Australian National University report says Murray Darling Basin Plan has had “no impact” in reducing water use

THE plan to save the Murray should be scrapped because there is “very little to show” from the $5 billion spent on it, according to new research.

Murray Darling basin plan should be scrapped as it’s not delivered water savings, according to the ANU

THE plan to save the Murray should be scrapped because there is “very little to show” from the $5 billion spent on it, according to new research.

The Australian National University Centre for Water Economics has called for an urgent rethink after data shows the volume of water used by irrigators now is no different from the drought period that prompted the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

Centre director Professor Quentin Grafton said they have tracked water use since the plan began in 2012.

“There has been no discernible impact in terms of reduced water use on a per-hectare basis, or in terms of reduced water diversions,” he said.

He argues that irrigators before the plan did not use all their water entitlements, so they were able to sell entitlements but keep using the same amount of water.

Prof Grafton outlined the difficulties of monitoring “what goes in and what comes out” and says the plan does not incorporate climate change.

“We need to go back to the drawing board,” he said.

“Let’s focus on the evidence and facts rather than rhetoric and special interests.”

The report, Water Reform and Planning in the Murray-Darling Basin, has been published in the journal Water Economics and Policy.

It argues that the 2750 gigalitres the plan was meant to recover was a figure arrived at “to help resolve a political impasse with the SA State Government”, rather than being scientifically based.

There is continuing debate about an “optional” additional 450GL the State Government wants returned to the river upstream. The Federal Government says that will harm river communities interstate.

Assistant Water and Agriculture Resources Minister Anne Ruston has urged a shift from “obsessing” about specific water amounts to concentrating on getting results.

Senator Ruston said the Government was sticking to its targets but that the recovery of the 450GL might need to be “outcome-driven as opposed to actual water driven”.

That would mean coming up with other ways to ensure the river and its inhabitants are healthy, while not harming the communities.

The Australian Conservation Foundation said the report raised “serious questions that must be investigated”.

The Australian Conservation Foundation said the report raised “serious questions that must be investigated”.

“Australians have a right to question whether the Australian government is serious about restoring healthy flows in the Murray-Darling,” spokesman Jonathan La Nauze said, adding that water recovery had “drastically slowed” under the current government.

A spokeswoman for state Water and River Murray Minister Ian Hunter said the ANU work highlighted the importance of ensuring enough water was returned to “support a healthy, working river.”

But she said it had not given “enough recognition to current progress with water recovery”.