What 952 submitters told the Basin Plan Review
The pipeline sorted the submitters into 86 topics and 20 themes, and wrote a claim and a description for each. This page shows those claims with the figures behind them. Every number is computed when the page loads.
- 01Basin Plan reformBase recovery decisions on transparent evidence, measurable outcomes and broader safeguards6 topics · 816 submitters
- 02Basin Plan reformBase water recovery on transparent evidence, ecological outcomes and community safeguards2 topics · 814 submitters
- 03Water recoveryReplace non-strategic buybacks with locally informed investment and accountable management4 topics · 675 submitters
- 04Basin Plan reformBase water recovery on demonstrated outcomes, system measures and local safeguards12 topics · 662 submitters
- 05Basin extraction and water recoveryUse independent evidence to secure ecological outcomes5 topics · 638 submitters
- 06End-of-system water managementReplace fixed flow targets with evidence-based adaptive options6 topics · 469 submitters
- 07Water recoveryCondition further buybacks on proven ecological gains and place-based safeguards4 topics · 466 submitters
- 08Town water securityPrioritise reliable supplies and practical infrastructure before further water recovery4 topics · 401 submitters
- 09Further water recoveryTest local economic harm and delivery options before more buybacks7 topics · 338 submitters
- 10Water recoveryFix delivery constraints and reassess evidence before reducing SDLs further6 topics · 262 submitters
- 11Water allocationsRebase extraction on climate-informed ecological limits and First Nations authority2 topics · 196 submitters
- 12Native fish recoveryIntegrate habitat, connectivity, pest control and accountable governance2 topics · 140 submitters
- 13Groundwater SDLsDelay broad changes and use local, evidence-based responses2 topics · 122 submitters
- 14Environmental flowsTrial and scale coordinated booster and extender releases by removing delivery barriers5 topics · 93 submitters
- 15Basin Plan reviewIndependently assess legality, governance and climate readiness3 topics · 65 submitters
- 16Water quality threatsStrengthen precautionary, Basin-wide controls while targeting local exposure and climate risks4 topics · 41 submitters
- 17Southern Basin connectivityTrial coordinated high flows of up to 80,000 ML/d3 topics · 6 submitters
- 18NBSIS salinityInvestigate local groundwater causes and farm impacts2 topics · 4 submitters
- 19Renewable-energy approvalsRequire contamination and resilience risks to be controlled before development2 topics · 2 submitters
- 20Mining approvalsRequire independent evidence and enforceable controls for waste and emissions2 topics · 2 submitters
- Supports
- Builds on
- Unclear
- Mixed
- Redirects
- Opposes
Basin Plan reform
Base recovery decisions on transparent evidence, measurable outcomes and broader safeguards
The exemplars argue for Basin decisions grounded in reliable accounting, independent scrutiny and demonstrated ecological outcomes rather than water-recovery volumes alone. Many also seek to limit community and production harm through infrastructure, alternative supplies and locally designed environmental works. Others place greater emphasis on climate-informed extraction limits, water quality, natural flows, Lower Lakes management, cultural values and First Nations authority.
- Positions
- 94% supportive · 12 contesting · 2 unclear
- Sector
- Irrigated agriculture 40% · Other 16% · Community and regional development 13% +6
- Most-cited
- +32
Topics in this theme 6
Pair ecological protection with community safeguards and reliable metering
The cluster seeks less harmful recovery, efficiency and infrastructure, equal attention to water quality, repaired accounting and stronger independent governance and enforcement. It differs through its emphasis on foundational metering and accountability.
508 submittersProtect production through accounting, infrastructure and Lower Lakes reassessment
The cluster proposes constraining buybacks, using infrastructure and alternative supplies, fixing independent water accounting, measuring ecological outcomes and reconsidering artificial freshwater management in the Lower Lakes. It differs through its emphasis on supply diversification.
448 submittersFix accounting and water quality before imposing further recovery costs
The cluster seeks one independent accounting and metering system, enforceable water-quality and ecological repair, safeguards against damaging buybacks, and expanded storage or desalination as alternatives. It is distinguished by treating measurement and quality as prerequisites.
425 submittersBalance ecological, cultural, social and economic outcomes
The cluster proposes transparent outcomes-based planning with measurable recovery, trade-offs, environmental water plus connectivity and habitat measures, and First Nations leadership. It differs through its explicit whole-system integration of non-consumptive values.
388 submittersVerify accounts and protect communities while reassessing Lower Lakes management
The cluster requests independent accounting, protection against harmful buybacks, alternative supplies and a science-based reconsideration of the Lower Lakes’ estuarine history. It is distinguished by combining socioeconomic safeguards with an end-system historical reassessment.
352 submittersCombine alternative supplies with transparent accounting and ecological repair
The cluster requests expanded storage and alternative supplies, independent accounting, stronger water-quality priorities, Lower Lakes reassessment and safeguards against harmful buybacks and flooding. Its distinctive proposition is a broader water-security portfolio.
210 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Basin Plan reform
Base water recovery on transparent evidence, ecological outcomes and community safeguards
The submissions argue for Basin reform grounded in auditable science, accounting and demonstrable river outcomes rather than existing negotiated settings or non-strategic water purchases. Some prioritise climate-informed ecological limits, natural connectivity and First Nations authority, while others stress metering, water quality, local socioeconomic assessment, infrastructure and alternative supplies to protect irrigation communities. Across these positions, proposed recovery measures are expected to be transparent, enforceable and tailored to their ecological and regional effects.
- Positions
- 84% supportive · 33 contesting · 4 unclear
- Sector
- Environment and conservation 58% · Other 19% +8
Topics in this theme 2
Make ecological recovery, climate and cultural authority core requirements
The cluster seeks a reset of extraction and implementation, reliable environmental water, natural connectivity, water-quality outcomes and First Nations consent, co-governance and ownership. It is distinguished by its direct specification of the next review’s mandate.
810 submittersReassess SDLs and ecological water needs through transparent science
The cluster requests climate-informed extraction limits, natural flow regimes, independent scrutiny, public treatment of uncertainty and First Nations authority as a governance and justice requirement. It is distinguished by its strong legal and evidence standard.
572 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Water recovery
Replace non-strategic buybacks with locally informed investment and accountable management
These submissions argue that water recovery should protect environmental outcomes without undermining irrigation-dependent farms and communities. They favour locally designed infrastructure, efficiency, habitat, water-quality and river-management measures over non-strategic purchases. Some emphasise regional economic effects, while others focus on metering, water accounting, independent governance and enforcement.
- Positions
- 78% supportive · 25 contesting · 27 unclear
- Sector
- Irrigated agriculture 68% · Environment and conservation 6% · Unknown 5% +6
- Most-cited
- +48
Topics in this theme 4
Replace buyback-led reform with locally designed environmental investment
The cluster seeks to stop non-strategic purchases, assess local effects, and prioritise infrastructure, habitat, water quality, fish passage and pest control while elevating agricultural and community knowledge. It differs through its detailed menu of non-buyback measures.
644 submittersStop non-strategic buybacks and invest in delivery and river management
The cluster links reduced consumptive water to prices, farm viability, employment, succession and community decline, and requests locally informed alternatives such as infrastructure and better flow timing. It is distinguished by its broad farm-to-community economic chain.
396 submittersRetain basin benefits while compensating farmers for local salinity
The cluster supports retaining the scheme for basin-wide water-quality benefits but seeks compensation, mitigation, responsive operations and stronger monitoring for alleged scheme-related farm degradation. Its distinctive issue is localised cost-sharing and compensation fairness.
289 submittersPut local knowledge and affordable water at the centre of review decisions
The cluster seeks stronger influence for community experience, protection of farm and livestock production, fair water pricing and safeguards against buybacks undermining property values and regional livelihoods. Its focus is community stability and lived experience.
91 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Basin Plan reform
Base water recovery on demonstrated outcomes, system measures and local safeguards
The submissions argue for transparent, evidence-based Basin management that assesses ecological results alongside cumulative effects on communities, production and cultural values. Many favour pausing or constraining further buybacks while improving existing environmental water, infrastructure, habitat, accounting and water quality. Others support stronger ecological limits, climate resilience and First Nations authority, but similarly emphasise measurable outcomes, accountable governance and whole-system management.
- Positions
- 91% supportive · 20 contesting · 1 unclear
- Sector
- Irrigated agriculture 63% · Other 11% · Government 10% +4
- Most-cited
- +48
Topics in this theme 12
Move from water recovery to water-plus management and multi-purpose infrastructure
The cluster seeks adaptive environmental outcomes through existing water, habitat, land management, infrastructure and threat reduction, while treating agriculture and community viability as explicit outcomes. It is distinguished by its investment and transition framing.
534 submittersCondition further recovery on transparent local and cumulative impact evidence
The cluster seeks measurable place-based outcomes, better use of existing water and works, and tightly constrained recovery where regional harm is substantial. Its distinctive feature is the combined test of deliverability, governance failure and cumulative distributional impacts.
428 submittersReplace non-strategic buybacks with locally delivered environmental works
The cluster opposes further non-strategic purchases where costs to production and communities exceed likely benefits, and proposes redirecting funds to practical environmental infrastructure with local involvement. Its distinctive concern is national-benefit costs imposed on particular regions.
410 submittersRequire site-specific benefit evidence before further recovery
The cluster asks for a pause on broad recovery, practical environmental measures, protection for irrigation and horticulture, and transparent local socioeconomic assessment. It is distinguished by its regional focus and insistence on demonstrable additional benefit.
380 submittersStop buybacks unless independent evidence supports further water
The cluster requests better performance from existing water, broader modelling, complementary measures and protections for production and resilience before any additional recovery. It is distinguished by its stringent evidence and safeguard threshold.
377 submittersReplace buybacks with outcome-based management and system measures
The cluster proposes retaining current SDLs, generally ending further buybacks, and improving outcomes through infrastructure, operations, transparent accounting and independent evaluation. Its distinctive proposition is a stable, water-plus approach to environmental management.
207 submittersReduce losses through verified measurement, governance and infrastructure
The cluster proposes a five-pillar package covering measurement, governance, markets, sustainable limits and shared infrastructure, with rigorous baselines and safeguards against double counting. It differs by presenting efficiency and avoided losses as the primary reform pathway.
203 submittersCombine ecological outcomes with place-based socioeconomic limits
The cluster seeks cumulative and distributional assessment, a shift from volume to delivery, possible SDLAM reconciliation extension, and transparency about water-market effects on production and food security. Its distinctive concern is policy stability under socioeconomic pressure.
181 submitters1 SectorProtect reliable water for orchards, food supply and regional continuity
The cluster seeks no further or tightly constrained recovery from permanent-horticulture regions, citing irreversible production, employment, infrastructure and food-supply impacts. Its distinctive focus is the inability of orchards to fallow or quickly recover.
173 submittersCount restrictive rules as water recovery and prioritise complementary works
The cluster opposes additional volumetric recovery where benefits are uncertain and asks that regulatory reductions in access be treated equivalently, with infrastructure and safeguards preferred. It is distinguished by its broader definition of recovery.
169 submittersProtect landholders through flexible, outcome-based connectivity rules
The cluster seeks to protect the Raft’s natural regulating function, involve landholders in decisions, replace permanent easements with event-based arrangements and tie compensation to actual impacts. It differs through its focus on property rights, physical limits and delivery accountability.
114 submitters1 SectorEstablish a standing facilitation capability for difficult decisions
The cluster proposes a small, agile Finding New Ground capability and a 12-month consensus institute or fellowship to address underlying interests and build durable Basin-based facilitation skills. It is distinctively about relational governance rather than technical policy settings.
5 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Basin extraction and water recovery
Use independent evidence to secure ecological outcomes
The submissions argue that the 2026 Review should test extraction limits, environmental-water delivery and river connectivity against transparent, climate-informed ecological evidence rather than retain negotiated settings by default. Most advocate stronger natural-flow restoration and substantive First Nations authority, including cultural water and co-governance. One strand instead prioritises improving existing water and complementary measures, opposing further buybacks unless independent evidence demonstrates their need and safeguards production and resilience.
- Positions
- 96% supportive · 11 contesting · 1 unclear
- Sector
- Environment and conservation 60% · Other 15% · Research and academia 7% +7
- Most-cited
- +27
Topics in this theme 5
Restore natural flows while giving First Nations decision-making authority
The cluster calls for ecological and climate-ready recovery, reliable connectivity, transparent science and compliance, and legally meaningful cultural flows, ownership and self-determined governance. Its distinctive feature is the explicit shift from consultation to authority.
600 submittersReassess SDLs and restore natural connectivity under climate change
The cluster calls for ecological sustainability and climate resilience to replace negotiated extraction settings, with reliable environmental water, natural flows, transparent accounting and substantive First Nations governance. It is distinguished by its strong ecological-reset position.
447 submittersSet extraction limits from independent ecological science and First Nations rights
The cluster seeks current auditable science, immediate climate adaptation, natural flow recovery, reliable environmental water and embedded First Nations authority. Its distinctive proposition is legal compliance and ecological determination over negotiated settings.
367 submittersEnforce ecological limits, year-round flows and First Nations co-governance
The cluster seeks connected natural rivers, protected flows, floodplain reconnection, water-quality and resilience safeguards, and enforceable transparent administration with First Nations authority. It is distinguished by combining ecological thresholds with governance reform.
352 submittersEstablish protected base flows and enforce end-of-system delivery
The cluster requests recurring base flows, flushing events, extraction and floodplain-harvesting controls, first-flow protection and reassessment of recovery and SDLs using current evidence. Its distinctive proposition is a regulated Northern Basin connectivity regime.
106 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
End-of-system water management
Replace fixed flow targets with evidence-based adaptive options
The exemplars broadly question whether fixed upstream flow volumes and constraints relaxation alone can deliver ecological outcomes for the Coorong, Lower Lakes and Murray Mouth. They favour transparent, current assessment of deliverability, ecological performance, regional costs and flood risks, alongside staged trials and place-based measures. Proposed adaptations vary from targeted freshwater delivery and local interventions to changed barrage operations or a greater estuarine role for the Lower Lakes.
- Positions
- 65% supportive · 28 contesting · 2 unclear
- Sector
- Irrigated agriculture 34% · Environment and conservation 26% · Dryland agriculture 15% +5
- Most-cited
- +8
Topics in this theme 6
Replace fixed volumes with transparent adaptive trade-off assessment
The cluster disputes fixed upstream flow targets such as the 2,000 GL CLLMM objective and seeks current independent evidence on deliverability, ecological value and regional costs before changing SDLs or targets. It is distinguished by its broad challenge to volume-led planning and distributional effects.
454 submittersReplace rigid flow targets with adaptive local interventions
The cluster asks whether upstream flows, water recovery, targeted delivery and local measures should be combined to address CLLMM problems, supported by current science, transparent modelling and participation. It is distinguished by diagnosing the system as more than a volume problem.
211 submittersTrial constraints relaxation only with flood-risk safeguards
The cluster presents the dispute over larger managed flows, seeking staged trials and coordinated releases while requiring stronger modelling, local knowledge and protection against flooding and unreliable downstream delivery. It is distinguished by the explicit conflict between ecological flow delivery and flood risk.
138 submittersTest real downstream benefits before committing to large flows
The cluster argues that attenuation and physical limits may prevent end-of-system gains and requests current system-wide feasibility, ecological and value-for-money assessment. It favours staged, place-based measures rather than treating constraints relaxation as sufficient.
67 submittersPlan for estuarine restoration and climate-resilient barrage operations
The cluster argues that a freshwater-flow strategy is increasingly inadequate and seeks adaptation for barrage integrity, salinity, water quality and mouth connectivity, potentially including partial or complete estuarine restoration. It differs from cluster 17 through its stronger call for infrastructure and estuarine transition.
51 submittersChoose adaptive freshwater or estuarine outcomes by ecological performance
The cluster asks decision-makers to assess whether the Lower Lakes should remain predominantly freshwater or accommodate a greater estuarine role as inflows decline, using measurable outcomes rather than flow volumes alone. It is distinguished by framing the end-of-system policy as an unresolved ecological choice.
44 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Water recovery
Condition further buybacks on proven ecological gains and place-based safeguards
The exemplars argue that additional broad water recovery should be paused, limited or subject to evidence that it will deliver measurable environmental benefits without unacceptable cumulative harm to irrigation regions, food production and local communities. They favour making better use of existing environmental water, infrastructure and complementary land, habitat and threat-management measures. Proposals vary from retaining current diversion limits to allowing targeted recovery under independent, catchment-specific assessment, monitoring and transition support.
- Positions
- 92% supportive · 0 contesting · 4 unclear
- Sector
- Government 59% · Irrigated agriculture 18% · Other 8% +3
- Most-cited
- +4
Topics in this theme 4
Protect irrigation economies while testing targeted ecological alternatives
The cluster requests paused or limited recovery, catchment-specific evidence, optimisation of existing water, complementary investment and formal monitoring of localised socioeconomic effects. It differs through its emphasis on catchment-scale decisions and irrigation protection.
387 submittersProtect communities while pursuing measurable river-health gains
The cluster proposes replacing broad recovery with effective environmental pathways, aligning policy with national food security and providing durable transition support for affected regions. It is distinguished by its explicit food-production and supply-chain framing.
287 submittersPause recovery and invest in existing water, infrastructure and local resilience
The cluster seeks current SDLs unless evidence shows substantial benefit, better use of held environmental water, staged community-supported works and permanent support for cumulative impacts. It is distinguished by its concise reset-and-reinvest package.
243 submittersTreat visitor economies as water-dependent resilience assets
The cluster seeks recognition of tourism as low-consumptive but water-dependent, with river usability, water quality and ecological recovery incorporated into local economic planning and measurement. Its distinctive focus is tourism infrastructure and visitor outcomes.
32 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Town water security
Prioritise reliable supplies and practical infrastructure before further water recovery
These submissions argue that Basin reform should give greater priority to secure, usable and climate-resilient town water supplies, supported by investment in treatment, infrastructure, connectivity and alternative sources. Some focus on enforceable guarantees and emergency planning for critical human needs, while others call for pausing further environmental water recovery pending assessment and broader place-based action on water quality, communities and productive economies.
- Positions
- 88% supportive · 6 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Government 45% · Environment and conservation 20% · Other 16% +3
- Most-cited
- +12
Topics in this theme 4
Pause recovery while funding place-based water-quality and infrastructure fixes
The cluster seeks to rebalance environmental objectives with town water, community viability and productive economies, pause further recovery pending assessment, and fund practical water-quality, connectivity and infrastructure responses. It is distinguished by its combined security and implementation focus.
363 submittersGuarantee usable, treatable and climate-robust town supplies
The cluster requests enforceable Basin-wide assurance, realistic emergency planning and sustained investment in ageing assets, treatment, alternative supplies and regional delivery capacity, especially outside the River Murray system. Its distinctive focus is operational town-water security.
221 submittersStreamline accreditation while retaining enforceable Commonwealth safeguards
The cluster seeks simpler, risk-based and proportionate WRPs, using transparent assurance reporting where suitable and retaining intervention powers for core Basin outcomes. Its distinctive concern is regulatory duplication and accreditation delay.
88 submittersCount only usable Menindee storage and protect system connectivity
The cluster requests retention of a genuinely deliverable 480 GL Menindee minimum, adaptive operations, enforceable extraction protections and resistance to new upstream interception. Weir investment is supported only where system-wide flows remain reliable.
60 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Further water recovery
Test local economic harm and delivery options before more buybacks
The exemplars argue that further broad or untargeted water purchases should be paused or limited until their benefits, deliverability and cumulative local costs are independently assessed. They emphasise impacts obscured by Basin-wide averages, including losses to irrigation production, processors, jobs, services, investment and community resilience. Their focus varies across particular industries and regions, regional multiplier effects, geographic fairness, and whether constraints, infrastructure, efficiency or management of existing water should precede additional recovery.
- Positions
- 97% supportive · 2 contesting · 1 unclear
- Sector
- Irrigated agriculture 44% · Government 38% · Other 9% +3
- Most-cited
- +19
Topics in this theme 7
Make cumulative local harm a binding decision test
The cluster requests pausing broad buybacks unless measurable benefits are shown, using independent localised counterfactual assessment and proportionate transition support. Its distinctive concern is cumulative, structural community harm hidden by aggregate reporting.
289 submittersStop untargeted purchases that destabilise irrigation production systems
The cluster argues that further recovery harms water-intensive industries, processors, employment and community resilience, and requests a shift toward constraints solutions and locally informed alternatives. Its distinguishing focus is concentrated industry and production-system impacts.
135 submittersProtect northern Victorian water security and regional value
The cluster argues that reform shifted financial and operational risks onto northern Victorian irrigators and communities, and requests locally informed planning, participation and protection from stranded investment. Its distinctive focus is regional irrigation economics and infrastructure use.
113 submittersPause buybacks and require community-scale deliverability tests
The cluster seeks a precautionary pause on purchases from northern Victorian, GMID and NSW Murray regions, with independent assessment and a shift to efficiency, infrastructure and complementary measures. Its focus is geographic fairness and distributional impacts.
106 submittersMeasure irrigation losses beyond Basin-wide averages
The cluster seeks recognition that irrigation and dryland economies differ and that recovery affects jobs, processing, services, investment and household spending, with possible tipping points. It is distinguished by its regional multiplier and vulnerability analysis.
78 submittersAssess structural losses from reduced irrigation water
The cluster highlights farm costs, output, herd and business exits, processor and town effects, and conflicts between permanent horticulture and more flexible users. It is distinguished by its detailed focus on water-dependent production structures.
68 submittersUse LGA-level vulnerability analysis and sustained local support
The cluster requests localised assessment of exposure and adaptive capacity, careful use of ABARES vulnerability evidence, and permanent, coordinated transition assistance. It differs through its explicit LGA-scale and long-term support model.
21 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Water recovery
Fix delivery constraints and reassess evidence before reducing SDLs further
The exemplars broadly argue that operational constraints, SDLAM under-delivery and management shortcomings should be addressed before pursuing additional water recovery or lower SDLs. They vary in emphasis between ecological timing and connectivity, infrastructure and modelling, regional costs, responsibility for failed projects, and the evidence supporting fixed targets such as the CLLMM objective.
- Positions
- 84% supportive · 7 contesting · 5 unclear
- Sector
- Irrigated agriculture 37% · Government 25% · Environment and conservation 19% +4
- Most-cited
- +16
Topics in this theme 6
Reconcile delivery failures before deciding on more recovery
The cluster frames the choice as retaining current SDLs and improving management or recovering more water after reliable reconciliation, judging success by ecological outcomes and delivery capability. It is distinguished by its focus on SDLAM under-delivery and responsibility for project failure.
235 submittersTest delivery constraints before accepting further recovery costs
The cluster seeks better modelling, constraints relaxation, infrastructure and management of existing water before further recovery, especially where marginal benefits are limited and regional harms concentrated. It differs through its focus on sequencing interventions and SDLAM trade-offs.
159 submittersFix timing, connectivity and delivery before reducing SDLs
The cluster argues that unresolved ecological risks often arise from operational constraints rather than insufficient volume and requests maintaining SDLs while improving existing water and complementary measures. It is distinguished by its explicit rejection of volume as the default solution.
128 submittersOptimise existing holdings through trading and delivery reform
The cluster seeks greater CEWH trading agility, integrated portfolio planning, constraints relaxation, infrastructure and clearer objectives, with legal, reinvestment and market-integrity safeguards. Its distinctive proposition is active portfolio management rather than acquiring more water.
72 submittersVerify delivered environmental outcomes beyond volume and SDL figures
The cluster proposes an integrated framework linking availability, extraction, delivery, ecological requirements and system capability, with verified efficiency claims and outcome-based evaluation. It differs by seeking better investigation and shared interpretation rather than a predetermined allocation outcome.
12 submittersTest whether additional buybacks deliver site-specific benefits
The cluster questions whether more purchases justify their costs where several Victorian systems show unchanged or unlikely outcomes, while acknowledging uneven benefits by location and ecological objective. It is distinguished by its evidence-qualified assessment of buyback effectiveness.
7 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Water allocations
Rebase extraction on climate-informed ecological limits and First Nations authority
The submissions argue that water allocations should be reassessed immediately against climate risks and environmentally sustainable extraction limits, with stronger protection and delivery of environmental water. They also support a greater role for First Nations rights, consent and self-determined cultural-water governance. Emphases vary between precautionary adaptation and orderly transition, and specific legal or operational reforms such as relaxed delivery constraints and priority for critical human needs.
- Positions
- 94% supportive · 1 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Environment and conservation 65% · Recreation 12% +3
Topics in this theme 2
Rebase allocations on climate-informed extraction thresholds and First Nations authority
The cluster seeks rigorous SDL reassessment, protected environmental water, constraints relaxation, legally prioritised critical human needs and self-determined cultural-water governance. Its distinctive proposition is an environmentally determined allocation baseline.
149 submittersApply precaution, ecological limits and rights-based governance immediately
The cluster calls for flexible climate adaptation, restored environmental-water delivery, sustainable extraction limits, orderly transitions and recognition of First Nations consent and shared governance. It is distinguished by its emphasis on immediate, justice-based adaptation.
138 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Native fish recovery
Integrate habitat, connectivity, pest control and accountable governance
The submissions argue that Basin-wide native fish recovery requires more than managing flow volumes or explaining fish kills. They emphasise habitat restoration, river connectivity, infrastructure assessment, species-specific measures and transparent long-term monitoring, with some also foregrounding carp control, water quality, climate risks, cultural fishing and First Nations authority.
- Positions
- 92% supportive · 2 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Government 32% · Research and academia 28% +3
Topics in this theme 2
Recalibrate objectives around habitat, connectivity and long-term accountability
The cluster seeks renewed fish objectives, flow and habitat restoration, whole-system testing of infrastructure, species-specific recovery and transparent monitoring, rather than relying mainly on carp control or fish-kill explanations. Its distinctive focus is Basin-wide native-fish recovery.
122 submittersCombine carp control, connectivity and First Nations authority
The cluster calls for fish recovery beyond flow volumes, with risk-managed carp control, water-quality and climate measures, protective infrastructure, cultural fishing and First Nations participation. It differs from cluster 28 by foregrounding governance and pest management as complements.
80 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Groundwater SDLs
Delay broad changes and use local, evidence-based responses
The submissions argue that system-wide groundwater SDL changes should be deferred for three to five years while measured evidence is gathered and models are tested against observed responses. They favour proportionate, locally targeted interventions that account for episodic hydrology rather than blanket adjustments. One strand focuses specifically on Namoi alluvial systems and the outcomes of recovered water, while another applies the case more broadly to northern groundwater SDLs and stresses independent scrutiny.
- Positions
- 100% supportive · 0 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Irrigated agriculture 100%
Topics in this theme 2
Apply episodic-hydrology rules and targeted local interventions
The cluster seeks Namoi-specific policy, better results from recovered water, a three-to-five-year evidence extension and proportionate responses instead of valley-wide SDL adjustment. It differs from cluster 55 through its specific focus on the Namoi alluvial systems.
90 submitters1 SectorDelay system-wide changes for three-to-five years of measured evidence
The cluster requests an assessment extension to reconcile models with observed groundwater responses, use independent scrutiny and address problems locally rather than through blanket SDL changes. It is distinguished by its explicit evidence-gathering timetable and episodic-hydrology principle.
79 submitters1 Sector
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Environmental flows
Trial and scale coordinated booster and extender releases by removing delivery barriers
The exemplars generally support staged, opportunistic high-flow releases to improve connectivity between Southern Basin rivers, floodplains, wetlands and the Murray Mouth. They argue that demonstrations should build confidence and inform adaptive scaling, with some specifying flow targets of 60,000 to 80,000 ML/d. Emphasis varies between system-wide operating concepts and the need to resolve rules, intergovernmental coordination, access, infrastructure, liability, accounting and third-party risks.
- Positions
- 100% supportive · 0 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Environment and conservation 94% · Government 6%
- Most-cited
- +3
Topics in this theme 5
Overcome intergovernmental barriers through staged action
The cluster supports controlled booster and extender demonstrations but seeks urgent ministerial leadership on operating rules, liability, accounting, access and third-party effects. It differs by making institutional coordination the central implementation barrier.
67 submitters1 SectorStart demonstration flows urgently and scale adaptively
The cluster requests coordinated constraints relaxation, beginning with demonstration flows and progressing to tributary-supported inundation, while managing risks to land, infrastructure and third parties. It differs through its emphasis on urgency and staged implementation.
64 submittersUse staged booster and extender flows to restore inundation
The cluster identifies regulation and operating rules as the main barrier and proposes partnership-based trials of mid-Murray and Lower Murray overbank flows, supported by infrastructure and negotiated access. It differs by focusing on rule reform as the delivery mechanism.
54 submitters1 SectorReactivate constraints reform with ministerial leadership
The cluster requests coordinated booster flows during high conditions and extender flows up to 80,000 ML/d, alongside resolution of access, infrastructure and governance barriers. Its distinctive direction is to revive the Enhanced Environmental Flows project as a constraints initiative.
38 submitters1 SectorRestore species-specific flows and protect delivery pathways
The cluster seeks large-flow, rainfall and seasonal inundation conditions that enable red gum and black box recruitment, with operating rules, flow-path protection and liability solutions. Its distinctive focus is mature-tree replacement and woodland regeneration.
10 submitters1 Sector
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Basin Plan review
Independently assess legality, governance and climate readiness
The exemplars support a recurring, independent and transparent review of whether the Basin Plan and MDBA fulfil statutory and sustainability requirements, rather than assessing environmental outcomes alone. Proposed scrutiny spans implementation, modelling, accounting, regulation, compliance and trade-offs, with attention to Aboriginal knowledge and social and economic interests. Some emphasise broad governance and legality audits, while others place climate risk, adaptation and implications for sustainable diversion limits at the centre.
- Positions
- 86% supportive · 0 contesting · 1 unclear
- Sector
- Environment and conservation 57% · Traditional Owner, Aboriginal or First Nations 43%
Topics in this theme 3
Independently assess legality, sustainability, accounting and trade-offs
The cluster seeks recurring independent review of the Plan and MDBA under a broad legal and sustainability framework, with transparent evidence, expanded accounting, Aboriginal inclusion and stronger regulatory capacity. It differs through its broad evaluative framework.
60 submittersEmbed current risk assessment across the Basin Plan and MDBA
The cluster seeks a comprehensive, transparent review of climate risks, SDL implications, adaptation and implementation, protecting ecological integrity while recognising Aboriginal, social and economic interests. Its distinctive focus is climate as a central legislative and administrative requirement.
12 submittersTest legality and governance, not only environmental outcomes
The cluster requests a recurring independent assessment of statutory purpose, implementation, climate risk, Cultural science, modelling, regulation and compliance. Its distinguishing proposition is a substantive legality and governance audit.
11 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Water quality threats
Strengthen precautionary, Basin-wide controls while targeting local exposure and climate risks
The submissions argue for stronger recognition, prevention, monitoring and management of chemical and biological water-quality threats to ecosystems and human health. Proposed approaches range from whole-of-Basin governance of pesticides, contaminant mixtures and chronic effects to place-based controls for drinking water, aquatic foods and vulnerable communities. Some also emphasise locally managing episodic salinity, algal, hypoxia and contaminant risks associated with droughts, floods, storms and fires, while distinguishing established evidence from emerging or uncertain claims.
- Positions
- 90% supportive · 1 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Research and academia 50% · Other 40% · Environment and conservation 10%
- Most-cited
Topics in this theme 4
Prevent chemical mixtures through a whole-of-Basin One Health system
The cluster requests source prevention, broader toxicant monitoring, mixture and chronic-effect regulation, transparent targets and Australian-context systematic reviews. It is distinguished by its comprehensive human, animal and ecosystem health framework.
33 submittersManage episodic low-flow and contaminant-pulse risks locally
The cluster calls for place-specific management of worsening climate-related risks, including salinity, algal blooms, hypoxia, fish kills and contaminant pulses after droughts, floods, storms and fires. It is distinguished by its focus on changing hydrological extremes and episodic water-quality deterioration.
14 submittersRecognise pesticides as a formal freshwater threatening process
The cluster seeks precautionary recognition and management of pesticides and organic contaminants as cross-catchment threats to food webs and ecosystem functions, while acknowledging uneven evidence and uncertainty. Its distinctive proposition is formal threat recognition.
9 submittersReduce exposure through precautionary, place-based health controls
The cluster seeks stronger monitoring and exposure controls for PFAS, cyanotoxins and other contaminants affecting drinking water, aquatic foods and vulnerable regional communities. It is distinguished by its human-health and food-chain framing, including a call to separate established evidence from emerging claims.
6 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Southern Basin connectivity
Trial coordinated high flows of up to 80,000 ML/d
The submissions propose opportunistic booster and extender flows during favourable high-flow conditions to reconnect tributaries, rivers, wetlands and floodplains through to the Murray Mouth. They variously emphasise staged demonstrations beginning around 60,000 ML/d, a long-term system-wide operating regime, and renewed constraints reform to address access, infrastructure and governance barriers. Claimed benefits span ecological and cultural outcomes as well as tourism, fisheries and marine environments.
- Positions
- 100% supportive · 0 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Environment and conservation 100%
Topics in this theme 3
Trial capped 60,000-to-80,000 ML/d piggy-back flows
The cluster proposes opportunistic extender flows beginning at 60,000 ML/d and progressing toward 80,000 ML/d at Wentworth or the South Australian border, linking ecological, cultural, tourism and marine benefits. It is distinguished by its specified staged flow targets.
6 submitters1 SectorCoordinate tributary and extender flows to the Murray Mouth
The cluster proposes an intermittent, long-term connectivity regime from Hume and Menindee to the Murray Mouth, using specified tributary contributions and conditional high flows. It is distinguished by its system-wide operating concept and potential marine benefits.
5 submitters1 SectorBuild confidence through conditional 60,000-to-80,000 ML/d releases
The cluster seeks opportunistic staged releases during favourable conditions to reconnect rivers, wetlands and floodplains while sharing cultural, tourism, fishery and marine benefits. It is distinguished by its emphasis on conditional demonstration and confidence-building.
5 submitters1 Sector
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
NBSIS salinity
Investigate local groundwater causes and farm impacts
Submissions argue that NBSIS-related salinity requires site-specific investigation because observed impacts on productive land may not be adequately captured by modelling. They call for expanded groundwater monitoring and direct engagement with affected landholders, with proposed responses ranging from piezometers and pathway analysis to fencing, salt-tolerant vegetation and other local mitigation trials.
- Positions
- 100% supportive · 0 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Community and regional development 50% · Dryland agriculture 50%
Topics in this theme 2
Expand piezometer monitoring and local rehabilitation
The cluster asks for sustained, site-specific groundwater investigation to separate interacting causes of salinity, alongside fencing and salt-tolerant vegetation trials. It differs from cluster 9 through its technical focus on groundwater pathways and field monitoring.
4 submittersInvestigate farm losses with direct landholder engagement
The cluster claims NBSIS-related salinisation has damaged productive land beyond modelled risks and seeks site investigation, landholder engagement and mitigation trials. It is distinguished by its emphasis on institutional engagement and farm-level impacts.
2 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Renewable-energy approvals
Require contamination and resilience risks to be controlled before development
The exemplars argue that renewable-energy infrastructure should not be approved until proponents provide evidence that contamination, emergency, resilience and remediation risks can be managed over the project life cycle. Proposed safeguards range from site-specific testing, monitoring and accountability requirements to a precautionary moratorium on equipment containing particular chemicals until adequate controls are demonstrated.
- Positions
- 100% supportive · 0 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Dryland agriculture 50% · Irrigated agriculture 50%
Topics in this theme 2
Apply a moratorium until whole-life risks are controlled
The cluster requests precautionary restrictions, potentially including a moratorium on PFAS- or GenX-containing equipment, until contamination risks, emergency controls, monitoring and accountability are demonstrated. It differs from cluster 5 through its stronger focus on chemical composition and a pre-development moratorium.
2 submittersRequire site-specific contamination and resilience evidence
The cluster seeks comparative testing, long-term monitoring, resilient design and clear remediation responsibilities before renewable infrastructure is approved. It is distinguished by a site-specific, evidence-and-monitoring approach that recognises possible deployment delays and costs.
2 submitters
Read the themekey points and quotes · who says what · submitters that push back
Mining approvals
Require independent evidence and enforceable controls for waste and emissions
The exemplars argue that mining approval should depend on accessible, independent assessment of site-specific and cumulative risks, backed by enforceable safeguards and consequences. Concerns vary between long-term containment and liability for arsenic-bearing waste, and community exposure to dust, water demand and contamination risks.
- Positions
- 100% supportive · 0 contesting · 0 unclear
- Sector
- Community and regional development 50% · Environment and conservation 50%
Topics in this theme 2
Condition approval on independent, cumulative site evidence
The cluster seeks reliable local meteorology, full cumulative dust and water-demand assessment, precautionary protection of homes and rainwater, and independent monitoring with enforceable consequences. It is distinguished by its focus on mining emissions and community exposure.
2 submittersWithhold approval until arsenic containment is enforceable
The cluster argues that the project could become a large-scale arsenic-waste disposal operation and requests a more accessible independent assessment before approval. Its distinguishing concern is long-term arsenic-bearing sulphide waste, containment and post-closure liability.
2 submitters