Next Article in Journal
Ammonium Nitrogen Streamflow Transport Modelling and Spatial Analysis in Two Chinese Basins
Next Article in Special Issue
Basin Management under Conditions of Scarcity: The Transformation of the Jordan River Basin from Regional Water Supplier to Regional Water Importer
Previous Article in Journal
Catalytic Ozonation for Effective Degradation of Coal Chemical Biochemical Tail Water by Mn/[email protected] Catalyst
Previous Article in Special Issue
Green Light for Adaptive Policies on the Colorado River
Article

Mind the Gap! Reconciling Environmental Water Requirements with Scarcity in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia

Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Academic Editor: Anas Ghadouani
Water 2022, 14(2), 208; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14020208
Received: 26 October 2021 / Revised: 13 December 2021 / Accepted: 3 January 2022 / Published: 11 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Water Scarcity and Conservation)
The Murray–Darling Basin Plan is a $AU 13 billion program to return water from irrigation use to the environment. Central to the success of the Plan, commenced in 2012, is the implementation of an Environmentally Sustainable Level of Take (ESLT) and a Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL) on the volume of water that can be taken for consumptive use. Under the enabling legislation, the Water Act (2007), the ESLT and SDL must be set by the “best available science.” In 2009, the volume of water to maintain wetlands and rivers of the Basin was estimated at 3000–7600 GL per year. Since then, there has been a steady step-down in this volume to 2075 GL year due to repeated policy adjustments, including “supply measures projects,” building of infrastructure to obtain the same environmental outcomes with less water. Since implementation of the Plan, return of water to the environment is falling far short of targets. The gap between the volume required to maintain wetlands and rivers and what is available is increasing with climate change and other risks, but the Plan makes no direct allowance for climate change. We present policy options that address the need to adapt to less water and re-frame the decision context from contestation between water for irrigation versus the environment. Options include best use of water for adaptation and structural adjustment packages for irrigation communities integrated with environmental triage of those wetlands likely to transition to dryland ecosystems under climate change. View Full-Text
Keywords: water reform policy; wetlands; governance; environmental flows; climate adaptation; water politics; adaptation pathways water reform policy; wetlands; governance; environmental flows; climate adaptation; water politics; adaptation pathways
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Colloff, M.J.; Pittock, J. Mind the Gap! Reconciling Environmental Water Requirements with Scarcity in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Water 2022, 14, 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14020208

AMA Style

Colloff MJ, Pittock J. Mind the Gap! Reconciling Environmental Water Requirements with Scarcity in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia. Water. 2022; 14(2):208. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14020208

Chicago/Turabian Style

Colloff, Matthew J., and Jamie Pittock. 2022. "Mind the Gap! Reconciling Environmental Water Requirements with Scarcity in the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia" Water 14, no. 2: 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14020208

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop