Roundup

17 September webinar

• Watch the 17 September webinar
  This month's roundup topic is 'Learning about the highlights of the Environmental Outcomes Monitoring and Research Program'.

Questions and answers

All questions were answered during the webinar.

20 August webinar

• Watch the 20 August webinar
  This month’s webinar included highlights presented two scientists from the Environmental Outcomes Monitoring and Research Program.

Questions and answers

Can you please provide an update regarding Environmental & Cultural Water flows now that there are Regional Aboriginal Water Committees and do you share resources and information with them to support them?

We do support committees with information and resources relevant to their role. Updates and materials are shared with committees to help build understanding and provide opportunities for input. We also make information available on our website.

What research/evidence has DCCEEW undertaken that allows it to implement a new interpretation for groundwater assessment that if water table <20 metres and salinity <40 DS/m that vegetation is GW dependent irrespective of the Hydrogeology?

Depth to water table and salinity are used as initial screening criteria to determine potential Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDEs). Locations where the water table is deeper than 20 metres or salinity exceeds 40 mS/cm are excluded from being considered GDEs for assessments. The potential ecosystems located above such locations are not automatically classified as GDEs. The hydrogeological setting is assessed separately during the verification process to evaluate potential impacts on GDEs.

Are the Murray alluvium groundwater systems fed from the shallow or deep aquifers?

The Lower Murray Alluvium is made up of Cenozoic alluvial sediments.

• It is managed as 2 separate groundwater sources.
• The Lower Murray Shallow Groundwater Source (shallow alluvium) consists of unconsolidated alluvial sediments below the surface of the ground, to a depth of 20 metres. The dominant recharge process into the alluvium is direct rainfall infiltration, leakage from irrigation activity including canals and leakage from the Murray River and its anabranches.
• The Lower Murray (deep) Groundwater Source (deep alluvium) consists unconsolidated sediments of the Shepparton Formation, Calivil Formation, and the Renmark Group greater than 20 m down to its base (bedrock, up to 350 m deep). Recharge to the Deeper alluvium occurs predominantly via leakage from the shallow aquifer.

The Upper Murray Alluvium is made up of Cenozoic unconsolidated valley fill alluvial sediments.

• It is broadly divided into two main aquifer systems; a shallow aquifer system up to approximately 40 m deep, and a deep aquifer system up to a maximum of approximately 100 m deep.
• It is managed as one groundwater source (Upper Murray Alluvial).
• Rainfall a

16 July webinar

• Watch the 16 July webinar
  This month's webinar was on opening water allocations for the 2025/26 year and where to look for allocation related information.
  See the 16 July webinar presentation slides

18 June 2025 webinar

• Watch the 18 June webinar
  This month's webinar was on flood mitigation with a focus on the recent floods in May.

28 May 2025 webinar

• Watch the 28 May 2025 webinar
  This month's focus was the department’s water efficiency program, the smart water meters survey undertaken in regional councils and how AI and machine learning can be used to better understand water usage.

Survey reports referenced in the recording

• Clothes Washer Retrofit Program - Final Report 2024 PDF, 781.17 KB
• NSW Residential End-use Study: Analysis of Low-resolution Smart Meter Data - Final Report 2024 PDF, 2682.99 KB
• Local Utilities Smart Water Meters Survey Report 2024 PDF, 399.85 KB

Questions and answers

Did you manage to compare the water consumption data from smart meters with traditional water meters? Are there any significant differences in usage patterns?

Griffith University has previously completed a study to explore under-registration and over-registration of older meters when compared to newer smart meters with high resolution data. In that study, we did show that older meters did tend to under-register low flows. This work provided recommendations to replace older meters based on under-registration.

If we give the algorithm the bulk water meter data, could we get information on the patterns of NRW losses throughout the day and year?

This is a different topic area but many researchers are creating algorithms and software with IoT in networks (i.e. flow meters, noise sensors, etc.) to pinpoint leaks in networks. Grifith University has a research and development (R&D) vision to better account for losses in a district metered area (DMA) by having both flow meters and smart meters. This allows water businesses to create an accurate water balance at any hour period of the day. This facilitates better accounting of losses beyond the customer service meter and within the network. We can better understand losses and manage them better if there is good instrumentation across the network. This is a goal of Griffith University future R&D work to have a fully metered DMA.

Did the smart meter detect toilet flush, shower/washer, or outdoor use by itself?

The way this model works is explained in the following open access (OA) publication: Transforming residential water end use analysis: unleashing insights from widespread low-resolution smart metering data

Was the date of connection used for the participant households to separate BASIX from non-BASIX dwellings?

No, in this study we didn't consider BASIX features. Such analysis is currently under consideration by the NSW Government as a finding from the Stage 1 BASIX review: BASIX Water Review – Stage 1 PDF, 1552.99 KB.

How does a smart meter/software determine the difference between "tap" and "outdoor"?

For high-resolution data we can really see the pattern and have rules about indoor and outdoor based on volumes and durations of events. For example, filling up a bucket with 4 litres of water to clean the car would just be considered tap usage. Outdoor is purely about irrigation events (larger volumes) or filling up pools (larger volumes). So, for the low-resolution model, this is even harder. We are inferring the outdoor component based on the volume (L in hour), time of day, day of week, etc. and a neural network (NN) of our big event based dataset of end use events created from high-resolution data.

Are there end use estimates that you have higher or lower confidence in with the low res data compared to high res? You mentioned that tap flowrates are trickier, anything else that seems harder to spot with less data points?

It may be difficult to understand some end uses (small use categories) like background leakage and dishwashers. High-resolution end use analysis provides a complete event level (such as each shower event) data and this has very good accuracy. The low-resolution is predicting volumes of each end use category in each hour period. The insights are not as sophisticated, but the cost and logistics of a low-res study are much more viable.

16 April 2025 webinar

• Watch the 16 April 2025 webinar
  This month, the department's monthly roundup webinar was on measuring water take from a NSW river, creek or bore and by when to have meters installed.

Questions and answers

What is the total amount of funding granted since 2012 to irrigators in the Northern Basin for meter upgrades by the NSW and federal governments?

For information specific to the Northern Basin, you can find breakdown on the Australian government website.

Australian governments have committed more than $13 billion for projects in the Murray–Darling Basin since 2007.

In terms of metering an excavation, all water taken from the excavation would go through the meter and counted as groundwater take. This includes rain and surface water run off. How do we ensure we maintain compliance with the WAL? i.e. when pumping from the excavation after heavy rain, this is counted as groundwater take when in theory it's rainfall.

Technically yes, all water that goes through the meter would be counted. There is an exemption for rainfall-runoff, but unless this can be isolated, it would be counted by the meter during de-watering.

Thanks for the answer on bore casing diameter being external diameter. I think the department should review that, as you cannot obtain 200 mm external diameter bore casing anywhere in Australia that I am aware of. You should use 200mm Nominal bore which is industry standard for bore casing. Otherwise, your standard should say 150mm Nominal Bore.

Standard 200mm NB (nominal bore) will have an external casing greater than 200mm and therefore would not classify for a (single) small works exemption. If a 150mm nominal bore was used in the installation, the external casing would be below the threshold. The reason the 200mm size was applied to the external casing is because NB (nominal bore) is not able to be measured as it differs with material and the internal diameter is also difficult to measure after install.

19 March 2025 webinar

• Watch the 19 March webinar
  This month's update was on the technical methods for groundwater impact assessments for permanent water trades and new bore applications for different aquifer types.

Questions and answers

With the Assessment how are groundwater-dependent culturally significant areas or sites collected, and data coordinates stored and then reviewed, to ensure for example the new supply works are not within 200m of a water sharing plan?

The Aboriginal Heritage Information Management System (AHIMS) database  is used to identify culturally significant sites.

The Base Scenario all water users extract an authorised usage for a 10 year period is an overestimate of what really happens in groundwater aquifer areas across NSW. Why not estimate the likely usage, would 40-70% for each area give a more accurate impact assessment? There are many irrigation bores out there that cannot extract their entitlement or BEL?

Note in the main alluvial pumping areas more than their authorised volume (shares) is often taken due to carry over and temporary trades so this statement is not generally true for the high use areas.There is no rule to stop an individual licence holder from using their full shares. The suggestion put to us by the audience member, would introduce more uncertainty into the assessment as there is no way to predict or control user behaviour. A history of low use does not mean that the licence holder will not sell their property or change behaviour at any time.

Is there mapping of groundwater available to local government that they can use for both for assessing impacts of development on groundwater and for managing groundwater dependant ecosystems on council managed land.

Also refer to SEED for groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE) data.

Assessment of water trades and new bores is assessed as part of the application process by the department’s Groundwater Team.

It is common that groundwater models for WSP Groundwater Sources are not available in our region, is there a greater reliance on monitoring existing (approved and constructed) bores when completing the assessment, and how is sensitive sites (groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE) considered when monitoring bores cannot be constructed nearby?

Agree there are not groundwater models for all groundwater sources in NSW.New Bore and Dealing application are assessed on a case by case basis, these include impact to groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE) where identified. An analytical model is developed for each application to predict impacts from pumping on nearby receptors (including GDE).

Given the possibility of moving into a dry scenario for surface water, what is the current status of the Lower Murrumbidgee Deep Aquifer in terms of the 5 year rolling average of extraction and trigger point for restricted extraction?

See our webpage: Tracking groundwater.

(At the time of posting this comment, the issue with the link to WaterNSW usage data is in the process of being fixed)

You mentioned recharge isn’t taken into account in the modelled extraction figures. If in the history matching to the observed data isn’t in alignment. Showing a much higher extraction in the modelled scenario than the observed data, what mechanism is in place to bring into line with the observed data. What is the degrees of accuracy required? Is Recharge not being included is modelled scenario written down anywhere in the presentation?

No direct value for recharge to the aquifer is applied in the model when assessing applications. Recharge is considered indirectly, as explained below.

In shallow unconfined aquifer systems where rainfall and/or river recharge generally has a short-term impact on groundwater levels and predicted drawdowns, recharge is accounted for in the assessment by the setting of hydraulic parameters via the history matching process (described above). This reflects the actual groundwater level response to seasonal variation (caused by rainfall and river recharge) and groundwater extraction activities. Hydraulic parameters are optimised by this process.

Where there is insufficient data to undertake history matching in unconfined aquifers, recharge is accounted for by adjusting the hydraulic parameters in the model to the upper range of expected values for the aquifer type (e.g. alluvial or fracture rock). This adjustment is consistent with site-specific knowledge of the groundwater source and relevant hydraulic parameters for the aquifer type, as published.

In semi-confined/confined aquifers, where rainfall recharge is less direct to the source, a review of the analytical model generally determines that including rainfall recharge does not change the model outcome. This is because other factors are more influential for groundwater availability in the source, such as the hydraulic parameters.

Where unacceptable groundwater impacts have been observed, what are the implications for licensing and assessments?

In areas where groundwater levels are already in excess of the impact assessment criteria thresholds, then new bores and dealing applications are unlikely to be approved.

19 February 2025 webinar

• Watch the 19 February 2025 webinar 
  This month's update was on 'Minimum inflows for Surface Water planning and Climate and Strategic projects'.

Questions and answers

Will the department be undertaking a cumulative impact test, modelling the cumulative impact of current and past projects, all with the intent of reducing farmers' access to water in average and wet years. For example, the Connectivity Review, and now more is wanted under the guise of this minimum inflow sequence.

The baseline for looking at our impacts is the current water sharing plan which will include past projects. The department will be looking at cumulative impacts from multiple current reform projects and considering this in implementation.

The models might be 'appropriate' for water planning but not tested for efficacy in determining available water determinations (AWD). The Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has nothing to do with AWD - they're not in the place to provide any advice on this very specific issue.

The models estimate AWD in a way that is intended to be consistent with how allocations are undertaken, based on available records. And this representation is used to determine AWD and consequently extractions in a long-term planning sense. The suitability of using the models for these types of shorter-term decisions is one of the questions we have asked of the Office of the NSW Chief Scientist and Engineer to review and provide advice.

Will the department release the previous modelling completed in the Lachlan showing the impacts of changing the minimum inflow sequence? showing both the negative impacts to general security (how the department proposes to compensate for this?) and any proposed benefit and if this is actually deliverable? also have you completed modelling for increased flooding in holding the dam higher including linkages to inundation mapping?

The previous modelling will not be used for this work as there have been changes in data and methods since then. The timing of the modelling for Lachlan is as per the schedule from the presentation. The impact assessments will examine economic impacts including on allocations to all licences as well as town water supply. It will also examine environmental impacts. While the modelling does provide some information on spills, the planning modelling is not generally used for flood inundation estimation.

If the department gets it wrong in the Murrumbidgee, or the Border Rivers - what happens then?

The department is currently using a short term of record - we do not have perfect information to make sure we are ever right - but we have always had management responses to this - going into critical human needs and drought management if required, or allocating additional water later in the year if we are too conservative earlier.

This is going to have a double impact on irrigators. Less water allocated and higher costs re available water due to climate change. Will there be consideration to pass costs on to the broader community as everyone contributes to climate change in regard to fixed fee relief for irrigators if less water is available?

As part of its price determinations, IPART uses the ‘impactor pays’ principle to decide the portion of costs to be recovered from water users through prices and the portion to be paid by Government on behalf of the broader community. In the 2021 WAMC price determination final report (p91), IPART provided information on how it would treat climate change impacts associated with water management.

Visit IPART for more information.

What happens when flows so low there is not enough water for people (urban and town water supply); what happens to fish and rivers and irrigators?

The department has an extreme events policy that outlines steps for when flows reach very low levels.

Will High Security water entitlement be impacted by any changes? It’s High security, not absolute security water and reductions could be done reliability so all water users where the pain. What about the wet times where they are also appears to be more extreme.

While the current focus of the work the department is undertaking is ensuring town water supplies are secure, the review will also consider the reliability of High Security water users in line with the requirements of the plan.

Will the department be calculating the hit to WaterNSW and Water Administration Ministerial Corporation (WAMC) revenue from water licence holders, and therefore prices, by reducing General Security allocations and other licensed water access under this project?

Prices determined by IPART are based on water take forecasts over the price determination period. Actual water take varies from year to year, based on water availability and other factors. In years where water allocations are lower than forecast, WAMC and WaterNSW recover less revenue than allowed for in the price determination.

Which climate change worst case scenario is the department using in the model? Is the scenario RPC8.5? How do the Millennium and Tinderbox Droughts compare to the worst case IPCC scenario? For example, if the Millennium Drought was worse than even the RPC8.5 scenario, which itself is considered unlikely due to its assumptions, and the Millennium Drought is extremely rare, even by climate change scenario standards.

The department proposes to use the more recent NARCliM 2.0 results, which uses Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs), with low, medium and high emission scenarios similar to the RCPs. And to use an estimate of "current" climate change impacts as we have already seen an increase in temperature and consequent increase in evaporation, together with a medium emission scenario which is similar to RCP4.5.

It is not straightforward to compare short-term observed periods against models which estimate changes over longer time periods. Looking further back in history using paleoclimate records there is evidence that there were much longer dry periods centuries ago than anything we have observed in the last 2 centuries. What the climate models are telling us are that there will certainly be higher temperatures which means more drying out of catchments and lower inflows regardless of changes in rainfall. Of itself this temperature increase will make droughts worse. The changes in projections in rainfall are less consistent. Most models project less rainfall as well as changes in seasonality in the south. The changes in the north are less certain.

Why is the data shared in the presentation only up to 2010 and not current? Why are the periods against models which estimate changes are not over longer time periods? From paleoclimate records, there is evidence of much longer dry periods centuries ago than anything we have observed in the last 200 years.

The department assesses storage reserve over the period used for the water sharing plans for comparative purposes, which in the case of the Border Rivers is around 2010. We are also assessing these over the full observation period which goes until 2023 which includes the Millenium Drought and Tinderbox Drought. We then take the analysis further using the paleoclimate evidence that the department has prepared for Regional Water Strategies.

The department has had one year of 'claw-back' (buy-back) in the Murray and it has never happened again, based on the current min inflow – where is the driver to change things?

As per previous question - using the historic record gives us only a short record to determine the likelihood of extreme events. While the planning is done assuming the worst drought on record corresponds to a roughly 1:100 year likelihood, it could be 1:50 or 1:200 - the record is not long enough for us to be sure. This work aims to give us a better understanding of the level of risk and use this to inform any decisions.

Would any potential reductions in water allocations and compensation fall under National Water Initiative (NWI) clause 48 (risks arising from seasonal or long-term changes in climate) or clause 50 (changes in government policy)?

Any compensation requirements will be part of the government's consideration as the reviews proceed.

If the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) itself says they don't know how warmer oceans will affect weather, how can the department be sure of the impact of climate change (ie. it appears you're assuming 'drier') if they are not?

The department’s approach is to acknowledge this uncertainty in climate, at the same time paying closer attention to those climate conditions that will cause problems, which are generally extreme droughts or extreme floods. By understanding the plausibility of these conditions, we will be better prepared for if or when they happen. If they don't happen, even if it turns out to be wetter, then we would expect that water sharing would not be affected compared to current conditions. What the climate models are telling us are that there will certainly be higher temperatures which means more drying out of catchments and lower inflows regardless of changes in rainfall. Of itself, this temperature increase will make droughts worse. The changes in projections in rainfall are less consistent. Most models project less rainfall as well as changes in seasonality in the south. The changes in the north are less certain.

From what the speaker has shared, does that mean the methodology will change based on actual feedback from impacted licence holders?

The department will be seeking feedback from stakeholders on the method. The method or the application of the method may change based on stakeholder feedback.

The Murrumbidgee Valley is one of the two trial valleys. How will the allocations be impacted during this trial? What exactly is being trialled? What does the trial in the Murrumbidgee look like in practice? Is it running in the background and, if so, what is it showing?

There will be no impacts during the trial. As for any potential rule changes, there will be no changes to the current methods until the water sharing plans are amended. The method and the potential results of its application will be shown during consultation.

Should there be consultation on the 'essential requirements' to be delivered in these extreme droughts? Some water sharing plan commitments are relatively generous, and could consider being restricted in those extreme droughts (eg effluent replenishments, continuous flows to whole systems, high security, translucency, etc). As per some of the measures in the extreme events policy.

The available water determinations (AWD) process generally assumes full utilisation of entitlements and there is no proposal to change this as part of this study. In the event of a severe drought it remains an option for drought management, including taking underutilisation into account.

What is the actual driver behind this review? Is it carryover water that was undeliverable in several regulated valleys in 2019 and 2020 drought? How did we survive the last drought, by having access to water in the wet years to build resilience. What has been discussed today will reduce the capacity of farms to build up reserves to get through tough years.

The underlying driver is to seek to understand how frequently the department may need to go into these critical needs management scenarios, and whether we need to review this given anticipated climate change impacts.

When the Regional Water Strategies (RWS) were being consulted on, the department said the paleo and stochastic modelling was not going to be used available water determinations (AWD) - what has changed? I think there needs to be much more engagement with water users about the potential new method at a valley level. In the Murrumbidgee in the slide presented as lowest rainfall on record, the Murrumbidgee was able to meet all of its high priority commitments. There needs to be opportunities for tailoring the method based on the catchment, for example the Murrumbidgee and Murray have drought reserves in Snowy, We need more discussion at a catchment in this project.

During consultation it was recognised that the extreme dry scenario 40 years into the future used as a bookend in the RWS was not appropriate for shorter term decision making, but the department is not ruling out using the paleoclimate informed stochastic data if we could establish its suitability. We are proposing to use a much nearer term climate change projections in this process, recognising that the water sharing plan allows for a 10 year review cycle.

There's currently a significant time lag in critical information needed to determine available water determinations (AWD)- which impacts substantially on General Security in particular. Has the Expert Panel been asked to consider this as well?

The department has not asked the Expert Panel to review the current available water determination (AWD) process.

Will the process clearly show the differences between current versus new method, not average impacts but, apply the new method to actual current and past years so the impacts are very clear.

The department is looking at showing the differences in ways that best represent what stakeholders would like to see. As we don't know what the climate will be in the next ten or more years, we do need to be able to show impacts across a range of climate conditions.

Is the department considering Specific Purpose Access Licences (SPAL), excluded works, harvestable rights in calculations of inflows and are those numbers available?

All licenced entitlements within a regulated system are accounted for in the available water determination (AWD) process. For unlicensed usage under basic landholder rights, these are either estimated in the AWD process or reflected in the calibration of the models.

The probability of the department being wrong with this proposal is very high as there is added significant uncertainty. How can we be confident that this is a step forward rather than a step backwards.

What is different in this approach is that the department is accounting for this significant uncertainty, compared to our original approach which did not account for uncertainty. We are less likely to get it right by ignoring uncertainty.

How does the department take into account changes in runoff from rainfall into creeks which can be due to both changes in climate (rainfall vol, intensity and temperature) and to how the large numbers of land managers are trying to increase how much rainfall soaks into their land and goes into plant production?

Where these are important for water sharing plan related outcomes, these are accounted for using our water models, which transform climate data to flow data. As part of our ongoing model improvement approach the department will try to account for this impact where we see evidence for this in the flow data. This would require that the uptake of this change in land management practices happened across a large percentage of the catchment area, and we would need a period of data several years long to be able to detect and quantify this change.

Will the department be also assessing the impact on the reliability of Held Environmental Water entitlements (HEW), as this project has high potential to substantially reduce the amount of water available in droughts for maintaining drought refuges etc.

Yes, impacts to all water entitlements will be assessed as part of the impact assessment. The held environmental water entitlements are no different to those owned by other water users.

Does the department acknowledge there is a risk in basing decision and management always based on a dry scenario?

The department will use multiple scenarios to inform decisions for this project. The decision will not be solely based on using a dry scenario.

Sounds like environmental water holders will have higher priorities than General Security water where a lot of enviro water has come from.

Environment water holders have supplementary, general security or high security licences and these are treated the same as all other licences in that category. They do not receive higher priority in the allocations process.

Will first nations have a chance to sign off on these proposals once settled?

First Nations will be consulted as part of the consultation for the project. Could the department explain how/what implications for more water in storage and elevated flooding risks.

Could the department explain how/what implications for more water in storage and elevated flooding risks.

The department can review changes in dam spill behaviour from the models. While the frequency of these is a robust result the models do not do detail flood operations behaviour which would in some cases modulate the volumes spilled.

Process sounds very conservative as does not include impact on Drought Response Plans on HP requirement?

The department’s current proposal is as part of the method we will look at how often the extreme events policy is activated.

What consultation will occur for this work? The webinar is only information sharing and not consultation. Will there be face-to-face consultation?

The webinar was an introductory information session to inform stakeholders that the project to conduct the review required by water sharing plan provisions has commenced. A full communication and engagement plan is being developed to ensure stakeholder engagement in the project at multiple stages.

This will include:

• consultation on the method and the Office of NSW Chief Scientist & Engineer expert panel recommendations
• communication statewide of the outcomes of the review in each valley as they are conducted
• face-to-face engagement with stakeholders and impacted water users in each valley on the outcomes of the review in that valley.

What is Native title?

The Water Management Act 2000 recognises the cultural and spiritual importance of water to Aboriginal people in NSW and recognises Native Title as a form Basic Landholder Right (BLR) (section 55). Anyone who holds native title with respect to water, as determined under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cwlth), can take and use water for a range of needs without needing a water access licence. These include personal, domestic and non-commercial communal purposes such as manufacturing traditional artefacts, hunting, fishing, recreation, cultural and ceremonial purposes.

What volumes of water are associated with Native title?

Currently there are no volumes of water associated with the Native title determinations and water usage under Native Title is not understood. The determinations can be found listed online at National Native Title Tribunal. Water sharing plans with Native Title claims will list any determination relating to water in the water sharing plan – see clause 20 of the Barwon Darling Unregulated water sharing plan.  It is our understanding that under the Native Title Act 1993 that Native Title Rights cannot be fettered.

Has it always been number one priority?

Yes. The Water Management Act 2000 has considered Native Title as a Basic Landholder Right since its inception (s55).

Water sharing plans have always required that water for BLR (basic rights, harvestable rights and Native Title rights) is reserved in the resource assessment as a high priority requirement prior to allocating to lower priority water users, however there is given no volumes of Native Title usage known there is currently not water reserved in the allocation process for this use.

It should be noted that the Native Title determinations that include water specifically do not allow the Native Rights holder the ability to control the use of water. For example the Native Title determination for the Ngemba, Ngiyampaa, Wangaaypuwan and Wayilwan People specifically gives non-exclusive rights to 'the right to take and use the water for their personal, domestic and communal purposes (including cultural purposes) but not extending to a right to control the use and flow of the water in any rivers, streams or lakes'.

This means that a Native Title Right holders cannot call water from a dam or request water be released.

Is bridging the gap water part of Native Title or is that a different class?

No, Closing the Gap relates to increasing Aboriginal water rights and providing for Aboriginal access and ownership of water for cultural and economic purposes. The Closing the Gap work is separate to Native Title determinations.If you need further information please contact us with any additional questions.