Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001–2015 · 2019-03-22 · Integrated catchment management in the Murray–Darling Basin A process through which people can develop a vision,

MURRAY-DARLING BASIN AUTHORITY

Basin Salinity ManagementStrategy 2001–2015This document was produced by the former Murray-Darling Basin Commission, and is provided as reference material.

The contents of this document may not represent the programs, approaches, strategies or views of the current Murray–Darling Basin Authority.

BRISBANE◆

QUEENSLAND

SYDNEY ◆

MELBOURNE ◆

ADELAIDE◆

VICTORIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Lake Alexandrina

NEW SOUTHWALES

Basin SalinityManagementStrategy2001-2015

M U R R A Y - D A R L I N G B A S I N

M I N I S T E R I A L C O U N C I L

SIX

GOVERNMENTS WORKING IN

PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COMMUNIT

Y

A U G U S T 2 0 0 1

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man S cov 13/9/01 11:10 AM Page 2

M U R R A Y - D A R L I N G B A S I N

M I N I S T E R I A L C O U N C I L


River Murray adjoining the Mallee

Pete

r Sol

ness

/Net

wor

k Ph

otog

raph

ers


Our valuesWe agree to work together, and ensure that ourbehaviour reflects the following values.

Courage

• We will take a visionary approach, provide leadership and be prepared tomake difficult decisions.

Inclusiveness

• We will build relationships based on trustand sharing, considering the needs offuture generations, and working togetherin a true partnership.

• We will engage all partners, includingIndigenous communities, and ensurethat partners have the capacity to befully engaged.

Commitment

• We will act with passion and decisiveness,taking the long-term view and aiming forstability in decision-making.

• We will take a Basin perspective and anon-partisan approach to Basinmanagement.

Respect and honesty

• We will respect different views, respecteach other and acknowledge the realityof each other’s situation.

• We will act with integrity, openness andhonesty, be fair and credible, and shareknowledge and information.

• We will use resources equitably andrespect the environment.

Flexibility

• We will accept reform where it isneeded, be willing to change, andcontinuously improve our actionsthrough a learning approach.

Practicability

• We will choose practicable, long-termoutcomes and select viable solutions toachieve these outcomes.

Mutual obligation

• We will share responsibility andaccountability, and act responsibly,with fairness and justice.

• We will support each other throughnecessary change.

Our principlesWe agree, in a spirit of partnership, to use thefollowing principles to guide our actions.

Integration

• We will manage catchments holistically;that is, decisions on the use of land,water and other environmental resourcesare made by considering the effect of thatuse on all those resources and on allpeople within the catchment.

Accountability

• We will assign responsibilities andaccountabilities.

• We will manage resources wisely, beingaccountable and reporting to our partners.

Transparency

• We will clarify the outcomes sought.

• We will be open about how to achieveoutcomes and what is expected fromeach partner.

Effectiveness

• We will act to achieve agreed outcomes.

• We will learn from our successes andfailures and continuously improveour actions.

Efficiency

• We will maximise the benefits andminimise the costs of actions.

Full accounting

• We will take account of the full range ofcosts and benefits, including economic,environmental, social and off-site costsand benefits.

Informed decision-making

• We will make decisions at the mostappropriate scale.

• We will make decisions on the bestavailable information, and continuouslyimprove knowledge.

• We will support the involvement ofIndigenous people in decision-making,understanding the value of thisinvolvement, and respecting the livingknowledge of Indigenous people.

Learning approach

• We will learn from our failures and successes.

• We will learn from each other.

Integrated catchment management in the Murray–Darling BasinA process through which people can develop a vision, agree on shared values and behaviours, makeinformed decisions and act together to manage the natural resources of their catchment: theirdecisions on the use of land, water and other environmental resources are made by considering theeffect of that use on all those resources and on all people within the catchment.


B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5 i

Basin SalinityManagementStrategy2001-2015

A U G U S T 2 0 0 1

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page i

B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5ii

Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001-2015Strategy-in-summary

Developing capacity to implement the Strategy

Identifying values and assets at risk

Setting salinity targets

Managing trade-offs with the available within-valley

options

Redesigning farming systems

Targeting reforestation and vegetation management

Constructing salt interception works

Objectives

The Strategy will:

• Maintain the water quality of the shared water resources

of the Murray and Darling Rivers for all beneficial uses. River salinity at

Morgan, South Australia, will be maintained at less than 800 EC for 95 per cent of the time;

• Control the rise in salt loads in all tributary rivers of the Murray-Darling

Basin, and through that control, protect its water resources and

aquatic ecosystems at agreed levels, meeting the end-of-valley targets;

• Control land degradation and protect important terrestrial ecosystems, productive farm land, cultural heritage, and built infrastructure at agreed

levels Basin-wide expressed as within-valley targets; and

• Maximise net benefits from salinity control across the Basin.

Ensuring Basin-wide accountability: monitoring, evaluating, and reporting

Implementing salinity and catchment management plans

The Basin Salinity Management Strategy(BSMS) guides communities andGovernments in working together tocontrol salinity and protect key naturalresource values within theircatchments, consistent with theprinciples of the Integrated Catchment

Management Policy Statement (ICM). It establishes targets for the river salinity of each tributary valley and the Murray-Darling system itself, that reflect the shared responsibility for action both between valleycommunities and between States.

It provides a stable and accountableframework that, over time, willgenerate confidence in how we aretracking our joint efforts to manage salinity.

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page ii

B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5 iii

Basin Strategic ApproachThere are nine elements to the Strategyas set out below. Much of itsimplementation is in the hands ofcatchment communities and guided bysalinity and catchment managementplans. The Governments are committedto working closely with communitieswithin the principles of the ICM Policy.The Strategy's elements follow a logicalsequence, similar to that used incatchment planning for salinitymanagement.

Developing capacity to implementthe StrategyThe Commission and partnerGovernments will administer acomprehensive 'knowledge generation'program to support Basin and within-valley planning and implementation.

The partner Governments will assistcatchment communities to implementnational, Basin and State initiatives byimproving access to and use of theknowledge and decision tools generatedby investigations and salinity researchand development. This process will besupported by further capacity buildingfor catchment planning, includingcommunication and education.

Identifying values and assets at riskThe partner Governments will workwith catchment communities to identifyimportant values and assets throughoutthe Basin at risk of salinity, and thenature and timeframe of risk. ThisStrategy emphasises the triple-bottom-line approach, requiring a balancebetween economic, environmental andsocial values. It necessarily recognisesthat living with salinity is the onlychoice in some situations.

Setting salinity targetsThe Council will adopt end-of-valleytargets to protect values and assetswhile providing for targets to be revised,as new information becomes available.

The partner Governments willempower catchment managementorganisations to advise on end-of-valley targets and determinewithin-valley targets and monitoringarrangements, under salinity andcatchment management plans.

Managing trade-offs with theavailable within-valley optionsThe States will analyse and review the

best mix of land management,engineering, river flow, and living withsalt options to achieve salinity targetswhile meeting other catchment healthtargets and social and economic needs.

The States will assist communities tounderstand and agree the options with affected groups, industries andpeople through best practice planningprocesses.

Implementing salinity andcatchment management plansThis Strategy acknowledges gains madeby existing plans, but requires thatactions in existing and new plans, or theplans themselves, will need to beassessed and reported against the end-of-valley and Basin targets and recordedon Salinity Registers.

The partner Governments willcontinue and enhance support forland and water management plans(LWMPs) in irrigation regions.

The partner Governments will enhancesupport for development andimplementation of ICM Policy-compliantsalinity and catchment managementplans in dryland regions.

Redesigning farming systemsThe partner Governments willcoordinate and enhance research anddevelopment into new farming andforestry systems that deliver improvedcontrol of groundwater recharge in thehigh rainfall grazing, winter rainfallcropping, and summer rainfall cropping zones.

Over and above current programs theCommission will enhance research anddevelopment into new industries basedon salinised resources, such asbroadacre saltland agronomy, salineaquaculture, and salt harvesting.

Targeting reforestation andvegetation managementThe partner Governments recognise thenecessity for landscape changespecifically targeted at salinity control.In order to facilitate such targetedchange, where changed farmingsystems are not adequate, theCommission will further develop theconcept of a vegetation bank to havethe capacity to finance extension offorestry outside of traditional forestry areas.

The partner Governments will furtherconsider the financing of nativevegetation management, rehabilitationand land stewardship, and thecommercialisation of short rotation treecrops, particularly for the wheatbelt.

Constructing salt interceptionworksThe Commission will construct andoperate new joint (partner Governmentfunded) salt interception works toprotect Basin-wide assets and values,including the shared water resources ofthe Murray and Darling Rivers. Thiswill provide protection beyond thebenefits from simply meeting end-of-valley targets, based upon agreed cost sharing and benefit allocationprinciples. The benefits will continue to include salt disposal entitlements to offset the impacts of future actionsthat aggravate salinity.

Ensuring Basin-wideaccountability: monitoring,evaluating, and reporting The partner Governments willdemonstrate accountability by reportingto the Commission and Councilthrough State end-of-valley ReportCards and Commission SalinityRegisters that record the salinity effectsof actions, including salt interceptionschemes and salinity and catchmentmanagement plans.

The Council will receive audits everyfive years for each valley andCommission Register entry, assessingimpacts on river salinity and progresstowards targets, with the provision torequire further action as necessary.

ImplementationBy March 2002 Council will finalise the scale of the joint program of salt interception schemes, andarrangements for cost sharing andallocation of credits.

At the outset, the partner Governmentsare aligning their investments under theNational Action Plan for Salinity and WaterQuality and State strategies, to supportthe delivery of this Strategy.

As soon as practicable accountabilityarrangements of this Strategy will beenshrined in a revised Schedule to theMurray-Darling Basin Agreement (MDBA).

This Strategy will be reviewed in 2007and 2015.

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page iii

B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5iv

Basin Salinity Management Strategy2001-2015

Published by the Murray–Darling BasinMinisterial Council

Office AddressLevel 5, 15 Moore St, Canberra,Australian Capital Territory

Postal AddressGPO Box 409, Canberra ACT 2601

Tel: (02) 6279 0100;from overseas +61 2 6279 0100

Fax: (02) 6248 8053;

from overseas + 61 2 6248 8053

Email: [email protected]

Internet: http://www.mdbc.gov.au

ISBN 1 876830 17 4

© Copyright Murray–Darling Basin Commission, August 2001

This work is copyright. Photographs and coverartwork, and the MDBC logo, are not to bereproduced or stored by any process withoutpermission. However, text and other graphics in thispublication may be reproduced in whole or in part provided that the information is not sold or put to commercial use and its source, Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001-2015 is clearly acknowledged. Reproduction and storage for other purposes is prohibited without prior written permission.

Ref. No. I&D 6719

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page iv

B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5

This Strategy sets out how Basin communities andGovernments will work together to control salinity andprotect important environmental values and assets. Itcontains accountability arrangements that are the 'firstof a kind' for salinity strategies in Australia. Byspecifying river salinity targets to be met in the year2015, this new Strategy builds on the success of the1988 Salinity and Drainage Strategy in reducing RiverMurray salinity while addressing the challenge ofdryland salinity across the Basin in the longer term.

The Basin Salinity Management Strategy is the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council's response to thethreats of salinity to water quality, environmentalvalues, regional infrastructure and productiveagricultural land. These were quantified in the 1999Basin Salinity Audit and in the 2001 reports from theNational Land and Water Resources Audit. This Strategywas developed by the Murray-Darling BasinCommission over two years, through a process involvingextensive community consultation and public comment.The Council is confident it has widespread acceptance,and at the time of its release significant work is alreadyunderway to bring about its implementation.

This Strategy comes at a time when salinity control andmanagement is being given priority attentionthroughout Australia. In finalising the Strategy, theMurray-Darling Basin Commission has taken all care toensure compatibility with the National Action Plan onSalinity and Water Quality, State salinity strategies, andregional catchment or salinity management plans.Importantly, this Strategy implements the principles setout in the Council's Integrated Catchment ManagementPolicy Statement.

Our Governments are committed to tackling salinityover the long haul, and through this Strategy will:• Take actions to cap the rise in dryland salinity to

ensure important environmental, economic andcultural assets are protected;

• Ensure that the regional development aspirationsof communities can be accommodated; and

• Work together to maintain the water quality atMorgan within agreed standards over the next 15years.

The river salinity targets provide the framework for eachGovernment and regional community to agree on theinvestment in sustainable farming systems, targetedreforestation, salt interception schemes, flow managementand new commercial uses of salt and salinised landnecessary to achieve them. Government investment willinclude a seven-year joint salt interception program togain defined salinity benefits, and an on-goingcommitment to research and development of sustainableland management practices for the longer term.

Importantly, the targets are the basis for accountabilityarrangements to track effort and progress on thesecommitments. Targets, which are interim at the outset,will be finalised in the early years of this Strategy. Thetargets will give partner governments, catchment bodiesand their communities very clear signals on the level ofeffort and associated trade-offs needed to protect theircatchments, while protecting water quality downstream.

The Basin Salinity Management Strategy is presented infour sections. The first section specifies the objectives ofthe Strategy in controlling salinity over the next 15years. The second section lays out the principles of theStrategy and their consistency with the principles ofintegrated catchment management. The third section isthe Strategy itself and outlines the nine key elementsessential to bring about salinity control. The last sectiondescribes the implementation and review arrangementsfor the Strategy over its 15 year life.

In agreeing to the Basin Salinity Management Strategy, the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council recognisesthat sustained investment will be necessary to achievesalinity outcomes. The accountability arrangements willgive all Governments and communities confidence thattheir shared efforts will achieve real outcomes for theircatchments and the Basin over the 15 year period andbeyond.

The Hon. Warren TrussChairman, Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial CouncilMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry(Commonwealth)

The Hon. Richard AmeryMinister for Agriculture, and Minister for Land andWater Conservation (New South Wales)

The Hon. Sherryl GarbuttMinister for Environment and Conservation, andMinister for Women's Affairs (Victoria)

The Hon. Mark BrindalMinister for Water Resources, Minister for Employmentand Training, and Minister for Youth (South Australia)

The Hon. Stephen RobertsonMinister for Natural Resources, and Minister for Mines(Queensland)

Mr Brendan SmythMinister for Urban Services (Australian CapitalTerritory)

Foreword

v

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page v

B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5vi

WARREGO-PAROO

MARANOA-BALONNE CONDAMINE

QLD BORDER RIVERS

GWYDIR

NAMOI

WESTERNCENTRAL WEST

LOWERMURRAY-DARLING

LACHLAN

MURRUMBIDGEEMALLEE

WIMMERA NORTHCENTRAL

GOULBURN-BROKEN

NORTH-EAST

MURRAY

SA MDB

NSW BORDERRIVERS

QUEENSLAND

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTHWALES

VICTORIA

Legend

Catchment management regions

State boundaries

Main rivers

Catchment management regions of the Murray-Darling Basin


Contents

vii

Strategy-in-summary ii

Foreword v

Part One: The Need for Further Action 1

1.1 Past action, salinity trends and Strategy objectives 1

1.1.1 Past action 1

1.1.2 Salinity trends 1

1.1.3 Strategy objectives 1

Part Two: Strategic Approach - Context and Principles 3

2.1 Context for this Strategy 3

2.1.1 National Action Plan For Salinity and Water Quality 3

2.1.2 Basin ICM Policy Statement 3

2.1.3 Basin Salinity Management Strategy 3

2.1.4 State salinity initiatives 3

2.1.5 Regional salinity plans 4

2.2 Basin strategic approach 4

2.3 Principles 5

2.3.1 Interpreting the ICM Policy Statement 5

2.3.2 Specific to this Strategy 5

2.4 Commitment to this Strategy 6

2.4.1 Council endorsement 6

2.4.2 Implementing Council's decision through the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement 7

2.4.3 Drafting a revised Schedule to the Agreement 7

Part Three: Implementation 9

3.1 Developing capacity to implement the Strategy 9

3.1.1 Basin-wide capacity 9

3.1.2 Within-valley capacity 9

3.1.3 Communication and education 9

3.1.4 Institutional reform 9

3.2 Identifying values and assets at risk 10

3.2.1 Basin-wide 10

3.2.2 Commission/Council roles in protecting values and assets 10

3.3 Setting salinity targets 11

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page vii

B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5viii

3.3.1 The need for targets 11

3.3.2 Council's target sites at end-of-valley and Morgan 11

3.3.3 Processes for Council target setting and review 12

3.3.4 State within-valley targets 14

3.4 Managing trade-offs with the available within-valley options 14

3.4.1 Land management options 14

3.4.2 Engineering options 14

3.4.3 Flow management 15

3.4.4 Living with salt 15

3.4.5 Managing trade-offs 15

3.5 Implementing salinity management plans 15

3.5.1 Current status 15

3.5.2 More action in irrigation regions 15

3.5.3 More action in dryland regions 16

3.5.4 Assessing contribution of plans to meeting targets 16

3.5.5 Additional works to meet Basin target 16

3.6 Redesigning farming systems 17

3.6.1 Collaboration in research and development 17

3.6.2 Mimicking natural systems 17

3.6.3 Criteria-based assessment of research and development potential 17

3.6.4 Current prospects for agro-ecological zones 17

3.6.5 New industries based on salinised resources 18

3.7 Targeting reforestation and vegetation management 18

3.7.1 The vegetation bank concept 18

3.7.2 Forestry outside of its traditional zone 19

3.7.3 Native vegetation management, rehabilitation and land stewardship 19

3.7.4 Short rotation tree crops 19

3.8 Constructing joint (Commission) salt interception works 20

3.8.1 Joint works under the Salinity and Drainage Strategy 20

3.8.2 New joint works 20

3.8.3 Cost sharing and benefit allocation for joint works 20

3.8.4 Investigating, constructing and operating joint works 21

3.9 Ensuring Basin-wide accountability: monitoring, evaluating and reporting 21

3.9.1 Salinity credits and debits 21

3.9.2 Valley Report Cards 21

3.9.3 Administering Commission Registers 21

3.9.4 Reporting to Council 22

3.9.5 Accountability under Schedule C 22

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page viii

B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5 ix

Part Four: Initiation and Review 25

4.1 Initiation 25

4.1.1 Completing the Salinity & Drainage Strategy 25

4.1.2 Finalising end-of-valley targets and monitoring framework 25

4.1.3 Finalising cost sharing and benefit allocation arrangements for the new joint works program 25

4.1.4 Revising Schedule C 25

4.1.5 Developing modelling/assessment frameworks 25

4.1.6 Establishing a group to oversight Strategy implementation 25

4.2 Review 25

4.2.1 Mid-term review 25

4.2.2 Beyond this Strategy - post 2015 26

Abbreviations 26

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page ix

B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5x

0 100 200 km

QUEENSLAND

VICTORIA

NEW SOUTHWALES

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Salinity data compiled by National Land & Water Resources AuditCopyright Commonwealth of Australia 2001

Areas forecast to contain land of high hazard or risk of salinity in 2050

Legend

Land of high hazard or risk of salinity in 2050

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page x

Part One: The Need for Action

B A S I N S A L I N I T Y M A N A G E M E N T S T R A T E G Y 2 0 0 1 - 2 0 1 5 1

1.1 Past action, salinity trends, and Strategy objectives

1.1.1 Past actionRiver Murray salinity has been significantlyreduced through implementation of the 1988Salinity & Drainage (S&D) Strategy, and this hasbeen achieved while undertaking therehabilitation of degraded lands and allowing fornew irrigation development. This was madepossible by limiting the amount of salt enteringthe river through construction of saltinterception schemes, and due to theeffectiveness of State salinity action plans andland and water management plans (LWMP).The indicative target of keeping river salinity atMorgan, South Australia, below the 800 ECthreshold at least 95 per cent of the time is closeto being met.

1.1.2 Salinity trendsThe 1999 Basin Salinity Audit has shown that salt,previously stored in the landscape, is now beingmobilised on a massive scale by risinggroundwater tables due to land use changesacross the Murray-Darling Basin. 'Business asusual' would mean that the reduction in lowerRiver Murray salinity achieved over the lastdecade would be cancelled out within 20 to 30years, and median salinity levels would exceedthe Australian Drinking Water Guidelines for goodquality water within 50 to100 years.

Average river salinities in key tributary riverswill rise significantly, endangering their use forirrigation and urban purposes within 20 to 50years, and about 3.4 million ha of land in theeastern and southern regions of the Basin will besalt-affected within 50 years.

Although environmental implications are notwell understood, river salinity levels are havingserious impacts on floodplain wetlands ofnational and international importance.

The current impact costs of dryland salinity ineight tributary valleys of the Basin are estimatedto be $247 million per year. The impact costs ofsalinity to consumptive users of River Murraywater total $47 million per year.

1.1.3 Strategy objectivesThe Murray-Darling Basin is the food-bowlof the nation and is a major contributor toAustralia's important and burgeoning foodexport markets. The Basin is home tounique and environmentally significantnatural features, many of which are subjectto international treaties. Over two millionpeople directly depend on the naturalresources of the Basin for their livelihood,and their future prosperity is dependentupon its sustainable management. Thesevalues are at risk from salinity.

Under current trends, future Basin-widesalinity impacts will be so large that it willnot be feasible to contain or reduce them inall at risk areas. The high cost of salinityprevention and rehabilitation will prohibitprotection or restoration of natural resourcevalues in all parts of the Basin.

This means that in different areas, carefulchoices will need to be made between threeapproaches to salinity management: toattempt to reverse it; to limit its rate ofspread and impacts; or to let it take itscourse. A 'business as usual' approach is notacceptable.

This Strategy has a Basin-wide focus andemphasises the first two approaches, andwill:

• maintain the water quality of the sharedwater resources of the Murray andDarling Rivers for all beneficial uses -agricultural, environmental, urban,industrial and recreational;

• control the rise in salt loads in alltributary rivers of the Basin and, throughthat control, protect their waterresources and aquatic ecosystems atagreed levels;

• control land degradation and protectimportant terrestrial ecosystems,productive farm land, cultural heritage,and built infrastructure at agreed levelsBasin-wide; and

• maximise net benefits from salinitycontrol across the Basin.

The means of achieving these objectives willbe the application of targets for the sharedwater resources (less than 800 EC for 95 percent of the time at Morgan), for eachtributary valley (end-of-valley salinity, saltload and flow) and for other Basin-widevalues and assets (State within-valleymanagement targets).

The Basin SalinityAudit showed thatmassive saltmobilisation wouldcancel out thereduction in RiverMurray salinity,endanger use oftributaries forirrigation, affectabout 3.4 million ha,and have seriousimpacts on floodplainwetlands. Salinityimpact costs exceed$294 million peryear.

MDBC 6719 B Salinity Man Int 13/9/01 12:20 PM Page 1


0 100 200 km

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆ Roma

Charleville ◆

Toowoomba ◆

BRISBANE◆

◆ Tamworth

Dubbo

Wagga Wagga

Deniliquin

◆

◆ Mildura

◆

Griffith

◆

Shepparton

Bendigo

Albury

Bourke

Cunnamulla

QUEENSLAND

Lachlan R iver

RIVERMU R R AY

◆

◆

◆

Murrumbidgee River

Moree

Echuca

Orange

Cooma

◆ Morgan

◆

◆ Broken Hill

SYDNEY ◆

MELBOURNE ◆ VICTORIA

NEW SOUTHWALES

Darlin

g River

◆ Ivanhoe

◆

Horsham

Swan Hill

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

ADELAIDE

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

◆

Murray Bridge

CANBERRA

Paro

oRi

ver

War

r ego

Rive

r

BalonneRive

r

Condamine River

Moonie River

Macintyre River

Barwon RiverGwydir River

Namoi RiverCastlereaghRiver

Macquarie

River

BoganRiver

K iewa River

O vens River

Bro ken River

Gou l burn River

LoddonRiver

AvocaR

iver

Wim

me ra

River

800mm

500mm

Campaspe

River

Key features of the Murray-Darling Basin

Legend

Average yearly rainfall (500 & 800 mm)

State boundaries

Main rivers

Irrigation areas

Agricultural Zones

Winter rainfall grazing

Rangelands

Summer rainfall grazing

Wheat/sheep belt


Part Two: Strategic Approach - Context and Principles


2.1 Context for this StrategyThis Strategy provides a framework forimplementing salinity management actionsacross the Basin, including those associated withthe National Action Plan (NAP) for Salinity andWater Quality and State salinity initiatives, undera 15-year program of action.

2.1.1 National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality

The NAP was endorsed by the Council ofAustralian Governments on 3 November 2000. It isa seven year national framework that targetssalinity and water quality protection with the jointresources of the Commonwealth, State andterritory Governments backed by an over-archingInter-Governmental Agreement. The Agreementrequires that the implementation of the NAP willbe consistent with the multilateral approach underthis strategy to ensure that Basin-wide andinterstate issues are adequately addressed.

The NAP targets nine priority regions in theBasin for addressing salinity and water qualityissues. Other Commonwealth natural resourcesmanagement initiatives, this Strategy, and Statesalinity initiatives will direct resources to NAPregions and also to regions outside of the NAPregions.

2.1.2 Basin ICM Policy Statement The Murray-Darling Basin Integrated CatchmentManagement Policy Statement (ICM) states thehigh-level goals and principles within thecommitment that community and Governmentswill 'do all that needs to be done to manage anduse the resources of the Basin in an ecologicalsustainable way' (see inside back cover).

The ICM Policy Statement sets standards for all newBasin strategies. This Strategy is the first to bedeveloped according to the standards, and it will:

• be recognisably part of a larger setting,showing links to other strategies and plans atnational, Basin, State and catchment levels,and links with actions addressing other issues;

• be based on a clear set of principles;

• have clearly defined priority actions andlocations for attention at Basin, State andcatchment levels, for delivery through and insupport of catchment strategies and actionplans;

• take account of the economic, environmentaland social contexts within which the Strategymust operate, and of the economic,environmental and social impacts of theStrategy;

• have clear, achievable and measurable targetsand timeframes;

• outline the mechanisms for achieving targets;

• have mechanisms for defining options andmanaging trade-offs between conflictinginterests;

• define roles, responsibilities andaccountabilities; and outline the skills andcapacities required to meet theseresponsibilities and accountabilities;

• include practical monitoring, evaluation andreporting processes; and

• include provision for reviewing and revisingthe Strategy to learn from successes andfailures.

2.1.3 Basin Salinity Management Strategy

Under the Murray-Darling Basin Initiative, theMurray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council(MDBMC) has responsibility for whole-of-Basinoutcomes, while the States in partnership withregions are responsible for within-valleyoutcomes. These responsibilities are reflectedthroughout this Strategy.

Specifically, Council will adopt end-of-valley andBasin targets, which will cap rising salinity fromall catchments and thus protect values and assetsBasin-wide. The NAP, this Strategy and Statesalinity initiatives will each adopt the sametargets with the Council receiving annual reportsand ensuring accountability arrangements tomeet the objectives of this Strategy.

Catchment plans will be expected to meet therequirements of the NAP, this Strategy and Stateinitiatives, requiring that they quantify theirsalinity effects at the target sites and on theCommission's salinity registers, and meet Basinreporting and auditing requirements. Salinityregisters are discussed in more detail below insection 3.9.

2.1.4 State salinity initiativesAll of the Basin States have introduced newsalinity initiatives. These initiatives, whilefocussed on whole-of-state and within-valleyactions, will contribute to meeting Counciladopted end-of-valley and Basin targets, and willalso meet the requirements of the NAP bilateralagreements.

The State initiatives are listed below. Moredetails are available from documents prepared bythe relevant States.

This Strategyprovides aframework forimplementingnational and Statesalinity actions acrossthe Basin.



New South Wales

NSW released Taking on the Challenge: NSW SalinityStrategy in August 2000. Its objective is to slowdown the rate of increase in salinity within 10years, to meet targets reflecting salinity levels that the State is prepared to live with and canafford. Catchment management boards have been given the task of reviewing and makingrecommendations on interim end-of-valley targets.

Victoria

Victoria released it's Salinity ManagementFramework: Restoring our Catchments in August2000. The document confirms that review ofsalinity management plans is vitally important inorder to capitalise on new information.Catchment management authorities have primeresponsibility for this review.

South Australia

South Australia released its South Australian RiverMurray Salinity Strategy in June 2001. Withinprinciples consistent with this Strategy and theNAP, it requires that salinity arising fromirrigation will not impact on the River Valley, thatregional groundwater discharge from the clearedMallee districts towards the river valley will bemanaged, and that the health of the floodplainand wetlands along the Murray corridor will beprotected and enhanced. Improved knowledgewill be developed and applied to the catchmentplanning and decision processes.

In addition, South Australia has a State-wideDryland Salinity Strategy that applies to theSouth Australian sector of the Basin where risingwater tables are affecting the productive landsystems around the lower lakes, Coorong, andEastern Mount Lofty Ranges.

Queensland

Queensland will deliver ICM outcomes, including minimisation of salinity, throughexisting initiatives including vegetationmanagement, water reform and improved landmanagement practices. Salinity scienceworkplans are being developed which supportcommunity groups in their development andimplementation of strategies to address salinityand water quality. Both salinity and water-quality outcomes will be delivered within theframework of integrated catchment managementand the NAP. Meanwhile, Queensland hascommitted itself to accountabilities andresponsibilities for implementing this Strategyand the ICM Policy Statement.

2.1.5 Regional salinity plansUnder the NAP, this Strategy, and State salinityinitiatives, regional organisations will developsalinity or catchment management plans thatwill cover among other things, performancemeasures, agreed outcomes, accountability andreporting mechanisms and compliance measures.

It is expected that, once a plan has beenaccredited under the NAP, it will meet therequirements of this Strategy and State initiativesand consequently attract an appropriate level ofinvestment from Governments and thecommunities. As there is broad consistencybetween the requirements of the NAP, thisStrategy and State salinity initiatives, this willensure that plans and resources for regionsoutside the NAP will be consistent with those forregions covered by the NAP.

2.2 Basin strategic approachUnder this Strategy, the partner Governmentsare committing to the following nine elements ofstrategic action, to be implemented over the next15 years:

• developing capacity to implement theStrategy;

• identifying values and assets at risk;

• setting salinity targets;

• managing trade-offs with the availablewithin-valley options;

• implementing salinity and catchmentmanagement plans;

• redesigning farming systems;

• targeting reforestation and vegetationmanagement;

• constructing salt interception works; and

• ensuring Basin-wide accountability:monitoring, evaluating, and reporting.

As part of this action, the Commission willmanage a comprehensive knowledge generationprogram, coordinate and enhance furtherresearch and development (R&D) on farmingand forestry systems, construct and operate saltinterception schemes, further develop thevegetation bank concept and establish Basin-wide monitoring, evaluation and reportingarrangements.

Consistent with itsresponsibility forBasin outcomes,MDBMC will adoptend-of-valley andBasin targets, whichwill be the same forthe NAP, thisStrategy, and Stateinitiatives.



2.3 PrinciplesThe partner Governments have agreed to theprinciples outlined below. This Strategyinterprets and applies the ICM principles (seeinside back cover) to salinity management, andthis interpretation forms the basis for the partnerGovernments' commitment to and involvementin its delivery.

2.3.1 Interpreting the ICM Policy Statement

Inclusiveness

This Strategy supports the ICM principles ofintegration and informed decision making bycommitting to an inclusive, integrated catchmentmanagement approach to salinity planning,management and implementation.

Community/Government partnerships

This Strategy supports the principle oftransparency by committing tocommunity/Government partnerships that areopen about how to achieve outcomes and whatis expected from each partner. There is anexpectation that communities and industry willactively participate in salinity managementplanning and implementation, and meet theirduty of care to avoid actions that worsen salinityimpacts.

2.3.2 Specific to this Strategy

Accountability

This Strategy supports the ICM principle ofaccountability by continuing States'accountability for future actions that was a key

feature of the S&D Strategy, and from 1 January2000 includes Queensland under this principle.The S&D Strategy obliged NSW, Victoria andSouth Australia to be accountable for offsettingthe salinity impacts of actions implemented after1 January 1988 that significantly affect riversalinity as measured at Morgan.

Within this Strategy, accountability is providedthrough the end-of-valley Report Cards andtargets, the Commission Salinity Registers for theBasin, salinity credits and debits, andparticipation in a program of joint saltinterception works. States in breach of thisprinciple will be answerable to Council. Therewill five-yearly audits, assessing impacts on riversalinity.

Responsibility

This Strategy commits the partner Governmentsto accept shared responsibility for further actionto meet the Basin salinity target as measured atMorgan (less than 800 EC for 95 per cent of thetime at Morgan) over 15 years.

In making this commitment, they are accepting ashared responsibility to address the legacy ofhistory by ensuring that the combined State totalof the Commission Registers remains in balanceor in surplus. If a State's contribution to the totalof the Commission Registers goes into deficitthen this will trigger an exception report toCouncil (with the Commission providing adviceon proposed action to bring the account intobalance or in surplus).

This Strategyinterprets and appliesthe ICM PolicyStatementprinciples to salinitymanagement.

Griffith NSW

NSW

Agr

icul

ture



The 'legacy of history' and 'future actions'

Throughout this Strategy, reference is made tothe ‘legacy of history’ and ‘future actions’. ThisStrategy differentiates between accountability tooffset the salinity impacts of future actions andresponsibility to offset the future salinity impactsof past actions (the ‘legacy of history’).

‘Future actions’ are typically works or measureswith salinity implications undertaken after 1January 1988 by NSW, Victoria and SouthAustralia, and from 1 January 2000 byQueensland. Future impacts of past actions orthe 'legacy of history' refers to the inevitablefuture salinity impacts which occur after 1January 2000 as a result of actions or decisionsundertaken before 1 January 1988 by NSW,Victoria and South Australia, and before 1January 2000 by Queensland.

Sharing benefits and costs

Under this Strategy, current landholders will notbe expected to individually accept responsibilityfor the future impacts of past actions. However,the impacts are real and need to be dealt with.Collectively, past and current landholders, andsociety as a whole, are represented by today'sGovernments.

That is not to say that today's Governmentsautomatically have to address the whole problemfrom within current resources. Rather, thisStrategy requires them to establish a decisionmaking regime in which the appropriate trade-offs are carefully considered, remedial measuresare agreed multi-laterally and the allocation ofsalinity credits generated by joint works reflectscost sharing arrangements.

The Strategy also acknowledges that the socialimpacts of the various salinity managementoptions need to be considered, and thatresponsibility should be shared acrossgenerations as well as localities. Furthermore, itrecognises that communities in the more salt-affected regions or localities should not have tobear all the costs of intervention.

To most effectively handle this sharedresponsibility, the partner Governments haveagreed to a further joint program of saltinterception works to achieve a reduction of atleast 46 EC, and potentially up to 61 EC, inaverage river salinity at Morgan (to offset the‘legacy of history’ and provide salt disposalentitlements for future actions) within sevenyears. In an evolutionary step from past practice,the partner Governments have agreed to a seriesof cost sharing and benefit allocation principles

under current flow regimes (i.e., the Cap ondiversions). These are listed below in section 3.8.

In summary, the joint works program will offsetthose 'legacy of history' effects, which are notoffset by in-valley actions in the first seven years,with the Commonwealth's credits directedtowards offsetting the ‘legacy of history’, andpossibly future actions that provideenvironmental and social benefits.

Optimal investments

This Strategy supports the ICM principles ofefficiency and full accounting by committing toinvestment in salinity based on a full and properassessment of all the benefits and costs(economic, environmental, and social) withinthe valleys and downstream. Investment willproceed where the sum of all benefits exceedsthe sum of all costs. This recognises that therehave to be limits to the levels of investment inprotection and that these limits will vary withinand between river valleys and States.

Balanced decisions

This Strategy further supports the ICM principlesof efficiency and full accounting by committingthe states and valley communities to takingbalanced decisions and making careful trade-offsbetween a range of salinity management optionsincluding, but not necessarily limited to, thosediscussed below in section 3.4.

For example, trade-offs will need to be madebetween engineering options that provideimmediate salinity benefits but treat thesymptoms not the causes, landscape changeoptions that treat the cause but provide longer-term and less certain benefits, and flowmanagement options that can provide immediatesalinity benefits (e.g., dilution flows) but canaffect availability of water for irrigation andenvironmental purposes.

In practice, the States and their communities willachieve the end-of-valley and Basin salinitytargets through a changing balance ofengineering, landscape change and flowmanagement options, that reflects their relativecosts and prevailing social values.

2.4 Commitment to thisStrategy

2.4.1 Council endorsementThis Strategy was requested by Council followingits consideration of the Basin Salinity Audit in1999. It has been developed by the partner

This Strategydifferentiates betweenresponsibility toaddress the ‘legacy of history’, andaccountability tooffset the salinityimpacts of ‘futureactions’.



Governments and Basin communities through alengthy process of informed debate andconsultation, based on the Draft Basin SalinityManagement Strategy released in September 2000.This Strategy provides a comprehensive, strategicand well thought out approach to the mostchallenging environmental issue facing the Basinand the nation.

In endorsing this Strategy in March 2001, and itsmajor policies including salinity targets,accountability, salinity credits and debits,redesigning farming systems, further developmentof the vegetation bank concept and joint saltinterception works, Council has signalled that it isprepared to take decisive action.

2.4.2 Implementing Council's decision through the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement

The Murray-Darling Basin Initiative is thepartnership between the Governments and Basincommunities that has been established to giveeffect to the Murray-Darling Basin Agreement(MDBA). The purpose of the Agreement is 'topromote and coordinate effective planning andmanagement for the equitable, efficient andsustainable use of the water, land and otherenvironmental resources of the Murray-DarlingBasin.'

This purpose is achieved through Councilconsidering and determining major policy issuessuch as salinity, and developing, considering andauthorising measures to address those issues.This Strategy is the Council's 15-year response tosalinity, and its key elements will be given astatutory basis in a revised Schedule C to theAgreement. The Commission will be responsiblefor implementing this Strategy within the termsof the Agreement and Schedule C.

2.4.3 Drafting a revised Schedule to the Agreement

The accountability arrangements of this Strategywill be enshrined in a revised Schedule C to theAgreement, which builds on the currentSchedule in the following ways:

• consideration of works and measures Basin-wide;

• including Queensland in accountabilityarrangements, with 1 January 2000 as theeffective date;

• responsibility for 'legacy of history' effects,with 1 January 2000 as the effective date, forall partner Governments;

• targets for each tributary valley and theshared rivers at Morgan;

• a new joint works program, to address the‘legacy of history’ and provide salt disposalentitlements (SDEs);

• revised cost sharing and salinity creditallocation for Victoria, NSW, South Australiaand the Commonwealth, under the new jointworks program;

• provisions for Queensland to participate inthe joint works program, if required, afterfive years of Strategy implementation;

• integration of the credits and debits of theprevious S&D Register into the newCommission A and B Registers of thisStrategy;

• provision for annual reporting by States tothe Commission, and review and audit ofactions on the Commission Registers at leastonce every five years; and

• provision for exception reporting to Counciland obligations for the partner Governmentsto be brought to account.

This Strategy’s keyelements andaccountabilityarrangements will begiven a statutorybasis in a revisedSchedule C to theAgreement.

Emerging dryland salinity - Central West

Pete

r Sol

ness

/Net

wor

k Ph

otog

raph

ers



Property planning

NSW

Agr

icul

ture

(Stu

art M

cMah

on)

Water-table testing

NSW

Agr

icul

ture

NSW

Agr

icul

ture

(Sim

on G

ibbs

)

Mapping salinity


Part Three: Implementation


3.1 Developing capacity to implement the Strategy

The partner Governments will assist catchmentcommunities to implement national, Basin andState initiatives by improving access to and useof the knowledge and decision tools generated bysalinity R&D and other relevant investigations.

3.1.1 Basin-wide capacityThe Commission has responsibility for Basin-scale issues associated with implementing thisStrategy. It requires enhanced capacity inknowledge of Basin scale bio-physical and socio-economic processes, design and management ofBasin-scale salinity management actions, anddesign and operation of accountabilityarrangements supported by Basin-levelmonitoring, evaluation and reporting.

The Commission and partner Governments willadminister a comprehensive 'knowledgegeneration' program to support Basin-scale andwithin-valley planning and implementation.

Priority project areas for knowledge generationinclude flow and salinity models for the Murrayand Darling Rivers, regional catchmenthydrology models, and Basin-scale geophysical,land use, ecological, and socioeconomicinformation.

Priority project areas for designing and managingBasin salinity actions include resolving costsharing and benefit allocation arrangements fornew joint interception works, further developingthe vegetation bank concept, and researching newterrestrial and aquatic production systems that canmeet water-use standards and productively utilisesalinised land and water resources.

Priority actions for improving capacity inensuring accountability through Basin-levelmonitoring, evaluation and reporting arediscussed below in section 3.9.

3.1.2 Within-valley capacityThe States have responsibility for within-valleyissues associated with implementing theStrategy, and will require adequate capacity inpredicting salinity and salt load trends, assessingthe effects and trade-offs associated with salinitymanagement options, and assessing the merits ofinvesting in salinity compared with othercatchment health targets.

Priority project areas for salinity and salt loadpredictive tools include flow and salinity modelsfor tributaries to the Murray and Darling Rivers,and local to regional catchment hydrologymodels that can interface with geophysical and

other spatial information (for example, thedistribution of salt in the landscape).

Priority project areas for assessing the effects ofoptions, working through the trade-offs anddeciding whether to invest in salinity or otherissues include gaining more information on socio-economic profiles and trends in catchmentcommunities, developing tools to assess local andregional trade-offs associated with various salinitymanagement options, and developing communityprocesses for agreeing on preferred options.

The Commission supports the States byfacilitating cross-border collaboration,coordinating data collection and analysis,encouraging the development of consistentsalinity modelling and prediction tools, andassisting the States in communicating results.

3.1.3 Communication and educationCommunication and education activities underthis Strategy and the ICM Policy Statement will beplanned and undertaken in conjunction witheach other and coordinated by the Commission.Specifically, the Commission's CommunicationStrategy Guide will be applied to all relevantprojects and activities to ensure 'best practice'.

There are three main communication tasks:information exchange, community involvementand support of networks. The Commission willinvest in production, dissemination and sharingof technical knowledge, in collaboration withpartner Governments, catchment communitiesand R&D knowledge providers. Communityinvolvement will focus on the assessment andfeedback in development of end-of-valley targetsand salinity and catchment management plans.Existing information and community networkswill be supported logistically and in the provision of knowledge from the Commission'sinvestigations projects.

A key communication activity under thisStrategy is the release of a series of companiondocuments providing more detail on each of itskey elements.

3.1.4 Institutional reform

Challenges

Under Commonwealth, Basin and State salinityinitiatives, catchment management organisationsare developing new salinity and catchmentmanagement plans. With Governmentassistance, they will be expected to play key rolesin achieving salinity targets specified in the plans.

The partnerGovernments willimprove access to anduse of the knowledgeand decision toolsgenerated by salinityresearch anddevelopment.



Issues

The partner Governments recognise that there are a number of institutional issues to be resolvedconcerning the evolving roles of catchmentmanagement organisations and localGovernments.

The level of involvement of catchmentmanagement organisations in delivering salinitytargets will vary as they have different powers,responsibilities and capacities. In some Statestheir principal roles are in coordination andcommunication, whereas in others they aredecision makers and accountable for outcomeson investment.

Local Governments have legislative responsibilityfor planning, but they have yet to develop a clearbrief for what they can do in relation to salinitytargets. In the absence of regional planningmechanisms, local Governments can be limitedin their ability to regulate new development atthe scales required.

Developing institutional arrangements

This Strategy draws its direction from the ICMPolicy Statement for the continued evolution ofinstitutional arrangements that provide forcommunity participation in salinity andcatchment management planning, andcoordinating salinity and natural resourcemanagement strategies with regional economicdevelopment strategies.

This is work-in-progress, with all Statesdeveloping arrangements with catchmentcommunities and the Commonwealth for theway in which natural resource managementoutcomes are delivered.

3.2 Identifying values and assets at risk

Consistent with the objectives of this Strategy,the Basin and end-of-valley river salinity targetsare set to achieve two outcomes: maintenance ofthe water quality of the rivers downstream; andthe 'right signals' for actions upstream to controlriver salinity and land degradation, and protectimportant natural values and built assets in thecatchments.

3.2.1 Basin-wideThe MDBA provides the Commission with thepower to coordinate the management of theMurray and Darling Rivers below MenindeeLakes (the shared rivers).

In 1988 the MDBMC adopted the S&D Strategy toreduce salinity in the River Murray as measured

at Morgan on the basis that the River Murrayand most irrigation areas in the southern Basinwere at risk from salinity. At that time it wasalso considered that dryland salinity would havea modest impact that could be offset by Strategyworks for at least several decades and the effectsof irrigation and dryland salinity on the DarlingRiver were insignificant.

The Basin Salinity Audit has shown that since1988 the situation has changed and futureirrigation and dryland salinity rises couldthreaten the values of not only the River Murraybut also the health of the Basin as a whole.While a principal value affected is water qualityfor consumptive uses (including irrigation,domestic and industrial use), other equallyimportant values are now recognised as being atrisk, including environmental values, farmproductivity and infrastructure (including roads,services and towns).

Under this Strategy and State initiatives, partnerGovernments are identifying values and assets atrisk of salinity and setting end-of-valley andwithin-valley salinity targets to protect keyvalues and assets. These values and assetsinclude surface and groundwater resources,terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and species,highly productive farmland, indigenous culturalheritage, and built infrastructure.

3.2.2 Commission/Council roles in protecting values and assets

An important consideration is the capacity ofsalinity and catchment management plans,LWMPs and major actions to contribute to thisStrategy's objectives within valleys and acrossvalleys. In assessing plans and actions forinclusion on the Commission Registers, theCommission will provide advice to the relevantgovernments, and as part of a State's consultativeprocess in developing these plans may advise thecatchment bodies.

The States, through annual reporting via theCommission to Council, will advise on the levelof protection being afforded to within-valleyvalues and assets, and on progress towards end-of-valley targets adopted by the Council toprotect Basin-wide values and assets, includingthe shared rivers (see section 3.3 below). TheCommission in the consolidated annual report toCouncil will advise on the balance of effort acrossvalleys and the capacity to meet Strategyobjectives. The end-of-valley and Basin targets,in conjunction with the accountabilityarrangements in the form of monitoring,evaluating and reporting will ensure theprotection of Basin-wide values and assets.

Basin and end-of-valley targets seek tomaintain waterquality of the riversdownstream andsend the right signalsfor actions upstream.



3.3 Setting salinity targets

3.3.1 The need for targetsThrough the ICM Policy Statement, the Council hasindicated its commitment to targets forcatchment health. River salinity and salt loadsare important indicators of catchment and Basinhealth. While the Basin's river flows andsalinities are naturally variable, trends in salinityand salt loads can provide important informationon catchment condition.

Within this Strategy, the concept of targets hasbeen applied to river salinity and salt load atvarious points across the Basin. In setting thequantum of targets, consideration needs to begiven to key values and assets that are put at riskfrom salinity and the nature and scale of actionto protect them.

3.3.2 Council's target sites at end-of-valley and Morgan

A key feature of this Strategy is Council's adoptionof salinity targets for each tributary valley and aBasin target at Morgan in South Australia. TheBasin target, which is for the shared rivers, is tomaintain the salinity at Morgan at less than 800EC for 95 per cent of the time.

These targets themselves do not represent thefull range of outcomes sought, but they are away of measuring progress towards achieving theStrategy's objectives. Council's adoption of thesetargets will provide the impetus for actions acrossthe Basin, and the basis for accountabilityarrangements for the partner Governments.

While end-of-valley targets allow for further risesin salinity, they are in effect a 'cap' on salinitythat gives the appropriate signals for protectingkey values and assets in the valleys, and alsoencourage the States to meet their obligations toprotect the shared rivers.

Council, through the ICM PolicyStatement, iscommitted to targetsfor catchment health.Salinity and salt loadtargets at variouspoints across theBasin drive actions toachieve catchmenthealth whileprotecting key valuesand assets.

Illustration of end-of-valley and within-valley targets for a catchment

Major wetland

Irrigation areaForestry for

environmental servicesEnd-of-valley target < 1000 EC 80% time

Irrigation best practice

Within-valley-target < 1000 EC for irrigation season

Major town

Within-valley-target < 800EC 80% time for town

water supply

Farming systemsdevelopment

Salt interception scheme



3.3.3 Processes for Council targetsetting and review

The partner Governments nominated an interimset of end-of-valley targets for stream salinityand salt loads, and these were considered bycatchment communities during the publiccomment period for the draft Strategy. EachState has set its own program for finalisation oftargets. The interim, Council adopted targets arelisted in Table 1.

While there is a need for targets to be adaptive,they will only be changed where there isadequate justification. This will provide certaintyand integrity for the Strategy and will ensurethat stakeholders' efforts are directed to findingcreative and innovative ways to meet the targets.

In some parts of the Basin, end-of-valley targetsites will be augmented with ‘interpretation sites’to assist in attributing salinity to it’s source,however these sites will not include targets orspecific accountability provisions.

0 100 200 km

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆ Roma

Charleville ◆

Toowoomba ◆

BRISBANE◆

◆ Tamworth

Dubbo

Wagga WaggaDeniliquin

◆

◆ Mildura

◆

Griffith

◆

Shepparton

Bendigo

Albury

Bourke

Cunnamulla

QUEENSLAND

Lachlan R iver

RIVERMU R R AY

◆

◆

◆

Murrumbidgee River

Moree

Echuca

Orange

Cooma

Morgan

◆

◆ Broken Hill

SYDNEY ◆

MELBOURNE ◆ VICTORIA

NEW SOUTHWALES

Darlin

g River

◆ Ivanhoe

Horsham

Swan Hill

◆

◆

◆

◆

◆

ADELAIDE

SOUTH AUSTRALIA

◆

Murray Bridge

CANBERRA

Paro

oRi

ver

War

r ego

Rive

r

BalonneRive

r

Condamine River

Moonie River

Macintyre River

Barwon River Gwydir River

Namoi River

CastlereaghRiver

Macquarie River

BoganRiver

Kiewa River

Ovens River

Broke n River

Gou l burn River

CampaspeRiver

LoddonRiver

AvocaRiver

Wim

m era River

◆

◆

Location of End-of-valley Target Sites

End-of-valley target sites

Interpretation sites

Basin target site

Legend



Table 1. Summary of Basin Salinity Management Strategy Targets as at July 2001

Valley 2015 Target1 Valley Reporting Site Without Intervention Salinity Audit PredictionContribution to Morgan

(Interpretation sites Salinity - 2015Salinity Salt load shown in italics) (EC - (µS/cm)

All partner Govts. Median 95%ile Average

Murray-Darling Basin 110% 98% 110% Murray at Morgan +88

South Australia Median 95%ile Average

Lock 6 to Morgan tba tba 110% Murray at Morgan +50

Below Morgan tba tba tba Murray at Murray Bridge -

NSW Median 80%ile Average

Murrumbidgee 108% 112% tba Murrumbidgee at Balranald +6

Lachlan 108% 106% 103% Lachlan at Forbes 0

Bogan 137% 93% 133% Bogan at Gongolgon +3.2

Macquarie 108% 126% 114% Macquarie at Carinda +4.3

Castlereagh 105% tba tba Castlereagh at EoV +0.2

Namoi 108% 110% 116% Namoi at Goangra +6.4

Gwydir 103% 101% 100% Gwydir at Collarenebri +0.1

NSW Border Rivers 100% 100% 100% Barwon at Mungindi +0.1

NSW Upper Murray tba tba tba Murray at Heywoods tba

Barwon-Darling Darling at Wilcannia tba

NSW Riverine Plains Murray at Redcliffs tba

NSW Mallee Zone Murray at Lock 6 tba

Victoria Median 80%ile Average

Wimmera tba tba tba Wimmera at Horsham Weir 0

Avoca 102% 102% 102% Avoca at Quambatook 0

Loddon 103% 101% 101% Loddon at Laanecoorie +0.7

Campaspe 101% 101% 101% Campaspe at Pumps 0

Goulburn 100% 100% 100% Goulburn at Goulburn Weir +0.8

Broken 136% 136% 136% Broken at Casey’s Weir 0

Ovens 100% tba 101% Ovens at Peechelba East 0

Kiewa 100% tba 100% Kiewa at Bandiana 0

Vic Upper Murray tba tba tba Murray at Heywoods tba

Vic Riverine Plains Murray at Swan Hill tba

Vic Mallee Zone Murray at Lock 6 +15

Queensland Median 80%ile Average

Qld Border Rivers tba tba tba Barwon at Mungindi +0.5

Moonie tba tba tba Moonie at Fenton 0

Condamine Balonne tba tba tba Culgoa at Hastings +0.5

Warrego tba tba tba Warrego at Cunnamulla 0

Paroo tba tba tba Paroo at Caiwarro 0

ACT Median 80%ile Average

ACT Murrumbidgee at Hall’s Crossing tba

Notes:1. Percentage of 2000 conditions, utilising 1975-2000 climatic benchmark

tba = to be advised

The States haveestablished processesfor finalising theinterim end-of-valleytargets.

Once adopted byCouncil end-of-valleytargets will only bechanged where thereis adequatejustification, toprovide certainty and integrity for this Strategy.



3.3.4 State within-valley targetsThe States have initiated processes to establishwithin-valley management targets to protectimportant values and assets from salinity, and toassist in meeting Council adopted end-of-valleyand Basin targets.

Within-valley management targets will recogniselocal priorities such as land area protected andpriority ecological outcomes, and while they maybe used for reporting this Strategy's progress toCouncil, their resolution is a State matter.However, they will be consistent with the targetsadopted by Council for end-of-valley riversalinity, salt load and flow.

3.4 Managing trade-offs with the available within-valley options

Options for salinity management range from themore immediate and certain outcomes of saltinterception schemes to longer-term and lesscertain benefits associated with reforestation.Optimising their adoption on a catchment scalefaces two significant challenges: the inability ofcurrent farming systems to address salinity inmany areas, and the trade-offs associated withtheir adoption. Many options affect profitability,can reduce water resource security and havesocial impacts. A key task for this Strategy is toassist catchment management planning deal withthese challenges.

3.4.1 Land management options

Irrigation

For irrigation areas, there are a number of landmanagement options that can achieve effectivegroundwater control and enhance profitability.They include more efficient water use, water re-use schemes, repairing or replacing watersupply infrastructure, and the siting of newirrigation development into low salinity impactareas. However, even best-practice irrigation can have salinity impacts and additionalinterventions such as drain diversion orgroundwater interception may be required.

Broadacre dryland

For broadacre dryland areas, effective options arelimited.

In the more productive areas of the wheatbelt,opportunity cropping in summer rainfall areas and incorporating lucerne into cerealcropping systems in winter rainfall areas canachieve a degree of groundwater control whilst

maintaining productivity. These are less effectiveor not appropriate for drier parts of thewheatbelt and in the Mallee zone, wheregroundwater response times are much longer.

For the high rainfall zone (>600 mm averageannual rainfall) used for sheep and cattle grazing,there are no effective options at present. Newsystems involving careful targeting andmanagement of woody plants in the landscapewill be required. These systems include forestryand farm forestry, and conservation, rehabilitationand stewardship of native vegetation.

3.4.2 Engineering options

Drainage and conversion of open channels

Responsible drainage and re-use of low salinitydrainage water are features of best-practiceirrigation. Conversion of open channels to pipedwater supplies or treatment of the channels, toreduce seepage, can also assist in minimisingimpacts.

Salt interception and disposal schemes

Salt interception and disposal schemes divertgroundwater or irrigation drainage water to safedisposal sites. They can also provide site-specificprotection of highly-valued community assetssuch as urban infrastructure and biodiversity.

Choosing within-valley options ischallenging becausesome are morecertain than others,options vary in thetime they take tohave an effect, andthere are trade-offswith adoption.

Irrigated horticultureN

SW A

gric

ultu

re



Groundwater pumping

Relatively fresh rising groundwater can sometimesbe pumped to the surface in sufficient quantitiesfor irrigation, achieving a dual benefit ofincreasing production while maintaining orreducing groundwater levels.

3.4.3 Flow management

Dilution and environmental flows

Dilution flows are intentional storage releases thatreduce salinity concentrations. Environmentalflows are flows, or characteristics of flowpatterns, that are either maintained or created toimprove riverine ecosystem and floodplainwetland condition.

Maintaining flows from high rainfall areas

A high proportion of the Basin's total river flowsoriginate from relatively small areas, for examplethe Upper Murray that receives >800 mmaverage annual rainfall. Maintaining these flowsis particularly important for managing salinityconcentrations.

Principled approach to flows

Water supply and management throughout theBasin has historically been focussed on ensuringreliable supplies for irrigation, mainly because ofthe undisputed benefits to regional economiesand to the Basin as a whole.

It is becoming apparent, however, that increasedpriority must be given to maintaining flows fromhigh rainfall areas and providing for more dilutionand environmental flows. Unless this morebalanced approach prevails, urban and otherwater users will have less water of poorer quality,and entire riverine ecosystems will be threatened.

Further clarification of water property rights willassist in achieving a more balanced approach.

3.4.4 Living with salt'Living with salt' options are currently limitedbut could include saltland agronomy,'shandying' saline irrigation water with freshwater, applying irrigation re-use water to salttolerant crops, changing crop selection, saltharvesting and processing, timber productionusing moderate salinity groundwater,rehabilitation and land stewardship andexperimental saline aquaculture.

3.4.5 Managing trade-offsAlmost all of the above options involve trade-offs. In addition to the trade-offs that can beassociated with managing flows for irrigation,dilution and environmental purposes, there canbe large trade-offs associated with change in landuse. For example, large-scale revegetation has tobe carefully planned to ensure that the long-termsalinity and salt load benefits outweigh the costsof establishment, structural adjustment andreduced flows.

The optimal mix of options will vary according tovalley-specific targets and circumstances, andwill need to be dynamic and subject to periodicrevision. The Commission will assist the partnergovernments with improved knowledge andtechniques to support these decisions, and workwith them on appropriate policies.

3.5 Implementing salinity management plans

3.5.1 Current statusThe partner Governments have for over a decadesupported development and implementation ofirrigation LWMPs, salinity management plansand catchment management plans. There areabout 200 plans throughout the Basin. In manycases, partnerships between the Landcaremovement and non-government organisationshave been major factors in plan success.Currently, catchment management organisationsare developing new plans or reviewing existingplans. This is happening in the context of thisStrategy, the NAP and State salinity strategies.

3.5.2 More action in irrigation regionsIrrigation LWMPs and joint salt interceptionworks under the S&D Strategy have deliveredsubstantial improvements in water quality in theLower Murray. But these improvements are atrisk from dryland salinity and also from thegrowing requirement in irrigation regions forSDEs. These include entitlements required fornew developments arising from water trading.

This Strategy continues and enhances support forLWMPs, and for recording salinity outcomes ofLWMPs on a salinity register. Accounting foroffsetting the impacts of future development andfor maintaining the Commission Registers inpositive balance will provide the incentive forLWMP implementation and review.

Salinity plans havebeen supported bythe partnerGovernments for overa decade. Catchmentorganisations aredeveloping new plansor reviewing existingplans in the contextof this Strategy theNAP and Stateinitiatives.



3.5.3 More action in dryland regionsThis Strategy also enhances support for furtherdevelopment and implementation of plans fordryland regions.

In particular, it will assist in meeting communitydemand for improved capacity to predict and quantify the effects of various salinitymanagement options, and to assess the trade-offsassociated with different mixes of options. KeyStrategy initiatives such as further developing thevegetation bank concept will attract significantlyincreased resources for plan implementation.

Under Commonwealth, Basin and State salinityinitiatives salinity management plans are beingdeveloped or reviewed, to take end-of-valley andwithin-valley salinity targets into account andimprove accountability arrangements.

3.5.4 Assessing contribution of plans to meeting targets

The design and delivery of outcomes fromindividual catchment plans will be essential toachieve Basin-wide outcomes. Under thisStrategy, States and the Commission will assistindividual catchment plans to assess thecontribution of proposed works to meeting theend-of-valley and Basin targets.

To assess the effectiveness of proposed actions,individual catchment plans will need todocument:

• assessed baseline conditions (as at 1 January2000) for end-of-valley salinity, salt load andflow regimes;

• expected 'legacy of history' impacts on end-of-valley salinity, salt load and flow for 2015,2050 and 2100;

• agreed end-of-valley salinity and salt loadtargets; and

• predicted effects of proposed significant in-valley actions on end-of-valley salinity, saltload and flow conditions at 2015, 2050 and2100.

3.5.5 Additional works to meet Basin target

It is apparent that river salinity and salt loadswould respond only slowly to within-valleylandscape-change options and would thereforeallow salinity rises in the medium term. Underthe S&D Strategy the partner Governments haveundertaken a joint works program which hasreduced river salinity in the River Murray. Theanticipated slow reduction in the rate of increasein salt exports from dryland regions as a result ofwithin-valley action threatens this reduction andthe Basin target at Morgan.

While the essence of this Strategy is to cap saltmobilisation and export from across the Basinlandscape, thereby avoiding the need for furthersalt interception schemes, it is clear that this isachievable only in the longer term. In the shortterm it is necessary to continue with saltinterception schemes to buy time for the benefitsof actions to cap salt mobilisation and exportfrom the landscape to take effect.

A new joint program of salt interception workswill be undertaken over the first seven years ofthis Strategy. The aim is to maintain benefits towater users drawing on the shared rivers, and toprovide an additional contribution to preservingwater quality as measured at Morgan, beyondthat deliverable by actions addressing the 'legacyof history' within the tributary valleys. There isalso an incentive under this Strategy to developother, complementary, mitigation works. Moredetails on the works program are in section 3.8.2.

The States and theCommission willassist individualcatchment plans toassess theircontribution tosalinity targets.

Saltbush in ryegrass pasture

NSW

Agr

icul

ture

(Sim

on G

ibbs

)



3.6 Redesigning farming systems

3.6.1 Collaboration in research and development

This Strategy will coordinate a range of initiativesresearching new farming systems that can usemore rainfall than existing systems. Theseinitiatives include the Cooperative ResearchCentre (CRC) for Plant-based Management ofDryland Salinity, the CRC for CatchmentHydrology, the Joint Venture AgroforestryProgram (JVAP), the Redesigning Agriculture forAustralian Landscapes Program, and industryR&D organisations.

The National Dryland Salinity Program (NDSP) willcontinue to play a key role in national prioritysetting and coordinating activities under theabove initiatives. Through its participation, theCommission will seek to extend collaboration tocommodity R&D corporations, and their capacityto develop new, sustainable options.

3.6.2 Mimicking natural systemsRecent reviews of farming systems for theircurrent effectiveness and future prospects insalinity control have pointed to the need for R&Dinto new farming and forestry systems that are aradical change from the present. The CSIRO hasindicated that recharge rates under future landuses will need to mimic the average recharge ratesof natural vegetation (0.5 mm to 10 mm annualrainfall equivalent) if salinity is to be controlled.This is a major reduction from current rates underannual crops and pastures (15 mm to 130 mm).

The challenge is to develop commercial systems with this characteristic. Depending on profitability, they will have their place,particularly where important values and assetsare under threat. But they may not beuniversally adopted across the Basin fortechnical and social reasons.

3.6.3 Criteria-based assessment of R&D potential

The Commission, through its involvement in theCRC for Plant-based Management of DrylandSalinity, is party to a new and potentiallypowerful 'criteria-based approach' to targetingR&D investment. The CRC's Board has adoptedthe following parameters within which projectsare selected and progress is assessed for programsand the CRC as a whole:

• Impact on recharge: the primary measure ofsalinity control, estimated as deep drainage inrainfall equivalents (see above 3.6.2), or in

proportion to the discharge capacity of thetarget catchment;

• Impact on productivity and profitability: afarm or paddock level measure, often grossmargin analysis;

• Area of which solutions are applied: anestimate of the scale of application;

• Time to complete development anddependence on other activities: the CSIROhas estimated up to 25 years for R&D toproduce new perennial options;

• Economic benefits: incorporating the broadernon-farm considerations of benefits andcosts, from regional economic developmentto off-site environmental impacts; and

• Environmental indicators of success: as yetmeasures of environmental protection areundeveloped.

The Commission will continue to develop thiscriteria-based approach and seek to apply it toR&D investment into options for the agro-ecological zones of the Basin.

3.6.4 Current prospects for agro-ecological zones

For the purposes of this Strategy, there are threeagro-ecological zones with different prospects forcurrent and future salinity management.

High rainfall grazing

Defined as land receiving >600 mm averageannual rainfall, options for this zone includechanging land use from grazing to forestry andfarm forestry, and managing native vegetation(both grasslands and woodlands) for a moreappropriate balance between production andprovision of ecosystem services.

There are two key challenges for R&D into newland-use systems for the high rainfall grazingzone. Firstly, to ensure that the new systems areprofitable, or in the case of native vegetationmanagement, that ecosystem services can bevalued. And secondly, to ensure the newsystems offer sufficient flexibility for managers toachieve a balance between maintaining riverflows, managing salinity, and meeting broader,regional socio-economic aspirations.

Winter rainfall cropping

Defined as land receiving 250 mm to 600 mm inuniform or winter dominant average annualrainfall and also including the Mallee whichreceives <400 mm average annual rainfall, thiszone contains most of the wheatbelt.

This Strategy willcoordinate initiativesresearching newfarming systems.Future land uses willneed to mimicnatural vegetationrecharge rates ifsalinity is to becontrolled. Thechallenge is todevelop commercialsystems with thischaracteristic.



Some current farming systems in this zone can beprofitable and achieve the required balancebetween recharge control and surface water run-off (e.g., phase farming using lucerne with cerealcropping, and perennial pasture-grazing systems).However, reliance on these is risky and moreoptions need to be developed. While extension oftraditional plantation forestry into this zone couldbe feasible, perennial cropping and grazingsystems are expected to be more popular.

For the Mallee zone, such options do not offerthe same prospects for sustainability andprofitability. Short rotation tree crops are apossible future option throughout the winterrainfall cropping zone, including the Mallee.

Summer rainfall cropping

Defined as land receiving 400 mm to 600 mmsummer dominant average annual rainfall, thiszone contains some of the most productive soilsin the Basin. The Liverpool Plains and DarlingDowns are in this zone.

One option is to sow crops opportunistically inboth winter and summer, when rainfall and soilconditions allow. However, best-practiceopportunity cropping still results in almost twicethe amount of recharge that occurred under thenative perennial grasslands that covered theextensive plains in this zone.

Potential new options include phase farming(discussed above under winter rainfall cropping)and companion farming. Companion farming isoversowing annual crops into perennial pastures.However, phase farming and companion farmingpresent challenges for R&D. They are both likelyto have productivity trade-offs, and there are noguarantees that the perennial component of thesystem will be at maximum growth duringwetter than average years.

As with the winter rainfall cropping zone, shortrotation tree crops, providing they can be provencommercially, may prove to be an effectiveoption in the longer term for this zone.

3.6.5 New industries based on salinised resources

'Living with salinity' at levels of damage greaterthan now is inevitable for a range of reasons, andthis is reflected in the 2015 end-of-valley targetsbeing higher than 2000 baseline conditions.While the options considered above are designedto prevent further rises in salinity, otherenterprises can profit from salinity.

This Strategy will enhance investment in R&Dinto new industries based on salinised land and

water resources. Potential new opportunitiesinclude developing more cost effectivedesalination plants, generating heat andelectricity from salt disposal ponds, expandingsaline aquaculture, producing more productsfrom salt harvesting, developing improvedsaltland agronomy systems, breeding salt toleranttree crops, and developing new irrigationtechnologies that allow the use of low-to-moderate salinity groundwater.

3.7 Targeting reforestation and vegetation management

Achieving the objectives of this Strategy isdependent on key parts of catchments and theBasin being planted or managed under perennialplants. Options for reforestation and vegetationmanagement fall into three categories: forestryoutside its traditional zone, native vegetationmanagement and short rotation tree crops.Specific challenges include the targeting of areasat a scale of planting that maximises salinitybenefits and minimises costs and other adverseimpacts, and facilitating innovation in developingand trialling new revegetation options.

3.7.1 The vegetation bank conceptUnder this Strategy, Council has agreed tofurther development of the concept of avegetation bank, into which it would contributefunds for targeted investment in reforestationand vegetation management. The intention isfor the vegetation bank to invest only in areaswhere there will be measurable salinity benefits.Consistent with the ICM Policy Statement, it willseek to maximise multiple objectives incatchment health. It will not compete directlywith fully commercial forestry.

Financing arrangements under the vegetationbank will evolve to accommodate R&D outcomesas they occur. It is the intention over theduration of this Strategy, for the vegetation bankto provide finance for the following options:

• forestry outside of its traditional zone whereit would not be commercial otherwise;

• native vegetation management, rehabilitationand land stewardship; and

• innovation for short rotation tree crops.

These options are considered to be the threemost technically effective and socially acceptablevegetation related options for salinitymanagement in the Basin. They also provideother benefits, for instance, forestry companionplantings contributing to biodiversity.

‘Living with salinity’at levels of damagegreater than now isinevitable, and thisStrategy will enhanceR&D into newindustries based onsalinised land andwater resources.



3.7.2 Forestry outside of its traditional zone

The Commission is working with partnerGovernments to attract corporate and publicinvestment in plantation and farm forestryoutside of its traditional >800 mm averageannual rainfall zone. The objective is to directinvestments to salinised catchments in theuplands receiving 500 mm to 800 mm averageannual rainfall. Under the vegetation bankconcept, investors' contributions to forestestablishment and maintenance will be inproportion to the commercial and public benefitsgenerated by the new forests.

Commercial benefits include timber, other woodproducts, and carbon credits. Public benefitsinclude salinity management, nutrientmanagement, and biodiversity enhancement.While there is adequate scientific and marketknowledge to accurately quantify forest andwood values, and substantial progress is beingmade with valuing carbon sequestration,knowledge of the net public benefits of forestry isstill uncertain, particularly at the regional scale.

The Commission is supporting a comprehensiveresearch and investigations program to address this.

3.7.3 Native vegetation management, rehabilitation and land stewardship

Large areas of undulating and steep-hill countryin the higher rainfall uplands of the Basin, areused for grazing, but profits are generally low.There is an emerging view that where these landsare not reforested they should be rehabilitatedand stewarded for a range of ecological services,including salinity management.

In addition to the higher rainfall uplands, thisoption is expected to be available in medium

rainfall areas (mainly the more productive areasof the wheatbelt, receiving from 400 mm to 600mm average annual rainfall) and in the Mallee(receiving <400 mm average annual rainfall).

To minimise the level of Government investmentnecessary to achieve agreed outcomes,Government funds could be allocated through acompetitive process. An auction based system isbeing trialled in the Basin, where individuallandholders and groups bid for public assistanceto manage vegetation. Experience has shownthat this can target investment to deliver higherconservation values, at least cost to Government,and with genuine commitment from landholders.

3.7.4 Short rotation tree crops Short rotation tree crops have considerablepotential to overcome the economic and socialimpediments encountered in extending forestryoutside of its traditional zone and into thewheatbelt. These crops may prove a better long-term option for cleared areas of the Mallee region.

The development of new large-scale tree-cropindustries is risky, expensive and difficult.Without a large public investment in early stageR&D, prospective new industries cannot get tothe point where private investors becomesufficiently convinced of their potential to bewilling to invest in further development.Existing R&D initiatives (discussed above insection 3.6) have the capability to overcome this,given more resources.

At present, arrangements for joint public andprivate investment in commercialising shortrotation tree crops that have passed early-stageR&D are undeveloped. This issue confrontssalinity strategies generally, and is beingaddressed through initiatives such as theEnvironmental Services Investment Fund underthe NSW Salinity Strategy.

Key areas need to beunder perennialplants to achieve thisStrategy’s objectives.Perennial plantoptions includeforestry outside of its traditional zone,native vegetationmanagement, andshort rotation tree crops.

River redgum reforestation - Mumbil, NSW

Pete

r Sol

ness

/Net

wor

k Ph

otog

raph

ers



3.8 Constructing joint (Commission) salt interception works

3.8.1 Joint works under the S&D Strategy

Salt interception works are large-scalegroundwater pumping and drainage projects thatintercept saline flows and dispose of them,generally by evaporation.

The S&D Strategy provided for improving salinityat Morgan through a joint works programequivalent to 80 EC. Out of this 80 EC, 30 ECwas provided to Victoria and NSW, as SDEs tooffset accountable actions (implemented after 1January 1988). In effect, under thisarrangement, the partner Governments agreed toundertake salinity mitigation works to offset thehistorical legacy of salinity on the assumption itwas less than 50 EC.

At the time it was considered that the underlyingsalinity trend was an increase of 1.5 EC per yearand that the net 50 EC reduction would providea buffer for 20 to 30 years. However, the BasinSalinity Audit estimated future salinity trends tobe about 4 EC per year and that the buffer willbe used up much sooner.

The S&D Strategy works program is jointly fundedby the Commonwealth and the Governments ofNSW, Victoria and South Australia, with thesalinity benefits arising from the Commonwealthand South Australian contributions beingallocated to river health.

3.8.2 New joint worksTo maintain Morgan salinity at 800 EC or less for 95 per cent of the time for the duration ofthis Strategy, the 1999 Basin Salinity Audit foundthat a reduction in salinity of about 100 EC at

Morgan will have to be found by newinterventions over and above within-valleyactions such as revegetation.

A new joint program of salt interception works,costing an estimated $60 million, will commenceimmediately to deliver at least 46 EC, andpotentially up to 61 EC, over the first sevenyears. The partner Governments have agreedthat joint salt interception schemes must beeconomic and technically certain, and all thingsbeing equal, the most economic schemes shouldproceed first.

The new program provides for a State (if itchooses) to contribute to joint works to offset'legacy of history' and provide SDEs to offset thedownstream impacts of future developments inthat state. The State can also choose toimplement actions within its borders to offset the'legacy of history' or provide SDEs, if it considerssuch actions will be more cost effective for theState than contributing to joint works.

3.8.3 Cost sharing and benefit allocation for joint works

The Commission will review in the first 12months of this Strategy, the scale of the programrequired, and the cost sharing and benefitallocation arrangements. Of the minimum 46EC reduction in average salinity at Morgan, 31EC will be allocated as ‘legacy of history’ offsets,and 15 EC as SDEs; however, it is highly likelythat more credits will be needed to cover boththe 'legacy of history' and new development.

The partner Governments have agreed to thefollowing cost sharing and benefit allocationprinciples for the new joint works:

• each State will have equal access to a limitednumber of SDEs but will be accountable foroffsetting the effects of future developments;

The Basin SalinityAudit found that areduction of about100 EC at Morganwould have to befound by newinterventions. States can address the‘legacy of history’and offsetdownstream impactsof futuredevelopments byinvesting either in works within their borders or injoint works.

Salt harvesting and salt interception works

Mat

t Ken

dall



• partner Governments will have equitableaccess to the works, first right of refusal andcredits generated will be allocated accordingto contribution to costs;

• the Commonwealth's credits will be re-allocated to the State entries on theCommission Registers, in proportion to the‘legacy of history’ affecting each State; and

• each State is to keep its contribution to theCommission Registers in balance or insurplus.

These principles allocate salinity credits in anequitable manner that acknowledges the historicand geographical differences between the States.Salinity credits arising from the Commonwealth'scontribution will be allocated to resolve Statedifferences. In addition, the Commonwealth mayallocate credits to the Commission A Register tooffset actions to provide environmental and socialbenefits (e.g. wetland flushing).

3.8.4 Investigating, constructing and operating joint works

River Murray Water, as the operational arm of theMurray-Darling Basin Commission, coordinatesthe partner Governments in developing theinvestigation and construction programs, and thesubsequent operation of joint works.

The Commission's high-level inter-jurisdictionalworking group on salt interception will interpretthe principles for undertaking the new joint worksprogram, for the purposes of recommending toCouncil within 12 months the final number of ECcredits to be delivered, along with cost sharing and benefit allocation arrangements.

Beyond the seven-year program, it is envisagedthat additional investigation and construction ofsalt interception works will be required, alongwith other mitigation options, to deliver theadditional EC credits necessary to maintain theMorgan target. Planning for this subsequentprogram will be in place before completion of theinitial program.

3.9 Ensuring Basin-wide accountability: monitoring, evaluating and reporting

3.9.1 Salinity credits and debitsAn important feature of the Basin salinity targetat Morgan is that it is supported by a system ofsalinity credits and debits. Setting end-of-valleytargets and establishing their contribution to theBasin salinity target provides the basis for Basin-wide application of Commission credits anddebits. It generates a consistent currency

through which trade-offs and Basin-wideaccountability can be accommodated, and byconvention the currency is EC units (a measureof salinity concentration) at Morgan.

3.9.2 Valley Report CardsIn addition to advising of works and measuresthat may have a significant effect at Morgan, eachState has agreed to establish Report Cards forannual reporting arrangements on each of theirtributary valleys. The design and layout of theValley Report Cards will be a State prerogative,and will include details of predicted impacts ofproposed actions (as detailed in Section 3.5.4)and actual implementation to date:

• assessed baseline conditions (as at 1 January2000) for end-of-valley salinity, salt load andflow regimes;

• expected ‘legacy of history’ impacts on end-of-valley salinity, salt load and flow for 2015, 2050 and 2100;

• agreed end-of-valley salinity and salt loadtargets; and

• assessed effects of significant in-valley actionsundertaken to date, including effects ofcatchment management plans on end-of-valley salinity, salt load and flow conditionsfor the current year, and at 2015, 2050 and2100.

On an annual basis each State will prepare aconsolidated Report Card for all valleys withinthe State for reporting to the Commission.

3.9.3 Administering Commission Registers

The system of salinity credits and debits forachieving the Morgan target will be managedthrough the Commission A Register (for trackingSDEs) and the Commission B Register (foractions to address the ‘legacy of history’).

The Commission Registers will keep account ofall actions undertaken within the Basin afteragreed baseline dates that will cause a significantincrease or decrease in average salinity atMorgan. The agreed dates are:

• 1 January 1988 for accountability for futureactions by NSW, Victoria and SouthAustralia;

• 1 January 2000 for accountability for futureactions by Queensland; and;

• 1 January 2000 for responsibility to addressthe ‘legacy of history’ effects by partnerGovernments.

The States haveagreed to establishtributary ReportCards for annualreporting of predictedimpacts of proposedwithin-valley actions.Each State willprepare for theCommission aconsolidated ReportCard covering alltributaries within the State.



The effect of actions will be assessed with modelsusing an agreed climatic/hydrologic sequence(otherwise known as the 'benchmark period').The benchmark period is from July 1975 to June2000. An action will be considered as significantand included in the Commission Registers if it isassessed to cause a change in average EC atMorgan of 0.1 EC or higher within 30 years.

Under this Strategy, the current S&D StrategyRegister will be translated directly into theCommission A Register. The units of theCommission A Register will be Equivalent EC atMorgan, which recognises the economic impacton the shared rivers, and is a continuation ofcurrent practice.

The Commission B Register is being establishedto track ‘legacy of history’ impacts and to assessthe effects of actions to address it, for examplerevegetation. The effects of these actions are lesscertain, and are often more time-lagged, thanactions qualifying for the Commission A Register.In some cases these actions may result in short-term salinity costs, while providing longer-termsalinity benefits.

The Commission Registers will operate inharmony using the common currency ofEquivalent EC at Morgan. The States will keepthe total of the Commission A Register as well asthe cumulative total of both CommissionRegisters in balance, or in surplus.

In the early years of this Strategy there is notexpected to be any trade between the Registers.

3.9.4 Reporting to CouncilThis Strategy will incorporate transparentaccountability arrangements whereby progresstowards targets will be monitored and reportedto Council annually. This follows the sameprinciples as for the Cap on diversions.

Each year, States will collate data on all actionsundertaken or proposed, and will report theseagainst the agreed end-of-valley targets andagainst the Commission A and B Registers.

Basin monitoring and reporting arrangementsrequired for this Strategy will be consistent with NAP and other catchment and state-of-environment reporting needs. Synchronisationof these reporting requirements is a priority inthe early years of Strategy implementation.

Reporting to the Commission and Council by theStates will consist of:

• an annual report detailing progress withimplementation of works and measures and aprogressive estimate of salinity effects (atend-of-valley and/or Morgan as appropriate)of those works and measures actuallyimplemented to date; and

• a rolling five-year review and audit for eachvalley and Commission Register entry, of theassessed effect on river salinity (at end-of-valley and/or Morgan as appropriate) due toactions implemented to date, as well as anupdate of the expected change in the futureflow, salt load and salinity regime due to'legacy of history' (and any other emergingeffects such as climate change).

3.9.5 Accountability under Schedule CIf a State is found to be in deficit on theCommission A Register, it will be deemed to bein breach of the terms of Schedule C to theAgreement. The States will be directlyanswerable to Council for any breaches of theCommission A Register.

Should the total of the Commission A and BRegisters for a State go into deficit, Council willreceive an exception report from theCommission, with a proposed course of action tocorrect the situation.

The Commission willestablish twoRegisters to accountfor credits and debitsof all actions thataffect EC at Morgan.States in deficit on theRegisters will beanswerable toCouncil.

WITHIN VALLEY

REPORTING

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam,

quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto.

Ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit s

enestat in reprehendierit in

quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.


quis nostrum ut aliquip.

Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto.





quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis.

Corrupto ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit s

enestat in reprehendierit

in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor

incidunt up labore.

Enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit

esse miolestis, corrupto, ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit s

enestat in

reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat

euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam. Quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto

commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto.



quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Conectat euismod tempor

incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in

consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis.














Corrupto ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit s

enestat in reprehendierit


incidunt up labore.


esse miolestis, corrupto, ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit s

enestat in




WITHIN VALLEY

REPORTING



Ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in









Corrupto ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit


incidunt up labore.


esse miolestis, corrupto, ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in





quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Conectat euismod tempor

incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in

consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis.












Corrupto ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit


incidunt up labore.


esse miolestis, corrupto, ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in




WITHIN VALLEYREPORTING

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto. Ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip.Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto. Ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis. Corrupto ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore. Enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto, ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam. Quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto. Ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra, lorem ipsum dolor sit amet. Conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto. Ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip.Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto. Ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis. Corrupto ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore. Enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto, ectamen neude enim haec movere peccage eronuir at ille pellit senestat in reprehendierit in quisque modo nedue enim haeccastra.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, conectat euismod tempor incidunt up labore enim ad minim veniam. Quis nostrum ut aliquip. Ex acto commodo in consequat in voluptate velit esse miolestis, corrupto.

VALLEY REPORTCARDS

VALLEY REPORTCARDS

VALLEY REPORTCARDS COMMISSION

REGISTERS

Within-valley Reporting:

Catchment managementorganisations/States

• Annual Implementation Reports• Rolling (five-year) reviews & audits• Exceptional reporting to ministerial council

Valley Report Cards:

State reporting toCommission

CommissionRegisters:

Commission

Basin-wide Accountability Arrangements



River Murray

Pete

r Sol

ness

/Net

wor

k Ph

otog

raph

ers



Piezometer for measuring groundwater level

Community tree planting

NSW

Agr

icul

ture

(Alla

n G

roga

n)N

SW A

gric

ultu

re (D

LWC)


Part Four: Initiation and Review


4.1 Initiation

4.1.1 Completing the Salinity & Drainage Strategy

A number of outstanding issues from the S&DStrategy that require resolution will be resolvedunder this strategy:

• completing the S&D Strategy joint worksprogram over the next three years to achieveits 80 EC reduction at Morgan;

• implementing remedial measures to somejoint works schemes to ensure ongoingperformance; and

• including South Australia in the newCommission A Register under Schedule C tothe Agreement, with South Australia to offsetthe salinity impact of post-1 January 1988developments by December 2002.

4.1.2 Finalising end-of-valley targets and monitoring framework

The partner Governments in consultation withcatchment communities will finalise end-of-valley targets, along with agreed monitoring sitelocations. NSW, Victoria and South Australiahave indicated that they will finalise end-of-valley targets by March 2002, while Queenslandhas indicated it will finalise its targets by March2004. While there is a need for targets to beadaptive, they will only be changed where thereis adequate justification for resolution by theCommission and endorsement by Council.

To assist in the complex process of ongoingassessment of progress towards end-of-valleytargets, a monitoring network for collectingcontinuous flow and salinity data to agreedstandards will be required. This Strategy commitsthe partner Governments to establishing therequired end-of-valley monitoring network, withimplementation by December 2001.

4.1.3 Finalising cost sharing and benefit allocation arrangements for the new joint works program

The Council will finalise cost sharing and benefitallocation arrangements for the new joint worksprogram by March 2002, after taking advice fromthe Commission's high-level inter-jurisdictionalworking group on salt interception schemes.This will require:

• a decision on whether the new joint worksprogram needs to deliver more than itsproposed 46 EC (new information as at June2001 suggests that a total of 61 EC may now benecessary, comprising 41 EC for offsetting the‘legacy of history’ and 20 EC for SDEs); and

• the basis of cost sharing between partnerGovernments; and the basis for allocatingsalinity benefits between the Governments asSDEs and towards offsetting the 'legacy ofhistory'.

In the interim, the new joint works programdelivering 46 EC will proceed, with 31 ECallocated as 'legacy of history' offsets and 15 ECallocated as SDEs (to be shared equally 5/46 eachby NSW, Victoria and South Australia)

4.1.4 Revising Schedule CThe statutory requirements of the S&D Strategyare specified in Schedule C to the Agreement andprovide for joint salt interception works,operating a Register of Morgan salinity creditsand debits, and for reporting and accountability.As this Strategy replaces the S&D Strategy,Schedule C will be revised to give effect to its keyelements, whilst preserving the achievements ofthe S&D Strategy.

4.1.5 Developing modelling/assessment frameworks

In order to support a rigorous and timelyreporting process for Council, the States and theCommission will develop a suite of hydrologicand salt mobilisation models that will allowassessment of accountable actions against theagreed baseline conditions.

4.1.6 Establishing a group to oversight Strategy implementation

The monitoring, evaluation and reportingcomponents, essential to ensure accountabilityunder Strategy implementation will be overseenby a Basin Salinity Management Strategy workinggroup, comprising senior staff from the partnerGovernments with technical or policy developmentresponsibility for salinity management.

The working group will provide the necessaryquality assurance and auditing, and will liaiseclosely with the high-level inter-jurisdictionalworking group on salt interception schemes.

4.2 Review

4.2.1 Mid-term reviewThis Strategy will be subject to a mid-termreview in 2007 to determine the utility of theStrategy for ongoing implementation. As part ofthe mid-term review, the current state-of-playregarding predicted ‘legacy of history’ impactsand the effect of intervention actions undertakento that time (as assessed by the rolling five-yearreview and audit process) will be collated into anew Basin Salinity Audit.

The partnerGovernments willfinalise end-of-valleytargets and establishthe necessary end-of-valley monitoringnetwork to assist inassessing progresstowards targets.



The mid-term review will confirm arrangementsfor the proposed extension to the new jointworks program beyond 2007 to ensure that theMorgan target will be maintained. A Councilstatement may be made on the outcomes of themid-term review.

4.2.2 Beyond this Strategy - post 2015The life of this Strategy extends to 2015,however it is recognised that salinitymanagement is a long-term challenge that willextend well beyond that date.

As this Strategy is implemented, considerationwill be given to the most appropriate frameworkfor salinity management beyond 2015. TheCommission and Council will ensure that aseamless transition occurs from this Strategy tothe subsequent framework.

Abbreviations

ACT - Australian Capital Territory

BSMS - Basin Salinity Management Strategy

CRC - Cooperative Research Centre

EC - Electrical conductivity

ha - hectares

ICM - Integrated Catchment Management

JVAP - Joint Venture Agroforestry Program

LWMP - Land and Water Management Plans

MDBA - Murray-Darling Basin Agreement

MDBMC - Murray-Darling Basin MinisterialCouncil

NDSP - National Dryland Salinity Program

NAP - National Action Plan

NSW - New South Wales

R & D - research and development

S & D - Salinity and Drainage

SDE - Salt disposal entitlements

This Strategy extendsto 2015, but salinitymanagement willrequire anappropriateframework beyondthat date.


Basin Salinity Management Strategy 2001–2015 · 2019-03-22 · Integrated catchment management in the Murray–Darling Basin A process through which people can develop a vision,

Documents