One Basin
What 999 submitters told the 2026 Murray–Darling Basin Plan Review — read as one record, straight from the source database. Every figure on every page is a live query.
Read as one record, the consultation has an anatomy. Four things hold across every cut — each a doorway.
The anti-buyback bloc and the ecological-recovery bloc barely share supporters. In the two flagship pairs, camps of 110, 133, 107 and 110 entities intersect in 1 and 0 entities respectively — one review, two conversations.
The modal submission is not "more water vs less water" — it is conditional support. 88.5% of the 1,720 recorded positions are Supports or Builds-on, relative to each topic's own framing. The contest lives between opposing framings, not inside any one of them.
Geographic focus skews south: 721 documents attend to the southern basin's rivers against 391 for the Darling–Baaka and the north — a 1.8:1 imbalance in whose river gets written about.
The sectors argue from different ground. Economic claims carry 86% of irrigated agriculture's documents; scientific evidence carries 66% of environment's and 75% of academia's; cultural knowledge appears in 38.1% of First Nations submissions — at most 37.8% anywhere else.