The CWA has made submissions to two rounds of consultations of the draft National Water Agreement which is set to replace the National Water Initiative from 2004. Those submissions from May and August 2024 can be found here:
https://concernedwaterwaysalliance.org/cwa-submission-to-the-national-water-initiative-may-2024/
The new version of the draft came out recently and was reviewed to see what was gained, what was lost, and where the CWA may have had some influence. The links to the latest documentation from the DCCEEW are here:
What we heard on the draft principles of a National Water Agreement
National Water Agreement overview
Updated draft National Water Agreement
There are parts where CWA input is evident, but on the whole the latest draft is a mixture of the good, the bad, and unfortunately the downright ugly.
Change in langauge
There is a pronounced change in the language with tweaks in emphasis, unfortunately often positionally relegating the ‘natural environment’.
Example 1
Objective 1 – The safe and secure supply of sufficient water quality and quantity to sustain our natural environments, Culture, economic prosperity and communities.
December draft:
Objective 1 – Safe and secure supply of sufficient water quality and quantity to sustain communities, culture, natural environments and economic prosperity
Example 2
August draft:
“The Australian water sector provides safe, secure and resilient water, wastewater and stormwater services in a cost effective and sustainable manner.”
The CWA recommendation for a change in wording was:
“The Australian water sector provides safe, secure and resilient water, wastewater and stormwater services in a cost effective and environmentally sustainable manner.”
December draft: – ‘sustainable’ is removed entirely:
“Outcome 1A – Water services provide Australians, including regional and remote communities, with reliable access to clean, safe, accessible and affordable water for drinking and sanitation.”
Community consultation
There are some notable changes from the first draft around the requirement for consultation:
1.1. Urban and rural water system objectives are determined through a transparent and consultative approach, and approved by governments, informed by customer and community preferences.
4.1.2. knowledge-building priorities identified and coordinated through processes that draw on input from the research community and research users and consultation with the broader community
They have been replaced with different language: “are based on defined service levels, determined in collaboration with communities, met over time and under changing supply and demand”
The inclusion of the following principles hopefully strengthens rather than inhibits community participation in decision making:
“Outcome 5C – Water planning and management processes are clearly communicated, participatory and transparent.
Principles
5.5. Capacity building, community education and engagement on water matters support people to build water literacy to effectively engage, strategise, lead and negotiate with governments and water managers on decisions that directly or indirectly impact them.
5.6. The community and water rights holders have access to clear, logical and timely information in accessible formats that help them to understand their obligations, build trust and enable meaningful engagement.
5.7 Communities are informed of and provided with suitable opportunities to shape the design of water planning and management activities.”
Pricing equity and affordability
One of the terms highlighted in the CWA submission was regarding equitable pricing policies. The word has now been included in several places throughout the draft:
“While pricing must reflect the true costs of supply to ensure long-term viability, governments must also balance this with the need for services to be accessible and equitable.”
“promote economically equitable, efficient and sustainable use of water resources, water infrastructure assets and government resources to manage water by accounting for the full suite of costs and benefits”
“an equity argument exists (for example, to support access to essential services in high-cost regional town water systems where the cost of supplying a basic level of service is considered unaffordable)”
The word affordable or affordability is mentioned as well, once in the previous draft but 6 times in the latest version.
Definitions
The CWA had asked for a definition of by-product or co-produced water, and it has been included:
“Co-produced water – refers to water taken from a resource through a process that does not use the water, for example through coal seam gas extraction and mine dewatering.”
Climate resilient sources of water and desalination
The CWA had discussed climate-resilient sources of water and the term is now defined in the new version and includes the term desalination, which appears in the new version where it hadn’t in the original:
“Climate resilient source – a source of water supply which is less impacted by climate change than conventional sources of water supply, typically because it is less dependent on rainfall. Climate resilient sources may include recycled water and desalinated water.”
Again under the definition of Water resources:
Water resources – include surface water, such as in rivers, lakes or dams, groundwater, including water stored through managed aquifer recharge, wastewater, stormwater, desalinated seawater, recycled wastewater and brackish water.
The CWA had also asked for the precautionary approach to be defined and it has been:
“Precautionary approach – using caution and review processes when making a decision which may have the potential for causing harm to a resource or value due to lack of information, extensive scientific knowledge or data. These protections should be relaxed only once sound evidence is provided that no harm will result.”
Also 'externality' now has its own definition:
“Externality – a side effect of water management practices that impacts on another party’s wellbeing and may not be appropriately factored into the decision-making process. This may include environmental externalities; negative impacts on environmental health from water management decisions that can be ameliorated through measures such as factoring these into water pricing.”
Environmental externalities
On the topic of externalities unfortunately this whole section of direct language from the current agreement has been removed, therefore specific references to the interception of farm dams and plantations has gone and not been returned in the current draft agreement.
Interception
55. The Parties recognise that a number of land use change activities have potential to intercept significant volumes of surface and/or ground water now and in the future.
Examples of such activities that are of concern, many of which are currently undertaken without a water access entitlement, include:
i) farm dams and bores;
ii) intercepting and storing of overland flows; and
iii) large-scale plantation forestry.
56. The Parties also recognise that if these activities are not subject to some form of planning and regulation, they present a risk to the future integrity of water access entitlements and the achievement of environmental objectives for water systems. The intention is therefore to assess the significance of such activities on catchments and aquifers, based on an understanding of the total water cycle, the economic and environmental costs and benefits of the activities of concern, and to apply appropriate planning, management and/or regulatory measures where necessary to protect the integrity of the water access entitlements system and the achievement of environmental objectives.
This was despite our clear recommendation in our first submission:
“The CWA recommends that the cumulative impact of small catchment dams are explicitly acknowledged and accepted as a significant interception activity” within the Interception section of the renewed NWA.”
The inclusion of this principle is could be significant:
Outcome 7B – Water access entitlements, licences and market frameworks support the achievement of environmental and other public benefit outcomes.
While this could be concerning:
“Arrangements for water markets are integrated with broader water management frameworks and consistent with water management objectives.”
Ultimately there is enough evidence that the CWA had some impact, but overall the change in tone to appease a certain sectors, along with the omissions and the less prescriptive language, it feels a fair degree of the power of the current agreement has been eroded markedly.
The CWA will continue to monitor and contribute where possible to the process in the service of better outcomes for our waterways.