Submission to the Productivity Commission's Murray-Darling Basin's five-year assessment issues paper

Sarah Wheeler, Jeffery Connor, Rupert Quentin Grafton, Lin Crase, John Quiggin

Research output: Other contribution

Abstract

This document is a response to the Productivity Commission’s inquiry on implementation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan provided as a consensus statement by five professors of water economics who signed the Murray-Darling Declaration on 5 February 2018. We provide response relevant to three key enquiry terms of reference (TOR):
1) Progress towards implementing the actions required under the Plan within legislated timeframes, including:
- the extent to which stated water recovery and other targets are on track to be
delivered within statutory timeframes; and
- the likelihood that activities and arrangements now in place will ensure that these targets and timeframes will be met.
2) Supply measures to offset the Basin Plan water recovery target of 2,750 GL by 2019, using the Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL) adjustment mechanism;
3) Efficiency measures to recover an additional 450 GL by 2024, consistent with the Basin Plan legal requirement to achieve neutral or improved socio-economic
outcomes.
Conclusions and recommendations as summarised below. In addition, the Appendix provides a detailed review of the current water economic studies of the Basin plan (as well as a review of the key studies of the peer-reviewed water economics literature) and further documents the logic, evidence and study review basis for conclusions and recommendations.
Original languageEnglish
TypeSubmission to the Productivity Commission
Media of outputPDF
Number of pages17
Publication statusPublished - 17 Apr 2018
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Murray-Darling Basin plan
  • Water Economics
  • TOR
  • Water recovery
  • Sustainable Diversion Limit (SDL)
  • Productivity Commission

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Submission to the Productivity Commission's Murray-Darling Basin's five-year assessment issues paper'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this