COOPERATIVE CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT: THE MURRAY DARLING … · The Murray-Darling Basin Agreement Bill 1996 Page 2 If the Queensland Parliament ratifies the Agreement, Queensland will

ELECTRONIC VERSION

COOPERATIVE CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT: THEMURRAY DARLING BASIN AGREEMENT BILL 1996

LEGISLATION BULLETIN NO 1/96

BRIAN STEVENSON

QUEENSLAND PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARYPublications and Resources Section

BRISBANE

June 1996

ISSN 1324-860XISBN 0 7242 6986 X

This Legislation Bulletin was prepared to assist Members in their consideration of theBill in the Queensland Legislative Assembly. It should not be considered as a completeguide to the legislation and does not constitute legal advice.

The Bulletin reflects the legislation as introduced. The Queensland LegislationAnnotations, prepared by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, or theBills Update, produced by the Table Office of the Queensland Parliament, should beconsulted to determine whether the Bill has been enacted and if so, whether thelegislation as enacted reflects amendments in Committee. Readers are also directed tothe relevant Alert Digest of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the QueenslandParliament.

© Queensland Parliamentary Library, 1996

Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the CopyrightAct 1968, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited, other than by Members ofthe Queensland Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the priorwritten permission of the Parliamentary Librarian, Queensland Parliamentary Library.

Inquiries should be addressed to: Director, Publications & Resources, QueenslandParliamentary Library, Parliament House, George Street, Brisbane.Director: Ms Mary Seefried.

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________1

2. THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN ________________________________2

3. THE PROPOSED BILL __________________________________________3

4. THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AGREEMENT AND THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION_________________________________5

5. THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN MINISTERIAL COUNCIL ________7

6. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS OF THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN_______________________________________________9

7. HISTORY OF THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION ____13

APPENDIX A ______________________________________________________17

APPENDIX B ______________________________________________________19

BIBLIOGRAPHY___________________________________________________21

A rather strange thing is going on now. One day all the creeks and littlewatercourses were covered with a large tussocky grass ... but ... now the only soilis getting trodden hard with stock, springs of salt water are bursting out in everyhollow ... and as it trickles down the watercourses in summer the strong tussockygrasses die before it ...

Letter of a settler to Governor Charles La Trobe describing events on his property insouth-western Victoria, 1853. Quoted in David Brett, ‘Restoring the Murray-DarlingBasin’, Ecos, No 64, Winter 1990, pp 4-9.

This question of irrigation is one which must grow. It cannot be carried out in aday or in a week. It must be years before it will grow to that stage when it will beutilised to the fullest extent .... But what has Queensland to say to this?Queensland has not .... joined this Convention, but the waters that are attemptedto be attacked in New South Wales extend into Queensland... are we not nowdoing something towards preventing Queensland from coming into the Federationat some future date?...You are now proposing to take a right over these waters ofthat colony, whose necessities are similar to those of New South Wales, and, indoing that, you are adding something to the Convention Bill which will assist tokeep Queensland from joining the Federation.

William Lyne, future Premier of New South Wales, at the Australasian FederalConvention, discussing the management of the Murray-Darling Basin, 24 January 1898.Victoria. Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention, 3rdSession, 20 January to 17 March 1898, Volume I, p 101, Melbourne.

The Commonwealth is spending $1.2 billion a year on fundamental infrastructurelike roads but only $87 million a year on the fundamental infrastructure of soiland water in the Murray-Darling Basin....If we stuff it up, it’s for good. We don’tget a second chance.

Noel Fitzpatrick, retiring chairperson of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, 1995.Quoted in Ian Paterson, ‘Irrigation water to be cut: water audit to come for Murray-Darling Basin’, Australian Farm Journal, February 1995, pp 50-1.

The Murray-Darling Basin Agreement Bill 1996 Page 1

DATE OF INTRODUCTION: 16 May 1996

PORTFOLIO: Natural Resources

HANSARD REFERENCESECOND READING:

Weekly Hansard, 16 May 1996pp 1217-19

COMMENCEMENT: Upon proclamation

1. INTRODUCTION

The objectives of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement Bill are to approve and carryout an agreement entered into by the Commonwealth and the four states which containparts of the water, land and other environmental resources of the Murray-DarlingBasin. The Murray-Darling Basin Agreement was signed by the Commonwealth, NewSouth Wales, Victorian and South Australian governments in 1988, all four of whichenacted legislation similar to that now proposed for Queensland.1 In 1992 theAgreement was updated. Queensland agreed to become a member, and to take part inthose activities where it contributed and had responsibilities. On 16 May 1996 theQueensland Premier signed the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, but parliamentaryratification of this is necessary.

1 Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993 (Cth); Murray-Darling Basin Act 1992 (NSW); Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993 (SA); Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993 (Vic).


If the Queensland Parliament ratifies the Agreement, Queensland will be subject to itsprovisions, except for the water accounting agreements that the other three states haveentered into regarding water usage from the Murray, Lower Darling and theirtributaries, and issues relating to the Menindee Lakes, the Snowy MountainsAgreement, and works, measures and strategies solely associated with the managementof the Upper River Murray and the River Murray in South Australia.2

This Bulletin does not include a detailed comparative analysis of similar legislation inother jurisdictions, because of its “machinery of government” nature. Rather thisBulletin provides historical and contextual information.

2. THE MURRAY DARLING BASIN

The Murray-Darling Basin is easily Australia’s most extensive river basin. It has longloomed large in the national psyche. The two great rivers for which it is namedprovided much of the stimulus for European incursions into the Australian interior,when early white explorers, spurred on by tales of inland seas and the possibility ofnavigable waterways, sought insight into the mysteries of a silent and enigmaticcontinent.3

At the size of France and Spain combined, the Basin is large by world standards. Itcovers over one million square kilometres, nearly one seventh of the Australiancontinent. It includes all of the Australian Capital Territory, 75 percent of New SouthWales, 56 percent of Victoria, 15 percent of Queensland and 8 percent of SouthAustralia. The Basin contains 20 major rivers which flow through 16,000 kilometres,plus thousands of smaller streams, all of which ultimately flow into the Murray River.

Although the Basin is home for only 12 percent of Australia’s population, it is probablyAustralia’s most vital geographical feature. It accounts for over 45 percent ofAustralia’s gross agricultural production as well as a significant proportion ofagricultural commodity processing. Agricultural production alone from here earnsapproximately $10 billion annually.4

The Murray-Darling Basin grows 97 percent of the nation’s rice, 94 percent of itscotton, 84 percent of its grapes, and 63 percent of its fruit.5 It produces 40 percent of

2 Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Annual Report, 1994-5, p 10.

3 J M Powell, ‘Environmental degradation, “sustainability” and the Murray-Darling Basin’, Peopleand Place, 2(3), June 1994, pp 6-13.

4 Asa Wahlquist, ‘Rising costs of depleted water: blocked arteries: the degradation of Australia’sbiggest river system has sparked a fiscal crisis involving irrigators, environmentalists,administrators and agriculturalists’, Bulletin, 28 May 1996.

5 Paterson, pp 50-1.


the nation’s wool, 31 percent of its meat cattle, 28 percent of its dairy cattle and 46percent of its sheep and lambs. Ninety-two percent of Australian land under cottonand 59 percent of Australian land under orchard trees is located in the Murray-DarlingBasin.6

Irrigation in the Murray-Darling Basin is supported by an estimated $30 billion worthof infrastructure, including dozens of major dams and weirs, (one of which, DartmouthDam on the Mitta Mitta River, is the highest in the southern hemisphere) and hundredsof private storages. About 95 percent of the average 10,680 billion litres diverted fromthe Basin each year is used for irrigation.7

Although neither the Murray nor the Darling flow through Queensland, most ofQueensland’s inland rivers are part of the Basin, including major components of theDarling river system such as the Culgoa, Balonne, Barwon, Condamine, Maranoa,Warrego, Parroo, Macintyre, Weir, Dumaresq and Severn Rivers. A quarter of theland area of the Basin is in Queensland. The Basin stretches from south of Tambo toeast of Warwick, with the catchment area including the major towns of Charleville,Augathella, Morven, Roma, Tara, Dalby, Chinchilla, Stanthorpe, Warwick,Tooowoomba, Inglewood and Goondiwindi.8 Four of the nineteen catchmentmanagement regions into which the Murray-Darling Basin Commission has divided theBasin are in Queensland: the Warrego-Paroo, Maranoa-Balonne, Border Rivers andCondamine.9 While state boundaries are constitutional and legal divisions of Australia,the natural environment does not respect such borders. Queensland-basedmanagement of natural resources in the Basin will continue to have an impact on thenatural resources of western New South Wales, western Victoria and eastern SouthAustralia.

3. THE PROPOSED BILL

The main purpose of the Bill is “to approve and provide for carrying out anagreement entered into between the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria,Queensland and South Australia with regard to the water, land and otherenvironmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin”. The Murray-Darling BasinAgreement forms a Schedule to the Bill. Schedule D of the Agreement provides forspecific application of the Agreement to Queensland

6 Powell, pp 6-13.

7 David Mussared, ‘States agree to cap water use’, Canberra Times, 1 July 1995.

8 A map of the Basin is at Appendix B.



The first two clauses of the Bill provide respectively the customary citation for theshort title of the Act, and definitions within it. Definitions to the Act are contained inClause 2 of the Bill. Definitions to the Agreement are contained in Clause 2 of theSchedule to the Bill. Under Clause 3, if a word or expression (other than onepreviously defined in the legislation) is used both in the Act and the Murray-DarlingBasin Agreement, then the word or expression has the meaning given in theAgreement. Clause 4 binds all persons, including the State, to the legislation.

Under Clause 5 of the legislation, the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement is approved.Clause 6 of the legislation empowers the Governor in Council to appoint twoCommissioners and two Deputy Commissioners. These persons may be appointed fora term of not longer than five years, and are eligible for reappointment. Clause 7provides for the Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners to hold office on termsdecided on by the Governor in Council for matters not provided for by the Act, theAgreement or another state law. Clause 8 entitles the Commissioners or DeputyCommissioners to the remuneration and allowances fixed by the Governor in Council.Under Clause 9 they may resign under terms outlined in Clause 29 of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. The Governor in Council may, under Clause 10, removethem from office at any time.

Under Clause 11 of the bill, the Commission has the functions and powers expressedto be conferred on it under the Agreement. The Supreme Court may, under Clause12, exercise jurisdiction in relation to the Commission and the Commissioners in thesame way and extent as it could if the Commission were a body representing the stateand the Commissioners were state officers. This section also obliges the Commissionand Commissioners to comply if Commonwealth courts, or courts of another signatorystate issue orders or decisions that affect the Commission or Commissioners. UnderClause 13, despite any other Act of the State, a rate, tax, charge or fee is not payablefor any act or thing done by or for the Commission.

Clause 14 sets out the terms for dealing with the status of documents issued by theCommission. It deems that if minutes, records or proceedings of the Commission aresigned by the president of the Commission, or copies of minutes or records arecertified as correct, then these are presumed to be correct unless the contrary isproved. A document signed by and containing a decision of an arbitrator appointedunder the agreement is taken to be evidence of the decision unless the contrary isproved.

Under Clause 15, the Minister (in this case, the Minister for Natural Resources) mustensure that annual reports and financial statements from the Murray-Darling BasinCommission and Schedules approved by the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Councilare tabled in the Legislative Assembly as soon as practicable after the Minister receivesthem. Should a new state become a party to the Agreement, the Minister must, underClause 16, ensure a copy of the Schedule is laid before the Legislative Assemblywithin 15 sitting days after its approval by the Ministerial Council. (This Section,however, is unlikely to ever be invoked because once Queensland joins the Agreement,


all states and territories that include parts of the Murray-Darling Basin are parties toit.) The final clause, Clause 17, empowers the Governor in Council to makeregulations under the Act.

Adoption of the Bill will mean a change in arrangements for funding both entering andleaving the state. Queensland already makes an annual contribution ($164,000 in1995-96, subject to annual CPI adjustments) to the Murray-Darling BasinCommission. This contribution has previously been shared equally by the formerDepartments of Primary Industries, Lands, and Environment and Heritage. Newfunding arrangements between the three new Departments of Primary Industries,Environment, and Natural Resources have yet to be resolved.10

After joining the Agreement, Queensland will have access to additional funds throughthe National Landcare Program which is administered by the Department of PrimaryIndustries and Energy. For projects under the Integrated Catchment ManagementProgram, which comes under the Commission’s Natural Resource ManagementStrategy, Queensland’s contribution is matched on a dollar for dollar basis by theCommonwealth. With regard to projects under the Information and EducationProgram of the Murray-Darling, every dollar contributed by Queensland attracts afurther four dollars.

4. THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AGREEMENT AND THEMURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION

When Queensland’s decision to join the Murray-Darling Basin Commission11 wasforeshadowed in May 1992, it placed the state in a position to receive federal funds forprojects such as flood plain studies. It also committed Queensland to a contribution of$150,000 a year to the Commission, plus the possibility of contributing to one-offstudies or projects. (The contribution has since risen to $164,000.) Thiscontribution was about one-seventh of the amount that New South Wales paid as amember, because Queensland did not have to pay the costs of administering damsalong the Murray-Darling in the southern states. Queensland also became obliged toinform the Commission of any plans to dam waterways in the Basin. The Commissionin turn would have the right to object to, but not veto the construction of a dam. 12

On 24 June 1992 Queensland agreed to become a member of the Murray-DarlingBasin Agreement, and to take part in those elements for which Queensland contributesand has responsibilities. Queensland has no role in some aspects of the Murray-

10 See Explanatory Notes, Murray-Darling Basin Bill 1996.

11 See Section 7 of this Bulletin for historical details of the establishment of the Commission.

12 Clause 5(2), Clause 9 and Part VI of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement.


Darling Basin Commission’s operations. For example, the State plays no part in thesharing of the regulated flow of the Murray River, and does not contribute to the costof the dams and other infrastructure along that river system.

The purpose of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, as stated in Clause 1 of theAgreement, is to “promote and coordinate effective planning and management forthe equitable efficient and sustainable use of the land, water and other environmentalresources of the Murray-Darling Basin”.

The Commission consists of a President and two Commissioners from each of thecontracting governments. These are normally chief executives and senior executives ofthe agencies responsible for the stewardship of land, water and the environment. ADeputy Commissioner is appointed to each Commissioner.13

The Commission’s role is to coordinate management of natural resources across stateborders within the Murray-Darling Basin. This work is based on an extensive systemof more than 20 working groups made up of experts drawn from governments,CSIRO, universities, private and community organisations. It brings together the bestexpertise available in order to achieve the equitable, efficient and sustainabledevelopment of the Murray-Darling Basin.14

Under Clause 39 of the Agreement, the Commission may coordinate, carry out orcause to be carried out surveys, investigations and studies regarding the desirabilityand practicability of works or measures for the equitable, efficient and sustainable useof water, land and other environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin. Thismay include, but not be limited to, works or measures for:

• the conservation and regulation of river water;

• the protection and improvement of the quality of river water;

• the conservation, protection and management of aquatic and riverineenvironments; and

• the control and management of groundwater which may affect the quality andquantity of river water. 15

The Commission may initiate proposals for works or measures resulting from surveys,investigations or studies carried out under the above headings. If this activity is likelyto affect water, land or environmental resources under the control of a stategovernment or public authority responsible to a state government, the Commission


14 Daniel Connell, ‘Murray-Darling Basin: an organisation whose task has come’, AgriculturalScience, 8(1), Jan-Feb 1995, p 35.

15 Clause 39, Schedule, Murray-Darling Basin Bill 1996.


must inform the Ministerial Council of this, consider any submissions made by theother party and report these, and their responses to them, to the Ministerial Council.

The Commission is obliged under Clause 41 of the Agreement to establish and operatean effective uniform system of measuring and monitoring the quality of water either inthe River Murray and its tributaries or stored from there. Under Clause 42(2) it mayestablish, maintain and operate such a system on or adjacent to the Upper RiverMurray or the River Murray in South Australia without reference to any stategovernment. The Commission must, under Clause 45, formulate water qualityobjectives for the River Murray and make recommendations on it to the Council. Itcan make similar recommendations to the contracting governments or their agents onany matter affecting quality or quantity of the waters of the River Murray or storedwater. The Commission must, under Clause 46, be informed of any new proposalaffecting the flow, use, control or quality of any water in the Upper River Murray andall contracting states must ensure that the Commission is informed and provided withall essential information to permit it to assess the anticipated effect of the proposal onthe flow, use, control or quality of the water. Clause 69(1) provides for eachcontracting government to pay its share of the annual and supplementary estimates, asand when required by the Commission.

5. THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN MINISTERIAL COUNCIL

The Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council is the supreme policymaking body forthe region. It normally consists of 12 ministers holding portfolios for land, water andenvironmental issues within the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland,South Australia and Victorian governments. In June 1996 the Chairman of theMinisterial Council was the federal Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, theHon John Anderson, and the Queensland representative was the Minister for NaturalResources, the Hon Howard Hobbs. The ministers on the Council are policymakers intheir respective governments and their unanimous decisions represent a consensus ofgovernmental opinion across the Basin.

At their first formal meeting in 1986, the Ministerial Council adopted the purpose ofthe Murray-Darling Basin Agreement (noted above) as its General Objective. TheCouncil also asserted that, in pursuance of this objective, it specifically sought toachieve:

• improvement in and maintenance of water quality for all beneficial uses -agricultural, environmental, urban, industrial and recreational;

• the control of existing land degradation, the prevention of further landdegradation, and where possible the rehabilitation of land resources, to ensurethe sustainable utilisation of those resources; and


• conservation of the natural environment of the Basin and the preservation ofsensitive ecosystems.16

The functions of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council are to:

• determine major policy issues of common interest to the contractinggovernments concerning effective planning and management for the equitable,efficient and sustainable use of the water, land and other environmentalresources of the Murray-Darling Basin;

• develop and authorise measures for the equitable, efficient and sustainable useof such resources; and

• authorise works relating to the Initiative (the name given to the partnershipbetween the federal and participating state governments)

Under Clause 17 of the Agreement the Commission advises the Ministerial Council inrelation to the planning, development and management of the water, land and otherenvironmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin, and assists the Council indeveloping measures for its equitable, efficient and sustainable use. The MinisterialCouncil coordinates the implementation of, or itself implements, any measuresauthorised by the Council and gives effect to any policy or decision which it requiresthe Commission to implement. It also exercises the powers and discharges the dutiesconferred on it by the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement, or any Act approving thesame.

Many of the Commission’s projects are administered through the departments headedby ministers who are also members of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council.This encourages cooperation between the various government departments and theoffice of the Commission. However, the fact that it crosses so many state boundaries,delineations which nature sometimes influences but never recognises, is one of theMurray-Darling Basin’s most besetting problems. As stated earlier, management of theBasin involves six governments: Australia, the Australian Capital Territory (as anobserver), Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and Queensland. Because ofthe lack of a coordinated approach, the major resources of the Basin have hitherto notalways been managed as the single hydrological system that they are. In 1988 oneexpert commented that:

…the basin’s major problems are not so much of a biophysical nature but ratherones of the institutional arrangements for its management…the solutions to thebasin’s problems [are] essentially within this area of management.17

16 Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Annual Report, 1994-5, pp 9-10.

17 Peter Crabb, ‘Managing the Murray-Darling Basin’, Australian Geographer, 19(1) May 1988, pp64-65.


6. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS OF THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN

While the Murray-Darling Basin is one of Australia’s most significant water and landresources, it is also one of the nation’s major natural resource management problems.Its water runoff is relatively small. It has the smallest annual runoff of the world’smajor river basins. At only 25.5 million megalitres it is only 6.4 percent of theAustralian total, and most of this is contributed by only a few rivers, with the UpperMurray, Murrumbidgee and Goulburn alone accounting for 43 percent of it .

Land degradation has severely affected the Murray-Darling Basin. Irrigation demandsand other factors have stretched surface resources of the Basin to the limit and aremaking severe demands on groundwaters. In earlier times, native forest land absorbedmuch more of the rainfall than the plant and crop lands which have replaced them.Native vegetation used an estimated 99.6 percent of rainfall before the almostnegligible remainder seeped down to recharge aquifers deep below the surface.18 In1990 it was estimated that between 15 and 18 billion trees had been cleared in theBasin since 1788. The absence of deep-rooted evergreen trees that once used up soilwater for growth and transpiration has increased the amount percolating down torecharge the groundwater reserves. Agricultural development, especially in the formof large-scale irrigation, has led to rising groundwaters, which have brought to thesurface heavy deposits of naturally occurring salt. High salt levels, previously kept atbay by low water tables, have killed the vegetation, damaged the soils and exposedthem to erosion, and degraded the quality of the surface water.19

There are massive salinity problems, especially in the southern parts of the basin. OneCSIRO scientist has claimed that six tonnes of salt cross the border from Victoria intoSouth Australia via the Murray River every minute.20 Forecasts as to what this meansfor the future of the region if no action is taken are uniformly dire. One expert haspredicted that practically all irrigation areas will be affected by shallow and salinewater tables by the year 201021; another believes that salinity will waterlog more thanone million hectares of prime irrigated farmland within 50 years.22 In 146 BC theRoman army destroyed the fields of its Carthaginian enemies by sowing them withsalt. In twentieth-century Australia land use in the Murray-Darling Basin has had

18 Carson Creagh, ‘A Direct Approach to Salinity Control’, Ecos, No 67, Autumn 1991, pp 4-7.

19 David Brett, ‘Restoring the Murray-Darling Basin’, Ecos, No 64, Winter 1990, pp 4-9.

20 ‘Call for halt to land clearing’, Courier Mail, 2 November 1994, p 16.

21 John Carson, ‘Irrigation industry faces overhaul: more regulations, cost recovery on the cards’,Australian Farm Journal, February 1995, pp 42-45.

22 Paterson, pp. 50-1.


much the same effect.23 Irrigation has led to over 1,200 square kilometres of salinisedsoils in the Basin and there is an even larger area affected by dryland salinisation.24

In 1996 it was estimated in an ABARE survey that the total expenditure by New SouthWales, Victoria, South Australia and Queensland to repair and maintain theinfrastructure damaged by salinity and to conduct and maintain salinity related researchand extension activities in the Murray-Darling Basin was $27.7m.25 However,Queensland responses to the survey suggested that the problem is, at least at this stage,seen in this state as being of only minor concern. Queensland expended only $27,600addressing salinity problems, reflecting the truism that their incidence becomes higherwhen going downstream. State government agencies and public utilities in Queenslandthat responded to the survey only expended $5,800 on community education, research,extension and policy related activities to address the problem of salinity. Eighty-sevenpercent of this sum was devoted to dryland farm activities. One Queensland localgovernment reported spending $21,800 on repairs and maintenance for roads andbridges arising out of salinity problems, but overall only 3 percent of the area inresponding council areas was regarded as being affected by salinity.26 This is becauseQueensland rivers do not drain substantial groundwater aquifers and the salinityproblem here is minor, unlike the situation in other states.

Diversion of waters for irrigation has led to other problems. The average flow fromthe mouth of the Murray River to the ocean has fallen to about one third of its naturalflow level. The National Fishing Industry Council blames farm irrigation schemes for adecline in marine fish catches, because, contrary to popular belief, fresh water flowingto the ocean is not wasted but is an essential component in fishing production. Aflowing river acts as the bearer of nutrients essential to the food chain. Moreover, thephysical aspects of the flow are useful when present and missed when they are not.For example, in times of drought, there is a sharp fall in prawn production becauseinland rivers do not carry enough water to flush young prawns out of the estuaries tothe open sea.27

As well as salinity problems, the rivers of the basin have been affected by a large rangeof pollutants. Pollution is pervasive throughout the Basin. In 1992 the New SouthWales Department of Water Resources proclaimed all inland rivers in that state too

23 Creagh, pp 4-7.

24 Crabb, p 64.

25 Mark Oliver, et al, Costs of Salinity to Government Agencies and Public Utilities in the Murray-Darling Basin, ABARE Research Report 96.2, 1996, p 3.

26 Oliver, et al, ABARE Research Report 96.2, 1996, pp 53-68.

27 Natasha Bita and John Stapleton, ‘The great water crisis’, Australian, 27 June 1995.


polluted even for farm animals to drink.28 Adelaide, almost completely dependent onthe Murray for its water supply, has on occasion received water that by World HealthOrganisation (WHO) criteria is unfit for drinking, although a former federalenvironment minister promised the city clean drinking water by 2000 as a result of thegovernment’s $150 million waterways package announced in December 1992.29

The Murray, aptly enough, has been described as “…Australia’s longest sewer.”30 Theproblem was heavily and graphically publicised in 1991 when a bloom of blue-greenalgae, the longest river bloom ever recorded, affected around 1000 km of the DarlingRiver. Because of its stunning visual qualities, the issue received spectacular coverageon television, where:

Pictures of strangely incandescent waterways, green sludge and sewer pipesdepositing waste into the river system were accompanied by commentary fromconfused shire clerks, annoyed farmers and white-coated scientists.31

Algal blooms are of serious concern because they are toxic to both stock and humans.Boiling does not lower the toxicity of affected water, and conventional waterpurification plants in Australia do not detoxify it. While it is not possible to blame theemergence of algal blooms on any single specific environmental factor, those whichare considered most important are:

• high nutrient levels, especially phosphorus,

• calm water conditions, and

• degraded aquatic ecosystems.

All of these are strongly influenced by human activity. Because of this, they are mostamenable to management.

The nutrient usually considered the most critical for freshwater algal blooms isphosphorus. Blue-green algae feed on phosphorus washed into waterways from anumber of sources, both natural and artificial. These include

• sewage treatment works

• storm water drains

• irrigation drains

• intensive agricultural industries, and

28 ‘Rivers unfit for use’, Australian, 11 January 1992.

29 Peter Weekes and Martin Thomas, ‘Kelly sets date for clean water’, Australian, 14 January1993.

30 Crabb, p 64.

31 Frank Vanclay and Geoffrey Lawrence, ‘A blue-green politics?’, Arena No 98, 1992, pp 10.


• run-off from agricultural land and forests.

Calm water is also a factor in the nurturing of blue-green algae. For algae to thrive,they must be in water that is relatively calm, preferably stagnant. This occurs mostfrequently in lakes and reservoirs, but can also happen when low river flows changesome streams into series of small pools and lakes. These conditions can occur eitherfrom drought, or as the result of human intervention in the river system.32

When the blue-green algae was detected in the Condamine River at Dalby, the DarlingDowns town was forced to rely on bores until the crisis passed. At the time the NewSouth Wales premier criticised the Queensland government for “shirking itsresponsibilities” in fighting waterway pollution. He specifically cited the state’s non-membership of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council as an indication of this.The Minister for Primary Industries rejected the claims, said that Queensland had dealtwith its “hot spots”, and said that negotiations for Queensland to join the Council hadbeen underway for two years.33

Algal river blooms can also occur in degraded aquatic ecosystems where the naturalchecks and balances of a healthy river system have been changed. This has happenedin some parts of the Murray-Darling Basin, where the food chain has been disrupted bythe introduction of a foreign species, resulting in a breaking down of the system.Quite apart from their role in precipitating the growth of algal river blooms, foreignspecies are major ecological disasters within themselves.34 Perhaps the mostoutstanding example in Australian waterways is the European carp which in the wordsof one expert, “has almost replaced the rabbit as Australia’s number one feralspecies.”35 A giant and visually unappealing relative of the goldfish, the European carpwas originally imported to stock a Victorian farm dam in 1963. It grows to more than10kg and uses its size to erode river banks in the search for food. This leads toconstant turbidity in the waters, and destroys the habitat for native fish. While the linkis as yet unproven, some experts believe that the European carp has fostered theoccurrence of blue-green algae by removing its natural predators.36

32 See also, Queensland Parliamentary Library ‘Drinking Water Quality in Queensland: Blue GreenAlgae’, Information Kit No 43, August 1993.

33 Peter Morley, ‘Air check on algae in Qld rivers’, Courier Mail, 27 November 1991; ‘Algaeattack’, Sun, 9 December 1991; Brian Williams, ‘Qld rejects Greiner’s algae accusation: Casey:clear up own backyard’, Courier Mail, 10 December 1991.

34 Martin Shafron, ‘Blooming algae’, Agricultural Science, 8(1), January-February 1995, pp 44-47.

35 Connell, p 35.

36 Bill Norman, ‘Ruined rivers: problems in Australian waterways’, Canberra Times, 29 October1994.


7. HISTORY OF THE MURRAY-DARLING BASIN COMMISSION

The Murray-Darling Basin Commission is unique to Australia. It is not a governmentdepartment, or a statutory body of any government. Its continued existence dependson that of the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement. It is equally responsible to each ofthe governments represented on the Council, and is better described as a confederaterather than a federal body.37

The unique makeup of the Murray-Darling Basin Commission has its origins in theintense conflicts that took place during the Federal Conventions of the 1890s in theleadup to Federation. Like many issues that involved more than one state, themanagement of the Murray-Darling system was debated at length, but in this instancethere was no satisfactory resolution to the debate. When it became clear that theycould not reach common ground on the question, the convention members let it lapserather than stall the even greater issue of Federation.

However, the most prolonged drought in Australian history between 1895 and 1902highlighted the need for an interstate agreement to allow for the more effective use of avaluable resource. After many more years of discussion, New South Wales, Victoriaand South Australia reached agreement in 1914. Legislation came into effect in 1915and the River Murray Commission was established two years later.

The Commission was controlled and funded in equal parts by the governments of NewSouth Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth. For anything toproceed, decisions had to be unanimous. Under the 1914 River Murray WatersAgreement, if all avenues to reconcile differences had been exhausted, the deadlockhad to be referred to an arbitrator appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Courtof Tasmania. While this provision has never been used, it still applies. Under Clause133(5) of the Agreement of the current Bill, subject to the provisions of Clause133(6), the decision of any arbitrator appointed under this clause is deemed to be thedecision of the Commission, and binds the Commission, the Ministerial Council and thecontracting governments.

For many years the River Murray Commission oversaw the construction of storages,weirs and locks and administered the distribution of water throughout the river system.The efficient use of storage made it possible to supply more water as needed by thethree signatory states, who in turn divided it up for domestic, irrigation, environmental,navigation and other uses.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s governments became more concerned about waterquality issues, the rise of water-tables and increased salinity in irrigation areas. Evenmore so than before, it was apparent that a total catchment approach was needed, andhigher levels of cooperation between the states were required. In 1973 the Premier of

37 Connell, p 35.


South Australia asked the Prime Minister to establish a working party to examine theregion’s problems. The working party reported back to the federal and stategovernments in October 1975, recommending widened powers for the River MurrayCommission. This did not, however, eventuate until 1983 when the River MurrayWaters Act was amended to give the Commission the power to act in new areas ofwater quality, and not just quantity.38

There were other significant changes a few years later. In November 1985 ministers ofthe Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia withresponsibilities for natural resources, met to specifically discuss strategies to improvenatural resources management in the Basin. It was agreed to establish a ministerialcouncil on an ongoing basis. The River Murray Waters Amendment Act of 1987 setup a Murray-Darling Ministerial Council, a breakthrough because it meant that for thefirst time four sets of ministers (the Commonwealth, New South Wales, Victoria andSouth Australia) dealing with the environment, water and land were regularly meetingto coordinate a whole range of policies never before covered under the Act. From 1January 1988 the River Murray Commission became the Murray-Darling BasinCommission, the body “responsible for coordinating the development of the policyframework shaping the management of all land and water resources, includingagricultural and pastoral properties, towns, national parks, forests, deserts, andwater courses in the Murray-Darling Basin”.39

In June 1995, the then Federal Primary Industries Minister Bob Collins, Chair of theCouncil, announced an interim cap on water diversions in the basin from July 1. Thedecision came after a major audit of water use in the Basin. The audit showed thatwater diversions were still increasing at the rate of over one percent a year, despite themassive environmental and agricultural problems experienced by the river system.Since 1989, water usage had increased by eight percent, 790 billion litres, or 1.6 timesthe capacity of Sydney Harbour. For the first time since irrigation began in theMurray-Darling Basin in 1887, all the governments involved agreed that water usagefrom the Basin could not be increased.40 The President of the Commission wrote tothe Minister:

38 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (House of Representatives) 24 August 1983, pp 190ff;Daniel Connell, ‘Murray-Darling Basin: an organisation whose task has come’, AgriculturalScience, 8(1), Jan-Feb 1995.

39 Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (House of Representatives) 4 November 1987 pp 2003-4;Daniel Connell, ‘Murray-Darling Basin: an organisation whose task has come’, AgriculturalScience, 8(1), Jan-Feb 1995; ‘Queensland to join Murray-Darling Basin Agreement’,Parliamentary Patter No 19, December 1993, p 17.

40 David Mussared, ‘States agree to cap water use’, Canberra Times, 1 July 1995.


The landmark decision by Council on 30 June 1995 - to place a cap on diversions ofwater - augurs well for a Murray-Darling Basin Initiative41 that must continue toderive its strength from cooperation. I am pleased to say that cooperationincreasingly underpins the management of the Basin’s natural resources.42

41 See Appendix A for the structure of the Initiative.

42 Murray Darling Basin Commission, Annual Report 1994-95, Letter of transmittal.



Figure 1

The Murray-Darling Basin Initiative

Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council

Ministers holding land, water and environment portfolios from each Contracting Government

(Commonwealth, NSW, SA, Vic, Qld)

Murray -Darling Basin Commission Community Advisory Committee of theMinisterial Council

PresidentTwo Commissioners, representing each

government’s land, water and environmentagencies.

Regional, catchment and special interest grouprepresentatives

Murray-Darling Basin Commission Office

46 staff providing technical and secretariat support to theCommission and secretariat support to Council and Community

Advisory Committee

Committees

Water Business Advisory, Water Policy, BasinSustainability, Barmah-Millewa Forest WaterManagement Advisory Committee, Barmah-Millewa Forest Water Management Liaison

Committee

PrincipalGovernment

Agencies

Specialist Inter-government WorkingGroups and Independent Consultants

Established as required

Community

Source: Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Annual Report, 1994-1995, p 10.

The Murray-Darling Basin Initiative is the name given to the partnership between theCommonwealth, New South Wales, Victorian, South Australian and QueenslandGovernments directed towards equitable, efficient and sustainable use of the water,land and other environmental resources of the Murray-Darling Basin.



Source: Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Annual Report 1994 -95, p 7.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Note: The Murray-Darling Basin Agreement is contained in the Schedule to theMurray-Darling Basin Bill 1996.

MONOGRAPHS

• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (House of Representatives) 24 August1983.

• Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates (House of Representatives) 4 November1987.

• Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Annual Report, 1994-5.

• Murray Darling Basin Commission, Annual Report 1994-95, Letter of transmittal.

• Victoria. Official Record of the Debates of the Australasian Federal Convention,3rd Session, 20 January to 17 March 1898, Vol I, Melbourne.

JOURNAL ARTICLES

• Brett, David, ‘Restoring the Murray-Darling Basin’, Ecos, No 64, Winter 1990, pp4-9.

• Carson, John, ‘Irrigation industry faces overhaul: more regulations, cost recoveryon the cards’, Australian Farm Journal, February 1995, pp 42-45.

• Connell, Daniel, ‘Murray-Darling Basin: an organisation whose task has come’,Agricultural Science, 8(1), Jan-Feb 1995, pp 35-38.

• Crabb, Peter, ‘Managing the Murray-Darling Basin’, Australian Geographer,19(1) May 1988, pp 64-88.

• Creagh, Carson, ‘A Direct Approach to Salinity Control’, Ecos, No 67, Autumn1991, pp 4-7.

• Oliver, Mark et. al, Costs of Salinity to Government Agencies and Public Utilitiesin the Murray-Darling Basin, ABARE Research Report 96.2, 1996.

• Paterson, Ian, ‘Irrigation water to be cut: water audit to come for Murray-DarlingBasin’, Australian Farm Journal, February 1995, pp 50-1.

• Powell, J M, ‘Environmental degradation, “sustainability” and the Murray-DarlingBasin’, People and Place, 2(3), June 1994, pp 6-13.

• ‘Queensland to join Murray-Darling Basin Agreement’, Parliamentary Patter No19, December 1993, p 17.

• Shafron, Martin, ‘Blooming algae’, Agricultural Science, 8(1), January-February1995, pp 44-47.


• Vanclay, Frank and Lawrence, Geoffrey, ‘A blue-green politics?’, Arena No 98,1992, pp 10-14.

• • Wahlquist, Asa, ‘Rising costs of depleted water: blocked arteries: the degradationof Australia’s biggest river system has sparked a fiscal crisis involving irrigators,environmentalists, administrators and agriculturalists’, Bulletin, 28 May 1996, pp51-53.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

• ‘Algae attack’, Sun, 9 December 1991;

• Bita, Natasha and Stapleton, John, ‘The great water crisis’, Australian, 27 June1995.

• ‘Call for halt to land clearing’, Courier Mail, 2 November 1994, p 16.

• Morley, Peter, ‘Air check on algae in Qld rivers’, Courier Mail, 27 November1991

• Mussared, David, ‘States agree to cap water use’, Canberra Times, 1 July 1995.

• Norman, Bill, ‘Ruined rivers: problems in Australian waterways’, Canberra Times,29 October 1994.

• ‘Rivers unfit for use’, Australian, 11 January 1992.

• Weekes, Peter and Thomas, Martin, ‘Kelly sets date for clean water’, Australian,14 January 1993.

• Williams, Brian, ‘Qld rejects Greiner’s algae accusation: Casey: clear up ownbackyard’, Courier Mail, 10 December 1991.

• Williams, Brian, ‘Qld will join river basin commission’, Courier Mail, 14 May1992.

•

LEGISLATION

• Australia. Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993 No 38 of 1993

• New South Wales. Murray-Darling Basin Act 1992 No 65 of 1992

• South Australia. Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993, No 67 of 1993

• Victoria. Murray-Darling Basin Act 1993, No 39 of 1993.

Documents

COOPERATIVE CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT: THE MURRAY DARLING … · The Murray-Darling Basin Agreement Bill 1996 Page 2 If the Queensland Parliament ratifies the Agreement, Queensland will