10 km upstream of the convergence of the Finniss River with Lake Alexandrina, which allows River Murray licence holders to extract

DEWNR and the Board are aware of this issue and note your concern that this may create different rules for those taking water from the Finniss River. One option to manage this which is currently being considered by the Board is to create a specific zone within the River Murray Water Allocation Plan for the lower Finniss River that has rules similar to those in the EMLR WAP. This option could be considered as part of the upcoming review of the River Murray WAP, giving River Murray licensees as well

72


their water from the inflows of rainfall in the EMLR.

as the EMLR community the opportunity to be involved in policy development and consultation.In the meanwhile, to minimise the risk of new impacts in the lower Finniss River and Tookayerta Creek from taking new River Murray allocations, the EMLR WAP can include provisions that apply EMLR WAP rules to such allocations (in accordance with section 76 (7) of the NRM Act). It is proposed that this applies to the section of these watercourses down to the Winery Road ford, as the step-down in stream bed level at the ford is expected to provide some separation from water-taking impacts from further downstream during lower flow. Recommend amending the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include a principle that requires new River Murray allocations or water access entitlements that start to be taken after adoption of the EMLR WAP in the section of the Finniss River and Tookayerta Creek upstream of the Winery Road ford to be consistent with the surface water and watercourse water allocation principles in the EMLR WAP.

128 - Interactions

The EMLR boundary should be shifted to where the Finniss joins Lake Alexandrina. Irrigators are taking water from the EMLR water resources but have River Murray licences to do so. The availability, quality and quantity of water from the two systems is different and all users at the end of the Finniss need to be included in the EMLR boundary. The Finniss catchment contributes significant flow to Lake Alexandrina and the Coorong, and further damage to the Finniss has consequences beyond our catchment.


186 - Interactions

The inclusion of the Finniss River below the Winery Road causeway as part of the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse should be examined and preferably overturned. Water finds its own level, and pumping south of the causeway depletes the Finniss and not the Murray, affecting upstream users in the Finniss.


73


327 - Interactions

The EMLR boundary at the lower Finniss should be further downstream than the railway bridge. The current boundary means irrigators can pump Finniss water in amounts greater that if these irrigators were pumping from a River Murray licence.


505 - Interactions

The boundary between the River Murray Proclaimed Watercourse and the EMLR on the lower Finniss needs to be re-drawn as River Murray water has not reached the current boundary since 1956. The current boundary allows people with a River Murray licence to take Finniss River water.


116 - Interactions

Interconnections between resources need to be considered (e.g. surface water - underground water).

The draft EMLR WAP recognises the connection between water resources and has built this in at broad scale. For example, the volume of baseflow estimated to discharge from aquifers into watercourses has been set aside when setting underground water limits, to help preserve this environmentally critical part of streamflow). The draft EMLR WAP takes a precautionary approach by assuming all main watercourse may be connected to underground water, and so sets well buffer zones along all main watercourses. This will help to protect interactions between underground water and watercourses when applications for new wells, transfers and new allocations are assessed against the EMLR WAP.It is recognised that the interactions between surface water and underground water are particularly significant in Tookayerta catchment, where baseflow from underground water provides a large component of the flow in watercourses throughout the year. High demand for underground water has the potential to affect stream flow in this catchment. Including a joint limit for all water resources in this area, with caps for each resource, can help to mitigate the potential for impact of high underground water demand on watercourses, by limiting the total volume taken from the area, and capping further watercourse use (if required) to minimise the risk of further impacts on other user and the environment. The close and rapid exchange between underground water and watercourses, and the nature of water taking (where the majority of water on the surface directly extracted from the watercourse, rather than taken from dams) make this joint limit approach reasonable in Tookayerta catchment, but less applicable to other catchments in the EMLR.

74


Recommend amending the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include provision for a joint limit for surface water, watercourses and underground water in Tookayerta catchment, with caps for each resource.

125 - Interactions

Plan does not cater for interconnection between surface water and underground water - instead treats these resources differently and separately, even though underground water can be critical in sustaining habitats in creeks.


217 - Interactions

Threshold flow rate concept needs to be extended to include sub-surface water or at least to allow for interaction between surface water and sub-surface water. In 2009, catastrophic damage nearly occurred in the Finniss as pools nearly dried up. Threshold flow rate concept would address this for surface water, but the extractions that caused this were from sub-surface water. The high degree of connectivity between sources is not adequately protected in draft EMLR WAP.

There are significant practical difficulties in applying a concept like the threshold flow rate to underground water (e.g. by limiting extractions when the underground water level drops below a nominated level). The connection between pools and underground water is highly variable over space and time, and it is difficult to establish whether a given well is connected to a given pool or watercourse section, particularly in a fractured rock aquifer system. Such a policy may have significant implications for the ability of existing consumptive users to access water and the viability of their existing business. Given the uncertainties around the impact of any individual well on environmental assets, it was seen as unreasonable to apply such a policy in a blanket fashion. The role of a water allocation plan is to manage new allocations and transfers, after the needs of existing users have been considered through a separate process. The buffer zone policies in the draft EMLR WAP aim to minimise the risk of impacts from new allocations or transfers on underground water-dependent ecosystems. In addition, the plan also aims to protect baseflow from underground water into streams by setting aside the expected volume of baseflow when setting the water-taking limits for underground water.It will be important to collect better information over time about connections between key environmental assets and water extraction around them over the life of this plan to improve management and to allow responses if problems occur, although this information will be site specific.

512 - Interactions

Surface water and ground water should be considered as one resource given the interconnectedness between them. Over-extraction of underground water has lead to the demise of springs.

As per comment # 116 - InteractionsIncluding separate management for each resource where the limits are set taking the interactions between them into consideration will help to protect underground water-dependent ecosystems like springs from future impacts.

75


168 - Interactions

River flow data should include underground water and aquifers.

The measured data at the monitoring stations includes flow derived from all sources, including surface water runoff and baseflow discharged into the watercourse from underground water. This measured flow data has been used to calibrate the flow models that underpin the EMLR WAP, so underground water input to river flow is included in the flow models.

431 - Interactions

Supports the Board in recognising that there is a strong interaction with underground and surface waters.

Noted.

554 - Interactions

Recommend further dissection of data on the Finniss in relation to modelling the behaviour, particularly the connectivity of springs/underground water and surface water. The hydrological models appear to dismiss some of the complexities of surface water-underground water interactions. When over-extraction occurs, the WAP recognises that there may be negative effects on downstream users, but ignores the effects on upstream user and the environment. Landholders upstream of significant increases in water extraction (e.g. end of Finniss) have already noted diminishing volumes of water because springs and underground water are being sucked down to replace water that is being extracted from the Finniss River and out of the ground. Positive that the EMLR WAP acknowledges connection between surface water and underground water.

As you have identified, interactions between surface water and underground water have been incorporated into the draft EMLR WAP at a broad scale. For example, the estimated volume of baseflow from aquifers to streams has been set aside when setting water-taking limits for underground water. Local-scale interactions are very variable (e.g. see figure 1.8 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP) and are currently not well understood, particularly in terms of variation over time, and at a small spatial scale. Continued monitoring over the life of this plan will help improve understanding of interactions and management of the resource. In the meanwhile, the draft EMLR WAP takes a precautionary approach by setting buffer zones along all main watercourses, which aim to minimise the risk of negative impacts of new wells, new allocations and transfers on underground water interactions with the watercourse.

445 - Legislative issues

Don't agree with draconian laws such as the NRM Act section 127 (6) a where change for non-compliance penalty from $35,000 to $700,000.

The NRM Act aims to promote sustainable natural resources management, and to protect the shared natural resources from the impacts of over-use for the benefit of the whole community. The Board and DEWNR work together with the community to achieve the aims of the Act. Formal approaches and the compliance measures set out under the NRM Act are seen as a tool of last resort, and this position is reflected in the objects of

76


the NRM Act.

Unfortunately in some cases there are some who choose to not respond to the model that first seeks voluntary compliance. Despite encouragement to act responsibly, the actions of these entities have the potential to damage the resource or interfere with other people’s ability to use the resource. In those few cases penalties may act as a more forceful way to bring about a change in behaviour, although this is seen as a tool of last resort.The NRM Act allows for a graduated approach to be taken starting with a range of expiation fees for minor breaches. For serious breaches, the size of the penalty imposed by the Magistrate's court will vary according to the seriousness of the offence, where the maximum penalty under the NRM Act for a water related offence is generally $70,000 if the offender is a body corporate or $35,000 for an individual. The size of the maximum penalties recognises that in certain circumstances (e.g. to water a large area of a profitable crop), taking water illegally could result in a substantial financial gain.


Section 127 6 a) of the NRM Act and the WAP erode civil liberties and erodes Common Law rights.

In relation to section 127 (6)(a), it is unclear from your comment which particular civil liberties or Common Law rights you are referring to. However a provision which simply states that taking water unlawfully is an offence, and sets the maximum penalty that a magistrate can impose on the most serious offenders is unlikely to erode civil liberties or Common Law rights.Common law rights to water access were replaced by the provisions of the statutory rights under the Water Resources Act 1997 and then the NRM Act. The Board and DEWNR are responsible for implement the laws as made by Parliament. It is recommended that you take up your concerns with your local member of parliament, as parliament is the body responsible for making the laws.


Asks a number of questions about the relationship between the NRM Act, National Water Initiative (NWI) and the Commonwealth constitution:1. Is the NWI a Commonwealth law?2. Under what power in section 51 of the Commonwealth Constitution did the Commonwealth use to enter into this agreement?3. Have the State and Territory Governments

Outside the scope of the EMLR WAP and also outside the scope of the Board to respond in detail. It is recommended that you direct these questions to the Commonwealth Government.It should be noted that the prescription process in the EMLR, including development of the water allocation plan and the licensing process, occur under the state NRM Act.

77


received any money as a result of signing the NWI agreement, and if so when and how much?4. Under the constitution, where is it declared that the Commonwealth parliament has the power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to water?


Still no recognition of property owners with boundaries in the middle of the river.

The NRM Act generally doesn't deal with property boundary issues. Someone who has lawful access to a watercourse, lake or well, and – in respect of surface water – an occupier of land, may take water subject to the requirements in the NRM Act.


When the government recognises the investment made for irrigation it should be recognised that any new allocation or development which infringes on existing water users ability to use the resource should be unlawful. The person affected should be compensated by the Government. This is a human rights violation.

The aim of the prescription process is to protect existing users and the environment and to enable sustainable future development. Existing users are protected in two ways:1. The process of allocating water aims to recognise existing users as those who have a current water using enterprise or have made significant commitments to a water using enterprise at the time of introducing the Notice of Prohibition. The reason for this is to ensure that those businesses that currently rely on water and those that have made significant investment towards such a business are able to continue their practices by allocating them sufficient water to meet their reasonable requirements.2. The Plan itself sets the rules for any new developments or allocations, including the building of new dams and new wells and any new or moved extractions. The criteria used to assess these applications aim to ensure that individual transfers will not have a negative impact on current water users.


The Crown's claim of ownership of water that runs across the land as a Common Pool Resource ignores the occupancy of the Lower Lakes and EMLR area by indigenous people.

The State Government of South Australia does not claim ownership of the water resources of the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. The NRM Act and the EMLR WAP set rules for managing water. This is similar to the way that the Road Traffic Act 1961 sets rules for the use of cars but the State Government does not own those cars.The prescription of a water resource under the NRM Act does not detract from any native title rights which may exist over a particular water resource.


Asks for plain English definitions of a number of terms (natural, domestic, commercial farming, intensive farming, efficient use of water, the environment and its geographic

The NRM Act defines the terms domestic purpose, intensive farming and natural resources (which is similar to the concept of the environment) as reproduced below. A water allocation plan is a statutory instrument under the NRM Act and needs to define terms consistently with the Act.

78


boundaries). Concerned definition of surface water in Frequently Asked Questions sheet is different from that in the NRM Act and Water Resources Act.

Domestic purpose in relation to the taking of water does not include (a) taking water for the purpose of watering or irrigating more than 0.4 of a hectare of land; or (b) taking water to be used in carrying on a business (except for the personal use of persons employed in the business).Intensive farming means a method of keeping animals in the course of carrying on the business of primary production in which the animals are usually confined to a small space or area and usually fed by hand or by a mechanical means.Natural resources includes a) soil; (b) water resources; (c) geological features and landscapes; (d) native vegetation, native animals and other native organisms; (e) ecosystems.The NRM Act doesn't define efficient use of water. Principle 8 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP described water use efficiency requirements in the context of industry best practice standards, appropriate for the particular circumstances.The term natural is not defined in the NRM Act or the draft EMLR WAP, and don't have any particular significance to the water prescription process.The term ‘commercial farming’ is not used anywhere in the draft EMLR WAP or in the NRM Act. However the term ‘commercial’ is used in a number of places in both documents. It is used in its usual sense without a special legal meaning. It is recognised that stock use, which is not licensable in the EMLR, includes a large number of commercial grazing properties. The draft EMLR WAP also refers to "commercial forestry", using the definition taken from the Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests) Amendment Bill 2011. The definition of surface water in the draft EMLR WAP is consistent with that in the NRM Act. The Frequently Asked Questions document is intended to provide a plain English explanation of aspects of the plan and is not a statutory document.


Disagree with the separation of water from land

Under the Council of Australian Governments Reform in 1994, a national water reform policy was adopted which included water rights being separate to land rights and the ability of water to be traded. This separation of land and water has continued into the Intergovernmental Agreement on a National Water Initiative, to which South Australia is a signatory.In 1996, an amendment to the regulations under Water Resources Act 1990 effectively separated water rights from land rights in South Australia. This policy was continued at a state level through the Water Resources Act 1997, which has now been replaced by the NRM Act. This means that water rights are personal property and are separate from land, and the right to take this water can be transferred away from the land to be taken at

79


another location subject to transfer rules in any applicable water allocation plan.It is the landholder's choice to decide to transfer water away from their property, subject to approval by the Minister, and in accordance with the rules in the water allocation plan. Transfer can allow a user to start a new business, expand or change an existing business, or to manage water supply risks to existing businesses by having extra water (e.g. buy in extra water to be taken from a back-up well to help to drought-proof a business that largely relies on water from a dam). Transfer also allows someone to realise the benefit of their water asset if they no longer need it by selling it to someone else, in the same way as they can sell other assets.Note that using water for stock and domestic purposes is not licensed in the EMLR, so there is no allocation to be transferred in this case.


Water is connected to the land and is part of the purchase price - don't agree with separating water from land. What is the Government's authority for absolute control over water?

As per comment # 535 - Legislative issuesThe Government doesn't claim absolute control over water. However, the community, through democracy, regulates the right of people to take communal prescribed water resources for the benefit of all water users and the broader community.

135 - Licensed and non-licensed purposes

The plan does not address water use for mining sufficiently, given the likelihood of future increases. This is highlighted by the water issues with the Strathalbyn Terramin mine.

Mining is a licensable water use and requires a water allocation in the same way that any other licensable water use requires a water allocation. These allocations are subject to the same rules as other licensed activity. The state's "Water for Good" plan includes an action that mining ventures are to provide their own water supplies within the sustainable framework of natural resources management planning, and regional water demand and supply plans (action 48).Water requirements by mining activities considered as part of the existing user allocation process are included in the figures provided in Table 1.10, as part of the category of "other". As set out under the existing user allocation process, these volumes include reasonable requirements for current practices (as carried out during the establishment period of 1 July 2000 - 15 October 2003) and/or future activities that the user made significant commitment towards before the end of the establishment period.


The cursory treatment of the actual and potential impacts of mining in the draft EMLR WAP is disappointing. There are numerous examples of mining impacts in the area (e.g. significant water extraction and discharge of treated water into Burnside Creek by

As per comment # 135 - Licensed and non-licensed purposesThe Regional NRM Plan and EMLR WAP set out that a water-affecting activity permit is required for discharging water into a watercourse, unless that activity is approved by another type of approval (e.g. development approval, EPA licence). The Regional NRM Plan and WAP policies for assessing this type of activity include objectives to protect

80


Terramin, pollution impacts by Brukunga, detrimental impacts of Bremer River extractions near Hartley). The relationship between this WAP and the Mining Act needs to be reassessed to allow revision of previously authorised activities in the face of changed water availability. Mining should be dealt with in greater detail given the push for continued expansion.

water resources and other users, including the environment.


Concerned that no attempt has been made to include usage of water by mining (surface or underground water) - an estimate should be included of all water uses in the EMLR WAP. Volume extracted by Terramin mine was initially grossly underestimated - current take of 350 ML/y (which may increase due to flawed modelling) is a considerable portion of that underground water management zone's limit.

As per comment # 135 - Licensed and non-licensed purposesThe majority of the water extracted by Terramin is for dewatering and is re-injected back into the same aquifer so that the net effect on the resource is much less that the take. Terramin operates under approvals and monitoring plans from Department for Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy; Environment Protection Agency; and Department for Environment, Water and Natural Resources, which among other aspects, act to ensure that the impacts on water dependent ecosystems and other users is minimised.


The EMLR WAP does not include or adequately address mining. Concerned with impact of mining on water resources - discharge of polluted water into waterways is not on. Need assurance of compliance with regulations - what are the repercussions for non-compliance? Need to monitor amount taken and quantity reduced to the environment. Mining should be included in principle 147 (general water affecting activities impacts), and a section should be included in the water affecting activities chapter to address impact of mining on water quality and quantity (given that commercial forestry is included here). Mining should also be included in surface water equations and

As per comment # 135 - Licensed and non-licensed purposesThe Regional NRM Plan and EMLR WAP set out that a water-affecting activity permit is required for discharging water into a watercourse, unless that activity is approved by another type of approval (e.g. development approval, EPA licence). The Regional NRM Plan and WAP policies for assessing this type of activity include objectives to protect water resources and other users, including the environment.

81


as part of authorised underground water extractions (principles 76-77).


Would like to see consideration of the requirement for licensing, allocation and metering of stock and domestic water in the EMLR (as it is for the River Murray). Water use cannot be quantified without metering.

The difference in treatment between licensed use and non-licensed use is acknowledged. The decision to exclude stock and domestic use from the licensing process was made at the time of prescription, following the outcomes of community consultation on the issue. It should be noted that the water affecting activity permits section of the EMLR WAP, which manages construction of new wells and dams amongst other things, will apply to all new activities whether they are licensed or not (including stock and domestic use). The difficulties in quantifying water use without metering is acknowledged. Water used for stock and domestic purposes has been estimated based on general information on use by households and from dams, stock carrying capacity and access to different water sources. Further data collection may help to improve these estimates over time.


Excluding stock and domestic use from prescription is causing significant social harm by dividing the community and putting responsibility onto some users only. All water users should be treated the same, which would help democratic processes.

The difference in treatment between licensed use and non-licensed use is acknowledged. The decision to exclude stock and domestic use from the licensing process was made at the time of prescription, following the outcomes of community consultation on the issue. It should be noted that the water affecting activity permits section of the EMLR WAP, which manages construction of new wells and dams amongst other things, will apply to all new activities whether they are licensed or not (including stock and domestic use). In addition, it is proposed that existing non-licensed dams of 5 ML or more, including stock and domestic dams, are considered in the program for returning low flows to the environment in addition to licensed dams and watercourse diversions.


The exclusion of stock and domestic use from prescription is inequitable and will mean a transfer of productive land use to consumptive land use (life style activities). Any stock will require no water licensing hassles and favour movement of urban living to per-peripheral living, increasing the long term decline in productive land. The ease of splitting licences into smaller parcels will assist this by allowing smaller allocations to supplement essentially consumptive activities. This is probably not the intent of

As per comment # 132 - Licensed and non-licensed purposesThis means that the rules for constructing a new stock dam are the same as for a new licensed dam, including the requirement that estimated use from the stock dam is counted against the consumptive use limits. This is expected to keep water use within sustainable limits, which is the purpose of the EMLR WAP. Broader land-use issues need to be addressed through different instruments, such as development plans.

82


the licensing process and unlikely to be in the long-term public interest.


Stock and domestic water must be licensed and an allocation given, so as to be consistent with the River Murray requirements and so that all consumptive use can be quantified.

As per comment # 328 - Licensed and non-licensed purposes


The EMLR WAP needs to include limits to stock, domestic and aesthetic uses of water. Decision making on all aspects must be coordinated and interconnected.

Stock and domestic use is not prescribed in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, so the water licensing system can't be used to limit the volume used from dams for or bores for stock and domestic purposes. It can be difficult to draw a distinction between dams used for stock and domestic purposes and dams used for aesthetic purposes. Therefore aesthetic dams are commonly not included in the licensing process.The water-taking limits set out in the EMLR WAP apply to all types of consumptive use, including stock and domestic use. This means that the volume estimated to be used for stock and domestic use is set aside from the limit when determining how much water is available for allocation for licensed purposes, including allocation transfers.The EMLR WAP also sets out rules and limits that apply to permits for construction of new dams and wells, including those used for stock and domestic use. These permits can place limits on the allowable size and location of new dams, and the location of new wells.


A licence and allocation is not required when using water for stock and domestic water but how will DFW determine S&D use from the same source as the allocated commercial water and how will DFW ensure this is accounted for correctly so as to not affect the water licence allocation negatively (i.e. double of use from S&D somehow?)

DEWNR is aware that many users access stock and domestic water and irrigation water from the same water source. DEWNR acknowledges that each setup is different, and in a lot of instances it may not become a problem as the stock and domestic use is considered minor in relation to the irrigation water. One option is to separately meter the stock and domestic water and deduct that from the meter reading from the source. Another option is to account for the water via estimates or other means. The method of accounting for stock and domestic water use will depend on the set-up of infrastructure and will need to be considered at the time of meter installation. DEWNR is currently working on strategies to deal with this issue. The benefits of accounting accurately for your stock and domestic usage include being able to calculate accurate rollover, and also to ensure that you don’t exceed your water allocation (which can incur penalties) because of stock and domestic water going through the same meter.

83



Stock water requirements estimate of 2.5 kL/DSE/y is overly conservative. SA and NSW Department of Agriculture fact sheets suggest between 0.36 - 0.95 kL/DSE/y, and measurements on own property over 2 years show well under 1 kL/DSE/y. Important for the figure used to be defendable, even if a little conservative.

The water requirement of 2.5 kL/DSE/y was derived in a report done for the Board by Rural Solutions SA. This work was based on estimated water use of between 1.7 - 2.5 kL/DSE/y, drawn from annual water requirements per head given in Cummings 1999a and 1999b and from expert knowledge by the report writers, in combination of estimates of number of DSE per head for different stock types, derived from Russell 1987. It is acknowledged that these figures are on the conservative side, but the Board believes that it is important to set aside sufficient water for non-licensed purposes such as stock and domestic use to minimise the risk of over-allocation.References:Cummings, D. (1999a) How much water do I need? Landcare notes. LC0066, Victorian Department of Natural Resources and EnvironmentCummings, D. (1999b) Water Conservation on Rural Properties. Landcare notes. LC0065, Victorian Department of Natural Resources and EnvironmentRussell, D. (1987) Dry Sheep Equivalents. Fact Sheet 31/81, South Australian Department of Agriculture


Supports the need for permits for new dams and bores (including stock and domestic). Stock and domestic use is a significant water user in the region and needs to be managed so that impacts are not felt by other users, including the environment.

Noted.


The EMLR WAP does not include or adequately address capture of water for aesthetic purposes.

It can be difficult to draw a distinction between dams used for stock and domestic purposes (which is not licensed in the EMLR) and dams used for aesthetic purposes. Therefore these dams are commonly not included in the licensing process.The EMLR WAP includes rules and limits that apply to the construction of all new dams, regardless of purpose of use. This includes limits at the scale of the catchment, management zone and property, as well as limits designed to minimise impacts on downstream users and the environment. New dams will also need to return low flows below a threshold flow rate. These rules may discourage the construction of dams for purely aesthetic purposes, and if such a dam meets the requirements set out in the EMLR WAP, then the impact on the water resource is expected to be within sustainable limits.

112 - MERI Recommends introduction of procedures to Monitoring data and observations collected by the community are an excellent source of

84


encourage communication of on-going observations made by the community.

information on the water resources, water use and the environment. The Board is keen to keep working with the community to support data collection and interpretation, building on and learning from existing programs.

566 - MERI Recommend using the citizen scientist model to craft and establish a community/landholder monitoring project to record environmental change (Acid Sulfate Sediment community monitoring model as an example).

As per comment # 112 - MERI

668 - MERI Asks that the Board draw on local expertise for monitoring.


636 - MERI Principle 259 should be incorporated into 258.

Principle 259 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP outlines annual reporting requirements that are specific to the lower Angas-Bremer area. This principle has been taken from the current Water Allocation Plan for the Angas Bremer Prescribed Wells Area (which will be replaced by the EMLR WAP) and these requirements will be retained for these users.Principles 259 b) , c) and e) outline annual reporting requirements that are specific to the lower Angas-Bremer area. It is clearer to keep these as a separate principle as they don't apply to other users. These reporting requirements could be introduced for other users in the EMLR in the future if appropriate (via principle 258 h). Principle 259 a) (which applies to the lower Angas Bremer only) replicates the requirements of principle 260 (which applies across the EMLR), so principle 259 a) can be incorporated into principle 260. Similarly, principle 259 f) (which applies to the lower Angas Bremer only) replicates the requirements of principle 264 (which applies across the EMLR), so principle 259 f) can be incorporated into principle 264. Principle 259 d) is being removed on request of the Angas Bremer Water Management Committee (see comment # 189 in 'MERI' section). Recommend amending the consultation draft EMLR WAP to incorporate principle 259 a) into principle 260, and incorporate principle 259 f) into principle 264.

568 - MERI Recommend that all data collected and collated must be publically available on a single website.

Monitoring data is collected, interpreted and reported by a range of agencies and groups. The Board will endeavour to make and maintain links to different monitoring data sources in our website.

756 - MERI All monitoring data should be available to the general public on a government website as


85


soon as possible following data collection.

742 - MERI Principle 271 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP states that ‘The responsibility for regional ongoing underground water monitoring lies with the Department for Water.’ As stated, this principle may limit the options available to an existing Departmental initiative regarding the development of a State-level underground water monitoring system (i.e. Priority 1 of the underground water Program; ‘A State-wide underground water and Water Monitoring System – “Fit for Purpose”’). As it is anticipated that the NRM Boards will be engaged during the development of a State underground water monitoring system, it is suggested that principle 271 be written to leave open the possibility for shared arrangements between the Boards and the Department. Recommend that principle 271 be rewritten along the lines of principle 268 as follows; ’The responsibility for regional ongoing underground water monitoring will be led by the Minister’s Department but responsibility for operation may be spread across a number of parties including the SAMDB NRM Board’

Agree.Recommend altering principle 271 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP as recommended, and also altering principles 279-280 and paragraph 2 in section 8.1.4 in a similar manner.

501 - MERI The Department has concerns regarding the cost of and responsibility for implementing the monitoring requirements identified in principles 266 to 284.


7 - MERI Concerned that former telephone-accessible salinity recorder near Langhorne Creek has been replaced by internet-accessible salinity

The ‘talking’ salinity site was decommissioned from Langhorne Creek in December 2010 and has been replaced by a state of the art surface water monitoring station at Wanstead Road. This new site measures salinity (as electrical conductivity or EC), pH, temperature

86


recorder further upstream at Wanstead Rd. Issues with data access (phone vs. internet). Also concerns with data relevance as flow time varies markedly from Wanstead Rd to Langhorne Creek, which means Langhorne Creek users have to guess what the salinity will be at their place at that time.

and water level. The Board kept both sites running for a period of time to try and determine an EC relationship between the two sites. Whilst the data collected did not demonstrate a linear relationship, it did reveal that at salinity levels around 1500 ppm, the difference in salinity between the two sites was less than 5%. It is acknowledged that as salinity increases (up to 5000ppm), the difference between the two sites increases. However it is unlikely that water of this quality would be used. It is the aim of the Board to upgrade all key water monitoring sites within the EMLR area to enable telemetered salinity and water level readings to be obtained in real time. It should also be noted that the instrumentation used at the Wanstead monitoring site is far more accurate for measuring salinity.

360 - MERI Recommend that vegetation should be used to measure maintenance and resilience of water-dependent ecosystems, in addition to fish and macroinvertebrates.

Agree. It is intended that data on vegetation will be collected as part of the integrated monitoring sites identified in principle 280 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP, to help test and improve understanding of specific responses to water regime and allow development or improvement of condition indicators for WAP review. Fish and macroinvertebrates have been included as specific indicators in section 8 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP because a key input in the process for setting the consumptive use limits for surface water and watercourses was the water regime required to meet condition objectives for these biotic groups. It will be important to measure performance against those objectives. These groups were used because there was sufficient time-series condition data available to derive relationships between condition and water regime and set relevant objectives.

189 - MERI The Angas Bremer Water Management Committee (ABWMC) requests removal of principle 259 d) (page 178, in relation to monitoring of root zone salinity by water users). The ABWMC (in conjunction with the Board) has set up a number of demonstration sites to monitor the impact of irrigation on root zone salinity, and this information will be distributed to all irrigators in the district. Therefore it is no longer necessary for all irrigators to monitor root zone salinity. This requirement will also be removed from the district's Code of Practice.

Agree.Recommend deleting principle 259 d) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

87


370 - MERI Recommend that surface water and watercourse monitoring includes sites additional to flow gauging stations collecting ecologically relevant information such as depth, velocity, channel morphology, pool riffle sequence and character, in areas of high conservation value or other areas of interest. Monitoring should be seen as a research tool as well as for adaptive management.

Agree that collecting this type of information is important. It is intended that the integrated monitoring sites outlined in principle 280 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP will include these types of parameters.

393 - MERI Recommend the annual water use report by water users should include water efficiency measures

The annual reporting requirements have been developed to collect key information while minimising the reporting burden on water users. The types of data identified in principle 258 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP are considered to be the minimum data set required. There is potential to include requests for extra information, including water use efficiency measures, in the future via principle 258 f).

635 - MERI WAP includes data/monitoring for environmental processes but not for human behaviour.

It is agreed that monitoring and evaluating human behaviour and responses to the EMLR WAP is an important tool in assessing the plan's effectiveness. The Board will explore approaches for this alongside other social indicators as part of a regional NRM planning approach.

637 - MERI Regarding principle 266 - where will future gauging stations be situated?

Recommend that principle 266 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP is amended to include reference to the flow gauging stations used to develop policy, or are required to allow compliance with policy in the EMLR WAP. Any future gauging stations will be identified based on the recommendations of monitoring reviews such as Murdoch (2009) and Kalawec and Roberts (2005). On the basis of these reviews, the Board is currently exploring options for a flow gauging station in Tookayerta catchment

References:Kawalec, R and Roberts, S 2005, Review of South Australian State agency water monitoring activities in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, DWLBC Report 2005/44, Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.Murdoch B 2009, Hydrometric Monitoring Review of the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges: Focus on statutory obligations related to water allocation plans, unpublished report,

88


Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation, Adelaide.

130 - MERI Evaluation of monitoring data needs to include information on how environmental condition can be improved, not just attempting to stay static.

The prescription process aims to improve environmental condition by setting limits and taking rules that make new provisions for the environment (such as the policy to return low flows at selected existing dams and watercourse diversions), rather than just staying the same. Monitoring and evaluation of data will reflect the degree of progress towards this aim.

394 - MERI What baseline will be used for measuring changes to water-dependent ecosystems? It would be more useful to rate the condition of the ecosystems, rather than note any future detrimental changes, as most water-dependent ecosystems are already severely degraded in this area.

Baseline data is available from a number of programs and surveys, including the Board's long-term annual fish monitoring program which has collected data for up to 10 years for some sites, community monitoring programs, stream condition assessments through the Environment Protection Authority, and data collection through the Fleurieu Swamp Recovery Program.

297 - MERI Concerned that some monitoring activities are "subject to funding". Funding for appropriate monitoring should be guaranteed to provide meaningful review and evaluation of the plan, and to bolster the quality and quantity of the data underpinning the plan. Has potential to place evidence, not self-interest, at the heart of the administration of this crucial resource.

Agree that it is critical that the EMLR WAP is supported by an effective program for monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement. It is expected that the Board's existing monitoring programs will continue and evolve. The Board will also work together with the community and other agencies and institutions to support the continuation of other existing programs and work towards developing programs to fill the gaps.

334 - MERI Very concerned that the plan is under-resourced for monitoring. Would like to see measures from improvement, or deterioration included in the monitoring, with specific actions and funding to be implemented through an adaptive management system.


398 - MERI The Board should make funding available for monitoring and assessment of water resources and the environment, and this monitoring should be extended temporally


89


and spatially (particularly principles 279-280).

563 - MERI Recommend more funded plans for monitoring low flow bypasses, and that monitoring is properly resourced.


657 - MERI Concerned with inadequate resourcing of monitoring, evaluation, review, implementation and adaptive processes. Asks that the Board develop an open, transparent and well resourced monitoring, reporting and evaluation regime that is flexible, embraces a multi-disciplinary approach and embraces all options.


67 - MERI There is a shortage of information on underground water changes and flows which needs to be addressed to make an educated assessment in five years time. Who will fund and be responsible for monitoring that needs to occur?


205 - MERI Investing in science is a necessary responsibility in providing sound water planning - rather than monitoring being subject to available funding.


265 - MERI The Dairy Industry supports a review of the EMLR WAP after five years and requests that a comprehensive monitoring program be established in the meantime to better inform that review. Management zones deemed to be over-allocated should be the priority for additional monitoring (resolution 2).

Agree it is important to have an effective monitoring and evaluation program to guide management, allow identification and response to problems, improve understanding, and inform improvement of the EMLR WAP over time. Section 8 sets out key monitoring requirements in terms of water use, water resources (underground water level, flow, salinity) and ecosystems, including identification of areas where the current monitoring programs need to be improved. A significant body of data and investigations underpin the policies in the EMLR WAP, but it is important to continue to collect and evaluate appropriate information.Recommend that section 8 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be further developed to include additional triggers (underground water level and salinity, flow regime in vulnerable key asset sites, low flows not returned as expected) and linkages to reporting processes

90


(Regional NRM Plan, status and condition reporting by DEWNR). Also identify that high demand or high risk management zones will be the priority for monitoring.Recommend that the Board continues to work with other agencies (e.g. DEWNR, Environment Protection Authority) and the community to develop an integrated operational monitoring plan to achieve the actions set out in section 8 of the EMLR WAP.

218 - MERI Further ongoing research must be funded and undertaken to improve knowledge. Section on monitoring the ecology seems much less exacting than the first half of the document where all the science implies a high degree of knowledge and accuracy.


500 - MERI The draft EMLR WAP identifies a number of water monitoring measures in Section 8 and in principle 271. While not a part of the draft EMLR WAP, a separate water monitoring plan will be required to establish those parts of the monitoring requirements that will be developed and by whom.


567 - MERI Recommend defining and specifying what is to be measured, how often and by whom.


641 - MERI Reporting on monitoring outcomes should occur at least annually, not every three years.


513 - MERI End of system flows should be measured accurately at the end of the system where it terminates with another watercourse or the seas. Continuous monitoring of quality and level of ground water is a must. Hard data is required for sensible distribution of water resources, not theoretical data that may be found to be incorrect.


110 - MERI Supports efficient and effective transparent monitoring of water use and effects on the


91


environment.

79 - MERI Monitoring section should be upgraded in accordance with the SAMDB NRM Board's practice of MERI (monitoring, reporting, evaluation and improvement) to gradually return rivers and their dependent ecosystems to greater health.

As per comment # 265 - MERIIt is acknowledged that the structure of section 8 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP does not clearly reflect the steps of monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement.Recommend restructuring section 8 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to better reflect a monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement approach.

559 - MERI Recommend to develop the MERI model to clearly include I (improvement) plus 'R' for resources and 'C' for consequences

As per comment # 265 - MERIIt is acknowledged that the structure of section 8 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP does not clearly reflect the steps of monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement.Recommend restructuring section 8 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to better reflect a monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement approach.In relation to 'Improvement', the NRM Act sets out a number of actions that the Minister can implement if problems arise. Section 132 allows temporary reductions or restrictions on the volume of water taken or the way it is taken, or requirements to take action to address problems, where there are impacts (or likely to be impacts) on water quantity, quality and water-dependent ecosystems. Section 155 allows permanent allocation reductions in some circumstances. In addition, the EMLR WAP needs to be reviewed within five years of adoption, which may lead to amendment of the plan. The EMLR WAP can also be amended at any time, but significant amendments that change the intent of the plan need to go through the development and consultation process set out in the NRM Act, and so this is not a rapid way of responding to issues. These tools for action are already set out in the NRM Act, so it is not appropriate to re-state them in the EMLR WAP. Resourcing of the Board's programs in relation to water allocation plans is set out in the Business Plan component of the Board's Regional NRM Plan.The NRM Act sets out formal consequences for breaching the Act. The Board and DEWNR work together with the community to achieve the aims of the NRM Act. The compliance measures set out under the NRM Act are seen as a tool of last resort.

215 - MERI Imperative that monitoring is done proficiently and diligently to assess WAP performance, and that the EMLR WAP must ensure that sufficient funding is allocated to do this.

As per comment # 265 - MERIAs per comment # 297 - MERI

92


347 - MERI Recommend that the Board ensures more data collection surveys through the EMLR WAP as soon as practicable in some areas of uncertainty, with ongoing monitoring of all aspects. In the mean time, a conservative approach should be taken, and the precautionary approach taken thus far is fully supported. Missing data leads to uncertainty for management. Examples of essential missing data includes lack of information about the requirements for flow duration and frequency, and information about the distribution and variability of water-dependent ecosystems and individual species.


299 - MERI Well funded, timely and widespread monitoring provides for assessment of compliance with the plan. Trigger points for action in relation to oversight and compliance needs to be clarified. Monitoring activities should be broadened to include water quality and degradation or contamination; and the state and condition of environmental assets to ensure their long-term sustainability.


562 - MERI Recommend that the limited modelling used in the EMLR WAP needs to be backed up by measurement of end of river flows, collation of water users' actual water use and making adaptive changes as required. Recommend more funded plans for monitoring low flow bypasses, and that monitoring is properly resourced. Recommend establishing recording systems and procedures which create a depth of knowledge of change in quality, quantity, bore levels and drawdown which is then included in the WAP MERI + R


93


(resources) + C (compliance) model. Important to recognise the limits of current knowledge and put monitoring procedures into place to maximise reliable observations and records for future decision making. WAP avoids the hard decisions on how the system will be monitored for long-term sustainability.

2 - MERI Continued data collection and interpretation critical to have a robust and accepted WAP, and to keep irrigators working with agencies for best management of the resource. Recent changes affecting resource management will need to continue to be monitored and built into credible modelling and policy. These changes include (1) underground water salinity - rising in some areas but decreasing in others, likely due to increased aquifer recharge of River Murray water; (2) improved climate conditions and river flow over last 12 months; and (3) downturn in the wine industry may reduce underground water use.

Agree. The draft EMLR WAP includes a range of monitoring provisions and triggers, including underground water salinity and level, stream flow, environmental triggers and water use practices.

111 - MERI Recommends research to fill knowledge gaps (examples given in submission - 2d).


571 - MERI Recommend developing shorter timelines for WAP internal monitoring, and identifying triggers for action in the same water year. Recommend that insufficient end of river flows should trigger reduction of allocations in the same water year at a catchment-wide scale. Three to five year period for response and triggers for changes in allocation and assessment of environmental water needs is too long - needs to reflect timelines based on

Agree that the monitoring and evaluation section of the consultation draft EMLR WAP should be revised.Recommend that section 8 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be further developed to include additional triggers (underground water level and salinity, flow regime in vulnerable key asset sites, low flows not returned as expected) and linkages to reporting processes (Regional NRM Plan, status and condition reporting by DEWNR). Also identify that high demand or high risk management zones will be the priority for monitoring.Recommend that the Board continues to work with other agencies (e.g. DEWNR, Environment Protection Authority) and the community to develop an integrated operational monitoring plan to achieve the actions set out in section 8 of the EMLR WAP.

94


the water year. DEWNR is introducing an annual program of status and condition reporting for prescribed water resources, which will shorten the timeframes for evaluation and reporting.There are significant practical difficulties with setting end-of-system flow triggers to reduce allocations within a water use year in a system like the EMLR with seasonal flow and where most of the surface water capture is via dams. Restricting allocations from dams is generally not able to provide a flow response in the water-use year that the problem occurs. The flow trigger would need to be assessed around the end of the wetter seasons, when the majority of the rain has fallen. However, dams would have already captured flow by then. Reducing allocations (the volume taken out of dams) at this point is not likely to return water to the system in that year. Taking less water out of dams will mean that they fill and spill sooner when rain returns, but this is likely to occur in the following year - which may have a different rainfall pattern.Managing the volume taken out of dams is important to ensure that the pattern and timing of filling and spilling over the long-term provides a suitable flow regime for downstream users and the environment, but is generally not a practical tool for managing insufficient water within a water-use year as outlined above. The draft EMLR WAP takes the approach of coupling allocation limits with taking rules to allow sharing of water between consumptive users and the environment. The requirement to protect or return low flows, when they occur, means that this key part of the water regime will be provided to sustain aquatic habitat for water-dependent ecosystems. Managing the volume that can be taken from dams allows reasonable consumptive use while also allowing an adequate pattern of dam filling and spilling over time to provide water to downstream users and to support environmental processes that depend on moderate to high flows as well.

80 - MERI What are the trigger points for action if monitoring shows continuing environmental decline?


127 - MERI The timeframes are too long for the triggers for action in section 8. Action needs to be able to be taken as soon as possible (at least in the same water year) if there are environmental declines. Measurement of end-of-system flow would provide a good trigger, as well as collecting data to improve understanding of water resource behaviour. The plan must contain directives on


95


allocation reductions when triggers are met, and there must be penalties for ignoring these directives.

396 - MERI Commends principle 273 that sets out the action to be undertaken if monitoring shows a trigger is met. Similar stipulations should apply elsewhere (e.g. for imported water and effluent).


397 - MERI Commends principle 275 that allows alteration of threshold flow rates and first flush triggers in the lower Angas Bremer if monitoring shows ecosystem decline. Would like to see this applied to other ecosystems as well.


575 - MERI Recommend that Government procedures must have the power and mechanism to vary allocations on a percentage basis. The EMLR WAP does not make it clear how agencies will respond to a decline in environmental conditions.

The NRM Act allows for "unbundling" of water licences into separate components, and provides a mechanism for making allocations as shares in a consumptive pool where the size of the pool, and hence the size of allocations, may vary over time. Unbundling is a recent direction in South Australian water planning, and there is significant work to be done to determine how unbundling could operate in systems like the EMLR. As outlined in the response to comment # 571, there are significant practical issues with varying allocations from dams in order to respond to the water availability in a given year.It is expected that the possibility of unbundling licences for the EMLR will be explored for the review of the EMLR WAP, which needs to occur within five years of plan adoption.In the meanwhile, the NRM Act sets out a number of actions that the Minister can implement if problems arise. Section 132 allows temporary reductions or restrictions on the volume of water taken or the way it is taken, or requirements to take action to address problems, where there are impacts (or likely to be impacts) on water quantity, quality and water-dependent ecosystems. Section 155 allows permanent allocation reductions in some circumstances. The WAP can also be amended at any time, but significant amendments that change the intent of the plan need to go through the development and consultation process set out in the NRM Act, and so this is not a rapid way of responding to issues. These tools for action are already set out in the NRM Act, so it is not appropriate to re-state them in the EMLR WAP. Principle 273 in the monitoring section of the EMLR WAP sets out the steps to be taken if

96


monitoring reveals condition indicator trigger has been reached (identify the cause, determine if there are negative impacts, assess options for remedial actions if necessary, report, implement remedial actions). The tools under the NRM Act as listed above are some of the types of remedial actions that could be taken in these circumstances. It is not possible for the WAP to prescribe a specific course of action for every type of potential problem The best path will be determined by the particular circumstances and the Board believes it is more practical and flexible for the EMLR WAP to set out the broad steps to be taken (as per principle 273) and to implement these, including appropriate remedial actions, as applies to the individual case.

506 - MERI Rules should be included in the EMLR WAP to reduce allocations in times of drought (as occurs in the River Murray).


564 - MERI Recommend more funded plans for analysis of how to keep more water in the system during dry periods and droughts.

As per comment # 575 - MERIIt is important to note that the policy of returning low flows means that this critical part of the flow regime will be provided to the environment during dry periods and droughts.A water allocation plan is a regulatory document, and it is outside the scope of a water allocation plan to provide, attract or direct funding.

640 - MERI Table 8.1, condition indicator 5 - define "marginal or poor".

These ratings of fish population condition have been applied through the Board's EMLR fish monitoring program, as assessed by expert interpretation of monitoring data. The Board plans to working with these experts to quantify these ratings as part of the development of the EMLR WAP monitoring implementation program.

486 - MERI The draft EMLR WAP includes principles that deal with the potential reduction of water allocations, the publication of threshold flow rates by notice published in the Government Gazette and the extension of the carryover period in several underground water management zones. While the Department supports a framework for adaptive management in water planning, the capacity of a water allocation plan to direct how an allocation reduction scheme will operate and to effectively amend threshold flow rates and

Noted.Recommend the principles relating to varying threshold flow rates; varying first flush trigger flow rates; and varying the allocation percentage and duration of the carryover period for artificial recharge allocations be re-drafted in line with advice from DFW and the Crown Solicitor's office so that they still achieve the same intent, but are more legally robust.Legal advice has been provided that it is likely to be out of a water allocation plan's power to set out preferred allocation reduction steps, as set out in principle 274 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP. A plan could set out reduction steps (if reductions are proposed), or reductions can occur through section 155 of the NRM Act. The Board can communicate the community's preferences for how allocation reductions should occur through other means if reductions become necessary in the future.

97


the carryover period in this way, needs to be further explored.

Recommend deleting principle 274 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

639 - MERI Regarding principle 274 - reductions should occur immediately, not after 2 years. Reductions should just occur, not by a % reduction.

Principle 274 sets out a preferred pathway for reductions in underground water allocations in the lower Angas Bremer area if monitoring outcomes show this is required because of continued increases in salinity. This pathway was developed in discussion with the local community, and reflects the relatively gradual rate of salinity change and the time needed for water users to adapt. Since consultation, the Board has received legal advice that this principle should be deleted as the NRM Act sets out the process for allocation reductions. Preferred reduction strategies, including the information that was contained in this principle, can be developed and communicated if reductions become necessary in the future.

395 - MERI Water quality parameters should be specified for monitoring for principles 266 and 267, with the allowance to add more.

It is agreed that water quality is a key issue in water management for consumptive use, public benefit purposes and environmental needs. A large number of water quality issues arise from land use and land management issues. A water allocation plan's role is around taking and use of water and certain water affecting activities, and the tools available under the plan are restricted to these activities. Hence the Board sees it as appropriate that the monitoring set out under the EMLR WAP focuses on aspects that are able to be managed under the tools in the plan. Salinity monitoring is included in the draft EMLR WAP as an indicator of potential resource degradation associated with water taking and use (e.g. lack of dilution flow, falling underground water pressure or levels drawing in adjacent saline underground water, perched or rising water tables resulting from irrigation). The draft EMLR WAP also includes provisions that can include monitoring as a permit condition for new water affecting activities where these may cause water quality impacts.It is important to monitor and assess other water quality aspects as part of a broader NRM approach, and the Board's Regional NRM Plan includes targets to manage water quality, including monitoring actions. The Board will continue to work with other agencies (such as the Environment Protection Authority) and the community to address water quality issues.

545 - MERI Monitoring should include water level, salinity and other pollutants - water quality must be maintained and monitoring must be undertaken to ensure this.


553 - MERI WAP is principally concerned with water As per comment # 395 - MERI

98


quantity, not quality. A reduction in water quality must be a key monitoring trigger for reducing allocations and changes in how the systems are managed. Water quality monitoring should include fluoride, aluminium and heavy metals.

129 - MERI Monitoring should be focussed on water quality as well as quantity, including aluminium, heavy metals, pesticides and herbicides. Monitoring results must be made publically available as soon as possible.


63 - Metering A common-sense approach needs to be taken to metering dams, rather than just "that's the law" - let's get in before such a law is made. Where there are mitigating circumstances where it would be difficult, ineffective and expensive to install a meter on a dam (for example as detailed in this submission), then a meter should not have to be installed. This is considering that dam capacity provides a cap on the volume that can be taken (unlike a bore); and if rain ran into the dam after summer rainfall then the irrigation requirement drawn from the dam would be less due to the rain.

The purpose of metering is to accurately quantify the volume of water used by individual water users, to ensure compliance with licensed allocations, for resource management and monitoring and to manage impacts to other water users. Where a water source is not metered, potentially large volumes of water are ‘unaccounted’, particularly an issue with larger dams where there would be a greater volume of ‘unaccounted’ water.The metering of water sources has been a condition of authorisations issued under the Notice of Prohibition. A number of water users have already been granted extended timeframes for meter installations for a number of reasons such as financial hardship, large numbers of meters and complexity of installations. Upon issue of water licences, the remainder of individuals who haven’t installed meters on licensed sources will need to do so as to comply with licence conditions. Metering throughout the region will be implemented in a staged way over a period of time, with priority given to metering of particular resources (i.e. in areas of high demand) and longer timeframes available for complex installations and where multiple meters are required.

273 - Metering

The timetables for installation of water meter(s) should be negotiated user-by-user, with a deadline of up to two years for more expensive or complicated installations. Individual users should have a right of appeal to the SA MDB NRM Board if agreement cannot be met about earlier deadlines (recommendation 5).

Noted. Please note that metering is managed by DEWNR, not the Board. Metering of sources has been a phased program and there is flexibility for longer timeframes for complex installations and where multiple meters are required. A number of water users have already been granted extended timeframes for meter installation for a number of reasons such as financial hardship, large numbers of meters and complexity of installations.

99


Once licences have been issued, there will be a requirement to install meters on the remainder of water sources that have not already been metered.

288 - Metering

It is recommended that where licensed users and authorities agree on dam capacity, the user be given the option of using dam capacity in lieu of metering to define and measure dam water consumption (recommendation 15).

The purpose of metering is to accurately quantify the volume of water used by individual water users, to ensure compliance with licensed allocations, for resource management and monitoring and to manage impacts to other water users. Where a water source is not metered, potentially large volumes of water are ‘unaccounted’, particularly an issue with larger dams where there would be a greater volume of ‘unaccounted’ water.

416 - Metering

We have metered, some haven't, why have others got away when we have complied.

The Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Notice of Prohibition required meters to be installed as a condition of their authorisation. Approximately half of the licensed sources in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges have already been metered. Of the remainder, a number have been granted an extension of timeframe for metering. The NRM Act requires that water extraction from prescribed water resources is subject to issue of a water licence, a condition of which requires that the volume of water taken be measured by a water meter. As a result, individuals who haven’t installed meters on licensed sources will need to comply as part of their licence condition.

532 - Metering

Metering specifications have not been included in draft EMLR WAP. Where current meters do not meet specifications, consideration should be given to financial support for replacement meters.

The South Australian Licensed Water User Metering Specifications are part of the State-wide Metering Policy. This means that metering specifications are the same across the State rather than being set out in individual water allocation plans.A copy of the Metering Specifications were provided to each water user at the time that temporary water use authorisations were issued. It is a requirement that all meters used to meter licensed water use comply with these specifications. Where current meters do not meet the specifications, consideration will be given to allowing appropriate timeframes and circumstances in which to undertake the required works to make the meter or installation compliant.

594 - Metering

Are large dams in the upper Finniss metered?

DEWNR has a published metering policy titled South Australian Licensed Water Use Metering Policy. A key element of this policy is that all licensed water use shall be metered. The Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Notice of Prohibition required meters to be installed upon issue of authorisations to existing users. This includes large dams in the Upper Finniss. Approximately half of the licensed sources in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges have already been metered. Of the remainder, a number have been granted an extension of timeframe for metering.The NRM Act requires that water extraction from prescribed water resources is subject to

100


issue of a water licence, a condition of which requires that the volume of water taken be measured by a water meter. As a result, individuals who haven’t installed meters on licensed sources will need to comply as part of their licence condition.

757 - Metering

Water meters should be located at the point where water is taken from the source to ensure accurate recording, not some distance away.

Where a meter is required to be installed in accordance with a condition on an authorisation or a water licence, the South Australian Licensed Water Use Metering Policy specifies the requirements for selecting meters, the location of meters and the installation of meters. All licensed water users must comply with these requirements in order to ensure that a meter accurately records the volume of water taken. A key element of this policy is that all licensed water use shall be metered and that meters should be located as close as practicable to the water source.

143 - Metering

Agree with metering dams and bores as water use needs to be controlled.

Not only does metering help to manage the quantity of water used by individual water users, but it is very helpful in measuring the overall water use in management zones and catchments. When this more accurate usage information is compared to information on the condition of the resource, an assessment can be made whether the consumptive use limits need to be adjusted.

298 - Metering

The introduction of metering as a means of establishing actual usage is commended.

As per comment # 143 - Metering

447 - Metering

People of this country will not tolerate any meter on water tanks or other tanks or other water storage devices.

There is no intention and never has been any intention to ask people to put meters on household/domestic rainwater tanks.The confusion may have come about because in a very small number of cases where a person or a company has a very large roof area and is collecting very large amounts of water for licensed purposes it is important to be able to account for that water in an area’s water budget. In these few cases water captured from a roof and used for a licensed purpose is treated like any other licensed water source and a meter may be required.

476 - Metering

Satellite technology negates the need for meters.Disagrees with the use of meters.

While satellite technology is currently sometimes used to measure the water level in large water bodies such as reservoirs and lakes, it requires complex data acquisition and processing and is much less accurate than using water meters.The more accurate information from metering helps individuals understand and manage their water use and improve their efficiency. It also helps measuring overall water use in management zones and catchments. When this more accurate usage information is compared to information on the condition of resources, an assessment can be made of whether water taking limits need to be adjusted.

101


75 - New allocations

If an area is not fully allocated, the excess water must be made available for further agricultural development.

The issue of whether or not to allow new allocations in areas that have not reached their sustainable limit has been a vigorously discussed and finely divided issue during development and consultation on the draft EMLR WAP. After careful consideration of the responses made during consultation, the Board has decided to recommend that new allocations be allowed in zones that are not fully developed, within the rules and limits set out in the EMLR WAP. The consultation draft EMLR WAP did not allow new allocations, and also used a conservative cap on total water taking of 50% of the allocation limit for underground water when assessing applications for new underground water taking in an area due to a transfer or new commercial forestry permit (this limit is called the transfer and forestry threshold, as outlined in section 4.3.5 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP). After careful consideration of the responses made during consultation, the Board has decided to recommend that the limit for underground water allocations should reflect the allocation limit, rather than the transfer and forestry threshold. The best available information on water availability and environmental needs indicates that further sustainable production can be supported in certain areas. It will be important to continue to monitor the responses of the water resource and users (including the environment) to trigger action to be taken if required, as outlined in the monitoring and evaluation section of the EMLR WAP.Recommend amending the consultation draft EMLR WAP to allow new allocations within the limits and rules set out in the EMLR WAP.Recommend deleting the transfer and forestry threshold from the consultation draft EMLR WAP.


For community land (e.g. open space, sport and recreation facilities), the EMLR WAP should be flexible enough to allow new allocations (within the 15% limit), provided the net overall water allocation to the respective Council is maintained.

As per comment # 75 - New allocations


New water should be available for allocation where the science says it is available (recommendation 1). Seems unreasonable to use the limits to curb water use in some


102


zones but not allow more allocation in others (e.g. expand existing business to stay profitable in an under-allocated area - may not find someone to transfer the water from).


Recommend removal of the "no new allocation" policy, or only apply in management zones where sufficient demonstration of resource decline exists. Continue to expand monitoring network and review in future. Any provision for no new allocations should require consideration of the economic impacts of such an action, and cost/benefit analysis to demonstrate that such a restriction provides a net social benefit to the community. No new allocations, together with the highly restrictive transfer policies, restricts the opportunities for unsuccessful existing users or other new users - limits properties to stock and domestic use only. No new allocation policy does not adequately address NRM Act requirement that WAP take into account the present and future needs of the occupiers of the land in relation to the existing requirements and future capacity of the land, and likely effect of those provisions on the value of the land. Need to provide additional justification and rationale. Are the declines in the last 10 years of drought, in some areas, sufficient basis to justify application of this policy to all areas? The use of the precautionary principle should not be an excuse for accepting unsupported assertions and lack of knowledge or analysis.


309 - New Recommend allowing new allocations in As per comment # 75 - New allocations

103


allocations areas that have not reached their sustainable limits. These areas are relatively small and don't currently have significant demand. The plan contains a significant number of policies to protect other water users, including the environment. Monitoring could be undertaken to ensure that the water resources are not being affected, with trigger points to change management practices if required.


New water allocations should be allowed in areas where the credible science shows it is sustainable. To not do so would show a lack of faith in the work to date, and will extend the cessation of new economic activities to 13 years. This is scientifically untenable, environmentally pointless, economically reckless and socially unjust.



New allocations should be granted in a similar way as occurred in the Tintinara region (recommendation 2) - first in, best dressed. Cost of developing infrastructure is similar to the cost of water - don't gain much by developing water unless you have a useful purpose for it. If water use is not developed within 1-2 years then water must be returned.

As per comment # 75 - New allocationsThe state-wide position for making new allocations is set out in the "Policy statement for defining, identifying and releasing unallocated water". This policy sets out a recommended approach for releasing unallocated water that will allow consistency across the state. The recommended approach is that where it is considered sustainable and where there is demand for unallocated water, that market-based mechanisms be used, such as public auction or tender, or by private contract if those methods fail.


The draft EMLR WAP allows no new allocations, even if the data shows water is available. This approach extends the inequity of giving licences to some but not all landholders. A number of landholders who already have a provisional licence are now negotiating with the NRM (apparently successfully in some cases) to be given even

As per comment # 75 - New allocationsIt should be noted that DEWNR, and not the Board, are responsible for the authorisation and licensing process. The NRM Act requires that water is allocated to both existing users who used water during the establishment period (1 July 2000 to 16 Oct 2003) and to people who have made a significant legal financial or other commitment during the establishment period to use water. Consequently, authorisations (or as you refer to them ‘provisional licences’) have been issued to water users who used water for licensed purposes during the

104


more water, and apparently in some cases this is to sell water to their neighbours. This will deter new users with innovative and efficient ideas from entering the industry. The proposed solution is to allow issue of new licences to distribute all available additional water to new users. If it turns out in the future that water has been over-allocated, the allocations to all licensees can be scaled back. Notes that it has recently been determined in the Murray-Darling system that water had not been over-allocated as previously indicated by the calculations that had been made at the time.

establishment period, or those who have made a significant commitment during the establishment period. In a small number of cases individuals have had their allocation adjusted where they have provided additional acceptable evidence of use, development or commitment during the establishment period.


Community and sporting groups using water may not have applied to be existing users. These groups should be granted secondary existing user status and be given priority for allocations should there be surplus water available. Secondary user status should be granted on a priority basis based on need and community impact. Consideration should be given to transitional arrangements to ease the implications, particularly where an alternative water source is not easily accessible.

DEWNR is aware there may be community and sporting groups using water on community land that have not have applied for a water licence during the existing user application period. DEWNR will engage with the EMLR community about these instances to start a dialogue with any groups that may fall into this category of user. The types of options that may come into play in this type of scenario include potential recognition as a secondary user while licensing issues are resolved or through application for a new water allocation or transfer, subject to the rules and limits in the EMLR WAP.Each situation will be different and DEWNR welcomes queries from any community or sporting group to its Water Planning and Management team on 8463 6876.The purpose of the WAP is to allow sustainable water management, and it is not seen as the role of the WAP to make judgements about who or what purpose the water should be allocated for unless for resource management considerations.


Supports proposal for no new allocations. As per comment # 75 - New allocations


Supports the reasons for no new allocations. In addition, no new allocations should be made until low flow bypasses are operational and data has been analysed to show that the waterways are not continuing to deteriorate.


105



Support conservative approach to water allocation.



Support concept of no new allocations once existing user demands are met.



Commends the fact that there will be no new water allocations.



New allocations are not on. Stop all further new underground water extractions, particularly in high intensive use zones.



Welcome the policy of no new allocation. As per comment # 75 - New allocations


No new allocations should be contemplated. As per comment # 75 - New allocations

471 - Other NRM issues

Supports taking action against any person or entity involved in water theft, of animal cruelty, neglect or ecological vandalism.

Noted.


We will not allow fencing off of waterways as this creates an animal welfare issue for stock and native fauna. We have not yet received an answer on liability for animal cruelty - landholder for fencing or NRM Board for forcing the fencing?

This issue is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP.The Board does not require fencing off of watercourses.Appropriate fencing of watercourses, in combination with ongoing management and provision of stock water, is widely regarded as a useful tool for managing water quality, erosion and native vegetation along watercourses. However whether or not to fence is the decision of the landholder so that is where any potential liability lies.The Board's Regional NRM Plan includes targets for protecting and restoring watercourses, achieved through Board sponsored incentive payments and education and awareness programs. The Board works with community groups such as the Local Action Planning Associations to achieve this. This work complements the work by landholders, groups and other agencies in managing and protecting watercourses.


The blanket ruling of proposed farm grazing and pasture management by NRM on all the properties is an insult to the majority of

This issue is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP.The Board recognises the knowledge landholders have of their properties and the care

106


graziers who have maintained good pastures and manage environmentally health catchments and properties. Advocates the provision of expert assistance to landholders as a way to remedy land management issues, as occurred the past via PIRSA or Soil Boards.Stocking rates on land shall be the prerogative of the landowner.Farmers understand their property's carrying capacity and we shall not be dictated to by NRM officers who appear to have very limited farming knowledge.

they take of their natural resources. Through the land management program the Board provides expert assistance to farming groups and individual land managers.The Board has not placed any blanket rulings on grazing or pasture management, and is guided by qualified land management experts when considering stocking rates.


Concerns on the use of bio-solids and prohibition on the use of filtered rainwater in food production processes.

These issues are outside the scope of the EMLR WAP and the Board. It is suggested that you raise your concerns with the Environment Protection Authority or Department for Health and Ageing.


Will not be told how to manage our stock on our land unless we are given equal powers to tell these public servants how to manage their own properties.

Everyone has the same duty of care under the NRM Act to act reasonably in relation to management of natural resources.


The original mandate for the NRM was weeds and pest control, but these problems are now more prominent than ever before.

A water allocation plan can only deal with the taking and use of water and specific water affecting activities, not weed issues. The Board's Regional NRM Plan includes targets and actions for addressing weed issues. The Board supports a range of programs working with the community and other stakeholders and agencies to address weed issues, including:• Detection and early management of new pest incursions, including implementation of a rapid response program for new pests and diseases, and establishment of an enthusiastic, well informed network of people willing to undertake pest surveillance and management• Managing the impact of established pest plants, including:o awareness, education and training of landholderso working with other agencies on implementation of an intervention scheme using

107


subsidies and incentives for high priority pestso implementation of operational programs for the management of priority pest plants in each NRM regiono collecting information on priority pest distribution and monitoring effectiveness of control programs to inform best practice pest management


Concerned about the persecution of farmers who use physical means of weed control rather than using herbicides. Concerned about the safety of herbicides. Farmers must retain the right to remove weeds by mechanical means wherever they deem it safer than spraying. Require NRM Board and DFW to give a guarantee that any herbicide approved for use in common resource waterways is safe for animals drinking the water and to give full indemnity against loss or damage to native species, stock, crops and production.

This issue is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP. The Board does not set out requirements on how weeds are managed. However control recommendations are guided by approved best practice guidelines that are accepted industry standards.The NRM Act places a general duty of care for people to act reasonably in relation to management of natural resources. Land management practices should not result in unreasonable degradation of land, and so the approach taken for weed control should address the range of potential impacts such as erosion, water quality issues and off-target damage.It is not the role of the NRM Boards or DEWNR to approve the use or test the safety of herbicides or to give guarantees or indemnity about impacts. Herbicide use and recommendations are governed by approved label recommendations and chemicals must be approved by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority.


The powers of the NRM officers (putting people under surveillance, break into their property or to force them to answer questions) breaches our oldest and most respected common law rights. For these actions to be done because an officer thinks the farmer may have breached the act is nothing short of a thought crime.

The powers of Authorised Officers are set out in the NRM Act. The powers of Authorised Officers under the NRM Act are similar to those under similar legislation (e.g. Environment Protection Act 1993), and not as extensive as those of the SA Police or even of the Fisheries Division of PIRSA. Powers mirror those of the 3 acts that were combined to become the NRM Act (Water Resources Act 1997, Animal and Plant Control (Agricultural Protection and Other Purposes) Act 1986, and Soil Conservation and Landcare Act 1997).As a matter of general practice and courtesy, the vast majority of landowners are contacted prior to any property visits. An Authorised Officer has the power to enter any place as may be reasonably required in connection with the administration, operation or enforcement of the NRM Act. An Authorised Officer may only enter residential premises at the invitation of the owner or with a warrant. NRM officers who are not Authorised Officers do not have any specific authority to enter a property. In some cases, property visits may not be pre-arranged when the visit is undertaken to seek evidence of criminal behaviour, such as theft of water, breaches of orders or other instances of serious and ongoing non-compliance.

108


The Board's preference is to work together with the community on natural resources management, and compliance options are seen as a last resort.


Numerous primary producers report they have suffered physically, financially and/or psychologically as a result of the actions and demands by NRM Officers. These cannot be allowed to continue and the Act must be amended to reduce rather than enhance the powers of these officers.

The Board believes its NRM Officers carry out their duties professionally and in line with the public sector code of conduct. The Board is interested to hear of any specific cases where it is believed that its officers did not act appropriately, and will follow up accordingly.The Board's NRM Officers act within the powers set out under the NRM Act. The powers of Authorised Officers under the NRM Act are similar to those under similar legislation (e.g. Environment Protection Act 1993), and not as extensive as those of the SA Police or even of the Fisheries Division of PIRSA. Powers mirror those of the 3 acts that were combined to become the NRM Act (Water Resources Act 1997, Animal and Plant Control (Agricultural Protection and Other Purposes) Act 1986, and Soil Conservation and Landcare Act 1997).It is recommended that you raise your concerns on the content of the NRM Act with your local member of parliament, as parliament is the body responsible for making the laws.


Have concerns about property access in relation to biosecurity, contamination and occupational health and safety. Access without notice is a risk to safety of crops, stock and livelihoods. Access by NRM or DFW officials, authorised or not, which results in the introduction of any pest or disease will be subject to legal action with the expectation of full compensation.

As a matter of general practice and courtesy, the vast majority of landowners are contacted prior to any property visits and can discuss concerns about managing the spread of pests and diseases at the time.In addition, NRM Officers from the Board hold pest management technician licences and work under related legislative requirements. The Board’s NRM Officers undertake training in farm and equipment hygiene procedures, and use decontamination equipment and procedures following visits to properties with a recognised biosecurity risk. In other circumstances, the Board’s NRM Officers are required to perform a standard check when accessing a property which includes checks on transport of pests.

784 - Other water issues

If NRM Board and Department for Water are micromanaging water resources for primary producers, they need to guarantee a safe and reliable ongoing supply of water for stock and domestic use as applies in urban areas.

The purpose of the prescription process is to support sustainable water resource management, and is quite separate from water supply arrangements.


Believes a blue gum plantation at Mt Barker was approved by the State Government under suspicious circumstances. Downstream users have been affected and

These issues are outside the scope of the EMLR WAP and the Board. It is suggested that you raise your concerns about the development approval process with DEWNR for Planning, Transport and Infrastructure,, and raise any concerns about alleged criminal activity with the South Australian Police.

109


ignored. The company went broke. Suggests this sold cheaply to the Rann government as the owners made a political donation. An investigation should be carried out.


Concerned that there is no big picture view of NRM policy - for example, politicians flying around the country have a large carbon footprint, which contributes to climate change impacts, which affects water availability and management.

Your concerns with the big picture view of NRM policy are acknowledged, and the Board will keep working with the community and other agencies towards integrated natural resources management. The Board's Regional NRM Plan aims to set directions for natural resources management within the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin region. This plan also includes targets for the Board to reduce its own environmental footprint from a 2009 baseline, including an increase in carbon efficiencies of 20% for the Board's vehicles by 2014 (which has already been achieved) and of 10% for buildings by 2014. Positioned above the Regional Plan is the State Natural Resources Management Plan and the State Strategic Plan that both have a series of key targets, outcomes and goals with regard to state-wide issues, including waste reduction, renewable energy and energy efficiency (including government energy usage), water re-use and land management. The Board is always willing to take on ideas that assist it in managing the many and complex challenges threatening our natural resources.


Notes and commends the work of the Board staff involved in the Strengthening Basin Communities program. Look forward to further collaboration in the future.

Thank you. Your comments have been passed on to the relevant staff members.


There have been blanket statements by the NRM that a lowering of the water table leads to increased salinity. This may be true for some areas but it does contradict scientific findings to the contrary which shows in fact, that a rising water table brings salts up from the subsoil layers. In this case, lowering the water table for irrigation purposes would be beneficial for production and natural resources. A website link is provided that shows that overall the sensible planting of trees is the most effective way to address salinity.

It is agreed that rising water tables can lead to increased salinity, which is why the draft EMLR WAP includes principles to avoid creation of rising water tables through water use (e.g. principle 7). Falling underground water levels can also lead to increased salinity by drawing in adjacent saline water from above or from the side, but this doesn't happen in all cases. Both issues are true, and the plan addresses each issue within the scope of matters it is able to address. The underground water limits have been set for the prescription process for different zones to recognise the different processes and level of risk over the landscape. As you have identified, other approaches are also suitable for managing salinity in some situations such as planting perennial vegetation. The Board's Regional NRM Plan includes a target to reduce the spread and impact of dryland salinity by establishing appropriate perennial vegetation, and provides support for local groups and the community towards achieving this target.The current demand for underground water is less than the limit for the majority of

110


It is true that excessive irrigation creates a salinity problem in some areas but not others. Each farm area needs to be assessed individually as to be best way to manage underground water and salinity measures rather than widespread curtailing use of bores.We will require detailed reporting for each area before agreeing to reduce the amount of bore water extracted.

underground water zones.

Through the process for allocating water to existing users, The Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation balances both the needs of existing users and the needs of water dependent ecosystems. A measured and careful approach to any decision to reduce existing user entitlements needs to be taken with consideration for the impacts on existing enterprises/businesses and the risks to the resource.Any decision on reductions in high demand management zones will be made on a zone by zone basis with consideration for the types of uses that are present in that zone, the level of risk to the environment associated with issuing full entitlements in that zone and any impacts to existing users. Reductions may occur in future, once detailed information has been collected at the zone level on resource capacity and usage. This option, together with other management options (including immediate reductions, where appropriate), is currently being considered in high demand management zones.High demand zones will be treated as priority areas for monitoring and the installation of meters. This will enable additional information to be collected to inform whether reductions are required.


Blaming the Eastern States is lazy when proactive action could and should have been taken to protect our allocation.

The EMLR WAP guides local water management within the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges. At a broader scale, the State Government has been active in working with other State Governments and the Federal Government in the development of water management policy for the Murray-Darling Basin.


Suggest action to remove European carp and ducks to improve native fish life.

Management of pest species is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP. Instead, the Board's Regional NRM Plan includes targets for controlling feral species affecting waterways, such as Management Action Target B2.4 - Reduce the extent of priority pest plants and animals in priority water-dependent ecosystems by 10% by 2014. The Regional NRM Plan notes the impact of European carp on freshwater habitats. The Board works towards these targets in partnership with the community, stakeholder groups and other agencies and bodies.


Require information on the following: planned water releases from reservoirs volume of water lost from planned

releases volume of water lost through natural spill-

The EMLR does not contain any public water supply reservoirs, and managing the reservoirs and Adelaide's stormwater and water mains infrastructure is outside the role of the Board. It is recommended that you direct your specific questions to SA Water.

111


over volume of water lost through leaking and

broken mains pipes what percentage of stormwater is lost in

Adelaide and the surrounding suburbs how Government plans to remediate

these non-rural water losses to protect water resources and prevent loss of natural heritage.


Inefficient to allow water to flow down the catchment to Lake Alexandrina, and then pump it back up to provide town water supply.

Using water from the EMLR catchments to provide local town water supply would be likely to require significant investment and running costs for infrastructure for water treatment and storage that replicates the function of the existing public water supply infrastructure.


Animal faeces entering waterways will not harm to microorganisms and insects that feed on them, but water running off roads and developments picks up pollutants that contaminate waterways. It is a known fact, animal faeces on farm land does not cause contamination of the underground water whereas toxic pollutants from developed land does e.g. the former Hills and Origin sites in Adelaide.

Animal waste is recognised as a pollutant of watercourses, in addition to pollutants from other land uses like roads and urban development. The Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy that sits under the Environment Protection Act 1993 is the key legislative instrument for managing water quality impacts associated with pollutants, and this issue is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP.


If councils are selling waste water and biosolids to farmers and home gardeners, rural householders and businesses should be allowed to sell their waste water back to their local councils.

This issue is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP. It is suggested this issue be raised with your local council.


Weir on Finniss and Currency still have not been removed. They should never be repeated.

Noted. This issue is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP.

320 - Prescription

Recommends a commitment to outcomes, not process and prescriptions. We need to

We agree with the philosophy of a commitment to outcomes that allow adaptation and innovation. The water allocation planning process is governed by the requirements of the

112


approach develop rules that allow for the ready adaption of new and better practices for clearly articulated outcomes, an easy path for negotiation of better outcomes, and localised/regional regulations and decision making instead of state legislation and regulations. We do not need a prescribed 'one size fits all' process imposed on all of us.

NRM Act and so the Board also needs to work within those rules. The draft EMLR WAP attempts to set outcomes rather than specified processes where possible. For example, the plan describes a requirement that low flows at or below a threshold flow rate are to be returned or not taken, but doesn't specify how this is to happen. The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. As part of this program, we are keen to work together to explore different ways of achieving the outcome of protecting or returning low flows across the landscape in ways that make sense for individual properties and circumstances. When developing policy, the need for flexibility needs to be balanced with clear and transparent policies that provide sufficient direction, allowing equity in how people are treated (i.e. clear policy guidance means two people in the same situation are more likely to be treated in a similar way). It is not always practical to assess and negotiate each case individually. The plan does endeavour to recognise variability across the landscape by including rules that operate at a local or management zone scaleWater allocation plans need to be reviewed at least every five years, and can be reviewed and amended sooner. The monitoring and evaluation provisions of the draft EMLR WAP can help to inform whether outcomes are being achieved, and to stimulate and inform improvement in policy and practices.

198 - Prescription approach

Business SA encourages that water policy be based on the principles of (1) an outcome oriented approach to government regulation which encourages innovation, appropriate risk management and voluntary industry approaches to best practice environmental management; (2) consistent national environmental standards that are appropriate to Australia's standards while recognising the roles of the states and territories; and (3) a whole-of-government approach to policy making and implementation based on scientific assessments and maximum cooperation and consultation amongst government agencies, in conjunction with industry and community groups. Vital that the EMLR WAP is vibrant and inclusive of all

Noted. The Board has worked closely other agencies and two community advisory committees in developing the EMLR WAP, drawing on a sound scientific basis. At a broader scale, the Board's Regional NRM Plan provides strategic direction for natural resources management for the region for the Board, other agencies, stakeholders and the broader community.As per comment # 320 - Prescription approach

113


water users now and into the future.


Concerned that the EMLR watercourses are treated as a series of environmentally significant water-dependent ecosystems to be tweaked into remaining resilient. Concerned that the EMLR WAP doesn't give a sense of holistic interconnection, nor a sense that the end of system flows are a major contributor to the health of the Lakes and the ocean. These rivers are part of our heritage, and that of future generations, and deserve to be treated with reverence.

The work to determine environmental water requirements of the EMLR (as described in section 2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP) included consideration of reach types across the EMLR catchments, including the terminal wetlands at the end of catchments, and the connections between them.When developing the draft EMLR WAP, the Board has been mindful of the interconnectedness of the system, and has developed policies that work together at different scales. For example, the connection between surface water and underground water has been recognised by setting aside the volume of underground water estimated to discharge into watercourses when determining the underground water limit, and underground water buffer zones have been placed around watercourses. Some policies operate at a local scale to provide protection for users, including the environment, at a local scale (e.g. underground water buffer zones, surface water limits at the scale of the catchment of significant environmental assets), while others operate more broadly to recognise the downstream or more regional effects of use (e.g. zone and catchment scale water-taking limits, cumulative water-taking limits for main watercourses that consider all upstream use). It is acknowledged this sense of connectedness and interdependence is not well reflected in the draft EMLR WAP.Recommend amending consultation draft EMLR WAP to add text to emphasise connectivity and inter-dependence of the system to section 2 and 4.It is recognised that the local impact of the EMLR is very important for maintaining unique aquatic habitats at the interface between the EMLR streams and Lake Alexandrina/River Murray, for provide flowing stream habitats used by migratory species (e.g. fish species that use marine and stream habitats for different parts of their lifecycle), and for providing aquatic refuge habitat during times of low water level in the River Murray and Lake Alexandrina.These connections between the EMLR and downstream habitats are identified in sections 2.2.1.4 and 3.4.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP, but the nature and importance of the linkages should be further emphasised.Recommend that text be added to section 3.4.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to emphasise the nature, importance and role of the connections between the EMLR catchments and the River Murray and Lake Alexandrina, and connected systems.It seems reasonable for all connected catchments to contribute a share of water to ensure the health of downstream systems. The consumptive use limits in the EMLR have been

114


set to provide water to the environment of the EMLR, including the terminal wetlands at the end of the system. These limits will also provide a significant flow contribution to the River Murray and Lake Alexandrina, flowing onto connected systems. The environmental health of the River Murray, Lower Lakes and Coorong needs to be achieved through a coordinated approach under an overarching instrument such as the upcoming Basin Plan.


Would like to see clear measurement of the success of the EMLR WAP through all landholders reducing their footprint, protecting remnant vegetation and restoring environments to healthy states which can endure in the future.

The role of a water allocation plan is limited to managing taking and use of prescribed water resources and certain water affecting activities. Within this scope, the draft EMLR WAP aims to meet an objective to maintain and where possible restore water-dependent ecosystems by providing their water needs, and to achieve an equitable balance between economic, social and environmental water needs. The EMLR WAP will also be part of the Board's Regional NRM Plan, which has a broader scope and includes targets and actions relating to protection of biodiversity and rehabilitation of degraded habitats, including water-dependent ecosystems. The Board will continue to work with the community to support progress towards these targets, including incentives programs through the Local Action Planning Groups for activities such as revegetation and protection of remnant vegetation, community capacity building and engagement, and provision of advice and assistance in pest, weed and land management. The Board's monitoring, evaluation, reporting and improvement program will measure success against the targets. For example, the 2010 'Working together in NRM: a snapshot of our progress' report (available on the Board's website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au in the NRM Plan section) outlines information on the progress being made towards the management action targets set out in the Regional NRM Plan.


A move toward thinking longer-term as to what will benefit the country will benefit the community and future generations

Agree.


Agree with the overall aim of the EMLR WAP (environmental objective to maintain and/or restore self-sustaining populations).

Noted.


Concerned with opacity of the decision-making processes.

The Board has endeavoured to include information on the basis of the draft EMLR WAP's policies in the plan and as part of the public consultation process. The deliberations by the Board's Community Advisory Committees are outlined in the minutes of the committee meetings available on the Board's website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au

519 - When a neighbour chooses to dramatically One of the aims of the EMLR WAP is to minimise the impact of new water taking on other

115


Prescription approach

change his water use to make more money, it is so unfair on downstream users.

users, including the environment. Allocations will be granted by volume, which places a cap on the amount of water that can be used at a local scale.


Farmers who bought land at the end of a watercourse paid a lot less than those who bought in high rainfall areas.

The reasonable requirements of all existing users using water for licensed purposes are given equal importance in the EMLR, regardless of location or type of enterprise.


Need to restore degraded ecosystems first - unacceptable that only 2 out of 135 sites met environmental targets and then shift the goal posts to alternative water management scenarios without even trying to restore a percentage of those degraded sites.

The scope of the draft EMLR WAP is limited to managing new water taking and use, transfers and certain water affecting activities. The draft EMLR WAP strives to improve degraded systems via setting limits on how much water can be taken and also how it can be taken, including the proposal for returning or not capturing low flows. The plan also seeks to minimise further impacts through rules for new allocations, transfers and new water affecting activities. The current situation is that 2 out of 135 sites meet all of the environmental water needs measures. The management approach set out under the draft EMLR WAP aims to improve this.The Board's Regional NRM Plan has a broader scope than the EMLR WAP, and includes targets and actions relating to protection of biodiversity and rehabilitation of degraded habitats, including water-dependent ecosystems. The Board will continue to work with the community to support progress towards these targets, including incentives programs through the Local Action Planning Groups for activities such as revegetation and protection of remnant vegetation, community capacity building and engagement, and provision of advice and assistance in pest, weed and land management.


Recommends there should be more emphasis on restoration of already degraded water-dependent ecosystems. Revegetation and the introduction of biota would have far-reaching consequence, including for the regulation of water flows, underground water levels and water quality.

As per comment # 113 - Prescription approach


There is insufficient planned action to improve the environmental situation - despite recognising that only 2 out of 135 sites pass the environmental metrics.


118 - Prescription

Need to recognise the value of the environment in supporting economic activity

The Board believes that the draft EMLR WAP achieves an equitable balance between social, economic and environmental needs and the various objects of the NRM Act, which

116


approach and manage the system as a connected whole - WAP needs to make interconnection clearer. The dichotomy set up between the environment and economic production is damaging to both when planning for the future.

include protection of biological diversity and natural resources as well as support of sustainable primary production and other economic production systems in the context of ecologically sustainable development. The draft EMLR WAP includes water provisions for the environment (e.g. limits on how much water may be taken, taking rules such as returning low flows and local scale rules such as underground water buffer zones). The draft EMLR WAP also includes provisions to minimise the risks to users from the effects of new water use in their area. The monitoring and evaluation section of the draft EMLR WAP, together with the review and amendment process, provide a way to assess how these provisions are affecting the water resources and different users, and opportunities to revise or improve policies as required (see comments 571 and 575 in section 'MERI' for further discussion on evaluation and review).The Board agrees that there are strong inter-dependencies between social, economic and environmental factors. All have value in their own right. A healthy environment is also essential for supporting businesses that depend on natural resources through provision of ecosystem services, and the community more broadly. A healthy environment also helps to support the whole community's social and cultural values. A prosperous, sustainable community has a greater capacity to support the environment. Recommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to include text in chapters 1 and 4 to recognise the inter-dependencies between economic, social and environmental needs.


Would like to see clear measurement of the success of the EMLR WAP through having long-term strategies and actions in place which establish a balance between all water uses (environmental, economical, domestic and community) which conserve quantity and preserve quality of water available.



Acknowledge the recognition that the EMLR supports a range of water-dependent ecosystems, and these may be irreparable damaged if the EMLR WAP does not achieve an equitable balance between social, economic and environmental water needs. Urge the Board not to compromise the


117


environment for short-term gains.


River Finniss landholders need to be supported in their endeavours to return healthy and sustainable river flows. The local indigenous people, agri-business people, the environment and future generations all depend on proper and equitable management of water resources.



Farmers need a good environment to survive and are willing to help look after any area of the environment that may be endangered.



Without healthy rivers, there can be no healthy environment for any human productive or pleasurable activity, nor healthy environment for the creatures upon whom human health depends.



Supports the intent to manage EMLR water resources sustainably, which includes providing necessary water for environmental needs. National initiatives (COAG, NWI) recognise that the environment is at the centre of water management because all users understand that it is central to viable economies and ecological sustainability. Environmental water should not be seen as in conflict with other uses as it allows other uses to operate.



First priority of the EMLR WAP should be sufficient end of system flows to enable a healthy state of the rivers/streams regardless of season.


78 - Water-dependent ecosystems are already As per comment # 118 - Prescription approach

118



degraded - creates an uneasy compromise between environmental water provisions with an acceptable level of risk and recognition of existing users' rights, and the parts these play in the social and cultural fabric of rural livelihoods and communities.


Seek clarification regarding the reading of section 76 of the NRM Act and the concept of equitable balance in the context of the NRM act and the federal Water Act 2007. What does a precautionary approach mean for the SAMDB NRM Board? UNESCO has stated that the precautionary principle applies when there is considerable scientific uncertainty about causality, magnitude, probability and nature of harm. In such situations, the burden of proof rests with the proponent of the action. By what mechanisms will the Board address that burden of proof? The absence of sound science is because the research and monitoring has not been undertaken (rather than being unknowable) - this should have been addressed in the preparation of the EMLR WAP.

As per comment # 118 - Prescription approachThe Board believes that the draft EMLR WAP is underpinned by sound science, including long-term datasets on underground water dynamics, climate, flow and ecological responses, as well as specific investigations undertaken to support the policies in the plan (e.g. see references in the draft EMLR WAP and on the Board's website). The Board believes that the draft EMLR WAP takes a balanced, cautious approach that seeks to minimise impacts of new water allocations, transfers and new water affecting activities on the water resources and other users, including the environment.The allocation of water to existing users is a separate process which stands outside the water allocation plan, and is conducted by DEWNR in accordance with the provisions of the NRM Act. This process is carried out considering the capacity of the water resources.While one of the objects of the NRM Act (section 7(3)(b)) has some similarity to the precautionary principle, the precautionary principle per se is not referred to in the NRM Act.Through the process for allocating water to existing users, The Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation balances both the needs of existing users and the needs of water dependent ecosystems. A measured and careful approach to any decision to reduce existing user entitlements needs to be taken with consideration for the impacts on existing enterprises/businesses and the risks to the resource.Any decision by the Minster for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation on reductions in high demand management zones will be made on a zone by zone basis with consideration for the types of uses that are present in that zone, the level of risk to the environment associated with issuing full entitlements in that zone and any impacts to existing users. Reductions may occur in future, once detailed information has been collected at the zone level on resource capacity and usage. This option, together with other management options (including immediate reductions, where appropriate), is currently being considered in high demand management zones.

204 - The draft EMLR WAP seems to have a The Board believes that the draft EMLR WAP has a reasonable balance between social,

119



biased focus on environmental asset management without considering a sustainable approach to all water users. The MDBA Basin Plan Guide says environmental water requirements for the EMLR have been estimated at 40 GL/y (40 GL/y is currently available for the environment). The EMLR WAP will be intricately linked with the Basin Plan. Environmental management is assured through the Living Murray and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holders management plans. However, limited acknowledgement of this integration is included in the draft EMLR WAP. Business SA advocates for a commitment to support alternative water options to balance the shortfall in any downstream allocation requirements from this prescribed area. This could be achieved through innovative water management and reuse, as opposed to licensing reductions, thereby ensuring industry and business confidence in long-term water security.

economic and environmental needs, and that these factors are inter-dependent. A healthy environment is important in its own right, and also supports businesses and the community that depend on natural resources through provision of ecosystem services. The Board supports innovative water management and reuse through various programs (e.g. see comment # 403 ('Implementation' section) in relation to the Board's sustainable irrigation program, and comment # 17 ('Stormwater' section) in relation to work with local government on integrated water use). These tools are part of the range of approaches that can help to achieve sustainable water management, in addition to ensuring that local water capture is within local sustainable limits.The Board and DEWNR have undertaken extensive, local-scale work to determine environmental water needs in the EMLR, and the proposed sustainable diversion limits for the EMLR in the draft Basin Plan are based on this work.The environmental water provisions in the draft EMLR WAP are aimed at maintaining water-dependent ecosystems within the EMLR at an acceptable level of risk, including the ecosystems at the end of the catchments. There is evidence of environmental degradation within the EMLR, as outlined in the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's EMLR Regional Summary produced for the Guide to the Basin Plan, which outlines a number of factors indicating poor ecological condition (page 2 of that document). The taking rules and limits in the draft EMLR WAP are designed to help address this degradation within the EMLR. Addressing the water needs of downstream systems that are linked to the rest of the Murray-Darling Basin is primarily the role of the Basin Plan as an overarching plan, recognising that the EMLR is part of the Murray-Darling Basin and has a role to play.It is agreed that there is insufficient information in the draft EMLR WAP about the relationship with the Basin Plan and section 4 will be updated to improve this linkage. The Board does not agree that environmental management is assured in the EMLR through the Living Murray and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (CEWH). The Living Murray program doesn't apply to the EMLR. The CEWH manages licensed water allocations for the benefit of the environment, while the environmental water provisions in the draft EMLR WAP are what are known as "planned" environmental water. That is, the majority of environmental water is provided in the EMLR by setting water taking rules and limits for consumptive users, rather than by formal allocations to the environment. This means that the CEWH will have limited ability to manage environmental water in the EMLR unless they purchase additional water from consumptive users.

136 - It is implied throughout the plan that existing The Board believes that the EMLR WAP achieves an equitable balance between social,

120



water users won't have to change practice to any great degree, while water-dependent ecosystems are at an elevated risk of degradation. Surely the harm and chaos to society and the economy created by environmental destruction is a greater injury than imposition of environmentally sustainable water practice. We need to recognise the connection between the economy and the environment in our long-term planning.

economic and environmental needs and the various objects of the NRM Act, which include protection of biological diversity and natural resources as well as support of sustainable primary production and other economic production systems in the context of ecologically sustainable development. The EMLR WAP includes water provisions for the environment (e.g. limits on how much water may be taken, taking rules such as returning low flows and local scale rules such as underground water buffer zones). The EMLR WAP also includes provisions to minimise the risks to users from the effects of new water use in their area.The Board agrees that there are strong inter-dependencies between social, economic and environmental factors. All have value in their own right. A healthy environment is also essential for supporting businesses that depend on natural resources through provision of ecosystem services, and the community more broadly. A prosperous, sustainable community has a greater capacity to support the environment. Recommend that the WAP be amended to include text in chapters 1 and 4 to recognise the inter-dependencies between economic, social and environmental needs.

Through the process for allocating water to existing users, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation balances both the needs of existing users and the needs of water dependent ecosystems. A measured and careful approach to any decision to reduce existing user entitlements needs to be taken with consideration for the impacts on existing enterprises/businesses and the risks to the resource.Any decision on reductions in high demand management zones will be made on a zone by zone basis with consideration for the types of uses that are present in that zone, the level of risk to the environment associated with issuing full entitlements in that zone and any impacts to existing users. Reductions may occur in future, once detailed information has been collected at the zone level on resource capacity and usage. This option, together with other management options (including immediate reductions, where appropriate), is currently being considered in high demand management zones.High demand zones will be treated as priority areas for monitoring and the installation of meters. This will enable additional information to be collected to inform whether reductions are required.


Need controls on water and some hard decisions need to be made, but with little evidence of the environment suffering extensively we need to tread carefully in the


121


beginning while more monitoring is done.


Business SA encourages consideration to a balanced approach to industry needs and environmental management in the EMLR. SA industry needs quality, reliable and secure water supply - this is achievable while simultaneously managing environmental assets.



The irreversible destruction of environmental assets for the short-term economic benefit of a relative few is entirely unacceptable. The maintenance of environmental water allocations that maintains environmental assets must be seen as a first priority. This is a requirement under the NRM Act, which seeks to balance this obligation against social and economic requirements - feel strongly that the balance should be reached in the achievement of this goal.



Health of the rivers/streams should be the major objective before consumptive users come into consideration. Terminology of existing user "demands" suggest these users have demands - shouldn't they be allocated a portion of the water remaining after the water required to maintain healthy streams is considered first?



Seen declines in river and catchment condition in the Finniss over time because of over-extraction of surface water and underground water, resulting in the loss of a formerly permanent pool and the genetically distinct native fish it contained (except for those rescued). If we continue current water

As per comment # 113 - Prescription approachAs per comment # 118 - Prescription approach

122


use and practices; and fail to address unsustainable practices, climate change, and interactions between water resources; and fail to place timely responses to environmental degradation; then native fish in the river will die and several species will become extinct.


Agree with the need for some sort of plan given that water is a limited resource. Serious on their farm about protecting natural assets. However think that trying to understand the region's water resources is really complicated, and can only hope that the authorities have been fair and reasonable in deciding if and what controls should be proposed for various regions.



The Dairy Industry supports the need for a WAP in the EMLR (resolution 1) to support the sustainability of the environment and hence businesses and communities in the region, to protect existing users and to comply with MDB requirements.

Noted.

21 - Prescription impacts

Feel Government and NRM (Boards) are telling farmers how to run their farms - feel this is socialistic and dictatorial behaviour that infringes farmers' right to run properties efficiently and properly.

The prescription process is intended to protect the water resources and help secure future needs for all users in the long term, including irrigators, stock and domestic users and the environment. It provides a way of sharing the communal water resource for the benefit of the whole community. It will help to protect the investment of water-using businesses from the impacts of unregulated water taking.The development of the draft EMLR WAP has included a very large representation of community members, in a broad range of ways. The Board will continue to involve and work collaboratively to ensure the implementation of the EMLR WAP occurs in a way that supports the resilience of people, families and communities.

123



Concerned at the impact of this process on personal, family and community health and welfare.

As per comment # 21 - Prescription impacts


Focus appears to be more of controlling "other" factors rather managing the resource in an equitable manner for all, particularly landholders with real farm activities.



Sees the draft as the final blow to an ailing business that has already done so much in the name of the environment (fencing watercourses, tree planting, installation of stock watering points and feed pads, installed effluent sump and pump to spread via sprinkler over higher ground in wetter months).

As per comment # 21 - Prescription impactsThe Board does recognise the environmental works of landholders and thanks you for your commitment. Unfortunately water allocation plans are necessary, as not all users respect and protect the natural resources available to them.


Disappointed that no Members of Parliament (MPs) were present at the Mt Compass public meeting to hear the public voice. Disappointed that there is no apparent pressure from others on Minister Caica to allow farmers to operate unencumbered by red tape. Letter has been sent to Michael Pengilly, Nick Xenophon and Adrian Pederick. Expect Board to pressure government to look after farmers as farmers look after the environment.

As per comment # 21 - Prescription impactsThe Board provided briefings on the draft EMLR WAP to various MPs as part of the consultation process. The Board meets with MPs on a regular basis, and imparts to them the delicate balance in achieving the best outcomes possible with the legislation they design and set.


Concerned with the movement of water from food producing or supporting industries to wine grape production, and feels that water is being regulated for the benefit of vineyards only. Feels water is being taken from upstream users to support downstream users.

The reasonable requirements of all existing users using water for licensed purposes are given equal importance in the EMLR, regardless of location or type of enterprise. The role of the prescription process is to set out limits and policies to provide for long-term sustainable water management for all water users, including different types of production, domestic use and the environment. The purposes that water is used for within those limits and policies is a business decision, and the prescription process doesn't specify purposes that water should or shouldn't be used for.

124



The WAP is economically destructive to land owners wanting to grow food crops and livestock or prohibits the full use of the land. The land is then de-valued and there is no compensation from the government.Why are you trying to wipe out food producers in specific areas, when there are people starving around the world - this will force people to rely on contaminated imported foods.

The prescription process is intended to support water users and their productive capacity by protecting the water resources for all users in the long term, including irrigators, stock and domestic users and the environment. It will help to protect the investment of water-using businesses from the impacts of unregulated water taking. It also aims to help support a healthy environment, which supports the community and businesses depending on natural resources through the provision of ecosystem services like nutrient cycling and water quality improvement.There was an economic assessment of the effect of prescribing the water resources of the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges done in 2004 as part of the investigations undertaken to help decide whether to prescribe the region. The results of this assessment were that prescription would have a positive effect in the longer term. The full report is available on the Board’s website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.auIn addition there was a formal regulatory impact assessment in 2005 prior to the decision to prescribe the water resources. This assessment included an assessment on the impacts on businesses. It stated in part that:“the alternative of not introducing the regulation may have long-term negative impacts. There is limited ability to prevent extraction by one water user impacting negatively on another, or to protect the resource from long-term over-exploitation. In the long-term this would be unsustainable and detrimental to businesses that have made investments but can no longer support their business due to the lack of water.”


This Plan will drive many farmers to bankruptcy



Increases in the costs of water licences will lead to hyperinflation of costs to farmers and a loss of production as farmers become unviable. Price of water will eventually outpace the ability of most farmers to buy their allocation. Non-compliance penalties are beyond the capacity of farmers to pay and can't be allowed to increase as proposed.

As per comment # 444 - Prescription impactsExisting users are granted a water allocation for no charge besides the licence application fee. Holding a water licence may lead to other costs, such as the water levy (0.535 cents per kilolitre of water allocated for the EMLR for 2012-13) and metering requirements.Compliance measures set out under the NRM Act are seen as a tool of last resort, and the Board and DEWNR prefer to work together with landholders in the management of natural resources. However, if required, the NRM Act allows for a graduated approach to be taken starting with a range of expiation fees for minor breaches. For serious breaches, the size of the penalty imposed by the Magistrate's court will vary according to the seriousness of the offence, capped at the maximum set out under the NRM Act.

483 - The Government has a role and responsibility The prescription process is intended to support water users and their productive capacity

125


Prescription impacts

to support and enhance the productive capacity of our land, rather than driving farmers out of business with ever increasing compliances, levies and threats.

by protecting the water resources for all users in the long term, including irrigators, stock and domestic users and the environment. It will help to protect the investment of water-using businesses from the impacts of unregulated water taking.


In over-allocated zones where reductions to existing users are proposed, these reductions need to be accompanied by a financial impact study, to be used to help balance social, economic and environmental consequences of any determination (recommendation 4).

The prescription process aims to keep water use within sustainable limits, and many of the policies in the draft EMLR WAP are aimed at protecting current users and the environment from the impact of new water taking and use in their area. This means we should have a healthy, working resource to support users and the environment into the future, and better security and protection from unregulated water taking for existing water users.There was an economic assessment of the effect of prescribing the water resources of the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges done in 2004 by EconSearch for the government as part of the investigations undertaken to help decide whether to prescribe the region. The results of this assessment were that prescription would have a positive effect in the longer term. The full report is available on the Board’s website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.auIn addition there was a formal regulatory impact assessment in 2005 prior to the decision to prescribe the water resources. This assessment included an assessment on the impacts on businesses. It stated in part that:“the alternative of not introducing the regulation may have long-term negative impacts. There is limited ability to prevent extraction by one water user impacting negatively on another, or to protect the resource from long-term over-exploitation. In the long-term this would be unsustainable and detrimental to businesses that have made investments but can no longer support their business due to the lack of water.”When allocating water to existing users, the Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation balances both the needs of existing users and the needs of water dependent ecosystems. A measured and careful approach to any decision to reduce existing user entitlements needs to be taken with consideration for the impacts on existing enterprises/businesses and the risks to the resource.The EMLP WAP will be reviewed within five years of adoption, and part of the review process will be to assess the economic impacts of prescription and of implementation of the plan.


Concern that the draft EMLR WAP does not quantify and demonstrate an understanding of the tradeoffs involved (i.e. areas and types


126


of primary industries affected) within the approach taken to setting the consumptive use limits. No evidence is presented to show that the proposed approach will provide net social benefits compared to the current situation. Cost-benefit analysis is the appropriate tool for assessing this, and is consistent with the Better Regulations Guidelines recently adopted by the State Government.


Government is dictating ideas that have serious impact on our business without having carried out an economic impact statement.



Need an economic impact statement. As per comment # 271 - Prescription impacts


Lack of reference to economic impact on communities and individuals is very disappointing given that legislation requires economic impacts statements to be considered fully in a process such as this.



Business and economic considerations appear to be minimal in the draft EMLR WAP. Basis of any economic discussion appears to be the December 2004 report on small business impacts of prescription, which focuses on irrigation and the impacts of metering and prescription, highlighting the lack of true understanding of the economic impacts of the region of SA. The MDBA Guide shows the high value per hectare of production in this region. Without a clear understanding of the true current value of all

As per comment # 271 - Prescription impactsThe Board believes that the draft EMLR WAP achieves an equitable balance between social, economic and environmental needs and the various objects of the NRM Act, which include protection of biological diversity and natural resources as well as support of sustainable primary production and other economic production systems in the context of ecologically sustainable development.

127


industry activities and water security requirements of the region, the Board could not clearly articulate the economic impact of implementing the principles identified in developing the draft EMLR WAP.


Land with access to water sources has always attracted higher prices. Separating the value of the water and the access to water retrospectively reduces land value and volume of output per hectare when the land is subdivided and no new allocations are possible.

The NRM Act allows water to be transferred separately from land, in accordance with Council of Australian Government initiatives. It is up to the landholder to decide whether they want to try to sell their allocation away from their property. If a landholder wants to transfer an allocation then it is assessed under the relevant provisions of the relevant water allocation plan, and may only occur if taking water at the new location is within the sustainable limits.Note that after careful consideration of the responses made during consultation, the Board has decided to recommend that new allocations be allowed in zones that are not fully developed, within the rules and limits set out in the EMLR WAP (see comment 75 in 'New allocations' section). The best available information on water availability and environmental needs indicates that further sustainable production can be supported in certain areas.


Ask that representations should be made to halt the sale of water to foreign investors to ensure that local producers will be able to afford the water they need now and in the future. Sale of water licences to foreign investors should be halted.

The purpose of the water allocation plan and licensing process is to provide for sustainable capture and use of water. Policy on foreign ownership of assets is a Federal Government issue.It is the licence holder's choice to decide to transfer their allocation, subject to approval by the Minister, and in accordance with the rules in the water allocation plan.


Selling water licences to overseas speculators is nothing short of treason



Extreme disappointment with timeframe to get WAP to this point, caused economic damage and immense uncertainty. No public official has taken responsibility for their actions or tried to understand an appropriate level of commercial reality in this process.

We acknowledge your concern and apologise for the length of time it has taken to get to this point. Development of the WAP and existing user allocation process for such a large and variable area is a complex task, and has taken longer than expected.

659 - Concerned with the drawn-out timetable for As per comment # 428 - Prescription impacts

128


Prescription impacts

development of the EMLR WAP.


Timelines are too long for restoration to a healthy system - action required now.

The Board is also concerned with the impacts currently being experienced by water-dependent ecosystems. It is intended that implementation of key parts of the prescription process (such as returning low flows) will occur in a prioritised way so that areas with important assets at high risk are addressed earlier.


We don’t want the EMLR to be prescribed. Your views have been noted by the Board and heard by others.Prescription provides a mechanism for current users to be protected from the impact of future unregulated water resource development, and to have better security of access to water. The water resources of the EMLR were prescribed in response to concerns about water-sharing issues and environmental degradation, raised by the community and identified through water and ecological monitoring programs. The Board has received concerns about water-sharing issues across the EMLR, both at a local scale (e.g. between neighbours) and also at a larger scale (across catchments).It is seen as being better to act now to protect current (and future) users and the environment, rather than waiting until there is widespread serious degradation, and the associated possibility of significant cutbacks to allocations.


do not think that the draft EMLR WAP or the Act is fair to farmersboth documents presume the farming community to be devious criminals

As per comment # 459 - Prescription impactsThe Board respects and values all of the opinions and perceptions of everyone in the community and it does not perceive the community in this way. In stark contrast, the Board wants to uncover the broad range of views and find a balance where the community can manage the natural resources in harmony with their enterprises and community needs.


Some farmers do not believe that the water in their region is under threat, given they have high rainfall and little danger of agricultural development in their area.

As per comment # 459 - Prescription impactsIt is important to recognise that water resources are linked across a catchment, and use in one area may have impacts in different area. The prescription process helps provide for shared management of the communal water resource amongst users across a catchment.


Draft EMLR WAP is a knee-jerk reaction to the drought in the eastern states that affected flow into the MDB system.

As per comment # 459 - Prescription impactsThe EMLR prescription process started in 2003 before the major drought affecting the Murray-Darling Basin, and occurred in response to concerns on impacts of local water

129


taking and use.


Concerned with the reasons underpinning the prescription of the EMLR and potential political corruption - particularly concerned that upstream users in the Bremer are being penalised in order to provide water for wine grape growers in the Langhorne Creek area.

As per comment # 459 - Prescription impactsThe prescription process considers the reasonable requirements of existing users equally across the EMLR.


Water is a God-given resource to use as one sees fit upon their land.Food producers cannot afford this takeover of the water.

Water resources are connected across the landscape, and taking water on one property affects the ability of others to access water. The prescription process aims to manage water taking sustainably for benefit of the community and all water users, including the environment. Prescription will help to protect the investment of water-using businesses from the impacts of unregulated water taking.


Wonder what the problem is when the amount of water use from Macclesfield to Mt Barker would have reduced significantly with the big decline in the dairy industry, and the environment would now receive all this water. Recognise there are other areas where this would not be the case, but hope agencies prioritise areas where over-allocation is more prevalent.

Water use may have decreased in some areas, but water will still be lost from the system via evaporation from dams and the flow pattern will still be interrupted by the physical blocking of flow by dams. Environmental monitoring has shown that environmental assets are continuing to decline in locations across the EMLR.Allocations to existing users will reflect reasonable requirements during the establishment period (including significant commitments to use water). If demand has decreased over this period then this will be reflected in the amount allocated to existing users. Any allocation reduction may only occur in high risk areas where the demand exceeds the sustainable limits.

83 - Returning low flows

Recommends inclusion of social sciences data on returning low flows, such as the percentage of people likely to fit low flow bypasses with and without funding; and even with funding, the percentage of people who will never get around to it, and those who would install one but ensure it doesn't work.

It is agreed that monitoring and evaluating human behaviour and responses to the EMLR WAP is an important tool in assessing the plan's effectiveness. The Board will explore approaches for this alongside other social indicators as part of a regional NRM planning approach.


Concerns on returning low flows does not mean they are against the environment. Looking after the environment is in farmer's best interests. Already undertaking works to fence native habitat and plant tree lines

The Board shares your perspective that a healthy environment supports businesses that depend on natural resources. We also understand your concerns of the potential impact of returning low flows on businesses. The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is

130


which benefit both biodiversity and farm productivity.

focussed on outcomes. As part of this program, we are keen to work together to explore different ways of achieving the outcome of protecting or returning low flows across the landscape in ways that make sense for individual properties and circumstances.


Returning low flows in gullies infested with weeds and vermin will only make these problems worse.

A water allocation plan can only deal with the taking and use of water and specific water affecting activities, not weed issues. The draft EMLR WAP includes an objective to maintain water-dependent ecosystems by providing their water needs. A holistic approach is important to ensure that other threats are addressed (such as through the Regional NRM Plan as below), but having the right flow pattern is a key part of protecting ecosystems in watercourses.The Board's Regional NRM Plan includes targets and actions for addressing weed and pest issues. The Board supports a range of programs working with the community and other stakeholders and agencies to address weed and pest issues.


Low flow bypasses are meant to restore flows to pre-settlement levels but no information is provided on water availability or native fauna numbers at settlement. DFW technical note 2011/2 states that LFBs will increase in end of system flows of around 2%. Therefore ask, from a cost-benefit perspective (both financial environmental) if the cost to primary producers and risks of having inadequate water supplies is worth the end result because later in the document it states that in some areas the use of low flow bypasses will result in a negative effect for the environment. Consequently we require a detailed report of all the end of system flow outcomes in the Eastern Mt Lofty Ranges Region.

The policy to return low flows not trying to restore flow to pre-settlement levels. Instead it aims to protect a component of the current flow pattern that has been identified as being environmentally important and significantly affected by the current level of water resource development.The volumes of water involved in returning low flows are small, but the timing of the flow is important to allow plants and animals in and around streams to have water around for long enough to go through their life-cycle, and to help keep refuge pools wet and fresh enough to support water-dependent plants through summer and autumn.DEWNR Technical Note 2011/02 identifies that returning low flows may have effects on other parts of the flow pattern, but doesn't state that these will result in a negative effect for the environment. For example, for catchments like the Angas River where part of the stream flow naturally moves underground further downstream in the system, returning low flows will provide important environmental benefits in the upper and middle parts of the catchment. Some of this returned flow may naturally drain from the stream into the underground water further down the catchment.This report provides information on modelled end-of-system flows under scenarios of no development, current development and returning low flows (Tables 13-16).


There is inconsistency between the recommendation in section 2.4.2.3 (p 68) and principle 174 that needs to be addressed.

Noted.Recommend deletion of the words "and new" on page 67, 5th paragraph, second line of the consultation draft EMLR WAP, and addition of comment that new dams/diversions also need to return flows at/below threshold flow rate to allow environmental water provision objectives to continue to be met under future development.

131



The article in the Courier of 22/6/11 on the success of a low flow bypass is misleading when in the same week the Times reported that the EMLR area experienced the highest recorded rainfall in 10 years. Believe a public retraction of what can only be described as propaganda is in order.

This article was written by the Courier, not the Board. Your concerns with regard to perceived factual inaccuracies should be addressed with the Editor of the Courier. This article was not as a result of a Board disseminated media release.


EPA acknowledges and supports strategies for providing low flows to ensure critical ecosystems can survive during drier seasons.

Noted.


Dairy Industry supports the concept of low flow bypasses on selected dams as a way to help the environment while allowing a greater proportion of surface water to be allocated to existing users (than without returning low flows). Also support the criteria to target and limit installation of low flow bypasses (licensed dams, and non-licensed dams over 5 ML), so that low flow bypass monitoring is more practical and cost-effective, and to improve the likelihood of full government funding on those sites.

Noted.


Agree with the concept of low flow bypasses as a means of returning a level of environmental flow to surface water systems.

Noted.


Support the concept of low flow bypasses, to ensure that the catchments remain healthy for our use and future generations.

Noted.


Support installation of low flow bypasses which is seen to be good for the environment.

Noted.

132



Supports the logic of returning low flows, which are seen as the necessary minimum for survival of water-dependent ecosystems.

Noted.


Welcome the policy returning low flows. Noted.


Idea of returning early flows to the environment is good but concerned with the number of dams and the policing of releasing early flows.

The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows. As part of this program, it is planned to undertake a strategic location project to see if similar outcomes can be achieved by protecting low flows at fewer dams and watercourse diversions.The requirement to return low flows and maintain devices that return low flows will be legally enforceable with compliance options available as a last resort.


Will the Board support compensation [in relation to returning low flows]. Compensation should be paid to farmers for low flows, because if this scheme benefits the rest of the community, then the community should pay. Compensation is paid in other instances (e.g. forced land acquisition; phone towers and optic cable on properties; power generators pay for wind towers to be put on farms).

The Board understand that people are concerned with potential costs around returning low flows. We will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows across the Mount Lofty Ranges. An important part of this program will be developing an appropriate cost sharing model together. The agencies are pursuing funding to assist with the costs of returning low flows.The consumptive use limits underpinning the prescription process are based on what is environmentally sustainable if licensed dams and watercourse diversions, and large non-licensed dams (5ML and greater) return or don't take low flows. Returning low flows benefits all existing users, because without returning low flows the consumptive use limits would be lower and existing user allocations would need to be reduced. In the case of requiring low flow to be returned to the system there is no provision in the NRM Act to require the Government to pay compensation.


Recommend that calls for compensation should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis [in relation to low flow bypasses].

Noted.


Been advised that other farmers in similar circumstances will be seeking compensation for costs and damages for reduced land

Noted.

133


value and irrigation potential via class action.


If a class action were taken by farmers against the Government, would the Board support the action? [assume in relation to returning low flows]

The Board supports the policy of returning low flows, which is a key element that underpins the EMLR WAP developed by the Board.


Concerned with costs of returning low flows, and that farmers don't have capacity to absorb increased costs. Inequitable that broader community is compensated for the increased costs due to carbon tax, but farmers are made to wear the costs of water management (including returning low flows).

The Board understand that people are concerned with potential costs around returning low flows. We will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows across the Mount Lofty Ranges. An important part of this program will be developing an appropriate cost sharing model together. The agencies are pursuing funding to assist with the costs of returning low flows.


Unfair that some farmers (with dams > 5 ML) have to bear costs (to return low flows) while others don't.

As per comment # 31 - Returning low flows


Plan directly threatens farm's commercial sustainability and livelihoods, including those of employees and associated contractors and businesses.



Installing a low flow bypass makes no business sense for the farmer - has no positive effects (and most likely a negative one) and will require time, money and effort.



Concerned with the cost of installing low flow bypasses - added burden to other agricultural expenses - concerned this will take away their livelihood.



The cost of returning low flows should be totally met by the government. This is being forced on farmers who have already invested in the infrastructure.


134



Low flow bypasses will be very expensive to construct.



If Government proceeds with requirement to return low flows, then it should be funded by the Government as there is no guarantee the system will work, so the Government should take the losses and not the farmers.



Installation of low flow bypasses will be costly, with the overall environmental benefit yet to be understood.



Details are sought of the arrangements for sharing funding for low flow bypasses between landholders and "secured" funding sources. Further detail of any modelling or monitoring that supports policy will assist in community acceptance.



It is recommended that the government meet all material and installation costs associated with low flow bypasses, and all associated monitoring and evaluation work costs (recommendation 11). The benefits from returning low flows are environmental and to the wider public, while farmers will incur penalties as a result (reduced/altered supply, and maintenance costs). Design (and so likely cost) will continue to evolve over time.



The level of assistance for installation of low flow bypasses, and mechanisms to deliver this assistance, need to be clearly stated.


324 - Returning

The cost of returning low flows should be borne by all given the public and


135


low flows environmental benefit. Levies on licensed users is not an appropriate funding source as this further penalises producers - a general charge against the state or rate base is more equitable.


Landowners should not have to contribute to the cost of low flow devices



Low flow bypass cost for design and build is an unfair cost to bear for us.



Returning low flows will be expensive and most farmers are struggling.



Recommend more funded plans for supporting purchase of low flow bypasses.



The Board must provide financial assistance for all stock and domestic users that are required to install low flow bypasses, and at the very least must have a cost-sharing arrangement with all irrigators.



The Board must seek an appropriate cost sharing model for returning low flows to support water users. This is particularly relevant for stock and domestic users who don't receive a direct benefit in the form of a water licence.



Important for assistance to be provided for on-ground design and financial assistance to make low flow bypasses a reality - critical given these are flagged as underpinning the


136


extraction limits. Perhaps an area for LAP (Local Action Planning) involvement.


Environmental water provisions and the consumptive use limits are crucially dependent on returning low flows. The associated (currently) unfunded risk and lack of implementation detail is a major issue to be resolved for the plan to achieve its objectives.

As per comment # 31 - Returning low flowsIt is acknowledged that the draft EMLR WAP is underpinned by the assumption that low flows will be protected to achieve environmental outcomes through an implementation program that is still under development, which introduces an element of uncertainty.Recommend that the monitoring and evaluation section of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to include a trigger for action if return of low flows to meet the environmental water provisions set out in the plan does not begin within three years of plan adoption.


Questions whether installation of LFBs on 6-10 ML dams is financially viable. The amount of water remaining in the dam would not be sufficient to recoup the investment to install the LFB over 10 years. Has anyone done the maths of cost of LFB against the volume of water? Must be a cut-off point somewhere.

The issue is more complex than a comparison of the value to be gained from the water in the dam against the cost of installing a device to return low flows. Firstly, returning low flows at selected existing dams and watercourse diversions means that sustainable consumptive use limits can be considerably higher than they would otherwise be. If low flows are not returned at suitable locations across the landscape, then the consumptive use limit would be substantially less, and hence the value to be gained from water use would also be less. A project is being carried out to determine whether the same environmental targets can be met while returning low flows at fewer dams and diversion structures, which may reduce the number of dams and diversion structures where low flows are to be returned.Secondly, a key part of implementing a program to return low flows will be to develop an appropriate cost sharing model together, which may mean that the cost to the landholder does not reflect the full cost, altering the comparison of the value to be gained from the water in the dam against the cost of device installation. The Board is working with the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board and DEWNR to pursue funding to assist with the costs of returning low flows.Thirdly, returning low flows has more benefits or values besides the value to be gained from the water in a dam. Returning low flows is a key element in maintaining healthy environments in the EMLR. A healthy environment has its own intrinsic value. A healthy catchment also essential for supporting businesses and the community that depend on natural resources through provision of ecosystem services like nutrient recycling and water quality improvement, and for supporting the community more broadly by providing recreational, cultural and aesthetic values.

12 - Concerned that if government funds LFBs, We will make our best endeavours to avoid such problems.

137

A - Inflow

C - Spill

B – Bypass

D – Downstream flow

A = B + C = Dwhen dam is full


Returning low flows

there will be rorts (e.g. similar to government insulation program etc).


Will spillways of downstream dams be able to deal with the increased flows resulting from returning low flows?

The policy to return low flows is generally not expected to increase the maximum flow rate experienced at dam spillways. The policy is that water present at or below the local threshold flow rate would not be taken. This means that the returned low flows are part of the runoff that would normally occur within the landscape, rather than being extra water that is added. The threshold flow rate is quite small in comparison to the largest flow rates that occur, and these flows should be within the range of flow rates that a dam spillway should be designed to experience. Even when an upstream dam is full and spilling, returning low flows around that dam should not increase the downstream flow rate, as the returned low flows are part of the flow that would otherwise pass over the upstream dam's spillway (see figure below).

161 - Returning

Plan does not mention any modelling on erosion or flood risk if all dams have a low

As per comment # 36 - Returning low flowsAs per comment # 38 - Returning low flows

138


low flows flow bypass.


Concerned with erosion risks due to low flow bypasses (e.g. bypass weir and pipe).

The likelihood of a properly designed, constructed and maintained low flow bypass causing any more erosion risk than other types of structures that are placed in watercourses is low.The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows across the Mount Lofty Ranges. A part of this program will be to continue to develop options for suitable design and construction that considers potential risks like erosion.


Dams on property have numerous inflow points and spring feeding, so cost for implementing low flow bypasses will be higher than for those with dams with single entry points, and also more complex.

The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. Part of that program will be to explore different options for achieving the outcomes, and designs for devices that can return low flows under different types of circumstances like those you have described. Some work has started to develop a design that operates by measuring dam inflow and then pumping out the appropriate volume, which may be more suitable for dams with multiple points of inflow.


Cutting a contour drain across part of their dam's catchment to divert some water downstream would be easier, cheaper and easier to maintain - although the water would just flow into the neighbour's dam.

There are lots of different ways that low flows could be returned. "Low flow bypass" is a catch-all term for any type of device that returns low flows at or below a nominated threshold flow rate in accordance with the requirements (e.g. operates automatically). So long as the right outcomes are achieved, the approach to returning low flows can be fit for purpose. We still have more work to do on how the program for returning low flows will be implemented, including exploring different design options.

Water-dependent habitats between the two dams will benefit from the returned flows, which may include damp areas supporting reeds and temporary water-bug communities or perhaps more aquatic habitats like pools. The downstream dam will also fill and spill sooner, providing downstream flow earlier.

139



Low flow bypasses will be very intruding on the landscape.

Examples of devices to return low flows seen by the Board have been small and unobtrusive. An example of a trial site in the Marne catchment is shown below.


Would prefer to push in some of their existing dams rather than returning low flows.

The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. As part of this program, we are keen to work together to explore different ways of achieving the outcome of protecting or returning low flows in ways that make sense for individual properties and circumstances. Removing existing dams is an option that can to be explored through this program.


Would like to discuss reserving the right to increase dam capacity to a level of estimated "losses", which on filling at winter may have no negative environmental impact due to smaller flows but allow them to be more confident of seeing small summer flows head downstream.

The EMLR WAP sets dam capacity limits at scales ranging from the catchment down to the property, which aim to minimise the impact of new dam capacity on other users and the environment. Increasing dam capacity may be allowed within these limits, and you can discuss dam construction permits with the Board's water affecting activity permit officers at the Mount Barker Natural Resources Centre on tel. 8391 7500. The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is

140


focussed on outcomes. You are encouraged to get involved in this program to help explore different ways of achieving the outcomes of returning low flows across the region in a way that makes sense for different circumstances.


Recommends a commitment to outcomes, not process and prescriptions [see comment 320]. For example, water could be released from a marron pond (through a natural filter, with appropriate water quality) to start the wet season in their tributary for environmental benefit, but the regulations between various agencies prohibit this.

The EMLR WAP sets an outcome to be achieved in terms of returning low flows, but doesn't specify the way it needs to happen. The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. As part of this program, we are keen to work together to explore different ways of achieving the outcome of protecting or returning low flows across the landscape in ways that make sense for individual properties and circumstances. This program will also need to be integrated with other regulatory requirements.


Threshold flow rate concept is commendable but unclear how this information will be promulgated.

The policy for returning low flows works such that flows at or below the nominated threshold flow rate at a point are not taken, or are otherwise returned. Devices can be incorporated into dams and watercourse diversions to allow this to operate automatically, rather than having to disseminate information on when flow can be taken. For example, in the simplest case, the nominated threshold flow rate in a watercourse can be translated into a depth of flow, and so capture of flows below the threshold flow rate could be achieved by setting the pump offtake above this flow depth. Other types of designs have also been explored (e.g. see the construction guidelines on the water affecting activities page of the Board's website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au). A key part of the proposed implementation program for returning low flows will be to explore different options for achieving the outcomes, and designs for devices that can return low flows under different types of circumstances.


Page 132 - how is flow rate measured? As per comment # 216 - Returning low flows


If the NRM and Department for Water intend to force the installation of low flow bypasses or other infrastructure, then the Government shall be required to take full responsibility for ownership and consequences of those items and pay fully for this work and to also indemnify and compensate landowners for any costs, damage or loss incurred as a

The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes.Ownership, cost and indemnity are all issues that will need to be considered as part of developing the implementation program.

141


result.


Concerned with issues of installing a low flow bypass where a dam is close to the upstream neighbour’s boundary and so the device will intrude into the neighbour's land - for example, responsibility for device maintenance and weeds, public liability, excluding stock (and loss of productivity).

The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. The issues you have raised around potential interactions with neighbouring properties will need to be considered as part of development of that program. Another part of the program will be to explore different options and designs for devices to protect low flows, which could include approaches that minimise the need to intrude onto other properties.


Would be interested in being involved in trials or pilots [for returning low flows].

Noted. Opportunities for involvement in activities like trials or pilots will be discussed with the community as the implementation program for returning low flows continues to develop.


The policy for returning low flows needs to be implemented over a five year time frame to enable landholders adequate planning time.

The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows. We agree that this program will need to take a staged approach to allow for adequate planning, and is expected will take a number of years.


The section on threshold flow rates (p. 80) needs information about how threshold flows will be managed. What are the options in relation to infrastructure needs (temporary or permanent)? Who manages the threshold flow (land owner or land manager/authority), in terms of on-ground management, monitoring and compliance.

The draft EMLR WAP sets out the outcomes to be achieved in terms of returning low flows. There are many ways in which that outcome can be achieved, and there is more flexibility to explore these different options if the plan doesn't set out the detail of how the outcome is to be achieved. The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that will consider a range of issues, including infrastructure needs and roles and responsibilities. The monitoring and evaluation section of the EMLR WAP sets out an environmental and water resource monitoring program that will assist in assessing the outcomes of returning low flows.In the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, it is expected that the requirement to protect low flows will be a licence condition for licensed dams and watercourse diversions, and so compliance will be managed through the licensing system and provisions of the NRM Act where engagement and voluntary compliance measures fail. For non-licensed dams of 5 ML or greater, the NRM Act provides a number of legal instruments that may be used to require low flows to be returned or not taken.

585 - Returning

Recommend that several examples of demonstration sites of low cost low flow

Agree. Demonstration sites will be an important element of the proposed implementation program for returning low flows, for education and engagement purposes as well as

142


low flows bypasses be installed for educational purposes. This will assist landholders comply with WAP requirements.

allowing practical trials of different type of approaches and design options.


The Dairy Industry supports a phased implementation of low flow bypasses on licensed dams and other dams >5 ML in capacity, but the criteria for successfully deploying LFBs needs to be clearly defined in the EMLR WAP (recommendation 10), prior to Ministerial approval. Criteria for successful operation at pilot sites may include reasonable installation costs; returning flow rates as expected; structural integrity; lack of problems (e.g. doesn't cause erosion).

The implementation of a program to protect low flows at existing user's infrastructure sits outside the EMLR WAP. The purpose of the plan is to guide new allocations and transfers once the needs of existing users have been considered.The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows. This program will need to consider and balance a range of criteria including those you have suggested, and doing this outside the EMLR WAP allows a more flexible and adaptive approach that can consider new information as it arises. It is expected that this will be a staged program that builds on the learnings from earlier phases.


Returning low flows will require time in maintenance.

The maintenance effort required will depend on the type of design. Landholders from trial sites in the Marne catchment with the small weir and bypass pipe design have reported that the maintenance requirements are small. They clear debris off the weir and out of the small sump by hand several times a year.The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows. An important part of that program will be to explore different ways of achieving the environmental outcomes, including different types of designs of devices to protect or return flows at/below the threshold flow rate. Low maintenance requirements would be one of the design criteria to be considered.


Do not believe that the design of low flow bypass shown at the public meetings will be workable, as the grate will fill with debris.



Ongoing maintenance requirements for LFBs not practical. Most landholders will only service once annually. Concerned with the prospect of heavy fines if not maintained due to onerous maintenance requirements.

As per comment # 523 - Returning low flowsThe Board and DEWNR take the approach that they prefer to work together with the community on natural resources management, with compliance options seen as a last resort.

91 - Low flow bypass pipe outflows may create As per comment # 523 - Returning low flows

143


Returning low flows

erosion problems, creating cost, environmental and land management issues. Maintenance of sumps in low flow bypasses will add to farm operational costs.



Comfortable that the relevant landowner is responsible for maintenance of low flow bypasses. This is more practical, avoids complications with an external party being responsible for maintenance, and would be a fair and equitable contribution by landholders to maintain sustainable flows.

Noted.


Very concerned that the requirement to return low flows will leave them with insufficient water on their property, particularly in drought years. Dams rarely fill as it is. Concerned with impact on business returns (and costs). Prescription supposedly protect existing users, but believes it will only increase costs and reduce returns, particularly in drought years.

Acknowledge your concerns about the potential impact of returning low flows on reliability of supply. The prescription process requires an equitable balance between social, economic and environmental water needs. The small volume associated with the policy for returning low flows is critical to support survival of ecosystems during drought conditions. The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. As part of this program, we are keen to work together to explore different ways of achieving the outcome of protecting or returning low flows across the landscape in ways that make sense for individual properties and circumstances. A range of factors need to be considered and balanced, including impact on reliability of supply for water users; achievement of environmental outcomes across the landscape; practicality and cost; equity issues; and alternative designs and options. Low flows make up around 5-20% of total long-term flows, although this proportion varies from year to year. The low flow policy operates so that water present at or below the local threshold flow rate would not be taken. This means that when there is no flow, then flow doesn't need to be returned. Water is protected from being extracted from watercourses at these times.Reliability of water supply from dams is a complex issue that is affected by a range of issues including climate pattern, water needs and dam size compared to runoff from the upstream catchment, upstream water capture, patterns of water use, and input from other sources like springs. Returning low flows is another factor that may affect reliability of supply and the situation will vary for different dams and watercourse diversions. It may be expected that dams that fill and spill most years will be less affected than those that rarely fill. Several trial sites with low flow bypasses have been run in the Marne

144


catchment since 2006, and the landholders have reported that they still get adequate supply from their dams as would be expected for the seasonal conditions. The Marne catchment is one of the drier catchments in the Mount Lofty Ranges region.


Concerned that returning low flows would mean that there is insufficient water available on property. Would need to de-stock in times of drought which has significant impacts on maintaining breeding line (time and cost). Would also reduce food production to the detriment of the community - both in terms of reduced food production and increased reliance of former farmers on other forms of income.



Unfair impost to require installation of low flow bypasses on existing dams. Their dams currently only ever fill at the end of August now (and not every year), and very concerned that returning low flows would mean they would never fill, adversely affecting farming operation and take away their livelihood.



Concerned with the impact of low flow bypasses on security of supply.



I would require the water, and not let the water go past, especially in a dry year.



Would have been in trouble with watering stock if they had to return low flows during the recent drought. Have consolidated dams on their property to minimise evaporation and seepage and have generally managed to remain self-reliant.


145



Landholders should be compensated for losses associated with returning low flows and should be provided with water (e.g. for stock) if dam runs dry as a result of returning low flows.

As per comment # 29 - Returning low flowsIn relation to the payment of compensation in situations where the reliability of a dam may be reduced due to returning low flows, this situation is akin to where water allocations are reduced in order to protect the resource as a whole from over exploitation. In these cases compensation is not payable.


Low flow bypasses are a largely new, untested technology and there are concerns about the practicality and impact of low flow bypasses at individual sites. Concerns with low flow bypasses include impacts on water availability in dams early in the season (when the user needs the water too); concerns that dams won't fill; concerns that the devices won't work as expected; concerns with high maintenance requirements; concerns with failure of the device with a lump of concrete ending up in the dam.

As per comment # 29 - Returning low flowsAs per comment # 523 - Returning low flows


That without more information about the likely impacts on existing users (especially crop and pasture irrigators), the Dairy Industry cannot support threshold flow rates as criteria for managing stream water extractions (resolution 5). Concerns include severe restriction on the number of days that users can access water; and that water can only be accessed after rainfall events when it is not required. For the Dairy Industry to further consider the merit of the threshold flow rate proposals, the EMLR WAP must clearly define how the proposals would change the status quo for stream water access at different times of year (e.g. table with current stream flow rates at key locations in each month, under dry, average and wet years - with threshold flow rates superimposed to

The potential impact of the requirement not to take water below the threshold flow rate on existing watercourse diverters is acknowledged. Steps were taken under the consultation draft EMLR WAP towards addressing this issue by decreasing the unit threshold flow rate for Tookayerta catchment as a way of balancing the high proportion of watercourse extraction in that catchment with the high value environmental assets present in that catchment that rely on permanent flow. However it is recognised this does not assist with issues outside the Tookayerta catchment.Recommend that principles 50-53 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to allow the Minister to set an alternative threshold flow rate, or alternative rules for providing low flows, for existing users in exceptional cases in a manner that does not compromise water-dependent ecosystems or other users.Such alternatives will be explored and developed in consultation with the community through the upcoming low flows implementation program, and will be implemented through the existing user allocation program (separate from the EMLR WAP). Such alternatives would only be available for existing users in recognition of the potential impact of returning low flows on the ability to access sufficient water for licensed enterprises that rely on access to watercourses during low flow periods. However, the requirements for returning low flow set out in the EMLR WAP will apply to new allocations

146


show when users would have to stop accessing water).

and to transfers to new locations, as protecting watercourse pools and habitats during low or no flow is seen as being of key importance in meeting the plan's environmental objectives. In these cases, potential applicants can make decisions on potential water sources in the knowledge of the water-taking restrictions that would apply.


The use of low flow bypasses will only deliver the farmers full allocation if heavy and torrential rains fall on every occasion.

Low flows make up around 5-20% of total long-term flows, although this proportion varies from year to year. The remainder that may be captured (within the water-taking limits) is expected to be associated with the normal rainfall pattern. Returning low flows is one of many factors that may affect reliability of supply and the situation will vary for different dams and watercourse diversions. It may be expected that dams that fill and spill most years will be less affected than those that rarely fill. Several trial sites with low flow bypasses have been run in the Marne catchment since 2006, and the landholders have reported that they still get adequate supply from their dams as would be expected for the seasonal conditions. The Marne catchment is one of the drier catchments in the Mount Lofty Ranges region.


Low flow bypasses will stop flow into dams unless there is a downpour, which will cause a water shortage for irrigation, stock and wildlife.



Low flow diversions will result in little or no water in dams unless there is heavy and repeated rainfall, which will reduce water available for stock and domestic use and threaten native species who use water from dams.



Concerned with impact of returning low flows on animal welfare if dams don't fill.

The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes.This program will need to consider a range of factors, including animal welfare issues.


In terms of returning low flows, should consider the percentage of property running to dams vs. percentage running freely. Their dam is constructed in a corner of the property with a catchment of approximately 30 acres.

The patterns of water flow through the catchment are driven by the form of the landscape, not property boundaries. This means that sustainable water management policy needs to operate across the landscape, as well as at the property-scale. Assessments of the current flow pattern show that there are not currently enough low flows to support environmental needs. The low flows that are currently occurring are

147


The main watercourse on the property is undammed with a catchment of 130 acres on the property and 400-500 acres on the neighbour's properties. There would be little benefit in bypassing low flows around the dam when flow is not hindered on the majority of the property.

contributed by the existing free-flowing areas. More low flows need to be returned across the catchment, so it is proposed to return low flows from areas that are dammed.


We ask for no low flow bypass to be required for our dam as we have (at our own expense) had hydrological surveys on our property showing 50% run-off unimpeded that returns to the Finniss River.



A realistic approach should be taken to the requirement to return low flows. For example, it will be very difficult and expensive in areas with steep and/or rocky terrain. Consideration should also be given to the area of the property that doesn't drain to dams (e.g. downstream of dams, or on gullies that don't drain to dams) as flow from these areas will exceed the amount returned by low flow bypasses. Where more than one gully feeds a dam then more than one low flow bypass would need to be built. If low flow bypasses would need to be built in these circumstances then a large subsidy would need to be provided to the farmer to offset the cost.

As per comment # 225 - Returning low flowsAs per comment # 92 - Returning low flowsAs per comment # 31 - Returning low flows


The requirement to return low flows should be based on the relationship of the size of the dam to the size of the property or the dam's position on the block, not just dam size. Requirement to return low flows should also consider making sure that the property will

It is agreed that other factors also affect the impact of dams on the downstream flow pattern in addition to the dam size. Larger dams generally take longer to fill and spill, and so are more likely to delay downstream flows. The rate of filling and spiling will also be affected by the amount of runoff arriving from upstream, which is influenced by factors like the local rainfall and runoff characteristics, size of the upstream catchment area, and upstream water capture. The dam's position on the block plays a role here, but what

148


retain sufficient water to provide requirements in a drought year.

happens in the dam's catchment area (which may extend beyond the property boundary) is more critical.The Board will work together with DEWNR and the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop a strategic location project that will examine whether the same environmental outcomes can be achieved while returning low flows in fewer places. One of the criteria to be considered as part of the work could be the size of the dam in relation to its upstream catchment area, or upstream runoff.As per comment # 225 - Returning low flowsAs per comment # 29 - Returning low flows


Strategic location project for returning low flows sounds promising. Maybe our inventive thinkers can come up with a low maintenance way of achieving a bypass where something is required.

The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. Part of that program will be to explore different options for achieving the outcomes, and designs for devices that can return low flows under different types of circumstances, tapping into the creative and practical ideas in the community.


Does the size of the bypass increase downstream, or does the first large dam in the stream create the bypass for all?

The size of the bypass increases as you go further downstream. The policy to return low flow works such that low flows at or below the threshold flow rate for a location not captured or otherwise returned. The threshold flow rate for a location (at a dam or watercourse diversion) is calculated using a factor that reflects local runoff conditions for the management zone, multiplied by the size of the catchment area upstream of the location. The size of the catchment area upstream of the dam or watercourse diversion will get larger as you go further down the catchment, so the size of the threshold flow rate to be not taken or returned also increases. This means that a downstream dam will return all of the low flows returned by the dam above, as well as some extra flow from the extra catchment area in between the two dams.


The "threshold flow rate" has not been adequately defined or described. Supports compliance with principles 49-54 as far as they can be understood without this adequate definition.

The threshold flow rate, and how it is calculated, is defined in principle 52 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP. Section 2.4.2.3 9 (page 66) explains how it was derived.


Spent significant time and resources on property to slow flow and retain water on their property for the benefit of their business and

Your concern is acknowledged. This is an issue to be considered as part of the implementation program for returning low flows.

149


environment, and feel they will be penalised by the requirement to return low flows as these practices have increased the proportion of low flows on their property. Much of the flow will bypass their efficient dams, reducing water capture hence reducing stock carrying capacity and irrigation capacity, and reducing land value.


Concerned that the proposal for returning low flows will encourage farmers to speed up the flow of water on their land so that there are more harvestable high flows, and fewer low flows to be bypassed. Flows could be sped up through poor practices such as harvesting shelter bests, grazing creek beds, spraying out weed beds, backfilling ponds and silt traps etc. These actions would have poor environmental consequences, and additionally speeding up flow will create environmental problems by making it more difficult to keep chemicals and fertilisers on target, increasing erosion and loss of permanent waters. Believe unintended consequence of returning low flows will be to encourage poor land care management practices and reward mediocrity.

We acknowledge your point. The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. Community engagement, including issues of good land management practices, will be a key part of the implementation program. Exploring and addressing potential unintended consequences, like those you have outlined, will be another important element.


Consolidated small, inefficient dams into fewer larger ones to reduce evaporation on their property. May consider reducing dam capacity to less than 5 ML to avoid needing to install a low flow bypass - which means water management would be less efficient.

We acknowledge the issue. It is part of the individual's decision making process to balance options such as reducing storage capacity or returning low flows.

160 - Returning

Plan does not mention ecosystem benefits of having a series of healthy water bodies

As described in section 2.3.3.1 of the draft EMLR WAP, the interception of summer flows by dams means that natural water bodies in streams are at greater risk of becoming

150


low flows topped up by a small event like a summer storm.

unhealthy habitats, or drying up altogether. Returning low flows is intended to help reduce this risk.In some circumstances, dams may provide habitat for water-dependent species. This is more likely when the dam has features such as shallow edges that allow growth of aquatic vegetation and reeds and where the dam retains water throughout the year. However, dams are generally designed and built to efficiently store water with steep sides, which inhibits plant growth and limits the habitat value of dams. We still have more work to do with the community to develop an implementation program for returning low flows, including consideration of how to deal with situations where returning low flows may threaten important ecosystems established in dams.


Their dam provides a great habitat for the wildlife, including bird life and frogs. Concerned application of blanket regulations (e.g. returning low flows) could jeopardise existing ecosystems.

We still have more work to do with the community to develop an implementation program for returning low flows, including consideration of how to deal with situations where returning low flows may threaten important ecosystems established in dams.Many water-dependent species in the EMLR need access to flowing stream habitat for parts of their lifecycle, and natural habitats generally provide the best access to the range of food, shelter and other requirements. The provision of habitat in a dam may need to be balanced against the possibility that the dam is reducing the water getting to natural habitats.


Each case is different with returning low flows. For example, flows bypassing their dam would fill the dam of a downstream user who does not rely on the water for a living, and would not need to return low flows.

Agree that circumstances vary across the landscape and that a flexible approach is needed.The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. As part of this program, we are keen to work together to explore different ways of achieving the outcome of protecting or returning low flows across the landscape in ways that make sense for individual properties and circumstances. A range of factors need to be considered and balanced, including impact on reliability of supply for water users; achievement of environmental outcomes across the landscape; practicality and cost; alternative designs and options; equity between different users, and recognition that circumstances may change over time (e.g. a dam that doesn't return low flows now may do so in the future).

Returning low flows is expected to have environmental benefits at a local scale (e.g. providing water to damp areas between dams that support reeds and temporary water-bug communities; and allowing the downstream dam to spill sooner), as well as at a

151


larger scale (where flows are passed across the headwaters down to the more aquatic habitats in streams).


Recommend that the principles of fairness and commonsense apply when making the determination on the need for low flow bypasses on individual dam situations (recommendation 9). A low flow bypass should not be required if there would be negligible environmental benefits (e.g. low flows into downstream dams without low flow bypasses and that do not overflow).



It would be appropriate to assess individual properties and show adaptability in relation to what will or won't work with water management strategies. [in relation to returning low flows]



Concerned with the equity of having to return low flows when upstream and downstream neighbours don't need to, and questions the environmental benefit in this case - just filling downstream neighbour's dam.



Each situation is unique in terms of returning low flows and should be treated as such - for example returned low flows may go into non-licensed dams. Where is the security for a licence holder in this situation?



In particular, support SADA recommendation 17 that, if applied, threshold flow rate proposals for watercourse extractions should be applied to both licensed and non-licensed users. This would secure access to stream water for them as they've never had access to underground water.


152



Existing users should not have to install low flow devices and it should not be backdated to dams prior to prescription and the provision of a water licence and allocation should not be subject to construction of low flow devices

An important part of the prescription process is to support healthy environments. A healthy environment is essential for supporting the community, including businesses that depend on natural resources through provision of ecosystem services like nutrient recycling and water quality improvement. Returning low flows at selected existing dams and watercourse diversions means that sustainable consumptive use limits can be considerably higher than they would otherwise be. The consumptive use limits for surface water and watercourses have been set to meet environmental water provision targets that balance social, economic and environmental water needs. If low flows are not returned, surface water modelling shows that these targets can only be met if consumptive water use is capped at 5% of runoff. However, if low flows are returned at existing licensed dams and watercourse diversions, and at non-licensed dams with a capacity of 5 ML or more, then these targets can be met if consumptive use is up to 20% of runoff.The Board will work together with DEWNR and the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop a strategic location project that will examine whether the same environmental outcomes can be achieved while returning low flows in fewer places.


Note the following points / objections: Dams to have low flow bypasses, with a capacity of 50 ML and above



If threshold flow rate proposals are applied for stream water extractions, both licensed and non-licensed (stock and domestic) users should be subject to those restrictions (recommendation 16), to be fair and equitable given the potential serious impact of this proposal on licensed users.

Existing non-licensed watercourse extractions sit outside the licensing process and the WAP. The mechanism used to require low flows to be returned at existing non-licensed dams of 5 ML or more could potentially be used to require the same of non-licensed watercourse diversions. This proposal can be explored as part of the implementation program for returning low flows, including consideration of the strategic benefits and costs of returning low flows at such diversions where the demand is likely to be relatively low. This situation has similarities to the case of existing non-licensed dams with a capacity of less than 5 ML, which are not currently proposed to be included in the program for returning low flows.


The reason for the current exclusion of stock and domestic dams from requiring low flow bypasses needs to be clearly stated, along with their treatment in future iterations of the plan. These dams have acknowledged impact, and the likely continued expansion of

Note that it is proposed that existing non-licensed dams of 5 ML or more (including stock and domestic dams) would be included in the requirement to return low flows (page 66 of draft EMLR WAP). It is noted that it would be useful to explain that non-licensed dams have a significant impact on the water regime, which provides the basis for why the proposal to return low flows includes existing larger non-licensed dams, and all new dams and watercourse diversions.

153


extractions under this exemption has the potential to undermine gains made elsewhere - particularly with continued sub-division of properties in the peri-urban areas.

Recommend including information in section 2.4.2.2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP on why existing non-licensed dams of 5 ML or more have been included in the proposal to return low flows (in addition to all licensed dams and watercourse diversions, and all new dams and watercourse diversions).New dam construction is managed through the water affecting activity permits section of the EMLR WAP, and applies to all new dams including stock and domestic dams. These permit policies include a requirement for all new dams (and watercourse diversions) to return low flows to allow these critical parts of the flow pattern to be provided to the environment across the landscape (principles 174-178 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP).It will be important to assess the effects of returning low flows on the water resources, environment and users through the life of this plan, to allow improvement of the plan as required.


Can see the merit of returning low flows around small stock dams in creeks with near permanent or permanent water with established ecosystems. But can't see the benefit in the majority of little "creeks" (many of which are erosion gullies) that are dry most of the time. It would be better to catch this flow - most of it will end up out to sea anyway. Once the small stock dam is full it will overflow with any further rain and provide water to the environment.

The low flow policy works such that low flows at or below a threshold flow rate are to be returned or not captured. This means that some flows will be returned to the catchment when there is flow present, passing from dam to dam in the headwaters of the catchment down to the watercourses where there are pools. Flow will start in watercourses earlier and last longer. This means that refuge pools are less likely to dry up while waiting for flow to begin, and water-dependent animals and plants will have more time to complete their life cycle. As flows pass down the catchment, they will also support plants and animals that like damp or temporarily wet habitats too, as well as supporting more truly aquatic habitats.A Flinders University study found that there were environmental benefits downstream of dams with low flow bypasses, when compared to similar dams without low flow bypasses, in the Marne catchment. These benefits included an improvement in water-plant cover and an increase in abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (water-bugs).Overflowing stock dams will provide water to downstream environments, but one of the key issues is the delay in flow while dams fill.


Concerned with the merit of low flow bypasses to the downstream environment.



Are there any case studies to show where returning low flows has worked? Or are we the guinea pigs - but our livelihoods are at

A Flinders University study found that there were environmental benefits downstream of dams with low flow bypasses, when compared to similar dams without low flow bypasses, in the Marne catchment. These benefits included an improvement in water-plant cover

154


stake. and an increase in abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (water-bugs).


Believes low flow bypass concept is a useless obstruction doomed to fail.

A number of trial sites have been running as designed in the in the Marne catchment since 2006. A Flinders University study at these sites found that there were environmental benefits downstream of dams with low flow bypasses, when compared to similar dams without low flow bypasses, in the Marne catchment. These benefits included an improvement in water-plant cover and an increase in abundance and diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates (water-bugs).


Told that flow and water quality have declined over the last 10 years, so why are 40-55 year old dams required to return low flows?

Capture of water by dams means that downstream flow will be reduced, so reductions in flow would have been occurring since dam building or other water capture began. Dams built 40 years ago are playing a part in the current reduction in flow, so have a part to play in returning low flows.

516 - Review Provisions should be made to allow short term alteration rather than waiting for five year review.

The NRM Act requires that a WAP be reviewed within five years of adoption, but that review can occur earlier. Note that the findings of the review may not necessarily require the WAP to be amended.The NRM Act sets out a number of actions that can be taken if problems arise. These tools for action are already set out in the NRM Act, so it is not appropriate to re-state them in the WAP. Section 89 of the NRM Act allows the Board to make amendments to the WAP to correct errors and allows the Minister to make amendments in a number of circumstances including in order to address an unfair or inappropriate assumption contained within the WAP. Significant amendments that change the intent of the plan that fall outside these provisions need to go through the development and consultation process set out in the NRM Act, and so this is not a rapid way of responding to issues. Other tools for action that the Minister can implement under the NRM Act include section 132, which allows temporary reductions or restrictions on the volume of water taken or the way it is taken, or requirements to take action to address problems, where there are impacts (or likely to be impacts) on water quantity, quality and water-dependent ecosystems. Section 155 allows permanent allocation reductions in some circumstances. Section 8 of the EMLR WAP includes triggers for action if monitoring reveals problems. The response to the triggers may include use of the tools in the NRM Act described above.

570 - Review Recommend separate legislative review of As per comment # 516 - Review

155


five years from WAP review. The five year review period is too long, particularly given this WAP is developed with very limited information.

671 - Review Recommend a review after two years of the monitoring, evaluation and reporting system to determine the efficacy of the EMLR WAP.

As per comment # 516 - Review

449 - Rollover

Request to be allowed a large carry over water from both surface water and underground water to allow for future fluctuations in seasonal conditions. Concerned with the requirement to fix the split of allocation between different resources as this doesn't allow flexibility to deal with seasonal fluctuation - see larger rollover as a tool to allow this flexibility.

The amount that can be rolled over is capped at 10% of allocation. This is considered to be the maximum amount of water that the water resources can sustain to be taken in addition to the consumptive use limit, in the circumstance that all licensed users take their rollover allocation as well as their base allocation in the same year. The desire for flexibility needs to be balanced against resource management considerations and the ability of the resource to sustain the volume to be taken over the long term.

256 - Rollover

Suggest providing an explanation of why rollover has been set at 10%.

As per comment # 449 - RolloverRecommend adding information in section 4 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP that outlines rollover concept and why the limit has been set at 10% of allocation.

305 - Rollover

Some uncertainty about rollover volumes and operation. Does rollover apply to stock and domestic? The extractable portion of any allocation must be related to current availability, regardless of the averaging done for planning purposes. How does rollover apply to stream diversions where unused water has passed downstream and is no longer available? How would rollover be administered where dams potentially store water over a number of seasons, so that the various components are accounted for separately?

Rollover doesn't apply to stock and domestic use, as rollover applies to licensed allocations only, and stock and domestic use is not licensed in the EMLR. Water taken for stock and domestic purposes through a meter that records licensed use may need to be accounted for when calculating rollover.Rollover allocations can still be taken from watercourses even though the unused flow has passed downstream. The purpose of rollover is to provide water users with a measure of flexibility to respond to varying water needs from year to year, rather than to vary allocations in accordance with current water availability. The average volume taken from the resource over the medium term will still be within the consumptive use limits, because less water needs to be used in a year before a rollover allocation will be granted in a later year. It is also important to note that the requirement to return low flows means that this environmentally critical part of the flow pattern will be provided to sustain the environment regardless of the small additional water use in some years due to rollover allocations. Extra benefit will also be provided to the environment in years when users

156


take less water in order to earn a rollover allocation. There is no requirement to separately account for water of different ages stored in a dam. The allocation (plus rollover if applicable) is simply the volume that may be taken from the dam in a given year.

206 - Rollover

Business SA supports the clarity of the draft EMLR WAP rollover policy; this is an essential management tool in business planning. However it is referred to as "rollover" whereas it is referred to as "carryover" in the River Murray. Careful consideration, clarity and consistency must be granted to licence holders in other prescribed areas.

The majority of South Australian WAPs use the term "rollover", with a notable exception being the use of the term "carryover" in the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse.

255 - Rollover

Suggest eligibility for rollover should be linked to lodgement of annual water use report to encourage provision of this important information that supports future policy development.

It is understood that the intention of the proposal is to provide an incentive for licensees to lodge their annual water use report. The requirement to lodge the report is likely to be a licence condition, and breaching licence conditions may lead to penalties as set out under the NRM Act.The proposal links a water entitlement to an unrelated administrative requirement, and the linkage between the two is not direct.

422 - Rollover

We request that we can be approved a carry over of any unused entitlement into the next year. It is important for the survival of our business to have access to the water we need to help offset fluctuations in seasonal weather conditions.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes provisions for unused allocations to be rolled over for use in a later water use year, capped at 10% of allocation and with a limited life of one year (for surface water and watercourses) or two years (underground water).

241 - Rollover

PIRSA supports the rollover provisions to provide flexibility to adapt to variable seasonal conditions.

Noted.

277 - Rollover

The Dairy Industry supports the proposals for provisions of rollover allocations for underground water (resolution 4).

Noted.

315 - Supports rollover policy for all resources. Noted.

157


Rollover 10% cap is relatively low, but does provide users with some capacity to manage for varying climate conditions.

137 - Rollover

Rollover allocations are unsustainable and should not be allowed. The environment is already stressed and should not have the burden of extra water taken in dry years.

After careful consideration of consultation responses, the Board has decided to recommend that rollover allocations remain in the draft EMLR WAP. A water allocation plan needs to achieve an equitable balance between social, economic and environmental needs. Rollover allocations provide a measure of flexibility to users to account for year to year variation in water needs. The average volume taken from the resource over the medium term will still be within the consumptive use limits, because less water needs to be used before a rollover allocation will be granted. Rollover allocations are capped at 10% of allocation, so the maximum extra volume that could be taken if all licensees took their rollover allocation in one year in a fully allocated zone would be an additional 10% of the limit. For example, the base level of the consumptive use limit for surface water and watercourses in the consultation draft EMLR WAP is 15% of adjusted runoff at a management zone scale. Ten percent of this is 1.5%, so the maximum that could be taken in a year would be 15% + 1.5% = 16.5% of runoff - which would require that the use was no more than 13.5% of runoff in the previous year. (Please note that it is recommended that the consumptive use limit for surface water and watercourses is recommended to be revised to become an evaporation and consumptive use limit of 20% of adjusted runoff, where evaporation from dams is accounted for directly against the limit but not allocated - see comment # 499 in 'Surface water and watercourses' section).Rollover allocations have a limited life of one to two years. This means that licensees may tend to use less water in most years in order to earn a rollover allocation for the following year just in case it is required.It is also important to note that the requirement to return low flows means that this environmentally critical part of the flow pattern will be provided to sustain the environment regardless of the small additional water use in some years due to rollover allocations. Extra benefit will also be provided to the environment in years when users take less water in order to earn a rollover allocation.

214 - Rollover

Concept of rollover in surface water is illogical and inappropriate for small rivers in EMLR. Rollover will be used in dry years when rainfall and runoff will be lower - illogical to consider greater than 100% usage of allocations.

As per comment # 137 - Rollover

158


511 - Rollover

Carry over should not be considered. As per comment # 137 - Rollover

591 - Rollover

Rollover of allocations is a bad practice and do not need it. Surface water rollover can't be done - concept bereft of logic. Why should it not be 5%?


337 - Rollover

Concerned about the concept of rollover in this system, and believe this is only appropriate in a system with variable percentage allocations.

As per comment # 137 - RolloverAs per comment # 84 - Rollover

84 - Rollover Only support rollover if EMLR irrigators subject to variable percentage allocations (as occurs in the River Murray). Rollover is of concern because of increased drawdown of dams in dry years, which means the dam will take even longer to fill and spill flows downstream.

As per comment # 137 - RolloverThe NRM Act allows for "unbundling" of water licences into separate components, and provides a mechanism for making allocations as shares or percentages in a consumptive pool where the size of the pool, and hence the size of allocations, may vary over time. This system has been implemented for the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse. Unbundling is a recent direction in South Australian water planning, and there is significant work to be done to determine how unbundling could operate in systems like the EMLR. It is expected that the possibility of unbundling licences for the EMLR will be explored for the review of the EMLR WAP, which needs to occur within five years of plan adoption.

154 - Rollover

Plan would benefit from further flexibility through rollover and overdraw to allow for climate variation (e.g. lower rainfall, heat waves, reduced use in cooler years which can be banked, short-term increases in water requirements as parts of vineyards are re-established). Rollover of 10% is too small, and there is no overdraw provision. Provided data showing wide variation in use over 7 years on single property, with lowest annual use being 67% of the maximum annual use. Prefer to have 10% overdraw, 20% rollover which cannot accumulate, and accounting for


159


use over a five year rolling average or similar. Rollover and overdraw should not be tradeable until the market and recording system matures with firm data.

530 - Rollover

No flexibility to reduce plantings with perennial crops. Request 20% rollover, annually review rollover period with the aim of increase rollover period to five years, and allow 10% overdraw (case-by-case basis to deal with extreme weather events that significantly affect production only).


201 - Roof runoff

Business SA opposes the proposed roof runoff allocation policies. Allocation and licensing of roof runoff with metering and requirement for environmental allocation is considered excessive regulation and red tape. SA will be considered as stifling business development and hindering innovative water technologies.

Water that falls on roofs is part of the water cycle. If this water had not been captured it would have returned to the environment and been available to other users, including the environment. In situations where large volumes of water are involved it is important to be able include this water in the water account for a catchment.It is recognised that capture of roof runoff is usually small-scale, and the regulatory requirements for users and resource managers is minimised through the NRM Act regulation managing roof runoff, and the roof runoff policies in the WAP. A licence for capturing roof runoff is only required under a limited range of circumstances (e.g. where a user is deemed to collect more than 500 kL for licensed purposes, or for any volume of licensed irrigation use). A licence and meter is not required for stock and domestic purposes. There are far fewer limits and requirements in relation to roof runoff allocations under the EMLR WAP compared to the rest of the surface water resource. The plan's requirement for adjusted runoff & recharge to be returned to the environmental only comes in when more than 1,000 kL is deemed to be collected and the purpose of use is licensed.

426 - Roof runoff

We recommend that the capture and use of rainwater from buildings be encouraged, and not be included as part of allocation.

As per comment # 201 - Roof runoff

202 - Roof runoff

Business SA opposes the proposed roof runoff allocation policies. Captured rainwater reduces reliance on the River Murray. To take this to the next extreme, will all rain

As per comment # 201 - Roof runoffDomestic use, which includes watering a household garden of up to 0.4 ha, is not prescribed in EMLR and so doesn't require a licence or meter. Even if this became licensed in the future, the NRM Act sets out that a water levy can't be charged for water

160


water be measured with a garden charge being calculated and will all industrial sites eventually provide an additional roof runoff licensing stream for government?

used for domestic purposes. Industrial use is already recognised state-wide as a licensed purpose. Use of significant volumes of roof runoff for licensed purposes such as industrial use is not unlike capture and use of surface water from a dam for industrial use, with both processes intercepting water from the resource.

490 - Roof runoff

Principle 68 appears to allow people to collect between 500 kL and 1000 kL of roof runoff with no restrictions. Clarification is required as to the intent of this policy.

That is correct. In cases where a licence is required for use of roof runoff, the EMLR WAP does not impose any requirements where the volume deemed to be taken is less than 1,000 kL as a balance between the administrative burden associated with managing small amounts of roof runoff, and the potential for impacts on the water resource and other users (including the environment).Recommend that the paragraphs at the start of section 5.2.2 and 6.2.2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP are amended to make it clear that these principles apply to allocations and transfers made under the WAP (i.e. they don't apply to roof runoff allocations made to existing users).Recommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP is amended to defines roof runoff allocations to mean 'surfacewater allocations that are assigned to a source identified as roof runoff' to allow consistency with the way this will be recorded in the licensing system, as advised by DFW.

45 - Roof runoff

Concerned that will only be able to keep 70% of roof runoff as 30% is the estimated annual runoff from undeveloped land. This is a poor theory as there is little or no runoff until the ground reaches 100% capacity. My shed returning flow at the top of the hill will only make a useless patch of weeds, not an environmental flow.

The policies around roof runoff allocations don't apply to stock and domestic use. The roof runoff policies only apply where more than 500 kL is deemed to be collected for licensed purposes (or to any volume if used for irrigation). Stock and domestic water use is not a licensed purpose in the EMLR. In addition, the roof runoff policies only apply to new allocations made under these circumstances once the EMLR WAP is adopted, not existing user allocations.Where the roof runoff policies apply, the percentage of runoff from the roof area to be returned depends on the runoff and underground water recharge characteristics of the area. As you have noted, these percentages reflect the runoff and recharge to underground water that is expected to occur from a mixed-use rural landscape. The runoff figures used are based on long-term measurements of rainfall and stream flow data from a range of sites in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, with some flow sites collected data since 1969. Therefore this runoff rate incorporates the wetting-up required before runoff occurs.

17 - Stormwater

Concerned whether a plan has been devised for extra runoff from urban expansion in Mt

Your concern is acknowledged. These issues needs to be addressed by other instruments such as development plans. A water allocation plan sets rules for

161


Barker - good for the environment but may cause downstream problems in extreme rain events.

sustainable water taking and use, but can't require people to take water (e.g. can't require that excess stormwater be harvested), or manage how urban development occurs. The consultation draft EMLR WAP does include provisions that allows the additional runoff generated by new urban areas to be harvested, and the plan does not intend to hinder innovative stormwater management.The Board's Regional NRM Plan includes actions and targets on water sensitive urban design and water re-use, such as Management Action Targets W2.3 (70% of treated wastewater generated in the Region to be reused by 2014), W2.6 (At least one major settlement (> 2000 people) with neutral or beneficial effects on water assets by 2014) and W2.7 (By 2014, 70% of water used shall be taken from sources that are fit-for-purpose).The Board works towards achieving these targets in partnership with the community, stakeholder groups and other agencies and bodies such as local government. An example is the 'Strengthening Basin Communities' program, which is a partnership between 11 Local Councils in the SAMDB and the Board that aims to plan for an uncertain climate future, with a particular focus on water availability. As part of this program, Integrated Water Management Plans are being developed for 10 of the 11 Councils, which include consideration of current and future water demands, sources of water (including stormwater and wastewater), and proposed projects to enhance integrated water management including use of a range of water sources including stormwater and wastewater. This program is supported by funding from the Australian Government's Water for the Future Initiative through the Strengthening Basin Communities program.

675 - Stormwater

Suggest the WAP should allow innovative approaches to stormwater management and in practices this may require some flexibility. In some areas of the Mt Barker district there is too much water present in the system due to urban development. Need to be assured that Council's capacity to require appropriate capture, storage and reuse of stormwater is assisted by the EMLR WAP, and that water sensitive urban design outcomes are at the forefront of planning and development decisions. Support provision for stormwater to be collected that is in addition to pre-development runoff (which is a requirement

As per comment # 17 - Stormwater

162


of the Development Plan).

680 - Stormwater

Recommend adding principles that specifically seek to control excessive runoff volumes at a catchment-wide basis that may be detrimental to the environment - will assist Council.


691 - Stormwater

To ensure consistency between the EMLR WAP and the proposed regional DPA it is critical that stormwater quantity targets are introduced that 1) provide for the difference between pre- and post-development runoff to be harvested and re-used, where possible; (2) provide for maintenance of baseflows via stormwater infiltration measures; (3) provide for rainwater harvesting and re-use to be maximised at the allotment scale; (4) limit the total proportion of imperviousness of a development; and (5) support council's objectives to collect, treat and reuse stormwater as an essential part of its urban growth strategy.


679 - Stormwater

Concerned the impacts of urbanisation in the Mt Barker area have been overlooked within the EMLR WAP (e.g. future development expected to lead to 66% increase in flow in Mt Barker Creek - much wetter creek environment will affect ecological values and flooding).

Agree that urbanisation can change the flow pattern, with the higher proportion of impervious surfaces generating more runoff and a flashier flow pattern. This may contribute to problems such as flooding, erosion and reduced water quality.


688 - Stormwater

The EMLR WAP needs to be consistent with other plans by encouraging sustainable use of water resources particularly within new development areas. The relationship between this plan and other legislation is not clear (e.g. Development Act, Local

As per comment # 17 - StormwaterAs per comment # 353 - Integrated management

163


Government Act, Environment Protection Act, Public and Environmental Health Act, Water for Good plan). For example, Water for Good actively encourages use of stormwater and recycled water in lieu of mains water, and extending water use efficiency programs to all local councils. The EMLR WAP could be restrictive and counterproductive to achieving these goals, particularly given the Ministerial DPA land and existing water users.

684 - Stormwater

There is a need to develop an agreed method by which the stormwater harvesting potential for "new urban land use development" is assessed. Who will have responsibility for determining the stormwater harvesting potential of new areas and existing areas?

This is an operational issue that needs to be discussed further. It is expected that the proponent for the stormwater harvesting proposal will provide information on stormwater harvesting potential for assessment by the licensing authority.

690 - Stormwater

Has the Board or Department for Water estimate pre-European, pre-development and current baseflows near the Mt Barker township (given the impact of urbanisation in reducing baseflows through increased impervious areas). An understanding of these processes would inform good stormwater design suited to local conditions. Can this information be provided to Council?

DEWNR has undertaken some surface water modelling of the Mount Barker township area. To discuss sharing this modelling, or conducting additional modelling for Mount Barker Council, contact DEWNR's surface water team.

497 - Stormwater

The Department would welcome the opportunity to work with the Board to refine the policies and statements concerning roof run off and stormwater. They are surface water components that are additional beyond the 2003 baseline and should be considered as such. Recommended that the rationale for separate allocation categories and trade

The EMLR WAP already treats stormwater allocations as beyond the 2003 baseline by only allowing stormwater allocations from new urban development approved and commenced after 16 October 2003 (as per principle 73 b) i). Roof runoff allocations are not treated this way because of the difficulties in establishing the age of a given roof and the likely small, diffuse volumes involved across the region.There may be limited opportunities to allocate runoff from existing urban areas in low rainfall catchments where the consumptive use limit is very low or zero. However, harvesting additional runoff generated from these urban areas may provide significant

164


barriers also be reviewed. water quality improvement benefits. In these cases, it may be reasonable to consider allocating additional water from urban runoff of any age, as long as sufficient water is provided to meet the requirements of downstream users (including the environment).Recommend that section 5.2.3 and associated definitions of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to allow stormwater allocations from urban development of any age from identified catchments (those very low or zero consumptive use limits), subject to an assessment demonstrating that the requirements of downstream users (including environment) are met.It is acknowledged that the term "stormwater allocation", and the principles in section 5.2.3, do not make it clear that these allocations are available under limited circumstances only.Recommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP is amended so that the term "stormwater allocation" is replaced with the term "urban runoff allocation"; and that the first paragraphs in section 5.2.3 and 6.2.3 are amended to make it clear that these allocations are available under limited circumstances only.The Board believes that it is appropriate to restrict transfer of roof runoff and stormwater allocations, because they are linked to the development that has generated the additional runoff that has given rise to those allocations. These allocations sit outside the "normal" surface water limit as they are based on allocation of the additional runoff generated by impervious surfaces. Allowing them to be transferred to a new allocation where additional runoff is not generated may result in over-allocation. It is more appropriate to allow a new roof runoff or stormwater allocation where the criteria in the WAP can be met, instead of making a transfer. In addition, there may be economic and environmental benefits from encouraging the capture of additional runoff generated by new urban areas. The higher volume and flashier flows generated from urban areas may lead to water quality, erosion and flooding issues. Allowing harvest of the extra runoff may help to address these issues, and this opportunity would be lost if the allocation was allowed to be transferred to be captured at a different location.

371 - Surface water and watercourses

Recommend that the impact of water use on downstream users be included in the EMLR WAP, and that this be supported by clear step-by-step processes for determining and managing such cases.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes a number of principles that consider the impacts of an allocation or transfer (principle 45), new dam (principle 164) or new forestry (principle 250) on downstream users, with equations provided on how to calculate the average impact.

588 - Surface water and

Page 7 - what are "non-persistent streams"? Some streams arising in the EMLR rarely if ever flow all the way to the River Murray or Lake Alexandrina, due to a combination of low rainfall and natural seepage of flow into

165


watercourses the stream bed.


Giles Creek does not get a mention. Noted.Recommend amending section 1.3.4.3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include Giles Creek as a major tributary of the Finniss River.


Regarding surface water allocation principles - when do dams provide refuges?

In some circumstances, dams may provide habitat for water-dependent species. This is more likely when the dam has features such as shallow edges that allow growth of aquatic vegetation and reeds and where the dam retains water throughout the year. Some dams have been used as emergency refuge habitats for threatened fish species during recent droughts. However, in general, dams are designed and built to efficiently store water with steep sides, which inhibits plant growth and limits the habitat value of dams. Many water-dependent species in the EMLR also require access to flowing or stream habitat or to move to other parts of the catchment for parts of their lifecycle. Movement to other habitats is often blocked by the dam wall.


Regarding surface water allocation principles - 1.5 ML for evaporation v 30% evaporation?

These two figures represent the same broad-scale evaporation rates, but expressed in two different ways. Evaporation from a dam is broadly estimated to be 30% of dam capacity. Evaporation can also be expressed as volume of evaporation in relation to the volume taken from a dam, which was estimated at 0.5 ML of evaporation for every 1 ML taken from a dam, considering evaporation over the critical summer period.


Regarding principle 35 b - define "minimal". Please note that an alternative approach for setting the consumptive use limit for surface water and watercourses is recommended for the draft EMLR WAP (see comment # 499 in the 'Surface water and watercourses' section), which supersedes principle 35 b) in the consultation draft EMLR WAP. Hence the information below is no longer relevant to the final draft EMLR WAP, but is included for the sake of completeness.It is intended that "minimal" evaporation for the purposes of principle 35 b) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This is a more flexible approach that allows consideration of circumstances that weren't anticipated at the time the plan was written.


Page 127: Equation needs extra factors - Fu for forestry use, Mu for mining use.

Both mining and forestry use are already included within the consumptive use term in this equation. Water used for mining is a licensed purpose that requires an allocation, and allocations are included in consumptive use from surface water and watercourses (as per principle 35 d)). Water intercepted by forestry is also included in the definition of consumptive use from surface water and watercourses given in principle 35 d).

166



Page 129 - Evaporation from dam should also recognise leakage and seepage.

Agree that leakage and seepage is an issue. However, seepage from dams is highly variable from dam to dam due to a range of factors, with a key factor being variable dam designs as influenced by topography, soils and climate. In many cases seepage is assumed to be much lower than evaporation. A generalised set of formulae for estimating seepage and leakage from dams can only be established when (i) dams are designed, built and maintained to standard designs and (ii) all the water-balance parameters for the dams are measured and/or modelled. Given the variability across the landscape in the EMLR and also that dams are not built and maintained to standard designs, it is difficult to develop a reliable formula for estimating seepage from dams, and it would take significant time and resources to measure or model leakage for individual dams. Considering these factors together, it was decided not to include dam-scale estimates of leakage or seepage for these principles.


The demarcation between surface water and watercourses is not clear (as given in the glossary) - surely there is no difference between the two except perhaps that watercourse water is flowing and surface water is static.

Surface water and watercourses are defined as terms in the NRM Act, and the EMLR WAP needs to be consistent with such definitions. In practice, there is little difference between them, and surface water runs off into watercourses to become watercourse water. As a result, the EMLR WAP generally manages these two resources as a single entity. The main exception is the main watercourse limit (principle 39 b) in the consultation draft EMLR WAP), and a particular type of allocation able to be taken from the lower part of the Angas and Bremer Rivers (lower Angas-Bremer allocations, as outlined in principles 55-58 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP).


Difficult to understand the ideology surrounding much of the farm dam regulation from a practical and regulatory perspective. Principle 42 limits allocation to 70% of dam capacity unless more than that amount can be taken, on average, as demonstrated to the Minister's satisfaction. There is not clarity on what the criteria may be for the exemption, as water sources reliant on rainfall are not always best analysed in averages. The figure of 70% is also of interest, a dam may be considered an opportunistic water supply unless fed by an underground active water source.

The purpose of limiting allocations to 70% of dam capacity in principle 42 is to recognise that not all of a dam's capacity will be available, as an estimated 30% of dam capacity will be lost to evaporation. There may be exceptions, such as when the dam is spring-fed over summer, and principle 42 provides for this by providing an exception to the allocation limit of 70% of dam capacity where the proponent can demonstrate that more than that can be taken on average. It is agreed that the use of the term "on average" is not very clear in principle 42. In this context it is intended to mean that more than 70% of dam capacity can be taken for the majority of years, due to factors other than runoff (i.e. due to other factors like spring feeding or design features to reduce evaporation). These criteria will need to be assessed case-by-case basis. It is difficult to predict every possible circumstance and provide for it within the plan. Recommend deleting "on average" in principle 42 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

167



Regarding surface water allocation principles - dam volume of water not to exceed 70 % - Minister's satisfaction - meaning?

As per comment # 208 - Surface water and watercourses


Runoff as a proportion of rainfall will decrease in years of lower rainfall, which means that an even greater proportion of inflow to the dam will need to be returned to the environment if the rate to be returned stays at 20% of average runoff. This will be worsened by allocating 70% of a dam's capacity as 30% will be lost to evaporation, particularly when the dam doesn't fill as evaporation stays the same.

Agree that the proportion of rainfall that runs off the land will decrease with lower rainfall. The proposal to return low flows operates so that flows at or below a threshold flow rate are to be returned, so the actual amount that would be returned varies from year to year depending on the flow pattern, rather than being a fixed proportion of runoff.The proposal to allocate 70% of dam capacity is used to determine the size of the allocation when it is first granted to an existing user as a once-off process. Once granted, that is the volume that can be taken from the dam for licensed purposes (if the water is available in the dam). Water doesn't need to set aside from within the allocation to account for evaporation.Following community feedback, DEWNR has recently conducted a review of the 70% cap on the volume of water that can be allocated from dams as part of the existing user allocation process. While it is still considered that, in an average year, the volume of water available from a dam is 70% of a dam’s capacity due to evaporation and seepage, it is acknowledged that there may be some years when greater than 70% of a dam’s capacity can be accessed (particularly in years where there is greater than average rainfall during the period of extraction from the dam). It is also acknowledged that the limitation of 70% of dam’s capacity may have a particular affect on those with dams only, who do not have other water sources to fulfil their water requirement. As a result, DEWNR has now revised its position so that for those with dams only, up to 100% of dam capacity is available for allocation (capped at the volume of the existing user's reasonable requirements for their enterprise). The 70% cap on the volume allocated from dams still applies to those with multiple resources as the remainder of these user’s entitlement will be assigned to alternative resources (underground water and/or watercourse water) and any increase in the volume assigned to dams has the effect of reducing the volume assigned to other resources. The 70% figure is still believed to be realistic of the volume of water available from dams, on average.


Additional runoff generated by expanding urban areas compensates for decreased runoff due to capture of water in dams.

Agree that additional runoff is generated by urban areas, but this is not enough to offset the decrease in runoff due to water capture and loss by dams and watercourse diversions. Furthermore, the impacts of urbanisation and farm dams on the catchment runoff process and the resulting flow pattern are different, and so the impact of one activity does not necessarily compensate for the impacts of the other. In any case, the

168


additional runoff generated by larger urban areas in the EMLR has been accounted for in the surface water modelling.


Principle 35 gives rise to the need for a cost-benefit analysis around the administration of this policy.

Following discussions with DEWNR, an alternative approach will be taken to expressing the limit for surface water + watercourses in a way that still allows additional allocation to be made to account for the water that would otherwise be lost via evaporation from dams, but in a way that is simpler to administer and understand.The alternative approach takes a water-balance approach by setting the limit as the volume that can be taken from the resource via evaporation from dams in addition to the volume taken from dams and watercourses and intercepted by commercial forestry.The new Evaporation and Consumptive Use Limit (ECUL) is set based on modelling of the amount of total loss from the system (evaporation from dams + consumptive use) that meets the same environmental provisions used to calculate the limits set out in the consultation draft EMLR WAP. This has been determined to be 20% of the average annual adjusted runoff. The amount of water available for allocation under the ECUL will be determined as the ECUL minus estimated non-licensed use (stock and domestic use + commercial forestry interception) minus estimated evaporation from all dams, calculated at the scale of the zone or catchment as appropriate.This approach simplifies administration and also provides an incentive to reduce evaporation. If evaporation is reduced, then there is a smaller evaporation volume set aside from the ECUL, making more water available for consumptive use. The total volume lost from the resource remains the same, so there should not be impacts on downstream users or the environment.Recommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to replace the unit management approach for surface water + watercourses with the volumetric evaporation and consumptive use limit.The 70% cap on the volume allocated from dams still applies to those with multiple resources as the remainder of these user’s entitlement will be assigned to alternative resources (underground water and/or watercourse water) and any increase in the volume assigned to dams has the effect of reducing the volume assigned to other resources. The 70% figure is still believed to be realistic of the volume of water available from dams, on average.


The unit management approach allowing additional allocation for watercourse diversions is unique to this region. Is it of

As per comment # 499 - Surface water and watercoursesThe operation of this limit will be broadly outlined in section 4 of the WAP, but it is more appropriate for further detail to be included in the planned explanatory guide for the final

169


value, or an unnecessary complication? Further detail is required of how this policy applies post allocation if the method of extraction changes.

WAP.


Regarding section 4.2.2.2 - why is evaporation less in watercourses than in dams?

Evaporation from watercourses isn't less than dams. The important factor in this section is the sequence of evaporation, water capture and when the volume of water allocation is measured, and at what point evaporation is accounted.For allocations from watercourses, the allocation is metered at the point where it is extracted from the watercourse. Any evaporation that occurs after that comes from within the allocation volume. In this case, the volume of loss from the resource is the allocation volume only (as evaporation after this is part of the allocation). However, for allocations from dams, the dam captures the water from the surface water resource, and then some of that water is lost as evaporation from the dam. The allocation volume is metered as water is taken from the dam for use, and so the evaporation is not included in the allocation volume. So in this case, the volume of loss from the resource is the allocation volume plus the evaporation from the dam.The policy outlined in section 4.2.2.2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP aims to treat allocations from these two types of sources equitably, by allowing the assumed evaporation that would occur from a dam to be allocated in the case where the allocation is taken from a watercourse diversion. This evaporation is already included in the modelling as a loss. So if all of the volume currently taken from dams was converted to watercourse allocations with the additional allocation that reflects the evaporation that would otherwise occur, the total volume lost from the resource would stay the same (i.e. dam allocation + evaporation volume = watercourse allocation volume). From the perspective of a downstream user or ecosystem, it doesn't matter if the water has been lost upstream as a result of evaporation or extraction - it simply has been removed from the system.Note that following consultation, the Board has recommended that the consumptive use limit for surface water and watercourses be amended to become an evaporation and consumptive use limit. The underlying concept is the same, but evaporation from dams is counted directly against the limit instead (see comment 499 in the 'Surface water and watercourses' section).


Regarding table 4.2 and 4.3, what happened to the other 3000 ML in the Finniss?

Please note that an alternative approach for setting the consumptive use limit for surface water and watercourses is recommended for the EMLR WAP (see comment 499 in the 'Surface water and watercourses' section), which supersedes the information in Tables

170


4.2 and 4.3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP. Hence the information below is no longer relevant to the final draft EMLR WAP, but is included for the sake of completeness.The 3000 ML difference between the minimum and maximum volumes that could be allocated in the Finniss, as given in Table 4.3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP, represents an additional volume available for allocation if all water was allocated to be taken from watercourses. The volume broadly represents the volume of evaporation expected to occur if all of the consumptive use limit was allocated to be taken from dams instead. The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes a unit management approach that allows more water to be allocated in the case where water is taken through a watercourse diversion, to account for the volume that would otherwise be lost via evaporation from a dam (as outlined in section 4.2.2.2 on page 85). Evaporation from a dam is a loss from the system, but is not included as part of the allocation to be taken from a dam or as part of the volumetric expression of the limit that can be taken from dams. However, when an allocation is taken from a watercourse, then the allocation is the volume taken from the watercourse, with any subsequent evaporative loss coming out of the allocation volume.In Table 4.3, the minimum volume that could be taken represents the volumetric limit if all of the water was taken from dams (excluding evaporation from dams). The maximum volume that could be taken represents the volumetric limit if all of the water was taken directly from watercourses (i.e. effectively includes an estimate of the evaporation volume from dams).


Proposed that a percentage of runoff should always be allocated per hectare of land, and should not be able to be traded away from that land. This means that water will always be available for that land, even if sold or new paddocks created. Concerned that some properties won't have water if a catchment is fully allocated and some paddocks won't be able to be sold as they could never be stocked if there is no water available. People should be able to access the 15% runoff they are entitled to from their property when required, even if this is years later.

In an area such as the EMLR, water using enterprises have been developed over time, and have existing levels of water requirement. This means that some properties need more water and some need less. The existing user allocation process under the NRM Act considers the needs of existing enterprises before future use is considered. This process requires that existing licensed users be given an allocation that meets their reasonable requirements, within sustainable resource limits, allowing those businesses to continue. If water was allocated based on a percentage of runoff from a property, then many of the more intensive water users (such as irrigators) may not get enough water to continue their existing businesses. They may then need to spend substantial sums to purchase water (if it is even available) to be able to continue their existing business. The NRM Act allows water to be transferred separately from land, in accordance with Council of Australian Government initiatives. It is up to the landholders with an allocation to decide whether they want to sell their allocation away from their property. Note that transfers need to be approved by the Minister, and are assessed under the relevant rules

171


in the water allocation plan. Note that water for free-ranging stock and for domestic purposes is not licensed in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges and therefore in this case there is no allocation to transfer.


As a stock and domestic user, thinks every property should be allocated 20% of runoff from their property, with no transfer allowed.



Stock and domestic water use has historically been able to co-exist with the environment, and this should be allowed to continue unencumbered by red tape. Intensive farming practice should be regulated (with meters at the government's expense). If the allocation limit is reached in an area and someone needs water for stock and domestic use, then the new large dams should give up some water. This should be factored into a minimum allocation for irrigation dams so that the base water rate is always available for others.

All water capture and use has the potential to affect other users, including the environment. Stock and domestic use makes up a substantial portion of water capture in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges - for example, 92% of dam in the area are non-licensed dams (e.g. used for stock and domestic purposes), comprising over 60% of the total dam capacity.The prescription process is not aimed at making judgements about the value of one type of water use over another, and it is not seen as appropriate to require one type of water use to be cut back to allow development for another purpose.One of the ways that the draft EMLR WAP protects the surface water resource is by placing a limit on the total dam volume allowed, for both stock and domestic and licensed use, in each management zone. Once that limit is reached, no further dam volume is permitted. However if a landholder requires additional dam capacity, he or she could negotiate with another second landholder in the zone to remove some of their capacity, perhaps in return for a payment, freeing up dam capacity for the first landholder.


The Tookayerta catchment is identified as an area that could see modifications to the consumptive use limit, up from the current levels in the draft EMLR WAP - what are the potential modifications that are being considered? Would like to see the limit capped at the current level of use given that most of the high priority Fleurieu Peninsula swamps in the EMLR occur in this catchment.

Please note that since consultation, revisions of the consumptive use limit for surface water and watercourses have been proposed (see comment 499 in 'Surface water and watercourses' section) and the concept of a joint limit for surface water, watercourses and underground water for Tookayerta catchment has been proposed (see comment 116 in the 'Interactions' section).As per comment # 499 - Surface water and watercoursesAs per comment # 116 - Interactions


The draft EMLR WAP prevents farmers from using water they have already been permitted to store (e.g. for stock and

Using more water from dams will make them take longer to fill and spill. This fill-spill process of a dam, along with runoff from catchment area downstream of the dam, has direct impacts on the amount, timing and duration of water availability and hence, the

172


domestic use) for other valid purposes such as irrigation. This doesn't make sense, as water stored in dams will not return to streams and aquifers if unused. The proposed solution is to allow farmers to use water they already store for irrigation or other farming purposes. This would have no impact on sub-surface water stores, and would have a positive effect by returning some of the currently sequestered water to streams and aquifers through runoff.

reliability of supply of downstream water users, including the environment. Given the above, it is reasonable to expect that with higher use from a dam, the reliability of supply to downstream users would be lower, and flow to downstream users, including the environment, will be delayed. The limits on the volume that can be taken from dams at a management zone scale have been set to result in an adequate pattern of dam filling and spilling over time to provide water to downstream users and to support environmental processes that depend on moderate to high flows as well.


The extraction limit of 10% in management zones that contain Fleurieu Peninsula swamps in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges WAP is applicable to the EMLR WAP as well. It is recommended that the 10% limit also applies to swamps outside the Fleurieu Peninsula that have similarly high biodiversity and habitat values. For consistency and full recognition of the endangered nature of these ecosystems it is essential that they are afforded the same level of protection.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP sets a limit of 15% of adjusted runoff for the catchment area above significant environmental assets, which includes Fleurieu Peninsula swamps. This limit is intended to provide local scale protection to important assets.


Over the last few years, the Bremer River has had better water at the beginning of the season (after the first few days of water has flushed out) due to the water coming from urban runoff in Mt Barker. This early season water is needed to flush salt from the soil and promote pasture growth.

As per comment # 5 - Surface water and watercoursesAs per comment # 162 - Surface water and watercourses


Local flow patterns have changed such that early season flows are now fresher (due to runoff from urban areas around Mt Barker). Practical issues [with the policy on letting the first flush through] in terms of access to this

Thank you for your observations on changing salinity patterns in the lower Bremer. Visual assessment of the flow and salinity record from the Hartley flow gauge also suggests a change in the salinity pattern in recent years, with generally fewer periods of higher salinity during periods of reasonable flow from around 2006. A statistical assessment of salinity trends in the EMLR over 1994-2007 found a decreasing salinity trend in the

173


better quality water, and with the flow rates and time taken for those flows to traverse the district. Agencies need to examine the recent salinity data to verify assertion that early Bremer flows are fresher than those of 15 years ago. This will become more significant as Mt Barker continues to expand.

Bremer River at Hartley, but a stable trend in Mt Barker Creek and the Upper Bremer River (both sites just upstream of the confluence of Mt Barker Creek and Bremer River). It was suggested that declining salinity at Hartley may be due to dilution (between the major tributaries), or perhaps because of reduced inflow of saline baseflow due to the dry conditions from 2000 (Hyder Consulting 2007).The primary purpose of the policy to let the first flush through is to allow for movement of animals such as fish, and other materials, through the lower reaches of the river. There is anecdotal evidence of migratory fish such as congolli moving down the system with the first flows of the season (Hammer 2004), and the first flush policy aims to assist such movements.Analysis of stream flow records at Hartley and Ballandown Road shows that the average travel time for a flow peak between these sites on the Bremer River is 35 hours (unpublished data from DEWNR).


References: Hammer, M, 2004, The Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges fish inventory: distribution and conservation of freshwater fishes in the tributaries of the lower River Murray, South Australia, Native Fish Australia (SA) Inc., Adelaide. Hyder Consulting, 2007, Updating stream salinity curves for the catchments of the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, Hyder Consulting, Melbourne.


Concerned that the requirement to not take flows below the threshold flow rate will render landholder's business unviable. Bremer River (Wanstead) is sole source of water to irrigate lucerne and finish cereal hay crops (stock fodder). Generally irrigate during low flows - don't need water during high flows - but won't be able to take water at this time. Observations are that most low flows below Wanstead Road are lost to the river bed, so returning low flows in this area won't benefit environment. Propose instead that extraction is prevented from 1 April to 31 July to

The potential impact of the requirement not to take water below the threshold flow rate on existing watercourse diverters is acknowledged. Recommend that principles 50-53 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to allow the Minister to set an alternative threshold flow rate, or alternative rules for providing low flows, for existing users in exceptional cases, in a manner that does not compromise water-dependent ecosystems or other users.Such alternatives will be explored and developed in consultation with the community through the upcoming implementation program for returning low flows, and will be implemented though the existing user allocation program (which is separate from the water allocation plan). Any alternative approaches will need to be a careful balance between environmental needs and the consumptive needs of different water users.

174


balance environment and irrigation needs.


Concerned with the proposal that lower Bremer irrigators will not be able to access river water until flow has reached Ballandown Road. With large investment in their property and significant water requirements for dairying, they need water security to support their business and provide food security for the community - particularly given the loss of farmers from the dairy industry. Their property is at Bletchley and a lot of water disappears into the sandy river bed from Stanton's weir down to the bottom, which means they will not be able to irrigate at all. Water will only be able to be taken in mid-winter, which is not when they require water to irrigate their pastures (supporting their dairy herd) as there is ample soil moisture. They need water most in autumn when the soil is dry and plant growth is restricted by salt building up in the soil. Their bores have high salt levels which are borderline for irrigating lucerne. Ample water would be available for the environment in winter, and the amount of water taken by irrigators compared with the water entering the river bed would be miniscule.

We acknowledge that the requirement to let the first flush through significantly disadvantages those who divert lower flows and are at the upstream end of the Bremer plains area. The watercourse limits on the lower Angas and Bremer Rivers are structured so that there are 2 "types" of allocations with different taking rules:1. The consumptive use limit that is available across the whole catchment - associated taking rule is that low flows are to be returned2. Additional water available for allocation in the lower Angas and Bremer only - associated taking rule is that low flows are to be returned AND the first flush is to be let throughOptions to be further investigated as part of the separate existing user allocation process managed by DEWNR are:1. Those who access lower flows over the year will have the opportunity to be granted the first type of allocation, and so will not need to let the first flush through before they can take water. 2. Infrastructure with the capacity to take water at a high rate will be granted the second type of allocation and will need to let the first flush through, given the collective capacity to remove significant volumes of water from the stream. This process for determining the different types of allocations is still being finalised, and it is expected that DEWNR will be in contact with landholders in the second half of 2012.DEWNR is currently working through an allocation process and will be engaging with the community before adopting a final policy position.As per comment # 53 - Surface water and watercourses


In relation to resolution 5 (submission 18), further concerns with the application of the threshold flow rate proposal to stream extractions is the additional requirements to be imposed on lower Angas-Bremer water users. Concerns include severe restriction of access to water with access limited to unsuitable times; and uncertainty on how the

As per comment # 162 - Surface water and watercoursesAs per comment # 53 - Surface water and watercoursesAs per comment # 788 - Surface water and watercourses

175


Ballandown Road flows and allowable extraction periods will be reported to users.


Abolish low flow regulators until more data is collected and understood. Alternatively, at worst case scenario, have a low flow indicator at Wanstead Road (Stanton's Ford) such that when water reaches a certain flow, it triggers the ability of those north of Langhorne Creek to be able to pump water. Use drippers instead of flood irrigation and have to wait until large flow event subside for water to be clean enough to be able to take water. Low flow may take over a month to reach Ballandown Road, by which time it is dry at Bletchley. Understand the need for sufficient flow for fish passage but family's long experience in the area shows fish only (move out of dams and) travel back upstream in wet years with 4-6 months of flow - occurs with a long high flow event, not low flows - so returning low flows won't assist. The first rains don't overtop the dams, but do create runoff from urban areas - horticultural and viticultural areas need to be able to use this water when the dams are not overflowing. Sure that when dams do overflow, local industries would stop pumping (if it's a manageable time frame) and allow the passage of fish through the system.



Requirement to let first flush through for lower Bremer River will be totally unworkable. The 100 ML/day first flush trigger is too high. In dry years, water does not make it to Ballandown Road and irrigators diverting water for red gum swamps will be affected as

It is acknowledged that the new taking rules proposed for the lower Angas and Bremer rivers may affect the historical practices in the area. However, it is important to balance the needs of local irrigators, and the needs of ecosystems on the floodplain, in the channel and at the end of the system. The capacity to divert significant volumes of water at a high rate in the area means that it is important to set up taking rules to share water between these different requirements. It is recognised that diverting flow from the

176


they will not be able to take water. Recent history is that the first flows of water in the lower Bremer River are very good quality (coming off Mt Barker Creek area). Later flows from the Bremer catchment have higher salt loads and can be unsuitable for irrigating vines. The requirement to wait for the first flush trigger means irrigators won't be able to take the better quality water.

watercourse is an important source of water for red gums on the floodplains, but this also affects in-stream and downstream environmental needs. Letting the first flush through has been identified by fish experts as a key requirement to allow movement of migratory fish that move between stream, lake and marine habitats for different parts of their lifecycle. There is anecdotal evidence of migratory fish such as congolli moving down the system with the first flows of the season (Hammer 2004), and the first flush policy aims to assist such movements.We acknowledge the concern that the requirement to let the first flush through may mean that users may not have enough time in a flow event to access enough water. The modelling of flow against environmental provisions have been re-examined, and it appears to be a reasonable compromise to reduce the duration of first flush trigger from 24 hours to instantaneous (i.e. flow can be taken as soon as the flow rate at Ballandown Road meets the first flush trigger flow rate, rather than it needing to meet that rate for 24 hours - noting that flow is to be taken in a way to maintain the threshold flow rate in the watercourse). Recommend amending principle 57 a) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP so that the first flush trigger needs to be met instantaneously (rather than for a period of 24 hours) at Ballandown Road before flow can be taken. The current flow pattern from the data measured at the water-level detector at Ballandown Road (Bremer River) shows that this revised first flush trigger has been met in every year that flow has reached Ballandown Road over period that data is available (2004-2011), except for 2007. That is, in 2007 flow reached Ballandown Road but didn't meet the first flush trigger; in 2008 flow didn't reach Ballandown Road at all; and flow reached Ballandown Road and met the first flush trigger in the other years over 2004-2011. This is under current conditions with no taking rules. If the proposed taking rules were implemented, the number of years that the first flush trigger is met may be expected to increase and the time at which this happens may be expected to be earlier in the season in some years. Analysis of the current flow pattern shows that in some years, the first significant flow peak of the season reaches Ballandown Road soon after it reaches water monitors at Bletchley or Langhorne Creek (e.g. 2011); but in other years the first flow peaks that reach Langhorne Creek don't make it to Ballandown Road, or are substantially delayed (e.g. 2009), and it is likely that water extraction plays a role in this.For 2004-2010 (years of relatively complete record for flow season) under current conditions, it is likely that flow could be taken under the proposed taking rules for an average of 21 days/year for the years where the first flush trigger was met. This has been assessed based on current flow, and so the number of days when flow could be taken

177


under the proposed taking rules may be expected to increase if the rules are implemented, as the first flush trigger may be met earlier.


References: Hammer, M, 2004, The Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges fish inventory: distribution and conservation of freshwater fishes in the tributaries of the lower River Murray, South Australia, Native Fish Australia (SA) Inc., Adelaide.


Concerns about triggers and weir deployment rules for lower Bremer - supports the concept of releasing early low flows for the benefit of the environment, but this needs to be workable. Suggest that the trigger flow rate for deployment of in-stream weirs should be lower (40 ML/day for the Angas and 60 ML/day for the Bremer) given the distance between the majority of weirs and Ballandown Road. The majority of flows are small and compact. It takes less time to [push water onto the floodplain] with faster fuller flows, and when flow rates drop, it is harder to get water to areas of crops and red gum swamps that are higher on the floodplain.Earlier flows in the season are better quality given expanding urban development, and later flows are poorer quality due to more intensive farming in the catchment, and taking this water is detrimental to crops and red gum swamps.



Requirement to let first flush through for lower Bremer River will be totally unworkable. How will irrigators know when they can start

The Board and DEWNR will work with the community to identify suitable mechanisms for alerting water users that the triggers have been met in relation to flow conditions at Ballandown Road. The flow monitoring sites are telemetered, so information can be

178


taking water? There should be only one flow event, instead of there being a new flow event starting if there is 20 days under the threshold flow rate of 43.2 ML/day. How will irrigators know the flow rate is under 43.2 ML/day?

made available on a website, and there may be other communication options to explore as well. The flow triggers at Ballandown Road are used to determine whether or not it is a 'flow event' (i.e. whether water taking can occur in general). The additional factor at a local scale is the requirement that flows at or below the threshold flow rate (at the point of water taking) are not to be taken or are otherwise returned. The threshold flow rate can be expressed as a flow level for a given location, based on the stream cross section and other characteristics. Therefore a depth marker can be used to identify when flow is over the threshold flow rate at a particular location, and the requirement to protect flows below the threshold flow rate could be met by setting pump off-take or the base level of sluice gates at the appropriate height. The Board will work together with the community, DEWNR and Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board to develop an implementation program for returning low flows that is focussed on outcomes. As part of this program, we are keen to work together to explore different ways of achieving the outcome of protecting or returning low flows across the landscape in ways that make sense for individual properties and circumstances.

It is seen as being important to respond to multiple flow events. Letting the first flush through of a new flow event is important, as a new flow event is expected to trigger further fish movement events. In addition, having multiple flow events allows those with in-stream weirs to have multiple sets of 48 cumulative hours (per flow event) to deploy their weirs.


Meter readings could be used to determine the water taken by irrigators between Stanton's weir and Ballandown Road over 5-10 years to determine the amount absorbed by the river bed.

Agree that metering water diversion will be important to help better understand how much water moves through different paths in the landscape. This measurement is complicated by the practical difficulties in metering some types of diversions, unmeasured losses from overbank flow, and unknown volumes returned to the river from the floodplain after diversion or overbank flow.


Every megalitre of water extracted from the Angas or Bremer is a megalitre that doesn't need to be taken from the River Murray. Issues of carbon footprint, cost and impracticality to pump River Murray water from Jervois when water of same quality is present in the local system but unavailable to

Agree that policy needs to consider the bigger picture, but it also needs to consider water needs at a local scale. The water-taking policies have been proposed for the lower Angas and Bremer River in order to provide a balance between water needs (both consumptive and environmental) on the floodplain, in the stream, and at the end-of-system. Current practices are providing water to red gum swamps on the floodplain, but more needs to be done to protect environmental needs in the stream (e.g. fish migration from the hills to Lake Alexandrina and the marine environment) and at the end of the

179


be taken due to poor impractical bureaucratic policy. Need to consider the broader picture (e.g. carbon footprint vs. water management) and have complementary policy across agencies.

system.


The duration that in-stream weirs can be deployed should be modified to recognise that in some cases, more than one licensed user uses the same weir and that more time than 48 hours would be required to get sufficient water onto crops and red gum swamps in most cases. Recommends changing the duration that in-stream weirs can be deployed to be 40 hours per licensed user per flow event.

The period of 48 hours was chosen as a balance between enough time to get water onto the floodplain to supply crops and red gum swamps, impacts of flow blockages on movement of fish through the system, and impacts on water availability for downstream users. Information provided by water users during the Land and Water Use Surveys in the area on duration of deployment of in-stream weirs was that they are deployed for less than 48 hours.It will be important to monitor and assess the impact of these proposals on different users and the environment, and there is scope to modify conditions if there are problems and the proposals are not achieving the desired outcomes.


References (to appropriate modelling) should be included on impact of lower Angas Bremer taking rules on users, to allow assessment of how many users will be affected and changes in ability to take historical water requirements

Agree.Recommend including information in section 2.4.2.3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP outlining the modelled impact of the proposed watercourse water-taking rules for high rate extractions in the lower Angas and Bremer River on the ability to take water.

266 - Technical concerns

Concerned about uncertainty of current understanding of water resources and environmental needs and that assessments of resource capacity and the impact of various water management scenarios are based only on modelling rather than actual measured data. The document explains some of the modelling methodology, but has the modelling methodology been used elsewhere? Where was it developed? Has this modelling been used in other plans and found to be accurate?

The Board believes that the draft EMLR WAP is underpinned by sound science, including long-term datasets on underground water dynamics, climate, flow and ecological responses, as well as specific investigations and modelling undertaken using techniques drawn from established science. The datasets, investigation techniques and modelling platforms used to support the prescription process, and their assumptions, are outlined in the peer-reviewed reports available on the websites of DEWNR and the Board.The methodology for developing, calibrating and scenario testing with surface water models is consistent with standard modelling practices (see “Guidelines for Rainfall-Runoff Modelling – Towards Best Practice Model Application, 2011, eWater CRC” at www.ewater.com.au/publications/). Similar methodology has been used for catchments across the country. The expert panel approach used to determine environmental water requirements in the Mount Lofty Ranges is a well-established technique for documenting these requirements for areas with limited data (e.g. see

180


www.water.vic.gov.au/environment/rivers/flows/assessment for information on the similar FLOWs methodology used in Victoria). The techniques used for the Mount Lofty Ranges have been reviewed by CSIRO and Monash University.It is acknowledged that data is available for a limited number of places in the landscape. However, it also needs to be noted that this is not unique for the EMLR and that it is standard practise to use modelling tools and techniques to extrapolate to areas with insufficient or no data. While there is inevitably some degree of uncertainty in the data derived, the ongoing monitoring program will provide further understanding of the accuracy of the data for the specific resources of the EMLR, provide further data to assess and re-calibrate models if required, and allow the EMLR WAP to be improved through the review process. As outlined in response to comment 265 (section 'MERI'), it is recommended that the monitoring and evaluation section of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be expanded. In the meanwhile, the EMLR WAP should include provision to consider additional adequate data on local runoff characteristics where this data is available. Recommend that the limits relating to available surface water runoff, calculated at the local scale (principles 43, 46, 249 and 251 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP), be amended to allow use of an alternative runoff value where adequate data demonstrating an alternative value can be presented to the Minister's satisfaction.


Concerned with inadequacies in the data and modelling on matters such as underground water and flows to meet key environmental objectives.

As per comment # 266 - Technical concernsAs per comment # 644 - Technical concerns


The flawed science within this plan has already been exposed by a number of non-Government scientists.The proposed plan will challenge the viability of many farms, so valid scientific reports that argue a range of opinions, not just those exclusively commissioned by the Department for Water or the NRM Board, must be part of the justification of the plan.

The Board and DEWNR believes that the science used in developing the draft EMLR WAP is sound and uses the best available data. We are interested to receive any specific concerns with the science or evidence of flaws, and to consider other scientific information presented.The Board and DEWNR have used the available reliable data that has been collected to appropriate standards in relation to water resource supply and ecosystem condition (such as rainfall, flow, underground water level and salinity, and fish and macroinvertebrate condition). Analysis and modelling of that data and information on resource impacts and resource assessment is described in peer-reviewed, published technical reports available from the Board and DEWNR (e.g. on our websites at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au, and

181


www.waterconnect.sa.gov.au).


The government's hydrology data regarding dam water retention is flawed, as admitted during discussion at the Strathalbyn public meeting.

The best available information on dam capacity has been used, including field measurements where available, and is considered to be of appropriate accuracy for the purpose of use.First and foremost, information on dam capacities has been collected directly from landholders by DEWNR during pre-arranged site visits to properties using water for licensed purposes. This information includes existing survey and construction information, and on-site measurements where existing survey information is not available. Once depth measurements have been taken, a formula of surface area multiplied by the depth of the dam is used, with a factor built into the equation to reflect the fact that the dam has batters which are generally 3 to 1 batters. There is also a separate gully dam formula used in instances where a dam is built in a steep gully. A project was undertaken to test the accuracy of the formula against a variety of dams in the Mount Lofty Ranges which had a known capacity. This project helped refine the formula. In general, the formula provides an acceptable level of accuracy in dam measurements.Where this information has not been collected, dam capacities have been estimated using aerial photography to determine the surface area of dams. A tested formula was then used to determine depth and calculate volumes. The dam capacity estimate is based on the dam size at the time of construction.The datasets, investigation techniques and modelling platforms used to support the prescription process, and their assumptions, are outlined in the peer-reviewed reports available on the websites of DEWNR and the Board.In relation to surface water modelling, the methodology used to (i) calibrate rainfall-runoff catchment models for gauged areas, (ii) extend these calibrated models to ungauged areas, (iii) model the impacts of current extractions, in particular the impacts of farm dams on flow regimes, and (iv) modelling other management scenarios for the EMLR WAP is consistent with standard modelling practice. Refer to “Guidelines for Rainfall-Runoff Modelling – Towards Best Practice Model Application, 2011, eWater CRC” (http://www.ewater.com.au/publications/). Similar methodology has been used for catchments across the country.

427 - Transfer

We recommend that consideration be given to long term plan growth in scale of our business in the future, and flexibility to allow for an increase in water use to allow this

You may be able to increase your allocation by transferring in an allocation from another user, within the transfer rules of the EMLR WAP and with Ministerial approval. In addition, after careful consideration of the responses made during consultation, the Board has decided to recommend that new allocations be allowed in zones that are not fully

182


growth. developed, within the rules and limits set out in the EMLR WAP (see comment 75 in 'New allocations' section). The best available information on water availability and environmental needs indicates that further sustainable production can be supported in certain areas. In both cases, the Minister may allocate more water where it meets the provisions in the EMLR WAP, which aim to protect the resource and minimise potential impacts on other users, including the environment.

630 - Transfer

Transfer criteria - what are the priorities? All objectives and principles in the draft EMLR WAP apply equally, so there is no need to prioritise them.

509 - Transfer

Section 6 confusing, 6.1.115 & 6.1.117 appear to be at odds.

Acknowledge that the wording of these principles is confusing in the consultation draft EMLR WAP. It is intended that principles 116 and 117 are exceptions to principle 115, but this is not clear.Recommend that principles 115-117 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP be re-drafted (as outlined in response to comment 737).

243 - Transfer

Production mix fluctuates based on a range of issues and market conditions, not only climate and commodity prices. Need to ensure the policy framework (including transfer) enables decisions to be made effectively based on market signals. (also section 1.5.6 on page 43)

A key role of the EMLR WAP is to guide sustainable water management to protect water resources and minimise impacts on other users, including the environment. The transfer policies have been developed to provide for this and allow for changes in water allocations via transfer within these constraints. The ability to respond to market signals should not come at the expense of other users to be able to do so as well or long-term resource sustainability.

292 - Transfer

It is recommended that the EMLR WAP includes provision for licensed livestock enterprises to temporarily access water from a non-licensed source in emergency situations where food safety and/or animal welfare implications are involved (recommendation 17).

The preferred approach would be for existing users to include all sources that they may take water from as sources on their licence, including emergency sources, but it is acknowledged that this is not always practical. Recommend that a principle be added to section 5.4 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP that give the ability for the Minister to vary a licence to approve temporary use of an existing allocation from an unlicensed source for licensed use, provided it is a limited volume (up to 500kL), limited period (up to 2 months), limited circumstances (emergency - source failure or replacement of water used by emergency services in emergency situations), and sources existed at date of adoption (as the existing user process is likely to have allowed use from that source); or under other exceptional circumstances as appropriate.

341 - Transfer

The AMLR NRM Board supports the transferability of underground water between

Noted. Inclusion of provisions in the Western Mount Lofty Ranges (WMLR) WAP allowing transfer of underground water allocations between the EMLR and WMLR will work

183


catchments, including across the boundary with the EMLR WAP. Transfers of surface water and watercourse water are not supported across catchment boundaries.

together with principle 116-118 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to allow limited movement of water within properties straddling the boundary of the two regions.

365 - Transfer

Recommend any transfers of water allocations should adhere to the same conditions that apply to original allocations.

Each case assessed based on its own individual situation in accordance with rules in the EMLR WAP. It may not always be appropriate for the original conditions to be included on transfer. For example, some existing users may not be required to return low flows (determined as part of the proposed strategic location project that aims to identify whether low flows can be returned at fewer locations while still achieving the environmental targets). If such an allocation got transferred to be taken at a new location, it would be appropriate to amend the conditions to include the requirement to return low flows.

608 - Transfer

Will surface water catchment transfer be done through a committee or as a user pays?

Transfer applications are made to DEWNR, who assess it against the relevant policies in the relevant water allocation plan. A fee is payable for transfer applications. The detail of any payment between the transferor and transferee is an agreement between the parties, and is not administered by DEWNR.

692 - Transfer

Suggest that in some circumstances, it may be appropriate to allow transfer of water between prescribed areas (principle 116-117), and between hills and plains zones (principle 127). This could include stormwater mixed with treated wastewater under licence (e.g. Mt Barker to Murray Bridge is hills to plains).

For the purposes of the NRM Act, "transfer" essentially means a transfer or change in ownership of the right to take water, not physical transport of the water itself. Under a transfer, one person stops taking water so that another person can start taking water. This may be at the same location (e.g. on sale of property), or in a new location.This means that piping stormwater from Mount Barker to Murray Bridge is not a transfer in the sense of the NRM Act. The stormwater is still captured or taken in Mount Barker, and this is the water taking that would be licensed. So the consultation draft EMLR WAP policies limiting transfer between hills and plains wouldn't apply in the case of piping stormwater from Mount Barker to Murray Bridge.The location of use is also recognised on the licence, and if an allocation was piped to be taken elsewhere then is likely that an application would need to be made to vary the licence to include the new location of use (variation, not transfer). Such a variation would be assessed against the relevant principles in the EMLR WAP that relate to water use (e.g. principles 6-9 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP) to manage the risk of impacts of water use such as rising water tables or importation of salt.The draft EMLR WAP doesn't restrict where water may be used except for the general allocation principles assessing potential impacts of use. However, the variations section of the consultation draft EMLR WAP (section 5.4) does not make it clear that a variation in the location of use is to be assessed against the relevant allocation principles.

184


Recommend that principle 111 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to require assessment of the relevant principles and objectives where a licence is varied to change the location of use.Stormwater is part of the surface water resource, so capture and use for licensed purposes requires an allocation and licence. Wastewater is generally not a prescribed water resource, and so taking and using (and transferring) wastewater doesn't require an allocation and licence. However, use of treated wastewater in the EMLR is likely to require either an environmental authorisation from the Environment Protection Authority, or a water affecting activity permit under the Board's Regional NRM Plan or the EMLR WAP.

188 - Transfer

All licences should stay with the property, with no transfer to other landholders within the region or to other areas. This would obviate a repeat of the mishmash transfer of interstate licences which has occurred in the Murray-Darling Basin.

The NRM Act allows water to be transferred separately from land, in accordance with Council of Australian Government initiatives. It is up to the landholder to decide whether they want to try to sell their allocation away from their property. If a landholder wants to transfer an allocation then it is assessed under the relevant provisions of the relevant water allocation plan, and may only occur if taking water at the new location is within the sustainable limits.Transfer can allow a user to start a new business, expand or change an existing business, or to manage water supply risks to existing businesses by having extra water (e.g. buy in extra water to be taken from a back-up well to help to drought-proof a business that largely relies on water from a dam). Transfer also allows someone to realise the benefit of their water asset if they no longer need it by selling it to someone else, in the same way as they can sell other assets.

510 - Transfer

Trading should not be allowed, and consumptive water allocations should remain with the land to which the allocation was made. When properties are sub-divided, allocations could be apportioned to the sub-divisions. In an extreme case, trading may allow all the water from a catchment/underground water zone (or even other catchments) at one property.

As per comment # 188 - TransferApportioning allocation on subdivision would reduce the amount of water available to the original business and may result in it becoming unviable. The rules in the draft EMLR WAP generally wouldn't allow all the allocations from a management zone or region to be transferred to one property (unless the management zone coincided with a single large property, or the property was at the downstream end of the catchment). Principles in the plan have the effect of keeping allocations spread out across the landscape, such as the high intensity use zone principles for underground water (principles 90-91 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP), and the principles limiting surface water allocations to available runoff (principle 43). The management zone limits and catchment limits would prevent water from all catchments ending up on one property.

592 - Transfer of water between different It is the right to take water that is being transferred, not the water itself. Basically it means

185


Transfer catchments in the EMLR does not make sense. Transfer between underground water management zones - why?

that water stops being taken at the original location, and an equivalent volume of water can be taken at the new location. A transfer does not mean physically moving water from one area to another. Transfers are assessed under the rules in the WAP. The transfer rules in the draft EMLR WAP aim to protect users and the environment from impacts of new water use in their area as a result of a transfer from one place to another. A transfer will only be approved it if meets all the relevant limits in the WAP, so an allocation can only be transferred between catchments (or management zones) if water is available within the limits of the catchment or zone receiving the transfer.

242 - Transfer

PIRSA supports the temporary trade provisions to provide flexibility to adapt to variable seasonal conditions.

Noted.

295 - Transfer

The Dairy Industry supports the water allocation process in part, because it includes volumetric licensing and provision for the sale and transfer of sustainable water usage between users. The industry also supports temporary transfers between users.

Noted.

313 - Transfer

Supports the policy of trade and enabling transfer between catchments and zones, subject to allocation principles and objectives. This will ensure water is valued by the community and enable sustainable development.

Noted.

248 - Transfer

Further detail is sought regarding connectivity between the Hills and Plains, and therefore the rationale of the policy for no transfer between hills and plains.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes restrictions on transfer of surface water or watercourse water between hills and plains (see principles 127-128 and associated text in section 4.2.2.1). In some catchments, most or all of the flow is generated in the wetter hills part of the catchment, followed by natural movement of flow from the watercourse into the shallow underground water aquifer across the plains, but the scale and pattern of those losses is poorly known. It would be possible that the whole volume of the consumptive use limit generated in the hills could be allocated to be taken from the plains, but a significant (but unknown) proportion of that water would naturally move into the aquifer underground water as well, which could mean that the environmental needs at the

186


end of the system may not be met. The Board has re-assessed this restriction in the light of better information of existing user demand on the plains and evolving watercourse management policy. The vast majority of watercourse demand from the plains area is in the lower Angas and Bremer catchments. Specific watercourse allocations with particular taking rules and transfer rules are included for this area in the consultation draft EMLR WAP (principles 55-58), which supersede the "hills and plains" considerations outlined above. In other catchments with dry plains areas that naturally lose flow into shallow aquifers, the demand for water is very low, and given that water is only opportunistically available, is unlikely to significantly increase. It is considered to be low risk to allow transfer between hills and plains in these cases, and removing these principles simplifies the plan. Recommend deleting principles 127-128 and associated text in section 4.2.2.1 from the consultation draft EMLR WAP.It is intended that the specific watercourse allocations in the lower Angas and Bremer catchments can't be transferred to be taken elsewhere though, as these allocations have been granted in recognition of the specific nature of the landscape, flow pattern and infrastructure in that area. This intention should be made more explicit in the draft EMLR WAP, particularly in light of the recommended deletion of the hills and plains transfer policy as above.Recommend adding a principle to section 6.2.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to make it clear that the specific lower Angas-Bremer allocation types are not able to be transferred out of their management zone, or transferred or varied to be taken from another resource.

631 - Transfer

What does principle 126 mean? Principle 126 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP allows an allocation from surface water or watercourses to be transferred to be taken from a different catchment, provided that the transfer is consistent with the relevant allocation principles (catchment limits, zone limits, local scale limits and so on). For example, this would mean that an allocation wouldn't be able to be transferred to be taken in a catchment that is fully allocated, or if taking water in the new location is likely to affect downstream users, or exceeds the limit upstream of a significant environmental asset.

402 - Underground water

The underground water in the Angas River Plains region is being replaced by increasingly saline underground water. If the rate of extraction cannot be reduced at this time, it is recommended that future

The EMLR WAP continues to allow the current practices of ASR which utilises surface water from a number of sources which include the Angas and Bremer Rivers, Lake Alexandrina and the River Murray. Volumes of water recharged have increased greatly in recent years. Salinity trends now appear to be declining after significant increases were

187


management of this confined aquifer be artificial recharge with fresher water.

observed due to increased extraction during the drought.


Our underground aquifers have been fully replenished by the massive floods interstate and heavy early rains. It is a scientific fact that at least 5 times more fresh water beneath the Earth’s surface than there is above it.

The only connection between the aquifers of the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges and the River Murray waterways carrying flood water from Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria occurs in close proximity to the River Murray and Lake Alexandrina. Underground water monitoring along the River Murray in South Australia has shown that recharge from the floods is restricted to the River Murray valley, with a small amount of spread to the side (S. Barnett (DEWNR) pers. comm. June 2012). The high flows in the River Murray are not able to push water up against gravity into the aquifers in the hills of the EMLR.Monitoring data of underground water levels shows a wide range of trends. There is some recovery of water level in some monitoring wells due to higher rainfall following the recent dry conditions, but often not to the levels seen in wetter times. Water levels in other wells have remained stable, and others have continued to decline. This data is available at:https://obswell.pir.sa.gov.au/new/obsWell/MainMenu/menuAgree that there are significant volumes of water underground. Managing the water level is a key issue for underground water so that existing wells and dependent ecosystems can continue to access water.


Regarding table 4.6 - contradiction - how can you have a new well if exceeding consumptive use?

Well construction is independent of the volume allocated to be taken from the well. For example, an existing allocation of a given volume taken from one well could be split to be taken from two wells without increasing the total volume taken.


Regarding table 4.6 - what are the "exceptions" for overlap?

A new well or transfer will be refused if its well buffer zone overlaps another buffer zone, with exceptions to this policy set out in principles 83-89 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP. In summary, overlap is allowed where the allocation was originally granted to an existing user and there has been no change in location or condition and no increase in allocation volume (as may occur when an allocation is transferred together with sale of property); or if no significant detrimental impact on other wells can be demonstrated via a suitable pump test (doesn't apply if an environmental buffer is overlapped), or for replacement wells. A landholder is also able to overlap their own well buffer zones (as per principle 78).

615 - Underground

Page 171 - underground de-watering is exactly the opposite of good water

Agree. The EMLR WAP aims to keep underground water extraction within sustainable limits to maintain water resource condition.

188


water management principles.


Suggest providing an explanation of the basis for the underground water buffer zone sizes.

The size of a buffer around any given well corresponds to the anticipated drawdown effect, and has been determined on the basis of information from studies of drawdown around wells in the Mount Lofty Ranges (e.g. Costar et al 2009) and modelling information, together with consideration of the effects of different levels of extraction or drawdown, and different aquifer characteristics.Recommend including information on how the buffer distances were determined in section 4.3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.During subsequent discussion, it has been identified that the drawdown around ecological assets is likely to be less than the drawdown caused by pumping water from a well, and is recommended that the environmental buffer distance be reduced from 200 m to 50 m to reflect this.Recommend amending environmental buffer distances to be 50 m in Table 5.3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP and associated explanatory text.


More information is required on buffer sizes for underground water extraction.

As per comment # 257 - Underground water


Principle 83 - overlap of buffer zone with environmental buffer zone needs review.

A water allocation plan generally applies to new activities that start after the plan is adopted. The draft EMLR WAP includes principles that aim to protect water-dependent ecosystems from potential negative impacts of new allocations or transfers through the use of buffer zones.There may be significant negative impacts on an existing business if they are required to cease taking water where that practice was in place before adoption of the EMLR WAP. The potential negative impacts of existing water-taking activities at water-dependent ecosystems are likely to be localised. Therefore it was considered that such existing activities should be able to continue as part of achieving a balance between social, economic and environmental needs for water.


The Dairy Industry supports the proposals for buffer zones for underground water wells (resolution 4).

Noted.

314 - Underground

Supports underground water buffer zones as a mechanism to prevent impacts on

Noted.

189


water neighbouring water users and to protect existing users from future development impacts.


Commends the use of buffer zones around existing wells, and larger buffer zones around significant environmental assets.

Noted.


Do not agree with process of micro zone (sub-catchment) assessments which have resulted in putting us in Orange zone in Tookayerta Catchment (Permian Sands). Very upset with process and outcome and find this unacceptable given the science is at best questionable and the detail clearly non-transparent in any fact sheet. Large size of the zone dilutes our final average allocation, given that the sharing pool is much greater, irrespective of local conditions. Due consideration should be given to localised areas rather than broad-scale approach covering what happens 15 km away. Previous government testing has shown that drawdown was non-existent after 48 hours of continuous irrigation. DWLBC Tookayerta surface water assessment report states that farm activities in this catchment has a low impact on flows in comparison to similar EMLR catchments.

The processes for determining the management zones for underground water and the limits for those zones are set out in sections 1.4.2 and 4.3.3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.The underground water management zone boundaries are based on the type of underground water system determined from geological mapping and well drilling information, split further by catchment boundaries. This means that the underground water system across a zone will have relatively similar characteristics, although there will be local-scale variation.Having a larger management zone does increase the number of users within the zone, but also means that the amount of water to be shared amongst those users is also larger.Monitoring of underground water in Tookayerta catchment has shown an overall decline in water level over the 10 year period to 2010, for 21 out of the 24 monitoring wells in the area. There has been some recovery in recent times, but the historical trend highlights that the water resources need to be managed carefully to protect users, including the environment. This monitoring data is available at:https://obswell.pir.sa.gov.au/new/obsWell/MainMenu/menuAgree that farm dam impacts in Tookayerta catchment are relatively small compared to other catchments in the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges, but this is separate from the effects of underground water use and watercourse diversions.


The EMLR WAP needs to clearly enunciate the rights of users to replace pre-existing, structurally failed wells (with permit approval) irrespective of any zone management controls (recommendation 7).

The consultation draft EMLR WAP allows for replacement of wells under certain circumstances in principle 218. Well construction is a water affecting activity that requires a permit rather than a licence. Well construction permits are independent of zone limits, but are generally subject to buffer zones. However, principle 218 allows replacement wells, despite the buffer zone rules, under certain conditions including that the new well must be within 50 m of the original well, and that the original well is being replaced due to an operational problem. Structural failure would be considered to be an operational

190


problem and it would be useful to make this clear in the WAP. Recommend amending principle 218 b) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP by adding "such as structural failure of the original well" to the end.


It is recommended that repair or replacement of underground water pumps does not require permit approval (recommendation 8). Noted that a permit is required for repairing or replacing the casing, lining or screen of a well.

A permit is not required to repair or replace a underground water pump. A permit is only required when there are works affecting the structure of the well (e.g. repairing or replacing the casing, lining or screen of a well as you have identified).


There are limitations to accuracy of information in SA Geodata that will constrain the Department’s ability to accurately undertake the assessment required to administer principle 213(a). DFW will work with the Board on this issue.

Noted.Recommend amending principle 213 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP as follows:A well intended to be used for the purposes of artificial recharge must not be located within:a) 50 m of an operational well used for domestic supply purposes regardless of aquifer type; and/orb) 200 m of a watercourse in a Fractured Rock... (continue as for principle 213 in consultation draft EMLR WAP).and also amend the definition of "operational well" by adding the following to the end of the definition:Where there is uncertainty on the location, status and/or purpose of use of an operational well, it shall be the responsibility of the proponent to determine the relevant information to the satisfaction of the Minister.Recommend that principle 213 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP is amended to make it clear that this is in relation to construction of a new well that may be used for artificial recharge.The requirements for hydrogeological assessment in the drainage and discharge principles in section 7.2.8 should provide sufficient protection for watercourses and domestic wells.

270 - Urban water use and population growth

The EMLR WAP needs to address how continued increases in new rural dwellings will be accommodated in the Plan, and that any associated increase in domestic water consumption will not impact on existing

In the case of surface water, estimated current non-licensed use (including stock and domestic use) is accounted for when determining the volume available for allocation for licensed use. The volume of use from a dam is generally limited by the dam's capacity. New dams for any purpose, including domestic use, require a water affecting activities permit or development approval. The EMLR WAP sets out dam capacity limits intended

191


licensed users (recommendation 3). to apply to all new dam construction or enlargement, so an application for a new domestic dam will be assessed in the same way as for a new licensed dam. Such a new dam application is likely be refused in a fully developed area. The dam construction limits and rules are aimed at protecting current users and the environment, minimising the risk of impacts to existing users as a result of increasing water demand.In the case of underground water, estimated current non-licensed use (including stock and domestic use) is also accounted for when determining the volume available for allocation for licensed use. Some domestic supply in some townships is provided under a commercial arrangement, and hence the provider requires a licence (not the householder). These cases have been included as part of the existing user allocation process. If the provider needs a higher volume than what has been allocated (e.g. if they haven't made sufficient provision for future expansion), then they will need to seek further allocation via a new allocation or transfer like other licensed users. Private domestic supply or domestic supply under a non-commercial arrangement is not licensed, and the volume taken out of a bore is not metered or limited to a certain volume. Unlike a dam, the volume taken out of a well is not limited by the nature of the infrastructure and the so volume taken for non-licensed purposes is an estimate only. The volume set aside from the underground water consumptive use limits is based on estimated current domestic requirements.Recommend that the estimates of domestic requirements from underground water in the consultation draft EMLR WAP be increased to account for likely increased demand over the life of this plan, based on projected population increases.


The potential increase in small stock and domestic dams should be considered as a result of response to future demands for rural domestic use and town water supplies

The consultation draft EMRL WAP includes water affecting activity permit principles that manage dam construction for all purposes, including stock and domestic purposes. This means that the potential increase in demand should be managed within sustainable limits.


The assumption that land use will remain stable (p. 62) and water usage will remain static (e.g. section 4.3.2 regarding underground water) is not supported by any data in the EMLR WAP or the State strategic plan [particularly in relation to housing and urban development].

Acknowledged.Recommend amending section 1.5.6 and 4.3.2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to identify likely increases in rural population and hence demand for domestic water supply.Recommend that the estimates of domestic requirements from underground water in the consultation draft EMLR WAP be increased to account for likely increased demand over the life of this plan, based on projected population increases.

192



Concerned that rural water use is more controlled than metropolitan business or domestic mains water users - inequitable.

The role of the EMLR WAP is to assist in sustainable water management for the EMLR region. The way that water is used or managed elsewhere doesn't remove the need to act to protect local users from future impacts or to address issues around water-sharing and degradation of water resources and the environment in the EMLR.

599 - WAP areas - other

Focus is on waterways and riparian zones. Not much discussion on the rest of the land mass and land uses apart from forestry.

The scope of a water allocation plan is limited to guiding the taking and use of prescribed water resources, and certain water affecting activities. Therefore the EMLR WAP tends to focus on types of land uses that take and use water (as per Figure 1.4 and section 1.5 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP), the characteristics of the water resources of the region (as per section 1.3 and 1.4) and on waterways and riparian zones.



Recommend recognition that the Finniss River has a major impact on the success of the EMLR WAP.

The Finniss catchment is as important as other catchment in the EMLR. It is not seen as necessary or appropriate to single out individual catchments.


Page 121, principle 23: What are “future environmental and climate change purposes”? Suggestion clarification.

Noted.Principle 23 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP sets out that returned allocations will be retained for future environmental and climate change purposes, consistent with the consultation draft EMLR WAP's approach of not allowing new allocations. Note that following careful consideration of the responses made during consultation, the Board has decided to recommend changing the plan to allow new allocations to be made within the WAP limits (see comment # 75 in 'New allocations' section). Retaining returned allocations (as per principle 23) is not consistent with the revised approach of allowing new allocations within sustainable limits. Recommend deleting principle 23 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP, in line with the decision to allow new allocations.Note that principle 12 and 13 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP provide a mechanism that allows water to be set aside for the environment, on a permanent or temporary basis. This provides a mechanism that licensees could use to provide their allocation to the environment instead of surrendering their allocation. If the licensee decides to return their allocation for other reasons, then this water should be available for new use provided it meets the rules under the revised approach of allowing new allocations within the limits. Another benefit of deleting principle 23 is that it gets around the issue where a licensee

193


may voluntarily surrender their allocation in order to allow use of that water for non-licensed purposes instead (e.g. enlarging a dam or planting a commercial forest), but principle 23 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP may not allow this subsequent use.


For the lower Angas Bremer revegetation requirements, there appears to be no direct relationship between the siting of the revegetation and the water use, other than at the whole Irrigation Management Zone scale. Further explanation should be included of the benefit to the impacted site if the vegetation is not located in the proximity.

Principle 31 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP sets out that future planting under these revegetation requirements should be on relevant land at high risk from rising water tables. This revegetation policy is taken from the existing Water Allocation Plan for the Angas Bremer Prescribed Wells area, and was developed in conjunction with the local community to address their objectives for sustainable water management.


Commends the use of a range of principles (outlined in the submission).

Noted.


Commends the Angas Bremer revegetation booklet and its inclusion in the EMLR WAP.

Noted.


The Department notes that the prescribed area overlaps the River Murray Irrigation Management Zone (Murray Bridge to north of Mannum) and this area contains both high and low salinity impact zones for the purpose of the River Murray Salinity Zoning Policy in the water allocation plan for the River Murray. To improve consistency between the two plans, it is recommended that the impact of utilising water for irrigation within the high and low salinity impact zones is included in the assessment of whether the taking and use of water within the prescribed area will affect the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse.

Agree.Recommend amending section 3.4.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to reflect the following text suggested by DFW:"It is widely recognised that underground water discharges to the River Murray in South Australia deliver large amounts of salt, previously stored in the soil to the river channel. Water applied to the land can result in increased drainage to the underlying salt laden underground water, and accelerate the movement of this underground water into the River Murray. The use of licensed Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area (PWRA) water allocations in the River Murray high or low salinity impact zones has the potential to have a detrimental effect on the quality of water in the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse (PWC). The use of Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA water in existing irrigation districts is unlikely to have a significant detrimental effect on the River Murray PWC. This is due to the current limited extent of irrigation utilising Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA water allocations within the River Murray high and low salinity impact zones. However, any increase in the use of Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA water within the River Murray high or low salinity management zones has the potential to have a detrimental effect over the long term and it is important that land is irrigated efficiently,

194


and the allocation of water within the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA complies with objectives (a) and (d) of 5.1 and principles 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the EMLR WAP."


Concerned by the lack of analysis of what extractive purposes are best suited to the EMLR now and in the future, such as feed-lotting, mining and town developments.

The Board's view is that the role of the prescription process is to set out limits and policies that provide for sustainable water taking and use. It is not seen as the role of the prescription process to specify what types of enterprises should be able to use water within those limits and policies - instead that is the business decision of the licensee.


Concerned with lack of incentives to change behaviours regarding inappropriate and unsustainable water usages.

As per comment # 648 - WAP areas - otherLicensed users will be allocated a volume of water and their usage will need to stay within this volume.


Page 43, section 1.5.6: Suggest amending or rewording section on future water demands for intensive farming to note that intensive animal production is likely to increase depending on access to infrastructure and planning policy; and that the majority of water used in intensive animal keeping is used for animal welfare purposes (e.g. drinking, cooling etc).

Agree.Recommend amending section 1.5.6 (page 43) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to reflect that increases in intensive farming is likely to depend on access to infrastructure and planning policy, and that the majority of water used in intensive animal keeping is used for animal welfare purposes (e.g. drinking, cooling etc).


Page 44, section 1.5.6: Suggest amending text in relation to increasing use of desalination plants in response to reducing River Murray allocations - reword to remove any implication that reduction in River Murray allocations is the ongoing norm.

Agree.Recommend amending section 1.5.6 (page 44) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP in relation to increasing use of desalination plants in response to reducing River Murray allocations - reword to reflect that recent reductions in River Murray allocations were due to drought rather than being the ongoing norm.


The exclusion of waters used for public amenity, health, cultural, tourism, fisheries and recreational uses is concerning, but recognised to be complex. Future revisions of the plan should seeks to account more fully for these uses as information on actual usage and flows becomes available.

Agree. The Board hopes to gather more information during the life of this plan and improve this area when the EMLR WAP is reviewed.

762 - WAP Regarding table 4.6 and underground water Section 1.5 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP summarises available information on

195


areas - other connected to other systems - what is the volume extracted; and timing and amount?

estimated use from underground water.


PIRSA acknowledges that the existing user allocation process is separate, but there is insufficient data provided on this in the draft EMLR WAP to allow assessment of the impacts of the plan policies with regard to the proposed allocations and comparison to actual current levels of use. Recommend inclusion of a table outlining estimated volumetric licensed demand by management zone to allow understanding of existing user demand compared with consumptive use limits that underpin allocation policies in the plan (e.g. setting limits, transfers, assessment of new allocations, ongoing management of allocations). Acknowledge provision nature of existing user data from DFW but should be relatively stable by the time the plan is finalised for adoption.

The role of a water allocation plan is to guide new allocations and transfers, and ongoing management of allocations, once the needs of existing users have been considered. Existing users are allocated water under a separate process managed by DEWNR. It is not considered to be appropriate to include figures on current demand at the management zone scale in the draft EMLR WAP, as this will change over time as the existing user allocation process is finalised, and once new allocations and transfers occur under the plan.


Recommend that water is not automatically allocated for irrigation where there is current or likely mobilisation or a rising water table. May require conditions to ensure water use doesn't cause significant environmental harm.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes provisions that water should only be allocated if taking and use will not cause (or be likely to cause) impacts such as new or exacerbated rising water tables or deteriorating water quality (e.g. through mobilisation of salt) (principles 6 and 7). These principles will apply to assessments of new allocations and transfers under the plan, and can be used to include licence conditions to address potential risks. Tools such as DEWNR's Imported Water Hazard Identification Tool can assist the assessment process by helping to identifying areas where there are likely to be risks associated with shallow watertables.


Commends principles 6-7 (minimising impact of water taking and use). However, these principles need to be policed with penalties for non-compliance, similar to those described for principle 9 in relation to principle 8 (water use efficiency).

It is intended that licensees that are not meeting water use efficiency guidelines are provided with assistance to help improve their practices (e.g. through the Board's existing sustainable irrigation program). The non-compliance provisions of principle 9 are seen as a tool of last resort.Principles 6 and 7 are assessed at the time of application to determine whether the allocation should be granted or not. If problems later arise, the preferred approach again

196


is to work cooperatively with the licensee to address the issue. Where this approach is unsuccessful, the NRM Act includes provisions that may be used to help address the problem, such as issuing notices to take action to maintain watercourses, restrictions or conditions on water taking, and protection or reparation orders.


The "Allocation and transfer policy overview" leaflet says that "efficient use of water will not only assist in long term management of the resources but will also assist with ensuring that the land on which the water is used is not impacted by the action of irrigation or application of water...". This statement is nonsensical. The application of water to land will always have an effect, and why would water be applied if there was no effect desired? At what point would it be considered that application of water has affected the land?

The term "impacted" is used in the common usage of a negative impact in that sentence from the " Allocation and transfer policy overview" document. Negative impacts of inappropriate application of water to land may include perched or rising water tables or increases in soil salinity where this negatively affects natural resources or users of natural resources.


What about indigenous legislation? Not in the list of consistency with other plans and legislation.

Section 9 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP was included to link with section 75 (5) of the NRM Act, which sets out the plans, policies and legislation that a Regional NRM Plan (which includes water allocation plans within that region) should be consistent with. This section of the NRM Act does not list indigenous legislation. On the advice of DEWNR, it is recommended that section 9 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be deleted as this largely just replicates this section of the NRM Act and is not required.Recommend deleting section 9 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.


Section 9.1 regarding consistency with other plans or legislation needs to take into account the Ngarrindjeri Sea Country Plan and Aboriginal plans and legislation regarding land rights and traditional responsibilities.

As per comment # 642 - WAP areas - other


Page 117, Objectives: Does this principle inform all the other principles - is there an order of priority? Suggest re-ordering as b, d, c, a. Also section 7, principle 146 -

All objectives and principles in the WAP apply equally, so there is no need to prioritise them.

197


objectives need to be prioritised.


Supports water allocation objectives (section 5.1).

Noted.


Support the allocation objectives (section 5.1) but need to be assured the EMLR WAP will further these objectives without leading to an overly prescriptive approach to water management.

Noted. The principles given in section 5 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP sets out how these objectives are to be achieved. The Board's view is that these principles provide a balance between flexibility and the need for the rules to be clear and transparent to provide certainty and consistency in application.


Council supports the objectives relating to underground water management and the need for careful management (as per section 7.2.7). It is not clear that the EMLR WAP will further this objective.

Support of the underground water objectives is noted.The Board believes that the provisions allocation, transfer and water affecting activities sections of the EMLR WAP together will further these objectives by keeping new allocation and transfers within sustainable limits and by minimising the impacts of new use on current users and the environment at a local scale via buffer zones and management of high intensity use zones.


Recommend that the EMLR WAP cover water quality issues where there is a direct link between water use and subsequent water quality (e.g. increasing salinity, higher nutrient levels in runoff). The linkages to managing water quality through other policy mechanisms should also be clearly articulated in the EMLR WAP (e.g. NRM Act, SAMDB NRM Board, EPA etc) to show how these programs have been integrated into water planning in this WAP. As water use causes changes in water quality, the direct relationship needs to be highlighted and who has responsibility identified. Methods to achieve better water quality could be mentioned including keeping stock out of watercourses.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes principles aimed at minimising the impact of water use and water affecting activities on water quality (e.g. principle 6-7, and 146-147). Section 4.1.1 notes linkages to programs that address other factors affecting water resources, but it is acknowledged that more information should be added to this section.Recommend adding further information to section 4.1.1 (risk assessment) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP on the links to other policy mechanisms managing water quality aspects.The scope of a water allocation plan is limited to guidance of taking and use of water and specific water affecting activities. Broader NRM issues, such as stock access to watercourses, are covered in the Board's Regional NRM Plan. The Regional NRM Plan includes actions to protect watercourses, such as Management Action Target B2.2 - Adoption of sustainable grazing practices in water-dependent ecosystems by 2014. The Board works towards these targets in partnership with the community and other groups such as the Local Action Planning Groups, who provide incentive funding for voluntary watercourse fencing.


Commends the fact that water reuse is expected to be instituted for intensive

Noted.

198


farming, mining, open space and horticulture (pages 43-45).

46 - WAP development process

Wonders if the advisory committees are made up of real farmers.

Yes, the Community Advisory Committee is made up of local community members representing a range of different areas, stakeholder groups and types of water users including a range of different farming enterprises. The members were drawn from applications submitted following an open call for membership. The Board is very appreciative of the time and energy put into the process by these volunteers.

658 - WAP development process

Concerned with narrow nature of expertise available through what can be observed of the composition of existing boards, committees and groups. Does the Board have the necessary range of disciplines to assist them in addressing the complexity of the Objects of the NRM Act? How has the precautionary principle been applied? By whom, how and when was the Board briefed? Are these briefing papers available to public scrutiny? Peer review? Are they cited in the Plan?

Board members are selected to cover the range of skills, knowledge and experience as set out in the NRM Act, including community affairs, primary production, conservation and biodiversity management, management of land, water and pest plants and animals, administration of business and local government, planning, Aboriginal heritage and interests in land and water, and natural and social science. The current membership of the Board is available on the Board's website at www.samdbnrm.sa.gov.au. The Board is assisted by staff from a range of agencies and community groups and committees with expertise in a range of areas. The Board has been involved in development of the EMLR WAP throughout the process, with briefings and decisions made as documented in Board meeting minutes. The minutes of the Board's Community Advisory Committee meetings are available on the Board's website. The Board believes that the EMLR WAP achieves an equitable balance between social, economic and environmental needs and the various objects of the NRM Act, which include protection of biological diversity and natural resources as well as support of sustainable primary production and other economic production systems in the context of ecologically sustainable development. The information underpinning the EMLR WAP is referenced in the plan, and is drawn from a range of peer-reviewed investigations. These reports are also available on the Board's website.

736 - WAP editorial

Principle 112 is unnecessarily complicated (relating to restrictions on varying the licence to take water from a different resource). If the intention is to not allow variations of a licence to authorise water allocated from one water resource to be taken from another water resource then it would be clearer to say that. For example ‘(a) a water allocation

Noted.It is recommended that principle 112 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be substantially amended to allow transfer of allocations between resources (see comment 415 in 'Existing users' section). The suggested amendments from this comment will be incorporated as part of those changes where appropriate.Recommend amending the wording of principle 112 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include the underlined text in appropriate locations: "a water allocation made from the [relevant] water resource to be taken from..."

199


made from the underground water resource to be taken from surface water or watercourses:’

708 - WAP editorial

Footnote 1 on page 17: Why is it that the draft EMLR WAP and existing user allocation process generally uses the same limits? If the draft EMLR WAP does not clarify this, then delete this statement as it is likely to confuse. Suggest deleting or amending

Agree.Recommend providing clearer information in section 1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP on the roles of the water allocation plan and the existing user allocation process, and the linkages between them.

709 - WAP editorial

Section 1.5.1, 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence (and also section 8) - It is better not to make specific undertakings unless the Board is satisfied it can meet those undertakings. In this section and in section 8, recommend that the terms ‘will’ and ‘shall’ are replaced with ‘will make best endeavours to’

Recommend amending section 1.5.1 and principles 266, 269 and 277 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP as suggested.

711 - WAP editorial

Page 44 - the reference to personal comment at the bottom of this page should be updated as it was made in November 2009.

Agree.Recommend amending section 1.5.6 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include up-to-date information on the status of the Bird in Hand wastewater treatment plant.

713 - WAP editorial

Page 63, section 2.4, 2nd paragraph, last sentence - “There are also a range of legislative drivers for protecting ecosystems, including the guidelines from the State NRM Plan outlined in section 2.1.2”.This is inadequate in explaining the trade-off between social, economic and environment. Suggest deletion or amendment

Disagree.This sentence is not intended to explain the trade-offs between social, economic and environmental needs. It is intended to explain that where trade-offs are to be made, that there are a range of drivers that needs to be considered from an environmental perspective, including those already outlined in section 2.1.2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

714 - WAP editorial

Page 72, section 2.4.2.4, first dot point: the word ‘community’ seems to be missing between the words ‘ecological’ and ‘listed’. Insert: ‘community’

Agree.Recommend amending section 2.4.2.4 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP as recommended.

715 - WAP Bottom of page 75, section 3.4.1: This Disagree.

200


editorial reference to personal comment should be updated as it was made in August 2008

The facts supported by the personal comment have not changed.

716 - WAP editorial

Page 84 and 110, Figures 4.1 and 4.7: It is not advisable to include flow diagrams of this nature in a draft plan. There are other matters the Minister must take into account when considering whether to approve a transfer application – e.g. see principle 150.

The diagrams are helpful to give readers an idea of how the various principles work together, and emphasises that they principles are not assessed in isolation. These figures can be placed in the intended explanatory document instead. Note these figures relate to transfer, and principle 150 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP relates to a permit for dam construction, not transfer.Recommend transferring figures 4.1 and 4.7 from the consultation draft EMLR WAP to the intended explanatory document.

717 - WAP editorial

Page 101, Table 4.4 footnote B: Allocations to existing users are not dependent on the draft EMLR WAP. Suggest explaining where the provisional existing user demand has come from and reference it.

This footnote refers to zones where the runoff is zero (and hence the limit should be too), but where there is existing use. Prior to consultation, the limits for these zones were set at provisional existing demand to avoid the situation of having to cut these users back to zero. This approach has been re-assessed and it is intended to leave the limit for these zones at zero, accepting that existing users will receive an allocation reflecting their reasonable requirements there through the separate existing user allocation process. The outcome for existing users doesn't change but the limits in the draft EMLR WAP, which govern future allocations and transfers, are more consistent with resource capacity.Recommend that the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to set the consumptive use limit to zero for those zones in the consultation draft EMLR WAP with zero average runoff but a limit of greater than zero (in Table 4.4). Consequently footnote B under Table 4.4 can be deleted and the comment no longer applies.

718 - WAP editorial

‘Water Allocation’ is not defined in the Glossary and therefore has the meaning defined in section 152 of the NRM Act i.e. ‘may be obtained on account of a water access entitlement under a water licence’. Is that the intention or should water allocation be defined in the Glossary as ‘the quantity of water that the licensee is entitled to take and use pursuant to the licence’? Suggest amending to clarify

Noted.Recommend amending definition of "Water allocation" in the consultation draft EMLR WAP as follows:water allocation – in respect of a water licence, has the same meaning as in section 3(1) of the NRM Act and means an allocation under the terms of the licence in accordance with Chapter 7 Part 3 Division 2 of the NRM Act.

719 - WAP editorial

Page 117, section 5.1, 1st sentence: ‘recharged water’ is ‘underground water’ for

Agree.Recommend deleting "recharged water" from first sentence in section 5.1 of the

201


the purposes of the NRM Act. DFW understands that the term ‘recharged water’ is used to keep track of credits, however it is not necessary to use this term in this sentence (it is adequately described in the principles of this section). Suggest removing ‘recharged water’ from this sentence

consultation draft EMLR WAP.

720 - WAP editorial

Page 117, principle 2: Is this a water allocation principle? The intention of this principle appears to be that water allocation should not be taken, rather than granted, unless a meter is installed to record the quantity taken and that this principle should not apply to ‘existing users’. However the reference to allocations granted to existing users under section 164N of the NRM Act is confusing as water access entitlements are granted under 164N. Suggest amendment so that reference is made to allocations granted under this Water Allocation Plan which would exclude ‘existing users’

Agree that principle 2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP is confusing. The metering approach is determined through the state-wide metering policy, which may change independently of the EMLR WAP. It is appropriate to remove this principle so that metering requirements are set out by the appropriate instrument, being the state metering policy rather than the EMLR WAP.Recommend deleting principle 2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.If a licensed source is not metered (as a result of changes in state metering policies), then partial transfers of allocation from that source to another location should not be permitted (e.g. transfer of part of the volume, or transfer partway through a water-use year). This is because the volume taken is not known, and so the volume of unused allocation available for transfer is also not known. Similarly, for an unmetered licensed source, it will not be known whether a rollover allocation has been accrued or not, and nor will use of that rollover be able to be tracked. Only allowing rollover allocations in cases where use is metered will reduce the administrative burden of issuing rollover allocations in cases where their accrual and use can't be tracked.Recommend that a principle be added to section 6.1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP that prevents partial transfer of an allocation to a new location where the volume of allocation taken is not metered (where partial transfer is transfer of part of the allocation volume and/or transfer part way through a water-use year).Recommend amending principle 61 and 93 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to say that rollover is only available if licensed use is metered to the Minister's satisfaction.

721 - WAP editorial

DFW advises that it does not intend to endorse management zones on water licences due to difficulties in describing management zones for underground water and surface water in a succinct and clear manner (particularly if a licensee straddles multiple surface water and management

Recommend amending principle 3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to remove the reference to management zones being endorsed on the licence.On further discussion of this comment with DEWNR, it was identified that in some cases, allocations may be granted from a resource rather than a specific source (e.g. an allocation to be taken from surface water from a number of specified dams rather than splitting the allocation up as a specified volume per dam). Some principles are calculated

202


zones). Internal administration processes will ensure that the existing user process and any subsequent transfers will take into consideration the management zones in which the allocation is assigned to and/or being transferred to. Recommend amending principle to state the ‘existing management zone in which water is being taken’ or something similar

based on the volume taken from a source (e.g. individual dam) rather than a group of dams. Principles 80 and 91 c) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP provide guidance on how to determine the volume taken from each well where the allocation is grouped as above. A similar concept is needed for surface water, based on the volume deemed to be taken from the source (generally as recorded in the licensing system).Recommend that principle 35 d) i) and ii) and 158, and related definitions (dam use) in the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended as shown in underlined text to refer to the volume of allocation deemed to be sourced... , or the amount of water deemed to be taken...

722 - WAP editorial

Page 118, principle 4: For purposes of administration, allocations need to be ‘deemed to be taken’ in a specific order. Suggest insertion of the words ‘deemed to be (i.e. ‘Water allocations shall be deemed to be taken in the following order:’

Agree.Recommend that principle 4, 63, and 93 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended to refer to water allocations being deemed to be taken in the following order...

723 - WAP editorial

Page 118, principle 5 (intervals at which licence conditions may be varied by the Minister): It unclear whether this principle intends to refer to 12 months intervals from licence issue, or ‘on or around 30 June’ each year. Suggest amending to clarify.

Noted. In further discussion with DFW, it was agreed that no change is required to the consultation draft EMLR WAP in response to this comment from DFW. The NRM Act gives the Minister has the discretion to amend allocations if a condition on the licence specifies that, but the water allocation plan doesn't need to specify exactly when.

724 - WAP editorial

Page 118, principle 6 d): The word ‘and’ should be changed to ‘or’ unless the intent is that all listed criteria must be met. Suggest amending to clarify.

Agree.Recommend altering principle 6 d) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to change "and" to "and/or". So could be any or all of the things in the list (or others)

725 - WAP editorial

Page 118, principle 7 d): The word ‘and’ should be changed to ‘or’ unless the intent is that all listed criteria must be met. Suggest amending to clarify.

Agree.Recommend altering principle 7 b) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to change "and" to "and/or". So could be any or all of the things in the list (or others)

726 - WAP editorial

Page 119, principle 14: Unsure that the allocation type “ecosystem allocation from the environmental water provisions’’ will fit in WILMA; Consider identifying a term with less

Noted.Recommend changing "ecosystem allocations from the environmental water provisions" to "ecosystem allocation (system provisions)" in principle 14 and throughout the consultation draft EMLR WAP including definitions; also change "environmental water

203


characters. provisions" to "system provisions" in principle 15, 22 and throughout the document including definitions, and update relevant text in section 4.1.4.This term is also more reflective of the broader role of water that is outside the consumptive use limit, which provides for the system requirements (e.g. maintaining water quality , transporting materials, export of salt, channel maintenance) including environmental requirements.

727 - WAP editorial

Page 121, principle 21 d): What is the difference between ‘the water allocation’ and the ‘quantity of water included on the relevant water licence’ in this section. Are both required? Suggest amending to clarify

The quantity of water provided on the licence is the ongoing right to take water, whereas the water allocation will relate to a specified period (not exceeding 12 months). Therefore, it is appropriate that principle 21(d) refers to ‘water allocation’ and ‘the quantity of water included on the relevant water licence’, and no amendment is required.

729 - WAP editorial

Page 122, principle 29(c)(ii) is confusing. This set of principles is derived from the Water Allocation Plan for the Angas Bremer Prescribed Wells Area (AB WAP), which the EMLR WAP will replace. Principle 29 c) ii) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP has been re-drafted to deal with a legal issue arising from the original wording in the AB WAP, so the wording in the consultation draft EMLR WAP will be retained.

730 - WAP editorial

Page 122, principle 29(c)(iii) – land may be dedicated or reserved under the care, control and management of a local council under the Crown Land Management Act 2009.

Agree.Recommend amending principle 29 c) iii) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP by adding "or the Crown Land Management Act 2009 or other relevant legislation" after "Local Government Act 1999".

731 - WAP editorial

Page 134, principle 59: This policy is unnecessarily long-winded. Suggest amending to ‘Water shall not be allocated under this Plan where the allocation would be taken from a location containing a significant environmental asset or assets.’ This would enable a) b) and c) to be removed.

Disagree as this would change the intent of this principle. Parts a) - c) are intended to allow an allocation to be transferred under the EMLR WAP in the case where an existing user was originally granted an allocation to be taken from a significant environmental asset. Agree that the wording could be made clearer.Recommend altering principle 59 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP as follows:Water shall not be allocated where the allocation would be taken from a significant environmental asset or assets, unless:a) the allocation will be obtained on the basis of a transfer of an allocation or a water licence; andb) immediately before any transfer referred to in paragraph (a) takes place, the allocation or water licence being transferred authorised the taking of water from the significant environment asset or assets; and c) there is no change to the conditions relating to the allocation or the location of the point

204


of taking; andd) the allocation volume does not increase.

732 - WAP editorial

Page 135, principle 66: Needs to be more specific regarding what Notice of Prohibition is being referred to. Suggest amending to ‘Notice of Prohibition for the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area’

Disagree as "Notice of Prohibition" is defined in the glossary to refer to the relevant notices, and this term is shown in italics to indicate that this is defined in the glossary. However the definition needs to be updated to reflect the full range of Notices of Prohibition (missing 2011).Recommend amending the definition of Notice of Prohibition in the glossary of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include a complete list of the relevant Notices of Prohibition.

733 - WAP editorial

Appendix D should not be included in the draft EMLR WAP. When defining rainfall, remove reference to Attachment 5

Agree.Recommend amending principle 70 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to remove reference to attachment D (and elsewhere in the plan), and to delete attachment D.

734 - WAP editorial

Page 141, principle 91 b): not properly the subject of a principle. In any case, it is better not to make specific undertakings unless the Board and the Department is satisfied it can meet those undertakings. Suggest deleting.

Agree.Recommend deleting principle 91 b) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

735 - WAP editorial

Page 142, principle 100: after “Environment Protection Act 1993”, add “to drain or discharge water into a well”.

Agree.Recommend amending principle 100 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP by adding “Environment Protection Act 1993” after “to drain or discharge water into a well”.

737 - WAP editorial

Page 145, principle 115: The term ‘prescribed area’ in this section and in the Glossary is not valid. Section 125 of the NRM Act does not allow for the prescription of a ‘prescribed water resources area’. Suggest replacing principles 115-117 with the following amendments:Principle 115: ‘Subject to principle 117, an allocation from a prescribed well, watercourse or surface water within the Eastern Mt Lofty Ranges PWRA shall only be transferred to a water licence authorising the

Noted. The suggested amendments don't provide sufficient flexibility to allow transfer with other prescribed resources such as the River Murray, or potential future prescribed resources. Agree with the concerns raised on the definition of "prescribed area".Recommend amending principles 115-117 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP as discussed with DEWNR as follows:115. Subject to principle 117, an allocation from a prescribed water resource within the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA shall not be transferred to be taken from any other prescribed water resource that is not within the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA.Transfer between prescribed areas116. Subject to principle 117, an allocation from a prescribed water resource that is not within the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA shall not be transferred to be taken from a

205


taking of water from a prescribed water resource within the Eastern Mt Lofty Ranges PWRA.’Principle 116: ‘Subject to principle 117, an allocation from a prescribed well, watercourse or surface water outside of the Eastern Mt Lofty Ranges PWRA shall not be transferred to a water licence authorising the taking of water from a prescribed water resource within the Eastern Mt Lofty Ranges PWRA.’Principle 117: ‘A water allocation from a prescribed well, watercourse or surface water within the Eastern Mt Lofty Ranges PWRA may only be transferred to a water licence authorising the taking of water from a prescribed water resource within the Western Mt Lofty Ranges PWRA OR the Marne Saunders PWRA if:a) the allocation will only be transferred within the boundaries of a single property that lies within both the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA and the Western Mt Lofty Ranges PWRA OR the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA and the Marne Saunders PWRA; andb) the water allocation plan for the Western Mt Lofty Ranges PWRA OR the Marne Saunders PWRA allows for transfers of water allocation from the Western Mt Lofty Ranges PWRA OR the Marne Saunders PWRA to a water licence authorising the taking of water from a prescribed resource within the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA; andc) the proposed transfer complies with the relevant allocation and transfer principles in

prescribed water resource within the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA.117. An allocation may only be transferred between a prescribed water resource that is within the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA and another prescribed water resource if:a) the allocation will only be transferred within the boundaries of a single property that lies within both the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA and the other prescribed water resource; andb) the water allocation plan for the other prescribed water resource allows for transfers between that prescribed water resource and the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA; andc) the proposed transfer complies with the relevant allocation and transfer principles in the water allocation plan for the prescribed water resource that the water allocation would be transferred to.Also delete definition of "prescribed area" as no longer used, and amend principle 200 which uses the term "prescribed area".It is noted that the 'Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area' doesn't exist in the prescription regulations, and the consultation draft EMLR WAP should be amended to reflect this.Recommend renaming the plan to "Water allocation plan for the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges".Recommend updating the definition of the term EMLR PWRA in the glossary and in section 1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to better reflect the areas prescribed in the regulations (including references to GRO maps where relevant).

206


the water allocation plan under which the water licence receiving the water allocation is issued.

738 - WAP editorial

Page 151, principle 146 c): Is there a word missing? Suggest inserting ‘processes’ or ‘systems’

Agree.Recommend amending principle 146 c) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP by adding "systems" at the end.

739 - WAP editorial

Page 154, principle 159 b): There appears to be an error in numbering. It should be (i) and (ii), not (iii) and (iv).

Agree.Recommend amending numbering of principles 159 b) iii and iv to become i and ii (respectively) in the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

741 - WAP editorial

It is important that the draft EMLR WAP does not fetter the Minister’s (or the relevant authority’s) discretion in the NRM Act. A number of principles (including principles 219 and 222) are expressed in mandatory language and should either be amended or deleted. Suggest replacing with the word ‘may’

Agree.Recommend replacing "will" with "may" in principles 218, 219, 221 and 222 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

743 - WAP editorial

Page 182, principle 275 a): Points (ii) & (iii) are identical. Suggest deleting one of the points

Noted. This is a typographical error.Recommend amending principle 275 a) iii) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to change "in-stream" to "end-of-system".

744 - WAP editorial

Page 182, Table 8.1 - ‘Macroinvertebrate’ and ‘macro-invertebrate’ are both used in this section. Change to ‘macroinvertebrate’ for consistency.

Agree.Recommend changing "macro-invertebrate" to "macroinvertebrate" throughout the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

745 - WAP editorial

There is no mention of the River Murray Act 2003 in the plan, including in section 9, which addresses consistency with other plans or legislation. Given that Section 75(3)(c)(ii) of the NRM Act requires Regional NRM Plans (which incorporate water allocation plans) for areas included in the Murray-Darling Basin to explain how the goals set out in the plan will

Agree.Recommend adding reference to alignment of the EMLR WAP with the objects and objectives of the River Murray Act 2003 to section 4 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP. Note that it is recommended that section 9 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP be deleted on the basis of advice from DEWNR that this information is not required in a water allocation plan (see comment 642 in section 'WAP areas - other').

207


assist in achieving the Objects of the River Murray Act and the Objectives for a Healthy River Murray (the ORMs), this omission needs to be rectified in the final plan. Suggest inclusion of reference to River Murray Act

746 - WAP editorial

Terms in the draft EMLR WAP must be consistent with those in the NRM Act. The following terms are not defined consistently with the NRM Act in the WAP's glossary: biodiversity, ecosystem, floodplain, infrastructure, lake, land, occupier, owner, underground water, watercourse, water licence, well, wetland.Licence – note that a water allocation, not a licence, is required to take water under the NRM Act.Roof runoff – while this term is not defined in the NRM Act, consistent with the definition of ‘surface water’ and ‘land’ in the NRM Act, it should be defined as follows: “water that runs off any building or structure fixed to land after having fallen as rain or hail or having precipitated in any other manner”.

Noted.Recommend amending the consultation draft EMLR WAP to alter the definitions of the following terms to be consistent with those given in the NRM Act: biodiversity, ecosystem, floodplain, infrastructure, lake, land, occupier, owner, underground water, watercourse, water licence, well, wetland.Expanding the roof runoff definition to include "water that runs off any building or structure fixed to land..." means that a roof runoff allocation could be granted for runoff from structures other than roofs (e.g. carparks, plastic lined catchments), which is not the intention.Recommend amending the consultation draft EMLR WAP to alter the definition of roof runoff to be "water that runs off a roof after having fallen as rain or hail or having precipitated in any other manner".

747 - WAP editorial

Terms referred to (but not defined) in the NRM Act are defined in the draft EMLR WAP. This may restrict the interpretation given to a particular term:commercial forest

Noted. The Natural Resources Management (Commercial Forests) Amendment Act 2011 has since come into place (although not yet come into operation). Recommend that the definition of commercial forestry in the consultation draft EMLR WAP be amended as below, and also that the following definition of forest vegetation be inserted into the glossary (both from the forestry NRM Act amendment - as recommended by DEWNR):Commercial forest – means a forest plantation where the forest vegetation is grown or maintained so that it can be harvested or used for commercial purposes (including through the commercial exploitation of the carbon absorption capacity of the forest vegetation).

208


Forest vegetation – means trees and other forms of forest vegetation including (a) roots or other parts of the trees or other forest vegetation that lie beneath the soil; and (b) leaves, branches or other parts or products of trees or other forest vegetation.

748 - WAP editorial

Terms referred to (but not defined) in the NRM Act are defined in the draft EMLR WAP. This may restrict the interpretation given to a particular term:Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges PWRA – the EMLR was not declared to be the EMLR PWRA. Rather, it means the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Wells Area; and Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Water Resources Area.Transfer – not consistent with the NRM Act. A licence no longer includes a water allocation.

Agree.Recommend renaming the plan to "Water allocation plan for the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges".Recommend updating the definition of the term EMLR PWRA in the glossary and in section 1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to better reflect the areas prescribed in the regulations (including references to GRO maps where relevant).Recommend deleting the definition of the term "transfer" from the glossary of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

20 - WAP format and readability

Farmers are not always aware of legislative requirements and should have the opportunity to be informed before requirements become law. Farmers don't have the time or understanding to plough through long, jargon-filled documents - feel the complexity is designed to stop people knowing what is going on.

A water allocation plan is a statutory document used for assessment and administration of water licences and water affecting activity permits. Therefore it needs to be written explicitly to try to avoid misinterpretation, but unfortunately this can make it convoluted and complex. The draft EMLR WAP also contains lots of technical information to outline the evidence underpinning the plan, which adds to the complexity of the document. The Board has tried to make the draft EMLR WAP more accessible for the consultation process by producing fact sheets covering key areas and providing opportunities for people to find out more during public meetings and smaller-scale discussions. However, we acknowledge from the consultation response that more is needed. The Board plans to develop an explanatory document to accompany the final EMLR WAP to assist understanding.


The phraseology in the plan needs to be simplified to enable the plan to be more readily understood by all primary producers.

As per comment # 20 - WAP format and readability


Concerns with language and organisation of the EMLR WAP - e.g. complex and confusing language and organisation; extensive use of

As per comment # 20 - WAP format and readabilityIn addition, information should be added to the beginning of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to provide more context to the plan and information on the structure, and section 4

209


modals (may, ought to, might etc) which unnecessarily qualify statements and dilute impact; use of different terminology (e.g. rollover v carryover, SDLs in the Basin Plan v CULs in WAP); definitions are weak and not definitive (e.g. non-water dependent ecosystems - everything is a water-dependent ecosystem which illustrates connectivity); complex and unintelligible tables (e.g. table 4.4).

should be re-organised so that the large, complex tables which underpin principles in sections 5-7 don't interrupt the flow of section 4, and are easier to find when reading sections 5-7.Recommend adding further information to section 1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP on the role, context and structure of the plan.Recommend moving the tables and maps in section 4 that are referenced in principles in sections 5-7 to the end of section 4 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP, and including a sentence in sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.2 explaining that not all parts of these tables and maps are explained in section 4 (as section 4 provides an overview of key policies rather than being a comprehensive explanation of sections 5-7).In relation to consistency in language, the consultation draft EMLR WAP uses terminology that is consistent with the neighbouring Marne Saunders WAP. The majority of South Australian water allocation plans use the term "rollover", with a notable exception being the use of the term "carryover" in the River Murray Prescribed Watercourse. The term "sustainable diversion limit" used in the draft Basin Plan has a different meaning to the term "consumptive use limit" in the draft EMLR WAP so it is not appropriate to use "sustainable diversion limit" in the draft EMLR WAP. The "sustainable diversion limit" refers to the long-term average annual volume that would be taken under a defined climate period and set of taking rules, while the draft EMLR WAP's "consumptive use limit" is the maximum annual volume that may be taken.In relation to use of modals, we don't have perfect knowledge so the draft EMLR WAP has been written using language that tries to avoid creating the impression of certainty when there is still much to be learnt. When drafting principles, care has been taken to use terms such as "must" or "shall" for cases where a particular course must be taken (e.g. shall not exceed the limits); and to use terms such as "may" where there is more discretion intended (e.g. a rollover allocation may be granted under certain conditions but there is still discretion not to do this).


the EMLR WAP would benefit from some simplification and attention to readability and interpretation. It is overly convoluted and complex with 284 principles. Many principles are addressed by the NRM Act.

As per comment # 20 - WAP format and readabilityThe Board is not aware of cases where WAP principles are already addressed by the NRM Act.

210



Would be useful to have a glossary of acronyms in the draft EMLR WAP

There is one already on page 189.


Suggests draft EMLR WAP should include an executive summary that includes the purpose of the document, how comments will be handled, when the final version will be complete, who will approve it, what happens after that and when, and who it will affect, and who not.

Section 1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP includes some information on the purpose of the document but this could be made clearer.Recommend adding to section 1 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to make the purpose and structure of the document clearer.The factsheet entitled "The consultation process" explains the process from here in terms of comments handling, finalisation process and timelines (as much of this as we know)The factsheet entitled "Frequently asked questions" sets out the activities that will be affected by the prescription process, and so by implication who will be affected. The Board expected to develop an explanatory guide for the final EMLR WAP, which can also include this type of information.


It is not obvious that the consumptive use limits in section 4 are reflected through principles in the draft EMLR WAP in section 5 onwards.

The consumptive use limits set out in tables 4.4 and 4.7 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP are referenced in the principles that refer to limits (e.g. principles 40 and 75/76). As part of the recommended revision of the approach for the consumptive use limits for surface water and watercourses (see comment 499 in section 'Surface water and watercourses'), the names of these limits should include "consumptive use limit" to make the linkage between section 4 and the relevant principles and limits clearer.Recommend that, as part of the revision of the approach for the consumptive use limits for surface water and watercourses (as per comment 499), the names of these limits should include "consumptive use limit".


Principle 146 - "where possible" - weak language leading to uncertainty.

Principle 146 d) refers to the requirement for a water affecting activity to be conducted in a way to ensure maintenance, and where possible rehabilitation, of water-dependent ecosystems. It is not always practical to ensure rehabilitation of water-dependent ecosystems through a water affecting activity permit. For example, the degradation may be occurring as a result of water capture at a larger scale than the proposed activity (e.g. existing dams or wells). In addition, the cause of degradation may be outside the scope of a water allocation plan to address, such as issues associated with stock access, weeds and pests.


Considering the highly technical nature and complexity of water resources and management issues dealt with in the draft

Agree. The Board plans to develop a guide or explanatory document to accompany the final EMLR WAP.

211


EMLR WAP, the Department would also encourage the Board to develop a guide to the plan to make it more accessible to community members.


Suggest a plain English explanatory document.



Recommend preparing a plain English report with an executive summary which identifies and states clearly the current position and degradation of all elements of the system, and details how the EMLR WAP will address each of these issues.


318 - WAP overall

The prohibition of new water use has restricted activities, including innovative activities that have the potential to add viability to farming communities, with more prosperous communities more able to afford the costs of environmental management. Hopes that a more balanced, holistic and inclusive management process can be put in place compared with the prohibition mentality. Believes much good work has been carried out. Should not like it to fail because of the Board's lack of faith in its own work, or lack of commitment to the community's capacity to act in its long term interests. There is significant goodwill in the community to go forward with these changes, but some of the decisions of the Board to date are a cause of concern that require review and modification. Looks forward to Board's courage in redressing these issues and developing a process that the majority

The EMLR WAP and the licensing process aim to provide a more balanced approach for long-term management than the relatively short-term prohibition that has been in place during the development of longer-term policy. The Board has carefully considered the responses made during consultation on the draft EMLR WAP, and as a result, the Board will recommend to the Minister that over 120 changes be made to the plan. For example, the Board has decided to recommend that new allocations be allowed in zones that are not fully developed, within the rules and limits set out in the EMLR WAP. The best available information on water availability and environmental needs indicates that further sustainable production can be supported in certain areas.

212


can support.

14 - WAP overall

draft EMLR WAP seems to be a good plan although slightly confusing.

Thank you. The Board plans to develop an explanatory document to accompany the final EMLR WAP to assist understanding.

51 - WAP overall

Congratulations on a comprehensive, informative and well balanced draft EMLR WAP.

Thank you.

57 - WAP overall

Supports the need for a sound management plan for water use and applauds many positive aspects of the draft EMLR WAP. However has a number of concerns largely around the process favouring a few and discriminating against the majority.

Thank you. Your specific concerns are addressed as separate comments.

65 - WAP overall

Believes the health of the river is essential to the health of the catchment. Believes the draft EMLR WAP represents a sincere attempt to work towards this, while best serving local economic and social interests.

Thank you.

69 - WAP overall

Congratulations on the progress of the draft EMLR WAP

Thank you.

71 - WAP overall

SAFF is in broad agreement with the policies in the draft EMLR WAP.

Noted.

77 - WAP overall

Believes this water allocation plan is essential. Congratulation on the hard work preparing and explaining the draft EMLR WAP. The plan is a big step forward to an equitable balance between consumptive use and the needs of water-dependent ecosystems. Hope this will mean EMLR watercourses will be healthy functional watercourses for the enjoyment of

Thank you.

213


ecosystems and humans for generations to come.

86 - WAP overall

Likes that the draft EMLR WAP encompasses both surface water and underground water, and that environmental needs are also considered. Also likes the conservative approach to future use to protect current users and the environment (e.g. section 4.3, 4.1.2).

Noted.Please note that following careful considered of the responses made during consultation on the draft EMLR WAP, the Board has decided to recommend that new allocations be allowed in zones that are not fully developed, within the rules and limits set out in the EMLR WAP (see comment 75). The best available information on water availability and environmental needs indicates that further sustainable production can be supported in certain areas.

100 - WAP overall

Congratulations for the significant effort invested in the plan to date, and on the extensive and innovative communication and engagement process, including performance at public meetings communicating the plan. Plan is comprehensive, clear and well written.

Thank you.

123 - WAP overall

Congratulations for the hard work on this document. It is an important step forward.

Thank you.

236 - WAP overall

Commend the Board on the development of the draft EMLR WAP and acknowledge the time and effort that has gone into its preparation.

Thank you.

237 - WAP overall

PIRSA particularly support those policies which aim to minimise impact to existing water use, and provide flexibility to adapt to variable seasonal conditions, including climate change.

Noted.

296 - WAP overall

Commend the efforts of those involved in the process culminating in the development of the document. Regulation of water is complex because of conflicting perceptions regarding preservation, use and allocation

Thank you.

214


amongst conflicting interests. Pleased to see some emphasis place on long term sustainable yields and maintenance of environmental assets.

308 - WAP overall

Supports the development of a WAP for the EMLR to ensure we manage and protect our water resources. Overall the draft EMLR WAP contains policies that work towards this objective.

Noted.

340 - WAP overall

The Board are to be commended on the development of the draft EMLR WAP. Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback. Look forward to continuing to work with the SA MDB NRM Board to improve management of water resources and to ensure consistency of policies and processes.

Thank you. We look forward to continuing to work together with the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board too.

344 - WAP overall

Encourages the Board to demonstrate that all final decisions have been checked to be consistent with criteria in the NRM Act (balanced allocation between social, economic and environmental needs; anticipation of future water needs; monitoring the demands for water and if these can be met; sustainable water use including interactions between users).

The Board believes that the draft EMLR WAP is consistent with the requirements of the NRM Act, and it has been reviewed by DEWNR and the Crown Solicitor's Office.The Board is interested to receive input on areas that have been overlooked or are inconsistent with NRM Act requirements.

612 - WAP overall

Agree with water allocation objectives, 'impacts' in section 5.1, and principles 6, 10, 12, 22, 23, 34, 46, 111-112.

Noted.

673 - WAP overall

Strongly support the intent of the EMLR WAP to better manage water resources for environmental, social and economic outcomes.

Noted.

215


674 - WAP overall

Council aspires to be a leader in water management, building on its work to manage and re-use wastewater. Pressure will continue to be placed on Council to manage stormwater appropriately with continuing high growth rates and urban expansion. Acknowledge the work that has gone into the EMLR WAP but concerned it may not provide the ideal framework for good water management. Looks to the Board as a strategic partner and trusts the EMLR WAP when adopted will be a help and not a hindrance.

Noted. Your specific concerns have been addressed in separate comments. The Board looks forward to continuing to work together with the District Council of Mount Barker and other stakeholders to help support the duty of care we all share for sustainable natural resources management.

19 - Water affecting activities

Concerned that water affecting activity permits are required for every day farming activities that previously have been carried out properly for a long time with no government assistance or direction. Feels this is a money grab. Feels this implies property owners don't know what they are doing and need to ask permission to do work on their own land from inexperienced people. The works they have done on their land has improved the environment by controlling erosion and feel it is an insult to have to pay and ask to do works that are good environmental practice.

Most landholders do the right thing when doing works on their properties. However, in some cases this does not occur and has the potential to affect other landholders as well as natural resources and the environment. The water affecting activity permit system allows works in and around watercourses to be managed to reduce the risk of negative impacts on water resources, water users (including other users who may be affected), and the environment, and if required, helps people to learn about good practices in and around watercourses. The permit system is not intended to be onerous, and is aimed at higher risk activities rather than day-to-day activities.


Recommends a commitment to outcomes, not process and prescriptions [see comment 320]. Another example is the requirement for water affecting activity permits which unnecessarily add to the existing burden of regulation via local government. Rather than showing a lack of faith in the community (most of which are honourable and a few

As per comment # 19 - Water affecting activities

216


environmental vandals) by imposing costly and time-consuming procedures, let's instead set up some 'best practice' methodologies or codes of practice for the majority of people, and a warning/compliance process for the recalcitrant. Show faith, show leadership and trust your community.


Need to be reassured that routine maintenance of watercourses and stormwater infrastructure is not unduly restricted by the EMLR WAP (particularly water affecting activities).

Water affecting activity permits are only required for certain activities, such as excavation or deposition of material in watercourses (amongst other things). The Board's Regional NRM Plan includes the possibility that local councils and other bodies may be exempted from the permitting requirements via written authorisation from the Board under certain circumstances, including compliance with Best Practice Operating Procedures. This may provide a mechanism to avoid administrative requirements around routine operations that would normally require a permit. It is suggested that you contact the Board's water affecting activities team on tel. 8391 7500 for more information.


What happens to treatment of waste water from desalination plants?

Discharge by desalination plants is generally managed through the Environment Protection Act 1993 through the Environment Protection Authority. The Environment Protection (Water Quality) Policy that sits under the Environment Protection Act is the key legislative instrument for managing water quality impacts associated with pollutants.The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes principles that aim to protect natural resources and users from use of prescribed water sources (e.g. principles 6-7). In addition, a water affecting activity permit is required under the Board's Regional NRM Plan or the EMLR WAP for discharging water into a watercourse, and part of the assessment criteria includes a requirement for no adverse impacts on water quality and water-dependent ecosystems. If the discharge is managed through an environmental authorisation under the Environment Protection Act 1993, a water affecting activity permit is not required.


Recommends that any privately owned desalination plants are small-scale to minimise the risk of pollution; that the associated waste stream must not be released to the environment; such plants must be consistent with the state wide desalination policy as per the Water for Good

As per comment # 597 - Water affecting activitiesA water allocation plan is a regulatory document that guides assessment of applications for new allocations, transfers and water affecting activities. It is beyond the scope of a water allocation plan to regulate how desalination plants are operated.

217


strategy; and should have a commitment to 100% accredited green power given the high energy intensity.


Page 161, section 7.2.3: Objective a) i) for draining water into a watercourse or lake should be modified so that conveyance of contaminants is "prevented" rather than "minimised".

It is not practical to entirely prevent contamination. The general water affecting activity principles (principles 146-147 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP), which apply to all water affecting activities, include requirements that activities must not cause adverse impacts on water-dependent ecosystems or cause unacceptable deterioration in water quality.


Support the provisions of principle 195 (realignment of watercourses).

Noted.


Request that consideration be given to the water affecting impacts of excavation/removal of rock, sand or soil in areas not defined as a watercourse (potential rewording to principle 196) - as may occur during the removal of topsoil on development sites.

A water allocation plan can only manage the specific water affecting activities defined in section 127 of the NRM Act. The water affecting activity of excavation or removal of rock, sand or soil in this section of the NRM Act specifically applies to a watercourse or lake or the floodplain of a watercourse; or an area near to the banks of a lake so as to damage, or create the likelihood of damage to, the banks of the lake.

777 - Water availability and limits

What exactly is a sustainable consumptive use limit and how is it calculated?

The consumptive use limit is the quantum of water which is available for consumptive purposes, including licensed and non-licensed needs, after considering system and environmental needs.As per comment # 27 - Water availability and limitsSection 4.3.3 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP sets out how the consumptive use limits for underground water have been calculated.


Likely increases in domestic demand (rural and urban) and intensive animal production is not adequately accounted for.

In the case of surface water, estimated current non-licensed use (including free-ranging stock and domestic use) is accounted for when determining the volume available for allocation for licensed use. The volume of use from a dam is generally limited by the dam's capacity. New dams for any purpose, including domestic use, require a water affecting activities permit or development approval. The draft EMLR WAP sets out dam capacity limits intended to apply to all new dam construction or enlargement, so an application for a new domestic dam will be assessed in the same way as for a new licensed dam. Such a new dam application is likely to be refused in a fully developed area. The dam construction limits and rules are aimed at protecting current users and the

218


environment, minimising the risk of impacts to existing users as a result of increasing water demand. Alternative water sources may be available from domestic use, such as roof runoff (where a licence is not required for domestic use of roof runoff).In the case of underground water, estimated current non-licensed use (including free-ranging stock and domestic use) is also accounted for when determining the volume available for allocation for licensed use. Some domestic supply in some townships is provided under a commercial arrangement, and hence the provider requires a licence (not the householder). These cases have been included as part of the existing user allocation process. If the provider needs a higher volume than what has been allocated (e.g. if they haven't made sufficient provision for future expansion), then they will need to seek further allocation via a new allocation or transfer like other licensed users. Private domestic supply or domestic supply under a non-commercial arrangement is not licensed, and the volume taken out of a bore is not metered or limited to a certain volume. Unlike a dam, the volume taken out of a well is not limited by the nature of the infrastructure and the so volume taken for non-licensed purposes is an estimate only. The volume set aside from the underground water consumptive use limits is based on estimated current domestic requirements.Recommend that the estimates of domestic requirements from underground water in the consultation draft EMLR WAP be increased to account for likely increased demand over the life of this plan, based on projected population increases.Intensive animal production is a licensed purpose, and so increase in water demand will need to be accommodated within the consumptive use limits and other allocation and transfer rules in the same way as for other licensed purposes.


Would like to know how the 15% limit for surface water was determined - can't see why it shouldn't be 30%. How can people have their say if they are kept in the dark?

Chapters 2 and 4 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP (particularly sections 2.4.2 and 4.2.2.2) describes how the 15% consumptive use limit for surface water and watercourses was developed.Please note that it is recommended that this limit be revised to be an evaporation and consumptive use limit of 20%, where evaporation is counted directly against the limit (see comment 499 in section 'Surface water and watercourses').


Recommend that a region-wide audit be undertaken to determine the amount and rate of water loss from the region. Increased runoff from land use change and erosion has increased the rate of movement through the landscape, which may affect environmental

The monitoring and evaluation program, as well as any other investigations undertaken in the region, will help improve our understanding of water flows within the prescribed area and its connection to other water resources. Agree that there is a need for holistic natural resources management and integration of actions. The scope of the EMLR WAP is limited to management of the taking and use of

219


needs. Recommend that the EMLR WAP is properly integrated with other NRM and catchment management planning, decision making and actions to alleviate higher rate of water losses/movement in the region. Broad landscape scale NRM improvements can improve drought resilience by retaining winter rainfall in the landscape through natural mechanisms.

water, and of certain water affecting activities. However, the EMLR WAP is part of the Board's broader Regional NRM Plan. The Regional NRM Plan includes actions and targets for sustainable land management such as improving soil and land condition and addressing land degradation. These actions and targets aim to increase soil moisture holding capacity, reduce erosion risk, reduce risks of salinity and other forms of soil degradation, and improve nutrient cycling. The Board will continue to work with the community, farming and catchment groups, agencies, local government, research bodies and other bodies to work towards these targets.


The extraction limits should incorporate an error value thereby minimising available extraction limits to account for plausible under-reporting (e.g. under-estimate of non-licensed demand) and to limit the risk of further degradation by erring on the side of caution.

Defining confidence limits around the extraction limits is a complex exercise given the variety of data sets and techniques used to set the limits for different resources. Agree that there is an error margin both above and below the limits used in the plan. For the purposes of striking an equitable balance between social, economic and environmental water needs (as required by the NRM Act), it was considered reasonable to use values that sit within the error band rather than at one end or the other. Where values have been estimated (for example, stock and domestic use), somewhat conservative (generous) values have been used to reduce the risk of potential over-allocation.


Acknowledge the EMLR WAP's attempt at differentiating between the topographical areas of the region but suggest it doesn't go far enough. Blanket rulings fail to consider the many variables that make each property unique - for example, no new allocations; and eventually all dams must have a low flow bypass installed. How can it be certain that these measures are necessary for the entire region into the future when work is still being done? Needs to be greater autonomy for the landholder because of these differences across the landscape - where landholders generally have more comprehensive knowledge of their land.

Agree that there is variability over the landscape. The draft EMLR WAP aims to accounts for local-scale use and impacts through policies that operate at the local scale, such as the well buffer zones. The information underpinning the prescription process is considered to be adequate to support sustainable management, and understanding will be improved by continued gathering of data and information. The Board is open and prepared to consider further robust information where available. Water allocation plans are reviewed at least every five years, which allows new information to be incorporated. The wealth of knowledge that landholders have is acknowledged, and the Board appreciates the observations that have helped to shape the draft EMLR WAP.When managing a valuable, highly sought communal resource like water, it is important to balance individual autonomy with the potential for negative impacts on the water resource and other users, including the environment.Please note that after careful consideration of the responses made during consultation, the Board has decided to recommend that new allocations be allowed in zones that are not fully developed, within the rules and limits set out in the EMLR WAP (see comment 75 in section 'New allocations').It is not correct that eventually all dams must return low flows. The current proposal is that low flow are to be returned at all existing licensed dams and watercourse diversions,

220


and existing non-licensed dams with a capacity of 5 ML or more. All new dams and watercourse diversions are to return low flows, which continues the existing policy in place under the Board's Regional NRM Plan. Furthermore, as outlined during the consultation process, the Board is working with the Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM Board and DEWNR on a strategic location project that will examine whether the same environmental outcomes can be achieved while returning low flows in fewer places.Individual autonomy needs to be balanced against the common good in the case of a shared resource like water.


Regarding section 4.1.3 - Balance? Capacity = environmental + consumptive (unlicensed) + consumptive (licensed) + /- transfers + water EA?

On a coarse scale, the balance in the consultation draft EMLR WAP can be expressed as:resource capacity = system and environmental provisions + consumptive use (licensed) + consumptive use (non-licensed - e.g. stock and domestic use, commercial forestry)Transfers occur within the consumptive use components of the balance. Water can also move between the licensed and non-licensed consumptive use components.Ecosystem allocations can be made from the consumptive use component (as per principles 10-13 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP), or from the system and environmental provisions component (as per principles 10-11 and 14-22 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP).


Will landholders have access to water made available when areas of forestry are felled?

Yes, potentially. Existing water interception by forestry is accounted for against the water-taking limits when assessing applications for allocations, transfers, new dam construction and new commercial forestry. If forestry that has previously been counted against the limit is removed and won't be replanted, then the water previously set aside for that forestry could become available for new consumptive use. There would need to be confidence that the existing forestry would not be replanted, which could potentially be demonstrated by surrendering the permit or development approval authorising the existing forestry.However, the way that the underground water-taking limits are expressed in the consultation draft EMLR WAP makes it difficult to implement such an approach. This is because water interception by forestry in place before WAP adoption is set aside as part of calculating the allocation limit (as set out in section 4.3.4 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP). The allocation limit is the volume available for allocation to existing licensed users in a process that is separate from the EMLR WAP, and is calculated as recharge minus baseflow minus throughflow minus existing non-licensed use (estimated commercial forestry, stock and domestic use). It would be simpler to assess new allocations and

221


transfers against the consumptive use limit (which is calculated as recharge minus baseflow minus throughflow - see section 4.3.3), and directly counting estimated stock and domestic demand and estimated existing forestry interception and use against the consumptive use limit as part of this assessment*. This allows changes in the volume of estimated forestry interception to be easily incorporated over time as part of this assessment, rather than changing the value of the limit itself. This approach is also consistent with the way the water-taking limits operate for surface water and watercourses.This change doesn't alter the total water balance. It just changes where non-licensed use is counted within the total water balance (i.e. whether non-licensed use is within the part of the water-balance that is the water-taking limit, or outside it).Recommend amending principle 75 and 77 and Table 4.7 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP, and relevant explanatory information, so that new allocations and transfers of underground water are assessed against the consumptive use limit (not the allocation limit)*, and existing non-licensed use (commercial forestry, estimated stock and domestic demand) is directly counted against the consumptive use limit as part of such assessments.

* These recommended changes interact with the changes recommended in relation to comment 75 (see section 'New allocations'). The consultation draft EMLR WAP did not allow new allocations, and also used a conservative cap on total water taking of 50% of the allocation limit when assessing applications for new water taking in an area due to a transfer or new commercial forestry permit (this limit is called the transfer and forestry threshold, as outlined in section 4.3.5 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP). After careful consideration of the responses made during consultation, the Board has decided to recommend that new allocations be allowed in zones that are not fully developed, within the rules and limits set out in the EMLR WAP (see comment 75). In addition, it has been decided that the limit for underground water allocations should reflect the allocation limit, rather than the transfer and forestry threshold. The best available information on water availability and environmental needs indicates that further sustainable production can be supported in certain areas.


Regarding table 4.6 - management objectives to include quality; maintenance of base flows; and buffer definition.

Agree that maintenance of baseflow is an important management objective, and it is not clear that this is captured by the objective to maintain natural flow through aquifers.Recommend adding "including baseflow to the surface" to the management objective to 'maintain natural flow through aquifers' in Table 4.6 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.

222


Agree that maintaining acceptable water quality is an important management objective, and one of the considerations in setting the taking limits for underground water is to minimise the risks of drawing saline underground water into fresher areas.Recommend adding "Maintain acceptable water quality" as a management objective at the scale of the underground water management zone in Table 4.6 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.Buffer zones are considered as a tool for achieving the objectives, and definitions for environmental buffer zones and well buffer zones are included in the glossary in section 11.2 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP.


The modelling indicates that water use in much of the prescribed area is at or over the extraction limits that would balance the needs of consumptive and environmental demands, but the EMLR WAP does not acknowledge or analyse the history of mismanagement. The timeline (p 17), for example, should include the 1981 closing on the Murray Mouth.

The consultation draft EMLR WAP acknowledges current problems such as impacts on water resources (section 1.3.4) and water-dependent ecosystems (section 2.3).The purpose of Table 1.1 is to outline the various legislative steps that have occurred as part of the water management process in the EMLR. It is not intended as a general history of events in the broader region, and it is not considered appropriate to include the closing of the Murray mouth in this table.


The plan relies on past averages and mean annual volumes, and does not make sufficient preparation for climate change effects (e.g. extreme weather, changes in rainfall patterns, increased evaporation).

DEWNR is currently undertaking work to estimate the impacts of climate change on the capacity of water resources, including those in the Mount Lofty Ranges. The outcomes of this work will be used to inform climate change adaptation planning for water resources. However, all credible projections of climate change and its impacts in South Australia are made on a timescale of multiple decades. For example, the CSIRO and BOM’s (2007) Climate Change in Australia project provides projections of changes in South Australia’s climate for time horizons of 2030, 2050 and 2070, compared to a 1990 climate baseline. On shorter timescales, unpredictable climate variations, such as a few hot and dry years followed by a few wetter and cooler years, are superimposed on the ongoing longer-term climate change. The EMLR WAP has a five-year review period. Over a shorter timescale such as this, applying a pro-rata of the changes projected between 1990 and 2030 may not be appropriate. Until improved climate change projections are available, the climate of recent decades remains the best indicator of the climate of the near future and it is appropriate to base estimates of water resource capacities on these historic data. Furthermore, the uncertainties in our estimates of the capacity of water resources are considerably greater than the amount of climate change that may occur over the five year timescale of the EMLR WAP.

223


These uncertainties emphasise the importance of monitoring the condition of the resource and adapting to changes over the regular review cycle of the EMLR WAP.


Climate change impacts should be incorporated into the plan. If we wait until all the details are known, then the allocation reductions will be too great to politically manage. It is sensible to start with a small percentage reduction now and review it often and alter allocations as more data becomes available.

As per comment # 121 - Water availability and limits


Recommend that to comply with the requirements of the Act, a climate change factor of at least 3% must be used and reviewed annually. Present CSIRO and scientists' predictions of decreasing rainfall should be closely followed.



Recommend that at a minimum, an average rainfall reflecting the current 30 year average should be used. The current 30 year average is probably between 3-5% lower than the value used in the EMLR WAP (1974-2006) - WAP values are too high to be meaningful for a period over the next decade.



Concerned with silence on climate change. Wouldn't a prudent manager, applying the precautionary principle, pursue a plan that provided some flexibility; returned all available water to the environment; had powerful incentives to change behaviour regarding water consumption; and revisited the bases on which existing users have been allocated water and the uses to which existing users are putting the water?


224



Concerned that climate change or variability has not been considered. Concerned that the average annual rainfall data underpinning the WAP is that of the wetter years of the 1970s and 1980s, when the long-term average over the 30 year period to 2010 would be up to 5% lower. The annual rainfall estimates being used are too high to be meaningful over the next decade. An attempt to quantify the effect of climate change must be entertained, and failing that, the average rainfall reflecting the last 30 years (to 2010) should be used rather than the period used for the draft EMLR WAP. Concerned the period of 2006 - 2010 was overlooked in hydrological modelling. 2009 provided extreme conditions which overtaxed the system. This data should have been used as the basis for a lower threshold or as independent data to test the models underpinning the WAP. There is an implication that there is no need or desire to consider ongoing data - including monitoring data collected during the life of the WAP. Rainfall and runoff over the last decade is less than that used in development of the draft EMLR WAP, suggesting the system is fragile and considerable caution needs to be taken. The metrics need to be re-worked using more recent data, which may suggest that there is less surface water available for use.

As per comment # 121 - Water availability and limitsThe modelling underpinning the limits for surface water and watercourses was carried out for the period of 1971-2006, which encompasses wet, dry and average conditions. The CSIRO 2007 Sustainable Yields report for the EMLR region identifies that the climate for the period of 1997-2006 reduced water availability to a greater extent than the best estimate (median) climate change scenario for 2030.Extending the modelling and limit calculations up to 2010 is a considerable amount of work, and would further delay finalisation and implementation of the EMLR WAP from its already extended timeline. Implementation is required at some point, and data collection and ongoing evaluation will continue. Section 8 of the consultation draft EMLR WAP sets out a monitoring program to improve our knowledge of water resource behaviour and environmental responses, and it is recommended that this section be further developed following consultation responses (see comments 571, 79 in the 'MERI' section and comment 239 in the 'Returning low flows' section).In the meanwhile, the NRM Act sets out a number of actions that the Minister can implement if problems arise. Section 132 allows temporary reductions or restrictions on the volume of water taken or the way it is taken, or requirements to take action to address problems, where there are impacts (or likely to be impacts) on water quantity, quality and water-dependent ecosystems. Section 155 allows permanent allocation reductions in some circumstances. The EMLR WAP can also be amended at any time, but significant amendments that change the intent of the plan need to go through the development and consultation process set out in the NRM Act, and so this is not a rapid way of responding to issues. It is important to note that a key part of the prescription process is the requirement to return low flows. This is a more practical and effective way of providing a critical part of the water regime to the environment compared with managing the volume taken in a system like the EMLR where the majority of water on the surface is captured by dams. Without returning low flows, these dams need to fill and spill before runoff can continue downstream. Managing the volume taken from dams can help to provide an adequate pattern of filling and spilling to provide the higher components of environmental needs, but the key water requirement to help sustain aquatic habitats through dry periods is provided by returning low flows.Ref: CSIRO (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) 2007, Water availability in the Eastern Mont Lofty Ranges, A report of the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray- Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project, CSIRO, Australia.

225



Deferring any consideration of climate change in the EMLR WAP is surprising and disappointing given the drastic reduction in stream flow over the last decade. Believe an allowance should be made for climate change impacts as a precaution, given data on CO2 emissions and temperature trends are exceeding the highest of the currently used climate models. At the very least, some consideration should be made as to how future impacts might be considered when re-assessing allocations, including environmental allocations. The Plan will be rendered ineffective should there be no mechanism available to allow timely adjustment of allocations.

As per comment # 121 - Water availability and limitsThe modelling underpinning the limits for surface water and watercourses was carried out for the period of 1971-2006, which encompasses wet, dry and average conditions. The CSIRO 2007 Sustainable Yields report for the EMLR region identifies that the climate for the period of 1997-2006 reduced water availability to a greater extent than the best estimate (median) climate change scenario for 2030.The NRM Act allows for "unbundling" of water licences into separate components, and provides a mechanism for making allocations as shares in a consumptive pool where the size of the pool, and hence the size of allocations, may vary over time. Unbundling is a recent direction in South Australian water planning, and there is significant work to be done to determine how unbundling could operate in systems like the EMLR. As outlined in the response to comment # 571, there are significant practical issues with varying allocations from dams in order to respond to the water availability in a given year.It is expected that the possibility of unbundling licences for the EMLR will be explored for the review of the WAP, which needs to occur within five years of WAP adoption.In the meanwhile, the NRM Act sets out a number of actions that the Minister can implement if problems arise. Section 132 allows temporary reductions or restrictions on the volume of water taken or the way it is taken, or requirements to take action to address problems, where there are impacts (or likely to be impacts) on water quantity, quality and water-dependent ecosystems. Section 155 allows permanent allocation reductions in some circumstances. The EMLR WAP can also be amended at any time, but significant amendments that change the intent of the plan need to go through the development and consultation process set out in the NRM Act, and so this is not a rapid way of responding to issues. These tools for action are already set out in the NRM Act, so it is not appropriate to re-state them in the WAP. Principle 273 in the monitoring section of the EMLR WAP sets out the steps to be taken if monitoring reveals condition indicator trigger has been reached (identify the cause, determine if there are negative impacts, assess options for remedial actions if necessary, report, implement remedial actions). The tools under the NRM Act as listed above are some of the types of remedial actions that could be taken in these circumstances. It is not possible for the WAP to prescribe a specific course of action for every type of potential problem The best path will be determined by the particular circumstances and the Board believes it is more practical and flexible for the WAP to set out the broad steps to be taken (as per principle 273) and to implement these, including appropriate remedial actions, as applies to the individual case.

226



Using averages and modelling to work out sustainable use limits is of limited value when most years are not average. Limits should be based on dry years so that the environment has sufficient water at these times.

The Board believes that the draft EMLR WAP is underpinned by sound science, including long-term datasets encompassing wet, dry and average years for underground water dynamics, climate, flow and ecological responses, as well as specific investigations and modelling undertaken using techniques drawn from established science.The draft EMLR WAP uses a complementary mix of limits as well as rules around how and where water can be taken to give a more flexible approach to sharing water amongst consumptive and environmental uses in the face of a variable climate. For example, the policy to protect low flows (at or below the threshold flow rate) means that this key part of the water regime is available to support refuge pools during drier years. Another example is the underground water buffer zone policies in the draft EMLR WAP, which manage the location of new wells and new underground water allocations or transfers to minimise the risk that they will affect dependent ecosystems.Setting water-taking limits based on dry years is likely to have a significant impact on the viability of existing businesses, particularly during average to wet years when more water could be sustainably taken. Using complementary policies like water-taking rules, as outlined above, means that the limit can be more reflective of average years while still making environmental provisions in drier years. Such an approach is more likely to meet the NRM Act's requirement that a water allocation plan equitably balances social, economic and environmental water needs.


It is inevitable that water allocations will need to be adjusted over time as a result of climate change. Recommend that the financial risk of future adjustments must ultimately be the responsibility of landholders rather than requiring taxpayer funded buybacks.

Under the National Water Initiative (NWI) the risk as a result of long term changes in climate are borne by the water access entitlement holder (NWI principle 48). In addition the NRM Act provides a number of mechanisms where water allocations may be reduced in particular circumstances without payment.


Given the five year life of the EMLR WAP, it is understandable that climate change and adaptation measures are not comprehensively addressed. However it is important that the EMLR WAP fully outlines the potential long term climate change risks to water resources in the region.

Agree that it would be useful to include further information on climate change in the draft EMLR WAP.Recommend expanding the climate change and variability section (1.4.3) of the consultation draft EMLR WAP to include more information on potential impacts of climate change, and how this plan and future reviews propose to address climate change.

352 - Water use

Recommends implementation of structural and financial incentives for voluntary

Agree that financial incentives and education on water efficiency and savings are important, but is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP. The Board's Regional NRM Plan

227


efficiency innovation in water use efficiency, and community education. Saving water in domestic, agricultural and industrial settings by working with relevant stakeholders can provide water to the environment. Some water users will change practices in the light that current use is degrading the environment, highlighting the importance of awareness and education. Recommend that water consumers are encouraged to minimise evaporation through processes including use of covered vessels and shade from vegetation.

includes targets and actions on building the community's awareness, participation and capacity in natural resources management, including the importance of water for the environment. The Board works towards these targets with the community, groups and institutions such as Local Action Planning groups, catchment groups, schools, local government and other government agencies.The Board's Regional NRM Plan sets a range of targets and actions around water use efficiency. The Board provides support to help irrigators to use water efficiently, including: provision of data, tools and advice to assist efficient and best practice water use (e.g.

weather station network to assist irrigation scheduling, irrigation management courses, on-farm trials and extension activities)

assistance in developing and implementing district codes of practice and local land and water management plans to limit irrigation impacts on soil and water resources, and to support a more resilient and sustainable industry

supporting research to develop tools to assist efficient and sustainable water use facilitating grant applications to help fund improvements in irrigation infrastructure.

For example, the Board has coordinated successful funding applications for over $20 million from the Federal Government for irrigation infrastructure improvement in the SAMDB this year.

526 - Water use efficiency

A study of conservative water use should be carried out. Some farming and household practices are not conservative and we all need to work together on this.

As per comment # 352 - Water use efficiency


Recommend that increased fresh water is returned to the Bremer River through incentives for water efficiency measures and community education, in order to manage for the high salinity of the river which has implications for underground water recharge and for the numerous springs and pools sustained by underground water discharge.

As per comment # 352 - Water use efficiency


Recommend that reduced frequency and duration of floods in the Bremer River Plains region be managed through voluntary water efficiency measures and community

Agree that voluntary reduction in water use through water use efficiency and education will assist in water management in this area. It is outside the scope of the EMLR WAP to provide incentives and education, but is addressed as part of the Board's broader

228


education in order to protect the red gum swamps.

Regional NRM Plan. The consultation draft EMLR WAP includes policies that support the continued provision of flooding to red gum swamps by local irrigators (e.g. principles 16 and 120).As per comment # 352 - Water use efficiency


Recommend that incentives and education be given for voluntary reductions in the extraction rate from the Murray Group Limestone Aquifer, given increasing salinity through current extraction.

As per comment # 352 - Water use efficiencyIt is expected that increasing salinity in the Murray Group Limestone Aquifer will be substantially mitigated through recharge of fresh water into wells from the new pipeline bringing water to the area, although management of the volume taken for licensed purposes may be needed in some areas.


Recommend that incentives and education be given for voluntary reductions in underground water extraction rate in Tookayerta catchment, given there are significant wetlands there that need to be protected from over use of underground water. Ongoing monitoring of the aquifer is also needed, with the results made public.

As per comment # 352 - Water use efficiencyAs per comment # 265 - MERI


All consumptive water users should be encouraged to use best management practices to ensure efficient utilisation of resources, including making every effort to minimise evaporation and seepage from dams.

The Board's Regional NRM Plan sets a range of targets and actions around water use efficiency. The Board provides support to help irrigators to use water efficiently, including: provision of data, tools and advice to assist efficient and best practice water use (e.g.

weather station network to assist irrigation scheduling, irrigation management courses, on-farm trials and extension activities)




Principle 154 in the consultation draft EMLR WAP requires new dams to be constructed to prevent seepage.

229


Several principles in the consultation draft EMLR WAP account for evaporation from dams, and this will become more important with the proposed revision to include evaporation as part of the consumptive use limit for surface water and watercourse (see comment 499 in the 'Surface water and watercourses' section). The consultation draft EMLR WAP estimates evaporation from dams as a nominated percentage of dam capacity. Allowing more flexibility in how evaporation is estimated for these principles can provide an incentive to reduce evaporation, as more water may be available for consumptive use within the limits if evaporation is less. However, there needs to be confidence that the reduction in evaporation will be ongoing if that saved water is to be made available for use.Recommend that the principle that sets out how evaporation from dams is estimated (based on a nominated percentage of dam capacity) in the consultation draft EMLR WAP (principle 44 b)) be amended to allow consideration of an alternative value for evaporation (demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Minister), where a dam has been constructed or modified to result in a permanent difference in the average net annual evaporation compared with the estimate based on nominated percentage of dam capacity.


There are no incentives in the draft EMLR WAP for water use efficiency. Inefficient users will be rewarded by basing licences on existing practices which may be inefficient. An example is giving water to irrigators to grow water-hungry crops in areas that are inappropriate for these crops. Proposed solution is to place a realistic price on water (i.e. a user-pays system). Current levy, which is not based on volume used, does not achieve this.

The Board's Regional NRM Plan sets a range of targets and actions around water use efficiency. The Board provides support to help irrigators to use water efficiently, including: provision of data, tools and advice to assist efficient and best practice water use

(e.g. weather station network to assist irrigation scheduling, irrigation management courses, on-farm trials and extension activities)




The prescription process provides an incentive for efficient use of water by allocating water to existing users by the volume reasonably required for a given type of enterprise rather than current practices. This means that an efficient user will be able to increase the size of their operation, or have a larger buffer for year-to-year variation in water needs.

230


The Board's view is that the role of the prescription process is to set out limits and policies that provide for sustainable water taking and use. It is not seen at the role of the prescription process to specify what types of enterprises should be able to use water within those limits and policies - instead that is the business decision of the licensee.

The water levy is not a charge on water use, and is not intended as a mechanism to regulate water use. The purpose of the water levy is to contribute to the funds required to implement the Board's Regional NRM Plan to assist sustainable natural resources management in the region for the benefit of natural resources users, the wider community and the environment.


High cost of electricity likely to have led to water savings as high cost of pumping means water users will limit unnecessary pumping and hence limit water use to save power costs.

Noted.

231

Documents

· Web viewThis appendix contains a summary of the main comments made throughout the written submissions received on EMLR WAP during consultation. Each comment has a unique