evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Murray-Darling Basin Plan — Buying 2,075 GL/yr of Water Back for the River, With Mixed Ecological Results (Australia)

Australia · Canberra · See the Australia profile · See the Canberra profile

Top 76% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Australia's statutory Basin Plan has recovered about 2,073 GL/yr of surface water for the environment (MDBA, June 2026), but only after the 2,750 GL target was cut to 2,075 GL; the 2025 evaluation finds local waterbird and wetland gains while native fish remain poor.

Details

Promoter
Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) / Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder
Period
2012–present
Keywords
water, river basin, environmental water, buyback, wetlands

Description

The Murray–Darling Basin Plan (2012, under the Water Act 2007) caps surface-water diversions and returns water to the environment through voluntary purchase of irrigators' entitlements and through funded efficiency projects. The Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) and the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder manage the recovered water.
Delivery: the MDBA reports contracted surface-water recovery towards "bridging the gap" of 2,073.1 GL/yr as at 30 June 2026, against a 2,075 GL/yr target (2,060.6 GL/yr was registered at 30 June 2025). The 2,075 GL figure is itself a reduction: the original recovery target was 2,750 GL/yr, changed by 2018 amendments conditional on measures to achieve outcomes with less water. Critics, for example in the Global Water Forum, argue that the cut reflected irrigator lobbying rather than best available science.
Outcomes: the MDBA's 2025 Basin Plan Evaluation finds evidence of improvement in many areas, including waterbird breeding in places such as Hattah and Narran Lakes, but says long-term outcomes are not yet evident across the whole Basin. The 2025 Sustainable Rivers Audit is more cautious: native fish expectedness was rated 'poor' in most valleys and recruitment 'poor' or 'very poor' across 19 valleys, and improved flow and connectivity have not yet significantly improved fish diversity.
Why it matters: a rare large-scale, legislated example of paying for water to stay in a river, with public progress reporting and independent evaluation. The lesson is that volumes recovered are an input metric; ecological recovery is slower, patchier and contested, and the target was weakened before delivery.

Read the full analysis: https://www.mdba.gov.au/water-use/water-environment/water-recovery/progress-water-recovery

Implementation

Implementation detail (cost, timeline, staffing, conditions for success) is not yet available for this practice.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful

★ 67

USDA Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

United States of America

USDA programme paying farmers to convert highly erodible cropland to permanent vegetative cover. 24.8 million acres (~10 Mha) enrolled; $1.8 …