Making the case for water development planning

Addressing Queensland’s water demands requires a coordinated, sustainable approach to water development planning amid rising pressures and opportunities.

Queensland has some of the most well-developed water planning processes in Australia – and perhaps even the world. This has been driven, in part, by compliance with the National Water Initiative. The 23 Water Plans covering the entire state are strongly supported by robust regulations covering climate change factors through to indigenous water rights, and are informed by the best science available. Water Plans are also regularly reviewed so that amendments relating to the emergence of new scientific knowledge, climatic changes, new development and water demand, amongst other factors. Changes are continuously included to ensure that each Plan remains contemporary.

Between 2019 and 2023, the Queensland Government developed ambitious economic strategies, including the Hydrogen Industry Strategy, the Sustainable Liquid Fuels Strategy, the Critical Minerals Strategy and an Energy and Jobs Plan. It also refreshed the Biofutures Roadmap and Action Plan and continued working on its Agricultural Strategy, seeking to double agricultural production by 2040.

The Australian Government has also set out its ambitions for Queensland through its whitepaper on Developing Northern Australia. This agenda specifically articulates how the north’s water resources could be developed to take advantage of heavy rainfall and large river flows to create economic development.

While these strategies have merit and present opportunities for the public good, they have largely been developed in isolation from each other and without regard to the actual water yields and available water identified in Queensland’s Water Plans. Indeed, these strategies and ambitions all require substantial amounts of water.

At the same time, a changing climate is impacting Queensland more than other states, not just in terms of climate events but rising temperatures associated with increased evaporation and water demand. This is exacerbated by unprecedented population growth outpacing other states. For example, the Homes for Queenslanders strategy aims to fast-track one million new homes by 2046 to manage a population of over seven million by 2050, most of which, around 5.9 million are set to live in South East Queensland (SEQ). The 2032 Games will also attract up to two million visitors into SEQ, with the forecast direct water demand expected to be conservatively 50 ML per day.

Overall, the demand for water in Queensland will increase to unprecedented levels, while the amount of water available will likely decline due to climate risk.

The economic value of water is a crucial element of investment decision-making, both through water infrastructure development and the economic opportunities created, particularly in our regions. Even with this, we still have due consideration regarding environmental, social and cultural factors.

Despite the State’s development strategies and the project pipelines and major projects currently before Queensland’s Auditor General, we still have no orderly process for guiding water development. We have a pipeline of projects coming at us but no clear framework to determine the best use of water or the merits of one project over another. Worse still, water accounting within catchments is non-existent despite the Water Plans clearly identifying the amount of unallocated water available. As a result, consideration of long-term water security for our growing communities and existing water users is not being appropriately contemplated, let alone factors around equity.

Governments like large project pipelines, which are increasingly common at the Commonwealth level. Yet multiple projects are currently proposed in single catchments across Queensland that exceed the amount of available water. While not all the projects will proceed, the costs to project proponents and the communities embracing the expectations of the project opportunities (or project harm) are simply not fair.

There is no question that the rainfall and river flows of northern, central and other parts of Queensland are major regional and state assets with economic, environmental, social and cultural significance.

The Queensland Government’s Bradfield Regional Assessment and Development Panel (2021) spoke to the importance of making the available water work harder. It demonstrated the need for a Place-Based Water Development Planning Framework. The report noted competing water demands, the absence of joined-up decision-making by key government stakeholders and the lack of bottom-up consultation with those closest to the risks and the opportunities. Without a robust Water Development Planning framework (building on and utilising the information available in the Water Plans), we are experiencing unsuitable and unsustainable project proposals that risk over-allocation and hinder genuine economic development while threatening our natural assets and social equity.

Queensland has immense potential for further economic development using sustainable amounts of available water. Unallocated resources are known across the state and are well articulated in the state’s Water Plans.

The Queensland Government has acknowledged the need for engaged regional water assessment, initially investing $9 million to undertake initial assessments in the Tablelands, Burnett and Southern Downs regions. This program has expanded to seven of the state’s most significant growth areas, including SEQ and the Burdekin. The Regional Water Assessment Program aims to provide a roadmap for economic growth while setting out how existing infrastructure, new infrastructure and non-infrastructure solutions can maximise water supply and drive economic growth.

However, regional water assessments do not help develop consensus on the most appropriate conceptual models of water development within catchments. They merely identify and compare. Perhaps this is because they are departmentally consulted rather than welding a shared regional view of future water development. There has also been a tendency to focus on infrastructure projects rather than a full range of options for getting better value out of water.

Little has been done to implement the assessments already released, leading to the quick reemergence of multiple competing projects. This will continue without a long-term institutional framework for actively implementing the assessment outcomes, which was a key feature of the successful Tasmanian Irrigation model.

While the Queensland Government has constitutional power and responsibility over water allocation, the Commonwealth is in a much stronger position to commit or match public money to major projects. Local governments understand the needs and priorities of their communities and, along with the State, hold many of the planning development powers also required for project development.

Now is the time to create an appropriate local institutional structure nested within the government planning framework to ensure place-based partnerships and contributions to regional water development planning. A regional water development planning institution(s) should be tasked with integrating basin-wide inputs into local planning processes with government-level planning and policy. There also needs to be mechanisms to enable competent local proposal development that leverages private and public sector investment. The whole system only works effectively if there are open lines of communication between the three layers of government as well as private business and community partnerships pursuing development and investment.

Getting these arrangements right is a precondition for regional development success at this time of great opportunity.

For more information, visit qldwater.com.au