Es 2022 13594

Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.
Ford, Z. E., S. Jackson, G. Bino, K. J. Brandis, and R. T. Kingsford. 2023. Scale, evidence, and community participation matter:
lessons in effective and legitimate adaptive governance from decision making for Menindee Lakes in Australia’s Murray-Darling
Basin. Ecology and Society 28(1):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13594-280115
Research, part of a Special Feature on Deeper Water: Exploring Barriers and Opportunities for the Emergence of Adaptive Water
Governance
Scale, evidence, and community participation matter: lessons in effective and

legitimate adaptive governance from decision making for Menindee Lakes in
Australia’s Murray-Darling Basin
Zoe E. Ford 1, Sue Jackson 2, Gilad Bino 3, Kate J. Brandis 3 and Richard T. Kingsford 3
ABSTRACT. Rivers and their interdependent human communities form social-ecologically complex systems that reflect basin scale
functionally but are often governed by spatially mismatched governance systems. Accounting for this complexity requires flexible
adaptive governance systems supported by legitimacy in decision-making processes. Meaningful community dialogue, information
exchange, transparency, and scientific rigor are essential to this process. We examined failings in the adaptive governance of the Menindee
Lakes system, a major Australian wetland system on the Barka/Darling River of the Murray-Darling Basin. Ecological sustainability
of the Menindee Lakes was a casualty of a top-down governance, driven by the New South Wales Government in pursuit of “water
savings” for the Murray-Darling Basin, a large scale, federally influenced region. We used quantitative and qualitative methods to
analyze long-term social-ecological impacts and stakeholder perceptions of adaptive governance. State and federal government agencies
failed basic processes of adaptive governance, ignoring local environmental sustainability in pursuit of basin scale objectives at great
cost to governments, communities, humans, and non-humans. This resulted in the development of an ineffective, technocratic solution
that lacked community input, leading to a complete loss of support by local communities, including traditional owners. We emphasize
the importance of elements of scale in adaptive governance projects, if such projects are going to be effective and legitimate with
consequences of coarse commitments to large spatial scale political and environmental objectives.
Key Words: adaptive governance, evidence, legitimacy, river flow, scale, waterbirds
INTRODUCTION Only flexible governance systems can address coupled water and
Rivers and their dependent ecosystems are complex social- human systems that evolve together over time and comprise highly
ecological systems. Because of their complexity, management of contextualized and dynamic human-water relationships
these systems can often have unpredictable outcomes, which (Anderson et al. 2019), which are often multijurisdictional and
disrupt function and feedback within the social-ecological system have unpredictable feedback between ecological and social
(Berkes et al. 2000, Rogers et al. 2013). Freshwater ecosystems systems (Olsson et al. 2004, Chaffin et al. 2016). Adaptive
support a disproportionate amount of biodiversity and ecosystem governance approaches attempt to manage this uncertainty and
services, often over large spatial scales (Strayer and Dudgeon complexity in social-ecological systems through learning-based
2010, Reid et al. 2019), making environmental governance of and flexible decision-making processes that aim to adaptively
these systems important for sustainable global resource use negotiate and coordinate complex management (Dietz et al. 2003,
patterns. They also face considerable uncertainty with global Folke et al. 2005). This often occurs across multiple levels of
climate change and increases in water resource development organizations, involving government and non-government actors,
degrading ecosystems (Folke et al. 2005, Junk et al. 2013, supported by systems that use rigorous scientific information and
Kingsford et al. 2016, Finlayson et al. 2017). encourage public learning to support evidence-based decision
making (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007); however, adaptive governance
River basins depend on river flows often originating high up in a
frequently fails to be implemented across all these levels of
river catchment or watershed, where water must sometimes travel
governance (McLoughlin et al. 2020). These learning processes
thousands of kilometers, usually traversing many different
enable the coordination and context for choosing between
management jurisdictions (Moss and Newig 2010). This can be a
management actions, monitoring their effects, and adjusting
challenge for water governance because this interconnectedness
actions as different components of the social-ecological system
contrasts with often discontinuous and nested political/
change (Folke et al. 2005).
administrative levels of management (Molle 2009). This
interconnectedness produces a mismatch between geographical As such, adaptive governance requires trustworthy information
and governance scales, often with top-down governance processes about the biophysical and associated social processes of river
or centralized decision making, which fail to provide effective systems relevant and in scale with management decision making
solutions for natural resource issues and coordinated governance (Dietz et al. 2003, Vella et al. 2015). Administrative transparency
(Cash et al. 2006, Lemos and Agrawal 2006, Ekstrom and Young and the inclusion of community dialogue in decision making is
2009, Guerrero et al. 2013). These mismatches can also occur important for building trust in this information and establishing
when the scale of spatial and temporal variability in a river system legitimacy (Cosens and Williams 2012, Hogl et al. 2012, Jackson
(Walker et al. 1995, Scown et al. 2016) is not accounted for in 2019), which is essential for creating effective solutions.
governance structures, especially with added uncertainty from Trustworthy information for decision making depends on reliable
climate change (Cumming et al. 2006). sources and scientific knowledge used with integrity in the
1
University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 2Australian Rivers Institute, Griffith University, Queensland, Australia, 3Centre for Ecosystem
Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, UNSW, Sydney, Australia
Ecology and Society 28(1): 15
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol28/iss1/art15/
development of publicly trusted policy (Colloff et al. 2021). regional natural resource management agencies (Pittock 2019).
Transparency, free access, and documentation are essential to the State and territory governments are primarily responsible for land
community for informed and meaningful engagement in decision and water management under the Australian constitution.
making (De Stefano et al. 2012). These factors are also important Institutional complexity has increased over recent decades with
for stakeholders to understand decisions and solutions so they the addition of new institutional arrangements that have
can influence them to benefit their own goals (Arnstein 1969, centralized decision-making, in step with the increasing diversity
Badenoch 2002). Moreover, the public's involvement in decision of environmental problems (Wallis and Ison 2011). In 2007, the
making relies on good engagement to draw on their knowledge, Australian Government took overarching control of the
values, and perspectives for sound and rigorous outcomes development of a restoration program under the 2007 Water Act,
(Arnstein 1969, Jackson 2019). implemented through the MDB Plan (Swirepik et al. 2016). This
centralized decision making to a larger basin scale of governance.
This transparency and meaningful participation are important
It was justified by an awareness of the environmental crises
components of effectiveness and legitimacy within adaptive
exacerbated by the millennium drought of 2002-2010 and led to
governance structures (Hogl et al. 2012, O’Donnell et al. 2019),
increasingly technocratic solutions that in the region (Jackson and
and gaps in their implementation can exacerbate the challenges
Head 2020), failed to give sufficient attention to local
of achieving good governance in multijurisdictional and
participation and community expectations for legitimacy
multiscale systems (Badenoch 2002, Akamani and Wilson 2011).
(O’Donnell et al. 2019).
This can also reduce trust, exacerbating preexisting conflict
among actors when there are competing viewpoints (Lien et al. The basin-wide restoration program began with the Australian
2021). Adaptive processes need to be sincere and understood by Government reducing water allocations via a sustainable
communities for effective engagement (Allan and Watts 2018). diversion limit (SDL) set for the entire MDB, with a target of
restoring 2750 GL a year to the river system. The primary
The Menindee Lakes mechanism for achieving this was the “buying back” of water
We examined elements of adaptive governance for current diverted for irrigation. A secondary mechanism involved
decision making related to a major wetland system, the Menindee investments in irrigation systems to increase water use efficiency
Lakes (457 km² Water NSW 2022), which was a system of natural (Grafton and Wheeler 2018). Water was to be bought back by
lakes made into dams to store water (total storage volume of 1731 willing sellers, primarily the irrigation industry. However, in 2015,
GL) by a large weir across the Darling River in the 1960s the current Australian Government decided that the economic
(Appendix 1, Fig. A1.3). This water was delivered locally to the impact on the irrigation industry was too great and put a halt to
nearby city of Broken Hill, to the lower part of the Darling River, the buyback of water. Instead, they decided to reduce water
and to South Australia. The Darling River is in the Murray- consumption through improved water efficiency. Subsequently
Darling Basin (MDB) of south-eastern Australia (Appendix 1, the Australian Government directed the state governments to
Fig. A1.3) where geographic scale and institutional complexity identify water efficiency projects that could “offset” reduced water
contribute to the difficulty of water management (Alexandra recovery targets by achieving “equivalent environmental
2018). The basin is the largest in Australia, spanning one seventh outcomes” with less recovered water (MDBA 2012).
of the continent (1,059,000 km² Australian Bureau Statistics
2010) where 2.2 million people live, and surface water supplies The Menindee Lakes project was the largest water efficiency
about 40% of Australia’s irrigated agricultural output (MDBA project in the MDB, likely to deliver the greatest dividend in water
2016). The region functions as a complex social-ecological savings to meet the target under the MDB plan (MDBA 2017,
freshwater system and includes many recognized sites of high NSW Department of Natural Resources 2007). The project at
biodiversity (Kingsford 2004, Bino et al. 2016). Freshwater Menindee, which was expected to save 72 GL of water (NSW
ecosystems in the Murray-Darling Basin have been in ecological Department of Primary Industries 2017), was administered as a
decline for decades (Walker 1985, Kingsford 2000, Pittock and sustainable diversions adjustment mechanism (SDLAM) project
Finlayson 2011) primarily due to water resource development in (hereinafter referred to as the Menindee Lakes project). This
the basin that has had a strong impact on flow and flooding project had a long history with the NSW Government (the 1990s),
regimes (Kingsford 2000). Because of this, the basin has been in which more “efficient” management of the Menindee Lakes
subject to large-scale policy and law reform over the past 20 years, was considered a priority for water recovery. It relied upon
much of it aimed at restoring environmentally sustainable levels engineering structures and changes to management operations to
of water extraction and the delivery of water into the environment reduce evaporative losses from the lakes (Bewsher Consulting
through integrated basin management (MDBA 2012). The 1994).
recovery of these flows is an essential component of the In 2018, the Menindee Lakes project was formally adopted by the
conservation of wetlands within the basin, however, many NSW Government to be completed by 2024, at an initial cost
wetlands have not received adequate environmental flows to estimate of $A151.8 million (NSW Department of Industry
achieve expected ecological benefits (Chen et al. 2021). 2018). The associated cultural, ecological, and economic risks of
The Murray-Darling Basin is characterized by considerable the project and the inadequacy of government community
institutional complexity in large part because of its federal consultation have caused considerable stakeholder concerns
governance settings (Wallis and Ison 2011) with at least 6 major (Australian Productivity Commission 2018, NBAN and
policy contestants comprising 4 basin states (Queensland, New MLDRIN 2019, South Australian Government 2019, Jackson
South Wales, South Australia, and Victoria) and Australian and Head 2020). Key concerns were the lack of transparency,
Capital Territory, the Australian Government, as well as 21 flaws in the decision-making processes, and the likely local impact
and inequity in their distribution, although some questioned the the rainfall stations (Appendix 1, Table A1.2). This averaged value
fundamental assumptions of the water savings objective. The was then weighted to each catchments contribution (%), to annual
likelihood of the project’s failure jeopardized the project's discharge for the Barka/Darling River (CSIRO 2008) to form a
intended significant contribution to water usage efficiencies rainfall index that reflected the different contributions of each
(offset) under the MDB plan (MDBA 2020). tributary river system to flows in the Barka/Darling:
A major concern of the project area included a large portion of Rainfall index = Annual cumulative rainfall for
Kinchega National Park (Appendix 1, Fig. A1.3), which was set catchment (mm) x Catchment contribution to flows for
aside to protect biodiversity and cultural and recreational values, the Barka/Darling (%)
including wetlands (NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service
We then modeled the relationship between this index and time for
1999). The lakes and a 400 km stretch of the Darling River also
each catchment separately and combined, using the built-in linear
sit within an area determined, in 2015, as native title under the
model function in R (R Core Team 2021). This tested for
Barkandji people native title claim. The recognition this claim
differences in rainfall in the tributary catchments into the Barka/
brought is critical to the Barkandji people because the Darling
Darling and Menindee Lakes, again between three periods of
River, or Barka, (now referred as Barka/Darling River) and its
water resource development (pre-development 1881-1959,
waters are central to their existence (Hartwig et al. 2018).
increasing development 1960-2008, and water recovery
However, despite this legal recognition, water governance
2009-2020; Table 1; Appendix 1, Table A1.1). This was done by
structures in the region, and MDB more broadly, have
using estimated marginal means, using the “emmeans” package
dispossessed Barkandji people of this water and continue to
in R (Lenth 2019) with pairwise comparisons of each catchment
marginalize them from decision-making processes such as water
among these three different periods of development (Appendix
sharing plans (O’Bryan 2019, Hartwig et al. 2022).
1, Table A1.1).
The New South Wales Government explicitly stated that the
We also investigated trends in annual river flows into the
project aimed to use an “adaptive and outcomes-based
Menindee Lakes (Gauge 425012; Water NSW 2020) in reference
governance approach” (NSW Department of Industry 2018:96).
to water resource development. Annual cumulative flow data were
Further, adaptive management and working effectively with local
available at Menindee Lakes (Gauge 425012; Water NSW 2020)
communities were also stated as key principals to be applied to
for the two latter periods but not for the pre-development phase.
environmental watering efforts under the Murray-Darling Basin
For the pre-development phase (1890-1959), we modeled the
plan (MDBA 2012). These intentions provided us with an
relationship between annual flow at the upstream (117 km) gauge
opportunity to examine the effectiveness of this attempt at
at Wilcannia (1880-2019; Gauge 425008; Water NSW 2020) and
adaptive governance. We investigated critical elements of adaptive
Menindee Lakes, using a linear model, which had a strong and
governance and decision making for the Menindee Lakes
positive association (R² = 0.97, p < 0.01; Appendix 1, Table A1.3,
SDLAM project, including scientific evidence, public learning,
Fig. A1.1). Data from both gauges were log transformed to
and scales of decision making. We examined two biophysical
improve normality and homogeneity of variance to meet linear
elements in relation to the ecological condition and selection of
model assumptions (Appendix 1, Fig. A1.2). This relationship
Menindee Lakes for basin-scale water savings targets: (1) long-
was then used with the inbuilt “predict” function in R to hindcast
term (1880-2019) rainfall and flows into the Menindee Lakes from
flows for Menindee for the pre-development phase, using
the Barka/Darling River and (2) the abundance and richness of
untransformed Menindee (where available) and Wilcannia data.
waterbirds at Menindee Lakes (1983-2019) in association with
This allowed us to track annual flows for Menindee over time and
flows. We also examined public learning through investigating the
test for differences among the three development periods
perceptions of local communities dependent on the ecosystem,
(Appendix 1, Table A1.1).
about the ecological condition of the lakes, participation in
decision making, and future options for the Menindee Lakes and There are seven flow thresholds, which relate to different
the Barka/Darling River. We also examined the transparency, ecological and hydrological responses, adapted from analyses for
accessibility, and composition of information sources for the the Barwon-Darling water sharing plan (NSW Department of
documented evidence that the government based their decision Primary Industries 2017). These included cease to flow (< 90 ML
making on in the business case for the Menindee Lakes project day-1), very low flows (90-400 ML day-1), base flow (400-4000 ML
(NSW Department of Industry 2018). day-1), small freshes (4000-10000 ML day-1), large freshes
(10,000-20,000 ML day-1), bankfull (20,000-29,000 ML day-1),
METHODS and overbank (> 29,000 ML day-1; Appendix 1, Table A1.4). We
Evidence based for decision making examined the changes to the annual frequencies of these seven
flow thresholds to the Menindee Lakes over the three
Rainfall and flows development phrases (1881-2019) using linear regression
We investigated changes in flow and rainfall patterns to Menindee (Appendix 1, Table A1.5). Data were normally distributed, and
Lakes given their reliance on water for flooding from upstream assumption of constant variance was met.
on the Barka/Darling River, which is supplied by seven
catchments (Appendix 1, Fig. A1.1). Twenty-one rainfall stations Waterbird communities
among these catchments provided long term (1890-2019) annual We examined trends in waterbird communities, which are a useful
cumulative rainfall data (BOM 2020). Data for each catchment indicator of ecosystem change in freshwater ecosystems
were averaged from all the rainfall stations within the catchment, (Kingsford and Norman 2002, Green and Elmberg 2014), using
which allowed us to account for gaps in data availability among long-term data (1983-2019) collected for some of the lakes within
Table 1. Changes to flow and flooding regimes of Menindee Lakes from natural, before river regulation of the lakes (pre-development),
subsequent development of the lakes, and its inflowing Barka/Darling River and tributaries with descriptions of the developments and
effects on flooding regimes.
Phase Time Significant policy Description Flow regime Reference

period
Pre-development 1881– Not applicable The lakes filled with sufficient flows in the Local resident, A. F. Cudmore, (Commissioners of the
1959 Barka/Darling River delivering natural observed that the lakes were only dry Royal Commission on the
inundation regimes. “half a dozen or more times” from River Murray 1902)
1870-1900.
Development 1949– Menindee Lakes Weirs, regulators, levees, and channels (Fig. Natural flooding of the lakes altered (Kingsford 2004,
1968 scheme A1.6) constructed under the Menindee Water so some of the main lakes (Lakes Kingsford et al. 2004)
Conservation Act 1949, to store water in the Bijijie, Tandure, Pammamaroo,
lakes, predominantly for irrigated agriculture Menindee, and Cawndilla; Fig. A1.6)
downstream and South Australia but also to were inundated more frequently and
supply Broken Hill and locally, Menindee, and longer to store water. This killed some
the Lower Barka/Darling. floodplain dependent vegetation and
reduced diversity and density of
waterbirds.
1960– Government built Government built dams upstream in tributaries Increasingly, flows reaching Menindee (Kingsford 1995, 2004,
2008 dams in (Fig. A1.6) stored and captured floods (e.g., Lakes declined although lake levels in Webb 2007, Kingsford et
tributaries Burrendong Dam on the Macquarie River and regulated lakes kept artificially high. al. 2016)
†
Keepit Dam on the Namoi River) reducing flows Tandou Lake no longer flooded and
in the Barka/Darling River. was used for irrigated crops (Fig. 1).
1980– Large private Private off-river storage dams expanded in most Allowed more water to be diverted (Kingsford et al. 2004,
present dams built of the tributaries of the Barka/Darling River from the tributaries and the Barka/ Webb 2007, Australian
(Fig. A1.6), designed to divert flood flows stored Darling River, reducing flow to the Academy of Science
for irrigation. Menindee Lakes. 2019)
Water recovery 2009– Establishment of Set aside a target for 2750 GL/year reduction in Aimed to return environmental flows (MDBA 2012, Simpson
present the Murray- diversions to be returned to rivers and wetlands. to the rivers of the Murray-Darling 2017)
Darling Basin Despite this, policy and practice of water sharing Basin, including the Barka/Darling
Plan (cost of plan rules (e.g., floodplain harvesting and River.
$AUD13 billion) activation of A class water licences) reduced
environmental flows to Menindee Lakes.
2012– Northern basin A policy and legislative decision to reduce the Reduction in quantity of flows (Australian Productivity
2016 review amount of water recovered under the Murray- returned to the Barka/Darling River Commission 2018)
†
Darling Basin Plan by 70 GL year in the Barka/ and its tributaries.
Darling River and its tributaries.
2018– Broken Hill Allowed water to be taken from the River No effect on flows and flooding (NSW Department of
2019 pipeline (cost of Murray to supply the city of Broken Hill as the regimes. Primary Industries 2017)
$AUD500 Menindee Lakes became an increasingly
million) unreliable water supply option.
2017– Proposed Developed to achieve 106-180 GL of water Reduction in inundation frequency (NSW Department of
present Menindee Lakes savings through infrastructure measures and and extent for Lakes Menindee and Primary Industries 2017)
SDLAM project operational adjustments, by reducing evaporative Cawndilla in Kinchega National Park
losses. (Fig. A1.6).
†
A class licenses give permission for water users to extract water from an unregulated river system during periods of low flow (NSW DPIE 2020, Water NSW 2022).
a 30 km survey band during the eastern Australia waterbird Published evidence for decision-making for the Menindee Lakes
surveys (EAWS; Kingsford et al. 2020; Appendix 1, Fig. A1.3). project
We examined annual trends in total waterbird abundance within We also systematically searched available public databases for
five functional response groups of species (ducks, piscivores, information cited within and relevant to the Menindee Lakes
herbivores, large waders, and small wading birds; Kingsford et al. project (NSW Department of Primary Industries 2017) using Web
2017). We log-transformed annual waterbird abundances and of Science (WoS) of Thomson Reuters, Scopus of Elsevier,
used the built in “lm” function in R (R Core Team 2018) to Environment Complete of EBSCO, and Google Scholar
evaluate potential associations with annual flows at the Menindee databases. We searched using phrases from cited statements
Lakes flow gauge (Appendix 1, Table A1.7). We only reported within the business case for the Menindee Lakes project (NSW
declining trends in waterbird abundances, however, these are Department of Primary Industries 2017). Documents published
predominantly related to river flows and wetland flooding after the publication of the business case (2017) were excluded.
(Kingsford and Thomas 1995, Kingsford 1999, Kingsford et al. We also searched for historical documents in the water
1999, 2002, 2010, 2017, Roshier et al. 2001, Arthur et al. 2012, information system for the environment database (University of
Bino et al. 2015). This also established that waterbirds were a New South Wales 2020) and the Trove library database
useful environmental indicator for the Menindee Lakes and the aggregator, https://trove.nla.gov.au/. We also obtained four
Darling River. Assumptions of normality, homogeneity of relevant documents through a parliamentary order for papers
variance, and linearity were evaluated using residual-fitted, from the legislative assembly of the NSW Parliament, provided
residual frequency, and normal quantile-quantile plots in print form converted to a digital form by scanning. We obtained
(Appendix 1, Fig. A1.2). We also reported on changes in all but two cited documents in the business case; these two were
abundances between the first five and the last five years. not publicly available. All documents were then categorized into
Fig. 1. (a) Cumulative total annual rainfall of each tributary river and the Barka/Darling River catchments, weighted for each river’s
contribution of flows to the Barka/Darling River (Appendix 1, Table A1.1) and a trendline for average total rainfall (continuous
black line); and changes to flow, (b) annual number of cease to flow days (< 90 ML day-1; 1881-2019) at Wilcannia over the three
phases of water resource development, pre-development, development, and water recovery and, (c) annual flows in the Barka/
Darling River at Menindee Lakes (hindcasted data 1883-1959, see rainfall and flows methods section).
peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed documents, grouped by five decreased by 18% between the development (2849 GL, 1959) and
themes identified from the content of the business case (government water recovery periods (1815 GL, 2009-2020; z = 2.08, p = 0.03;
management, hydrology, ecology, cultural issues, and social issues). Fig. 1b; Appendix 1, Table A1.6). Average annual flows also
These were then separated into documents cited in the business case decreased by 21% between the pre-development (3971 GL,
for the Menindee Lakes project and others available but not cited. 1881-1960) and water recovery periods (1815 GL, 2009-2020;
We also noted if each peer-reviewed document was open-access or z=-2.14, p=0.03, Fig. 1b; Appendix 1, Table A1.6). Further, the
behind a paywall. annual number of cease-to-flow days (< 90 ML Day-1) at
Menindee Lakes had significantly increased from 1881-2019 (t =
Local stakeholders 4.58, p < 0.01; Fig. 1c; Appendix 1, Table A1.5). Annual
We surveyed the local community, which we categorized into three frequencies (days) of the other six different flow thresholds
groups: Aboriginal traditional owners from Menindee, non- examined did not significantly change from 1881-2019 (Appendix
Aboriginal local residents from Menindee and Broken Hill, and 1, Table A1.5). Additionally, other studies found increasing low
local farmers from the Barka/Darling River immediately above and flows and decreasing, small freshes, bankfull flows, and overbank
below Menindee Lakes. We used in-depth qualitative interviews (10 flows at gauges close to Menindee from 1896-2009 (Australian
per group). We used the snowballing method to identify Academy of Science 2019).
interviewees (Atkinson and Flint 2001) beginning with key
community representatives. Each group of interviewees was asked Water resource development and flows
a series of questions about local ecosystem services, government Major infrastructure and policy changes occurred through the
decision-making, and the consultation process for the Menindee development phase to the Menindee Lakes, Barka/Darling River,
Lakes project (Appendix 1, Table A1.9). The lead author did all the and its tributary rivers (Table 1). Before 1960, Menindee Lakes
interviews to ensure consistency, adopting a semi-structured format filled and dried in response to the flow regimes of the Barka/
(Creswell et al. 2006, Adams 2015). Interviews were recorded, Darling River, usually holding some water for some time. This is
transcribed, and then provided to each participant for review before based on local observations from a local resident over a 30-year
analysis. These interviews were supplemented with a publicly period in the late 1800s, which included the federation drought
available, online survey, which was advertized in the local paper (1895-1903; Table 1). Governments built the Main Weir (dam)
and radio, for local people covering the same questions, except using across the river, channels, weirs, and regulators after 1960,
Likert scale responses (de Winter and Dodou 2010). increasing the flooding of some of Menindee Lakes, which were
turned into regulated storages to supply downstream users (Table
We used semantic thematic analysis to analyze transcripts using
1). After the mid-1980s, flows reaching Menindee Lakes decreased
NVivo qualitative data analysis software (QSR International Pty
with the large government-built dams and private storages, which
Ltd 2020) by semantically coding (identifying and coding parts of
allowed diversion of flows from the Barka/Darling River and its
text within transcripts by their explicit meaning) for themes in
seven tributaries (Table 1; Appendix 1, Fig. A1.3a).
participants’ responses to interview questions (Goddard 2011),
beginning with a pilot set of transcripts (one from each group), Waterbird communities
which were reviewed by a panel of researchers that did not conduct Waterbird abundances were significantly and positively
interviews (Turner 2010). We identified key themes and subsidiary associated with Barka/Darling River flows at Menindee Lakes (z
issues within the 30 transcripts through this semantic coding. We = 2.6, p = 0.01; Appendix 1, Table A1.7) and negatively associated
determined the frequencies in which each issue was mentioned in with year (z = 1.9, p = 0.06; Appendix 1, Table A1.8). Total
each transcript and explored the associations among different waterbird abundances on the Menindee Lakes had indicated an
issues and responses using a hierarchical cluster analysis (Guest average annual decline of 7.5% (Appendix 1, Table A1.8) and total
and McLellan 2003). We then used the built in “chisq.test” function decline of ~68% (Appendix 1, Table A1.8) within the development
in R (R Core Team 2021) to test for differences in the proportions (1983-2008) and water recovery periods (2009-2019; Fig. 2). Four
of each issue within each theme among the three interview groups out of five functional response groups to waterbirds experienced
(traditional owner, local resident, and farmer). significant annual declines between 1983-1988 and 2014-2019 (t
< 2.63, p < 0.01; Appendix 1, Table A1.8). Ducks experienced the
RESULTS highest decline between 1983-1988 and 2014-2019 with a 72%
Evidence based for decision making average decline followed by piscivores (44%), herbivores (33%),
and large waders (9%). Shorebirds experienced no significant
Rainfall, flow, and flooding regimes at Menindee Lakes change. Abundances of four of the five functional response
Despite several periods of prolonged drought, there was little groups were significantly associated with river flows, with
evidence of any major changes in annual rainfall patterns in the shorebirds indicating some decline (t = 1.74, p = 0.09; Appendix
tributaries or the Barka/Darling River over a period of 139 years 1, Table A1.8).
(1880-2019), despite high variability (Fig. 1a). This contrasts with
broader trends of decreasing rainfall in observational rainfall Published evidence based for current for the Menindee Lakes
records in the basin since the 1950s (Dey et al. 2019, BOM 2020). project
Between pre-development and development periods, total weighted The proportion of peer-reviewed sources cited within the
cumulative rainfall, including all tributary rivers of the Barka/ Menindee Lakes business case did not reflect the number of
Darling River showed no significant monotonic trend (z > 1.53, p relevant publications in the public domain at the time of its
> 0.12; Fig. 1; Appendix 1, Table A1.1) aside from the Namoi and publication (Fig. 3). The evidence base for the Menindee Lakes
Gwydir tributaries (p < 0.01; Appendix 1, Table A1.1). In contrast, project used only 1 peer-reviewed document and 21 non peer-
average annual flows in the Barka/Darling River at Menindee Lakes reviewed documents (Fig. 3). The category of “management and
social issues” referenced no peer-reviewed information (Fig. 4).
Fig. 2. Annual (1983–2019) abundance of total waterbirds and of each of the five functional response groups
from data collected during the Eastern Australian Waterbird Surveys at Menindee Lakes (Kingsford et al. 2020)
showing fitted linear trends (95% CI shaded), annual average percent decline, and total decline over the 37 years
(average 1983-1988 cf. 2014-2019).
Fig. 3. Available published evidence based in the principal Fig. 4. The two major issues from in person and online
decision-making document, the Menindee Lakes water savings interviews, government management (orange) and changes to
plan business case (NSW Department of Primary Industries water ecosystem services (green) among three stakeholder
2017; orange) for the proposed Menindee Lakes project, groups: local farmers, traditional owners, and local residents
compared to what was available at time of publication (green), with the four most prominent issues (issues with the highest %
showing proportions of peer reviewed (P) and non-peer reviewed coding within transcripts) for each theme identified for each
(O-other), grouped by the total and within five themes: ecology, stakeholder group (Appendix 1, Table A2.2).
hydrology, culture, management, and socioeconomic issues with
numbers of references listed.
A large proportion of the relevant, uncited peer-reviewed Many interviewees and all survey respondents did not support
information in the public domain was from open-access academic the alternative water supply for Broken Hill provided by the
journals (41%). Many other relevant independent reports were pipeline (Table 1), believing that the Menindee Lakes had the
freely available. capacity to supply the town if its water supply had been properly
managed. One interviewee suggested that the pipeline may have
There were no data or associated modeling used to justify the 3
been developed to ensure water didn’t have to come down the
different estimated water savings (72, 106, 116 GL) for the 22
Darling River and could bypass the Menindee Lakes (Table 2).
structural and operational measures within the Menindee Lakes
Local resident interviewees discussed government management
business case or for the original estimate of 180 GL water saving
issues of trust and the consultation processes more than
estimates originally expected by the Australian Government. The
traditional owners and local farmers (χ2 = 5.01, p = 0.08;
latter figure was 250% higher than the lower estimate in the
Appendix 2, Table A2.1), albeit not statistically significant. This
business case (Table 1).
could indicate that trust and consultation may be more relevant
Furthermore, there was a range of relevant and available (mostly to local residents, or that traditional owners have lower
government funded and produced) reports on hydrology, ecology, expectations and therefore do not express their concerns.
and cultural issues that were not cited (Fig. 4). There was no
reference to Kinchega National Park occupying a substantial Changes to water ecosystem services
proportion of the Menindee Lakes (~28% wetland; NSW Interviewees had detailed local knowledge of the hydrology of
National Parks and Wildlife Service 1999; Fig. 1). There was no the Barka/Darling River and Menindee Lakes. Changes to flows
reference to the Barkandji native title claim, the effects on for Menindee Lakes and the Barka/Darling River were a primary
Indigenous water values, available relevant government reports, concern for interviewees (Fig. 4), with one farmer noting that the
and peer-reviewed literature pertaining to this claim. The length of cease to flow events for the Darling had increased and
Barkandji water rights and interests were not cited. stressed the declining upstream flows (Table 2). Connectivity of
the Barka/Darling River and managing the entire system was also
Stakeholders’ perspectives on the proposed Menindee Lakes considered a priority (Fig. 4) and one interviewee considered a 70
project GL water target at Menindee unacceptable for downstream water
We identified 2 emergent issues with the Menindee Lakes project needs (Table 2). Interviewees also consistently indicated that the
in our stakeholder in-person and online survey interviews (14 evidence and argument for achieving water savings, through
respondents): government management and changes to water reducing evaporative losses at Menindee Lakes was problematic,
ecosystem services. These two key issues emerged from our five with water accounting lacking in integrity (Table 2). Issues of
themes (hydrology, ecology, culture, socioeconomics, and connectivity and changes to flows were discussed more by local
government management; Appendix 2, Table A2.2), which were farmers than by the local residents or traditional owners (χ2 =
identified via thematic semantic coding (Goddard 2011) in 5.43, p = 0.07; Appendix 2, Table A2.1), albeit not statistically
transcripts and survey responses. The government management significant, indicating that connectivity and flows may be more
theme referred to issues that dealt with government engagement relevant to local farmers because they are often more immediately
with the community about the SDLAM project, decision making affected by reductions in flows.
for the Menindee Lakes, and the Lower Darling, more broadly.
Most interviewees mentioned ecological changes, ecosystem
The water ecosystem services theme referred to the implications
services, and changes to local fish populations, describing aspects
of this decision making for ecosystem services for local
of ecosystem collapse (Fig. 4.). All online survey respondents
communities.
indicated that they had noticed changes in the diversity and
Government management abundance of local fish. Many interviewees also noticed declines
Within the issue of government management, trust and and believed this was exacerbated by mass fish kill events, with
consultation processes were the major concerns (Fig. 4, Table 2). one traditional owner noting the condition of the Barka/Darling
Many stakeholders and all online survey respondents indicated as the worst they had seen in their lifetime (Table 2). Diseases in
their dissatisfaction with government consultation, expressing fish were also a common concern, especially for traditional owners
little confidence that their views were considered for decision who fish for food. Reductions in yabbies, mussels, flood dependent
making regarding the Menindee Lakes project. The consultation vegetation (e.g., river red gums), and birdlife (e.g., waterbirds)
process was often deemed tokenistic, rather than a process that were often mentioned by all groups of interviewees (Table 2). One
genuinely searched for community knowledge, with many farmer described being confronted by dead mussels and
describing it as a “box-ticking” exercise (Fig. 4, Table 2). Many emaciated kangaroos looking for water, as “post-apocalyptic”
interviewees concluded that the engagement process excluded (Table 2). These concerns extended to the loss of ecosystem
most of the community because stakeholder representatives were services to surrounding communities such as declining fish
selected by governments, and events were poorly advertized and populations for local anglers and loss of vegetation for bank
occurred at inconvenient times for most, often requiring the stabilization. Ecological decline was also linked to economic
community to make immediate judgments based on little decline, with Menindee being described as “just a shadow” of
information (Fig. 4). Interviewees expressed fatigue and what it once was (Table 2). Interviewees from the farmer group
frustration with government consultation processes, with several discussed ecological changes and changes to ecosystem services
stakeholder groups mentioning that they had walked away from more than local residents and traditional owners (χ2 = 9.01, p =
the process (Table 2). 0.01; Appendix 2, Table A2.1).
Table 2. Interview quotes from stakeholders (local resident, traditional owner, and farmer) in relation to the Menindee Lakes project,
exemplifying views on the five major themes: government management, hydrology, ecology, culture, and socioeconomics.
Theme Stakeholder group Interview quotes

Government Local resident “Um, I would seek to inject some integrity to the system. So, by selecting stakeholders and advising them that they’ve been selected
management to be consulted as representatives of the community. Um, you know, that’s probably the first error because they haven’t allowed the
community to say they’re interested.”
Traditional owner “So, all the consultation that have happened in the last three years, I've been part of it. And to see how it’s played out politically and
how the government has its own agenda basically, um, we’ve got frustrated enough just to walk away because, all we’ve seen is ticking
that box and they wasn’t listening to what we had to say. And, that still continues today. They’ll bring their agenda to the table. And
that’s what I said. We’ve got to get away from their agenda and create our own. When they bring up new ideas, they go and handpick
or keep the ones that will support them.”
Local resident “They announced that Broken Hill was going to get a pipeline from the Murray River for a secured water supply. Now that word
secure, got to remember we had a secured water supply before 2012. It seems to be since the Barwon Darling water sharing plan came
into place that the water security had changed greatly. I think the pipeline was developed to ensure that water didn’t have to come
down the Darling.”
Hydrology Farmer “We’ve farmed citrus here, since the 1920s, and we only ever had cease to flow for no longer than three months at a time. Even before
the Menindee Lakes storage scheme was built, we had regular flows along the Darling and the Lower Darling and through the Lakes,
because there was always one of the tributaries contributing, putting fresh water down. So, it never used to cease to flow or stop
flowing for long periods of time like it has recently.”
Farmer “Yeah, [connectivity] really needs a lot more consideration, the end of system ?ows at Menindee. Menindee’s not the end of the
system, there’s another 500 kilometres of the Darling River that needs to be looked after as well, and to have a 70 gigalitres water
target at Menindee is not acceptable.”
Local resident “You could argue that for those three years, that the lakes were dry, you were saving anywhere between 400 and 700 gigalitres that the
Murray Darling Basin Authority precariously put out as the evaporation rate. You could say, any amount of water has been saved
because it’s not evaporating, but if the water is not getting there to start with, then there’s a hole in the logic and there’s definitely no
integrity in the accounting.”
Ecology Farmer “Um, it’s, it’s a really confronting site, dead mussels along the side of the riverbank. you know, to see emaciated kangaroos, um, with
no energy looking around for water and birds that are just, you know, trying to stay out of the sun with their beaks open, trying to
keep cool. Um, it’s really, uh, uh, uh, post-apocalyptic type landscapes. It’s really hard to describe, but you know, you instinctively
and intuitively know that it’s not right. It doesn’t feel right.”
Local resident “The economic impact of those [environmental] changes have been very, very evident when you only have to drive through Menindee
to see it’s just a shadow of what it was before. That’s kind of a disaster that’s kind of been unfolding for quite a long time now. Yeah.”
Traditional owner “When I was a kid, we didn’t even know what a fish kill was. The fish never died, when I was a kid. And I was born in 1947, so makes
me 73 this year. And the conditions of the river now, I’ve never seen it. And it started back in 2010, 2011, and from there on it just
went worse and worse and worse.”
Culture Traditional owner “It’s just like the blood draining and out of our body. Really. If you haven’t got that water in the River and the Lakes, it’s like
perishing. You can’t get to the river for those cultural activities that we usually go out and do, like fishing and gathering and the
hunting too.”
Local resident “Where is the Aboriginal voice in this? These are the traditional owners. We have traditional owners; we have native title recognition
for most of the far West with the Barkandji native title owners. Where are they, in the yes, no factor. Why isn’t it that there, that is a
federal recognition.”
Traditional owner “We’ve been nearly three years without water. That in itself doesn’t let you practice your culture, nothing. You know, you can’t take
your kids down the river. Can’t get a feed of fish to feed anyone, including yourself.”
Traditional owner “Well it’s [The Lakes and River] part of, it’s part our dreaming. Some of the people that their totems, that were talking about, um,
and it’s part of our culture, our spirituality. Basically, everything, for us, it’s not just the fish, you know what I mean? It’s more than
that. And I guess people might just see it as a big fish, but for us that’s one of our people, or part of our spirit that dies, when that
fish dies.”
Socioeconomics Local resident “I work for the Far West local health districts. And The lakes have been dry at least twice while I’ve been back in the last five years,
I’ve noticed that that’s had a really big impact on the community. The biggest thing I noticed back in 2015 was that the lakes were dry
when I got here. And there was a lot of anxiety in the community, in the surrounding areas. And people were complaining about skin
irritations and the quality and smell and just feeling like it wasn’t a safe water supply.”
Local resident “There’d be droves of people coming up from Victoria fishing, it was quite a popular spot and but there is nobody here now. Half of
Broken Hill would be out along the banks of Pamamaroo and no camping spots were available around the area in the holidays. But
that was when there was plenty of water about and things to be had and things to do and fish to catch and yabbies. As It’s declined,
it’s just gone all put.”
Local farmers and local residents usually described changes to expressed frustration with the lack of recognition of Barkandji
ecosystem services, although traditional owners commented on native title owners in the “yes, no, factor” of the project (Table 2).
reduced availability to similar cultural services because of the Traditional owners’ sense of identity and spiritual relations with the
ecological decline in the lakes and river (Fig. 4, Table 2). For river and lakes were also affected by ecological degradation. One
example, one traditional owner described the removal of water traditional owner described the death of a fish as akin to the death
from the Barka/Darling and Menindee Lakes comparable to the of a community member or spirit (Table 2). Traditional owners
blood draining out of their body (Table 2). Education was also discussed the availability of cultural services more than local
affected, with another traditional owner describing how the lack residents and famers (χ2 = 41.23, p < 0.01; Appendix 2, Table A2.1).
of water stopped them from practicing their culture through
placed-based learning (Table 2). Community health, recreation, and local economic activity were
also affected by reductions in water quality and the loss of a secure
Through the business case process, the government did not
water supply. A local resident had noticed increased community
acknowledge or recognize water rights or management practices
anxiety and complaints about the safety of the water supply (Table
related to Barkandji knowledge. For example, a local resident
2). All online survey respondents indicated that environmental include an environmental equivalence test, meaning water saved
changes had negatively impacted their communities. Reduction from a project such as the Menindee Lakes project must deliver
in local agriculture, the loss of the recreational use of the rivers a net environmental benefit overall (Mosley et al. 2010). The
and lakes for the community, and tourism were considered to have requirement echoes the original justification for a large-scale
lowered economic activity, population level, and employment. federal policy like the basin plan in which widespread
Interviewees from the local resident group discussed community environmental decline felt particularly hard in small basin
health, changes to recreation, and local economic activity more communities like Menindee. This large-scale governance
than local farmers and traditional owners (χ2 = 29.45, p < 0.01; imperative failed to address the local environmental costs and has
Appendix 2, Table A2.1). therefore struggled to be translated to an effective solution at the
local level. Interestingly, this mirrors the failings of other complex
DISCUSSSION governance arrangements in giving effect to large-scale
Our analysis of the proposal to achieve water savings at Menindee international agreements through the delivery of environmental
Lakes through the SDLAM identified significant shortcomings water for Ramsar wetlands in the MDB under the 2007 Water Act
in the adaptive governance of the project at local and basin-wide (Kirsch et al. 2021).
scales. These shortcomings led to a project with unclear and
poorly substantiated dividends in environmental water savings at Our study of environmental condition at the local scale (declining
the basin scale but with clear local environmental costs. There flows and waterbird abundances) showed that the Menindee
were also serious problems in the use of scientific evidence. Our Lakes ecosystem was in decline. We found that annual flows in
document analysis showed that the information basis for the the Barka/Darling River supplying Menindee Lakes have
project was predominantly non-peer-reviewed (Fig. 3), often in continued to decline over three development periods (Fig. 1b;
place of relevant government produced and funded reports, and Appendix 1, Table A1.6), further adding to increasing evidence
peer-reviewed information generated independently of government of long-term declining flows (Kingsford 1995, Thoms and
processes. Significant information in peer-reviewed research and Sheldon 2000, Leblanc et al. 2012, Australian Academy of Science
government reports, commissioned specifically for the prospect 2019, BOM 2020) and increasing drying of the river with more
of altering the lakes, was not included in the primary decision- cease to flow events (Australian Academy of Science 2019, BOM
making document. Importantly, details of how projected water 2020; Fig. 1c) driven primarily by water resource development in
savings would be achieved were not transparent or accessible to the Barka/Darling tributaries. Despite several periods of
the communities. prolonged drought, there was little evidence of any major changes
in annual rainfall patterns in the tributaries or the Barka/Darling
The consultation process was dysfunctional as our community River over a period of 139 years (1880-2019), despite high
interviews demonstrate. A primary problem in this process was a variability (Fig. 1a).
failure to acknowledge the evident, long-term ecological decline
of the Barka/Darling and Menindee Lakes, alongside the impacts The Menindee Lakes project’s focus on water savings failed to
of losing a secure water supply for Menindee. This unsurprisingly address the fundamental importance of the lakes as locally valued
resulted in the local community becoming disenfranchised with ecosystems, which naturally fill and dry (Kingsford et al. 2004,
government engagement. We propose that these problems Leigh et al. 2010, Bino et al. 2015) and sustain ecological processes
resulted from the project’s inability to achieve the intended and human livelihoods (Porter et al. 2007, Kingsford et al. 2010).
“adaptive and outcomes-based governance approach” (NSW Our analysis of ecological indicators of long-term decline, a factor
Department of Primary Industries 2017:96) to deliver a basin- in determining adaptive capacity (Folke et al. 2002, Allen and
scale environmental water dividend at significant local cost. First, Holling 2010), showed long-term declines to waterbird
we will discuss how insufficient consideration of the key issues of communities in Menindee Lakes (Fig. 2). This decline occurred
scale and ecological condition have comprised the effectiveness over more than three decades, driven by declining river flows (Fig.
of the project. Second, we will discuss the administrative 1c; Appendix 1, A1.6), indicative of the deterioration of overall
legitimacy of the project, which failed in terms of two important ecosystem health (Kingsford et al. 2004, Green and Elmberg
factors of adaptive governance (Esty 2006, Cosens and Williams 2014). Local communities reported similar declines (Appendix 2,
2012, O’Donnell et al. 2019), i.e., objective expertise as the basis Table A2.2), reflecting declines in fish-eating birds (Fig. 2). Local
for decisions, and the inclusion of public dialogue (and therefore fish communities were also in decline (Gehrke et al. 1995, Gilligan
local knowledges) in decision-making processes. 2005, Wallace et al. 2008), most seriously reflected in the mass
fish kills of millions of fish in 2018-2019, attributed to lack of
Scale and ecological condition flows in the Barka/Darling River (Australian Academy of Science
The Menindee SDLAM project is an example of a governance 2019). The decommissioning of Lakes Cawndilla and Menindee
scale mismatch, in which a locally scaled solution is used to under the Menindee Lakes project will further disrupt essential
achieve large-scale governance objectives (Cumming et al. 2006, ecological processes, given the importance of the lakes as a basin-
Guerrero et al. 2013). At the scale of the Murray-Darling Basin wide breeding source for golden perch, Macquaria ambigua,
plan, governments (NSW and Australian federal) considered the (Ebner et al. 2009, Stuart and Sharpe 2020).
Menindee Lakes project an opportunity to “save” water from
evaporation, which could then be “packaged” as environmental Our interviews revealed the community impacts from this
water for the entire basin, thus meeting the Australian ecological decline. Losses to local agriculture and recreational use
Government commitments to deliver on its target of 2750 GL of the lakes have depressed local economic activity, caused
year-1 of water being returned to the rivers of the MDB (Jackson population declines, and reduced employment opportunities,
and Head 2021). Additionally, policy and legislation for the basin especially in Menindee, which was described as “a shadow of what
it once was” (Table 2). The loss of a secure water supply has had The project did not deliver transparency or accountability in
negative impacts on the community’s cultural, physical, and decision making, an important step in enabling public
spiritual well-being, and traditional owners have lost access to participation (De Stefano et al. 2012) and legitimate governance
highly valued cultural resources. Local people are acutely aware (Huitema et al. 2009). Despite significant tax expenditure, there
of the impacts of long-term ecological decline on their was an absence of any peer-reviewed modeling available to the
communities, with an increasing realization that this is public in relation to the water savings estimated by governments.
fundamentally a consequence of government decision making Two reviews of the business case, gained through a parliamentary
(Australian Academy of Science 2019; Fig. 4). Decision making order for papers, identified the business case estimates were based
disempowered and frustrated many in the local communities. on modeling conducted by the MDBA in 2016, with little
Policy was considered to have disproportionately favored needs information on relative contribution of structural and
of upstream users (Grafton 2019), often at the expense of Lower operational contributions to water savings. Further, the water
Darling communities (South Australian Government 2019). On savings estimate did not incorporate the ongoing problem of
this basis, the options proposed for the Menindee Lakes project declining flows with upstream development (Kingsford 2000,
are predicted to have further major environmental and social costs Thoms and Sheldon 2000). This lack of transparency also
for the Menindee Lakes and local communities. extended to the accessibility of the primary decision-making
document. This was not accessible for public scrutiny, with the
Effectiveness business case (produced in 2017) being made available only after
The project, as conceived in the documents we relied on for this a freedom of information (FOI) request from the Australian
analysis, has received considerable community criticism and Senate in March 2018 (South Australian Government 2019).
progression was suspended by governments in late 2021. The
project is currently being rescoped. This project was an example Inclusion of public dialogue in decision-making processes
of ineffective environmental policy because it failed to address Adaptive governance requires meaningful public dialogue with a
long-term ecological decline and the social impacts of this decline, two-way flow of information between government agencies and
while also failing to achieve the project goal of delivering water communities, providing opportunities for knowledge exchange
savings that had net environmental benefits and positive outcomes and deliberation between the groups affected by decisions and
for communities. Scale played a key role in this failure with the decision makers. The experiences of the community members who
NSW government’s fixation on achieving a federal scale policy participated in this study indicated limited meaningful public
objective with an incorrectly scaled environmental offset for the dialogue for the Menindee Lakes project. Many in the local
use of the environment elsewhere in the basin. There is no evidence community commented on the lack of transparency in decision
that government water agencies drew upon ecological data that making and felt that they had not received enough relevant
would guarantee any satisfactory form of commensurability information or time to make informed contributions.
between the water solutions on offer or a “like for like” Government consultation processes were often deemed
substitution (Maron et al. 2016, May et al. 2017, South Australian “tokenistic” with key stakeholder groups withdrawing from
Government 2019). government engagement several times. The accessibility of
government consultation events was often limited to those invited
Considering the multijurisdictional nature of river systems and
as part of a consultation committee and not widely available for
the increasing global popularity of biodiversity offsets as policy
many in the community. Many observed that water savings
tools, understanding how large-scale governance and
unfairly targeted Menindee Lakes, given significant evaporative
environmental offsets in water impact the effectiveness and
losses from artificial private storages upstream (Webb McKeown
legitimacy of environmental policies will become an important
and Associates Pty Ltd 2007, Jackson and Head 2020). As with
issue for adaptive governance. This is particularly important for
many other systems in decline (Postel 1997), ecosystem services
future attempts to govern water across large spatial scales and
have compromised the functioning of the community. These
with the use of market mechanisms, such as water trading, for
impacts, combined with a dysfunctional community engagement
transboundary rivers (Zeitoun and Mirumachi 2008).
process and lack of transparency, eroded already wavering trust
Objective expertise in governments, an important component of community
Despite the availability of rigorous data (e.g., waterbirds, fish, participation (Reed 2008, De Stefano et al. 2012). This element
hydrology, and cultural data) and good understandings of trends of trust was particularly important, considering the significant
and requirements of key biota, there was little consideration in involvement of Indigenous stakeholders in government
the business case of these ecological aspects of the lakes. Further, engagement and the Barkandji native title claim (Jackson 2019).
there was no inclusion of information from the Ecological
Sustainable Development project implemented by the NSW water Despite promises of significant water savings, several serious
agency (Table 2), a large series of studies commissioned departures from an effective adaptive governance approach
specifically to provide information on the impacts of modifying profoundly affected the outcomes for this project, particularly in
the lakes at a substantial cost of $A2.5 million. A serious omission relation to the local community. Key to this were issues of
was the NSW Government’s obligation for conservation of administrative legitimacy, especially when attempting to create
Kinchega National Park (NSW National Parks and Wildlife reciprocal dialogue with the community. If government agencies
Service 1999), which must be managed for (inter alia) the transparently presented all the evidence and included options
conservation of biodiversity, natural landscapes, and cultural presented by the community, decision making would have been
features that provide opportunities for public appreciation. These considerably more inclusive. Objective expertise was not part of
conservation values would decline with the Menindee Lakes the decision-making process for the project because the long-term
project. ecological conditions of the Barka/Darling and Menindee Lakes
were largely ignored, in favor of an unclear, predominantly Allan, C., and R. J. Watts. 2018. Revealing adaptive management
engineered water savings offset, which could not achieve of environmental flows. Environmental Management 61
environmental equivalency, as required under the MDB plan. A (3):520-533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0931-3
focus on achieving basin-scale, water savings outcomes at the local
Allen, C. R., and C. S. Holling. 2010. Novelty, adaptive capacity,
scale environmental cost, resulted in a missed opportunity to
and resilience. Ecology and Society 15(3):24. https://doi.
develop a management plan locally, focused on restoring the lakes
org/10.5751/ES-03720-150324
and their flooding and drying cycles, as previously suggested by
the community (Australian Academy of Science 2019). This could Anderson, E. P., S. Jackson, R. E. Tharme, M. Douglas, J. E.
have delivered some water savings as well as restoration by Flotemersch, M. Zwarteveen, C. Lokgariwar, M. Montoya, A.
reinstating drying and flooding patterns (Kingsford et al. 2002). Wali, G. T. Tipa, T. D. Jardine, J. D. Olden, L. Cheng, J. Conallin,
The missteps of this project highlighted the importance of scale B. Cosens, C. Dickens, D. Garrick, D. Groenfeldt, J. Kabogo, D.
in achieving effective and legitimate solutions through adaptive J. Roux, A. Ruhi, and A. H. Arthington. 2019. Understanding
governance approaches for river systems. Furthermore, these rivers and their social relations: a critical step to advance
governance approaches should encourage locally driven environmental water management. WIREs Water 6(6):e1381.
conservation management of wetlands, which prioritizes https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1381
objective expertise and meaningful public dialogue in the pursuit
Arnstein, S. R. 1969. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal
of more sustainable management of complex social-ecological
of the American Planning Association 35(4):216-224. https://doi.
systems.
org/10.4324/9780429261732-36
Declarations Arthur, A. D., J. R. W. Reid, R. T. Kingsford, H. M. Mcginness,
The authors have no conflicts of interest. K. A. Ward, and M. J. Harper. 2012. Breeding flow thresholds of
colonial breeding waterbirds in the Murray-Darling Basin,
Australia. Wetlands 32(2):257-265. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13157-011-0235-y
Acknowledgments: Atkinson, R., and J. Flint. 2001. Accessing hidden and hard-to-
reach populations: snowball research strategies. Social Research
Our thanks to all interviewees for their time and effort participating Update 33(1):1-4. https://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU33.html
in the interviews. We thank the Menindee Local Aboriginal Land
Council and Sam Fields for providing the space to conduct interviews Australian Academy of Science. 2019. Investigation of the causes
in Menindee. Financial support was provided by the Centre for of mass fish kills in the Menindee Region NSW over the summer
Ecosystem Science. We thank all traditional owners, local residents, of 2018-2019. Australian Academy of Science, Canberra,
and local farmers who participated in this study. All interviews and Australia. https://www.science.org.au/supporting-science/science-
surveys were conducted with ethical approval for this research, which policy-and-sector-analysis/reports-and-publications/fish-kills-report
was provided by the University of New South Wales Human
Research Ethics Council (HC number HC200429). This research Australian Bureau Statistics. 2010. Australian bureau statistics
was supported by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant 1301.0 year book Australia. Feature article: Murray Darling
(LP180100159). Basin. Australian Bureau Statistics, Canberra, Australia. https://
www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Lookup/1301.0Chapter3042009%
E2%80%9310
Data Availability:
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). 2020.
If the manuscript is accepted, we will make all code and relevant Trends and historical conditions in the Murray-Darling Basin: a
data available. For our human subjects, we are not able to make report prepared for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority by the
their data available. Bureau of Meteorology. Australian Government Bureau of
Meteorology, Canberra, Australia. https://www3.mdba.gov.au/
LITERATURE CITED sites/default/files/pubs/bp-eval-2020-BOM-trends-and-historical-
Adams, W. 2015. Conducting semi-structured interviews. Pages conditions-report.pdf
492-505 in J. Wholey, H. Hatry, and K. Newcomer, editors. Australian Productivity Commission. 2018. Murray-Darling
Handbook of practical program evaluation. John Wiley and Sons, Basin Plan: five-year assessment. Final report no.90. Australian
Hoboken, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119171386. Productivity Commission, Canberra, Australia. https://www.pc.
ch19 gov.au/inquiries/completed/basin-plan#report
Akamani, K., and I. P. Wilson. 2011. Toward the adaptive Badenoch, N. 2002. Transboundary environmental governance:
governance of transboundary water resources. Conservation principles and practice in mainland Southeast Asia. World
Letters 4(6):409-416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00188. Resources Institute, Washington, D.C., USA.
x
Berkes, F., C. Folke, and J. Colding. 2000. Linking social and
Alexandra, J. 2018. Evolving governance and contested water ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms
reforms in Australia’s Murray Darling Basin. Water 10(2):113. for building resilience. First edition. Cambridge University Press,
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10020113 Cambridge, UK.
Bewsher Consulting. 1994. Water resource investigations of transparency in water management. Pages 217-255 in L. De
Menindee Lakes. Bewsher Consulting, New South Wales, Stefano and R. M. Llamas, editors. Water, agriculture and the
Australia. https://www.academia.edu/29514036/Water_Resourc environment in Spain: can we square the circle? First edition. CRC
e_Investigations_of_Menindee_Lakes_NSW_Australia_1994 press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
Bino, G., R. T. Kingsford, and K. Brandis. 2016. Australia’s de Winter, J. C. F., and D. Dodou. 2010. Five-point Likert items:
wetlands-learning from the past to manage for the future. Pacific t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment,
Conservation Biology 22(2):116-129. https://doi.org/10.1071/ Research and Evaluation 15(11). https://doi.org/10.7275/bj1p-
PC15047 ts64
Bino, G., R. T. Kingsford, and J. Porter. 2015. Prioritizing Dey, R., S. C. Lewis, J. M. Arblaster, and N. J. Abram. 2019. A
wetlands for waterbirds in a boom and bust system: waterbird review of past and projected changes in Australia’s rainfall. Wiley
refugia and breeding in the Murray-Darling Basin. PLoS ONE Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 10(3):e577. https://
10(7):e0132682. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132682 doi.org/10.1002/wcc.577
Cash, D. W., W. Neil Adger, F. Berkes, P. Garden, L. Lebel, P. Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern
Olsson, L. Pritchard, and O. Young. 2006. Scale and cross-scale the commons. Science 302(5652):1907-1912. https://doi.
dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. org/10.1126/science.1091015
Ecology and Society 11(2):8. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01759-110208
Ebner, B. C., O. Scholz, and B. Gawne. 2009. Golden perch,
Macquaria ambigua, are flexible spawners in the Darling River,
Chaffin, B. C., A. S. Garmestani, L. H. Gunderson, M. H. Benson,
Australia. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
D. G. Angeler, C. A. Tony, B. Cosens, R. K. Craig, J. B. Ruhl, and
Research 43(2):571-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288330909510023
C. R. Allen. 2016. Transformative environmental governance.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 41:399-423.
Ekstrom, J. A., and O. R. Young. 2009. Evaluating functional fit
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817
between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecology and
Chen, Y., M. J. Colloff, A. Lukasiewicz, and J. Pittock. 2021. A Society 14(2):16. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02930-140216
trickle, not a flood: environmental watering in the Murray-
Esty, D. C. 2006. Good governance at the supranational scale:
Darling Basin, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Research 72
globalizing administrative law. Yale Law Journal 115
(5):601-619. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF20172
(7):1490-1562. https://doi.org/10.2307/20455663
Colloff, M. J., R. Q. Grafton, and J. Williams. 2021. Scientific
Finlayson, C. M., S. J. Capon, D. Rissik, J. Pittock, G. Fisk, N.
integrity, public policy and water governance in the Murray-
C. Davidson, K. A. Bodmin, P. Papas, H. A. Robertson, M.
Darling Basin, Australia. Australian Journal of Water Resources
Schallenberg, N. Saintilan, K. Edyvane, and G. Bino. 2017. Policy
25(2):121-140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2021.1917097
considerations for managing wetlands under a changing climate.
Commissioners of the Royal Commission on the River Murray. Marine and Freshwater Research 68(10):1803-1815. https://doi.
1902. Interstate Royal Commission on the River Murray, org/10.1071/MF16244
representing the states of New South Wales, Victoria, and South
Folke, C., J. Colding, and F. Berkes. 2002. Synthesis: building
Australia: report of the commissioners, with minutes of evidence,
resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems. First
appendices and plans. Sands and McDougall, Melbourne,
edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. https://
Australia.
doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511541957.020
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive
(CSIRO). 2008. Water availability in the Murray-Darling Basin.
governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of
A report to the Australian Government. CSIRO’s Murray-
Environment and Resources 30:441-473. https://doi.org/10.1146/
Darling Basin sustainable yields project, Canberra, Australia.
annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
https://www.mdba.gov.au/publications/mdba-reports/water-availability-
murray-darling-basin Gehrke, P. C., P. Brown, C. B. Schiller, D. B. Moffatt, and A. M.
Bruce. 1995. River regulation and fish communities in the
Cosens, B. A., and M. K. Williams. 2012. Resilience and water
Murray-Darling river system, Australia. Regulated Rivers:
governance: adaptive governance in the Columbia River Basin.
Research and Management 11(3-4):363-375. https://doi.
Ecology and Society 17(4):3. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04986-170403
org/10.1002/rrr.3450110310
Creswell, J. W., S. Cuevas, K. Greene, D. Santoyo, and J. Robinson. Gilligan, D. 2005. Fish communities of the Lower Murray-
2006. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among Darling catchment: status and trends. Fisheries final report series
five approaches. Second edition. Sage, Washington, D.C., USA. no. 83. NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange, New
South Wales, Australia. https://docslib.org/doc/11611146/fish-
Cumming, G. S., D. H. M. Cumming, and C. L. Redman. 2006.
communities-of-the-lower-murray-darling-catchment-status-and-
Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes,
trends
consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society 11(1):14.
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01569-110114 Goddard, C. 2011. Semantic analysis: a practical introduction.
Second edition. Oxford University Press, New York, New York,
De Stefano, L., N. Hernández-Mora, E. López-Gunn, B.
USA.
Willaarts, and P. Zorrilla-Miras. 2012. Public participation and
Grafton, R. Q. 2019. Policy review of water reform in the Murray- global climate change: a synthesis. Aquatic Sciences 75
Darling Basin, Australia: the “do’s” and “do’nots.” Australian (1):151-167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-012-0278-z
Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 63(1):116-141.
Kingsford, R. T. 1995. Ecological effects of river management in
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8489.12288
New South Wales. Pages 144-161 in R. Bradstock, T. D. Auld, D.
Grafton, R. Q., and S. A. Wheeler. 2018. Economics of water A. Keith, R. T. Kingsford, D. Lunney, and D. Sivertsen, editors.
recovery in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Annual Review Conserving biodiversity: threats and solutions. First edition.
of Resource Economics 10:487-510. https://doi.org/10.1146/ Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney, Australia.
annurev-resource-100517-023039
Kingsford, R. T. 1999. Managing the water of the Border Rivers
Green, A. J., and J. Elmberg. 2014. Ecosystem services provided in Australia: irrigation, government and the wetland
by waterbirds. Biological Reviews 89(1):105-122. https://doi. environment. Wetlands Ecology and Management 7(1-2):25-35.
org/10.1111/brv.12045 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008452423586
Guerrero, A. M., R. R. J. McAllister, J. Corcoran, and K. A. Kingsford, R. T. 2000. Ecological impacts of dams, water
Wilson. 2013. Scale mismatches, conservation planning, and the diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in
value of social-network analyses. Conservation Biology 27 Australia. Austral Ecology 25(2):109-127. https://doi.org/10.1046/
(1):35-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01964.x j.1442-9993.2000.01036.x
Guest, G., and E. McLellan. 2003. Distinguishing the trees from Kingsford, R. T. 2004. Wetlands and waterbirds of the Darling
the forest: applying cluster analysis to thematic qualitative data. River. Pages 234-257 in The Darling. First edition. Murray-
Field Methods 15(2):186-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X Darling Basin Commission, Canberra, Australia.
03015002005
Kingsford, R. T., and F. I. Norman. 2002. Australian waterbirds
Hartwig, L. D., S. Jackson, F. Markham, and N. Osborne. 2022. - products of the continent’s ecology. Emu - Austral Ornithology
Water colonialism and Indigenous water justice in south-eastern 102(1):47-69. https://doi.org/10.1071/MU01030
Australia. International Journal of Water Resources
Kingsford, R. T., and R. F. Thomas. 1995. The Macquarie
Development 38(1):30-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2020.1868980
Marshes in arid Australia and their waterbirds: a 50-year history
of decline. Environmental Management 19(6):867-878. https://
Hartwig, L. D., S. Jackson, and N. Osborne. 2018. Recognition
doi.org/10.1007/BF02471938
of Barkandji water rights in Australian settler-colonial water
regimes. Resources 7(1):16. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7010016 Kingsford, R. T., A. Basset, and L. Jackson. 2016. Wetlands:
conservation’s poor cousins. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
Hogl, K., E. Kvarda, R. Nordbeck, and M. Pregernig. 2012. Freshwater Ecosystems 26(5):892-916. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Effectiveness and legitimacy of environmental governance - aqc.2709
synopsis of key insights. Pages 280-304 in K. Hogl, E. Kvarda, R.
Kingsford, R. T., G. Bino, and J. L. Porter. 2017. Continental
Nordbeck, and M. Pregernig, editors. Environmental
impacts of water development on waterbirds, contrasting two
governance: the challenge of legitimacy and effectiveness. Edward
Australian river basins: global implications for sustainable water
Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK. https://doi.org/10.4337/978
use. Global Change Biology 23(11):4958-4969. https://doi.
1849806077.00024
org/10.1111/gcb.13743
Huitema, D., E. Mostert, W. Egas, S. Moellenkamp, C. Pahl-
Kingsford, R. T., A. L. Curtin, and J. L. Porter. 1999. Water flows
Wostl, and R. Yalcin. 2009. Adaptive water governance: assessing
on Cooper Creek in arid Australia determine ‘boom’ and ‘bust’
the institutional prescriptions of adaptive (co-)management from
periods for waterbirds. Biological Conservation 88(2):231-248.
a governance perspective and defining a research agenda. Ecology
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3207(98)00098-6
and Society 14(1):26. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02827-140126
Kingsford, R. T., K. M. Jenkins, and J. L. Porter. 2002. Waterbirds
Jackson, S. 2019. Building trust and establishing legitimacy across
and effects of river regulation. Menindee Lakes environmental
scientific, water management and Indigenous cultures. Australian
sustainability development (ESD) project. Australian Government,
Journal of Water Resources 23(1):14-23. https://doi.
Canberra, Australia.
org/10.1080/13241583.2018.1505994
Kingsford, R. T., K. M. Jenkins, and J. L. Porter. 2004. Imposed
Jackson, S., and L. Head. 2020. Australia’s mass fish kills as a
hydrological stability on lakes in arid Australia and effects on
crisis of modern water: understanding hydrosocial change in the
waterbirds. Ecology 85(9):2478-2492. https://doi.org/10.1890/03-0470
Murray-Darling Basin. Geoforum 109:44-56. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.12.020
Kingsford, R. T., J. L. Porter, K. J. Brandis, and S. Ryall. 2020.
Jackson, S., and L. Head. 2021. The politics of evaporation and Aerial surveys of waterbirds in Australia. Scientific Data 7(1):172.
the making of atmospheric territory in Australia’s Murray- https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0512-9
Darling Basin. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space
Kingsford, R. T., D. A. Roshier, and J. L. Porter. 2010. Australian
5(3):1273-1295. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211038392
waterbirds time and space travellers in dynamic desert landscapes.
Junk, W. J., S. An, C. M. Finlayson, B. Gopal, J. Květ, S. A. Marine and Freshwater Research 61(8):875-884. https://doi.
Mitchell, W. J. Mitsch, and R. D. Robarts. 2013. Current state of org/10.1071/MF09088
knowledge regarding the world’s wetlands and their future under
Kirsch, E., M. J. Colloff, and J. Pittock. 2021. Lacking character? Murray‑Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). 2016. The Murray-
A policy analysis of environmental watering of Ramsar wetlands Darling Basin at a glance. Commonwealth of Australia,
in the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Marine and Freshwater Canberra, Australia.
Research 73(10):1225-1240. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF21036
Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). 2017. SDLAM Draft
Leblanc, M., S. Tweed, A. Van Dijk, and B. Timbal. 2012. A review Determination Report 2017. Commonwealth of Australia,
of historic and future hydrological changes in the Murray-Darling Canberra, Australia. https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/
Basin. Global and Planetary Change 80-81:226-246. https://doi. files/pubs/SDLAM-draft-determination-report_2.pdf
org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2011.10.012
Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). 2020. June 2020
Leigh, C., F. Sheldon, R. T. Kingsford, and A. H. Arthington. report card. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia.
2010. Sequential floods drive ‘booms’ and wetland persistence in https://www.mdba.gov.au/sites/default/files/pubs/MDBA-June-report-
dryland rivers: a synthesis. Marine and Freshwater Research 61 card-2020_0.pdf
(8):896-908.
New South Wales (NSW) Department of Natural Resources.
Lemos, M. C., and A. Agrawal. 2006. Environmental governance. 2007. Darling River water savings project. Part A report.
Annual Review of Environment and Resources 31:297-325. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621
New South Wales (NSW) Department of Primary Industries.
Lenth, R. 2019. emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least- 2017. Water resource planning model scenario report; Barwon-
squares means. R package version 1.4.2. R Foundation for Darling annual take limit. Australian Government, Canberra,
Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://cran.microsoft. Australia.
com/snapshot/2019-08-15/web/packages/emmeans/index.html
New South Wales (NSW) Department of Primary Industries.
Lien, A. M., T. Dew, G. B. Ruyle, N. R. Sherman, N. Perozzo, M. 2017. Menindee Lakes water savings project. Phase 2. New South
Miller, and L. López-Hoffman. 2021. Trust is essential to the Wales Department of Industry, Lands and Water Division.
implementation of adaptive management on public lands. Australian Government, Canberra, Australia. https://www.
Rangeland Ecology and Management 77:46-56. https://doi. industry.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/165130/Menindee-
org/10.1016/j.rama.2021.03.005 Lakes-Water-Savings-Project-business-case.pdf
Maron, M., C. D. Ives, H. Kujala, J. W. Bull, F. J. F. Maseyk, S. New South Wales (NSW) Department of Industry. 2018.
Bekessy, A. Gordon, J. E. M. Watson, P. E. Lentini, P. Gibbons, Menindee Lakes water savings project. Summary of phase 2
H. P. Possingham, R. J. Hobbs, D. A. Keith, B. A. Wintle, and M. preliminary business case. New South Wales Department of
C. Evans. 2016. Taming a wicked problem: resolving controversies Industry, Lands and Water Division. Australian Government,
in biodiversity offsetting. BioScience 66(6):489-498. https://doi. Canberra, Australia. https://www.industry.nsw.gov.au/__data/
org/10.1093/biosci/biw038 assets/pdf_file/0014/211460/menindee-lakes-water-saving-project-
summary.pdf
May, J., R. J. Hobbs, and L. E. Valentine. 2017. Are offsets
effective? An evaluation of recent environmental offsets in New South Wales (NSW) National Parks and Wildlife Service.
Western Australia. Biological Conservation 206:249-257. https:// 1999. Kinchega National Park plan of management. Australian
doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.038 Government, Canberra, Australia. https://www.environment.
nsw.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications-search/kinchega-
McLoughlin, C. A., M. C. Thoms, and M. Parsons. 2020.
national-park-plan-of-management
Reflexive learning in adaptive management: a case study of
environmental water management in the Murray Darling Basin, Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations (NBAN) and Murray Lower
Australia. River Research and Applications 36(4):681-694. Darling River Indigenous Nations (MLDRIN). 2019. Select
https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.3607 committee inquiry into the multi-jurisdictional management and
execution of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Australian
Molle, F. 2009. River-basin planning and management: the social
Government, Canberra, Australia. https://www.aph.gov.au/
life of a concept. Geoforum 40(3):484-494. https://doi.
Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Management_and_
org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.03.004
Execution_of_the_Murray_Darling_Basin_Plan
Mosley, L. M., B. Zammit, and E. Leyden. 2010. Guide to the
O’Bryan, K. 2019. Indigenous rights and water resource
proposed Basin Plan. Technical background. Murray-Darling
management: not just another stakeholder. Routledge, London,
Basin Authority, Canberra, Australia. https://www.mdba.gov.au/
UK.
publications/archived-information/basin-plan-archives/guide-proposed-
basin-plan O’Donnell, E. L., A. C. Horne, L. Godden, and B. Head. 2019.
Cry me a river: building trust and maintaining legitimacy in
Moss, T., and J. Newig. 2010. Multilevel water governance and
environmental flows. Australian Journal of Water Resources 23
problems of scale: setting the stage for a broader debate.
(1):1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/13241583.2019.1586058
Environmental Management 46(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00267-010-9531-1 Olsson, P., C. Folke, and F. Berkes. 2004. Adaptive comanagement
for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environmental
Murray‑Darling Basin Authority (MDBA). 2012. Basin plan
Management 34(1):75-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7
2012. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, Australia. https://
www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2012L02240
Pahl-Wostl, C., J. Sendzimir, P. Jeffrey, J. Aerts, G. Berkamp, and science: research and management for the 21st century. First
K. Cross. 2007. Managing change toward adaptive water edition. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, West Sussex, UK.
management through social learning. Ecology and Society 12 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118643525.ch6
(2):30. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02147-120230
Simpson, P. 2017. Barwon-Darling: low flow environmental
Pittock, J. 2019. Are we there yet? The Murray-Darling Basin and watering impediments and opportunities. Report for
sustainable water management. Thesis Eleven 150(1):119-130. Commonwealth Environmental Water Office. Australian
https://doi.org/10.1177/0725513618821970 Government, Canberra, Australia. https://www.dcceew.gov.au/
water/cewo/publications/barwon-darling-low-flow-environmental-
Pittock, J., and C. M. Finlayson. 2011. Australia’s Murray-
watering-impediments-opportunities
Darling Basin: freshwater ecosystem conservation options in an
era of climate change. Marine and Freshwater Research 62 South Australian Government. 2019. Murray-Darling Basin
(3):232-243. https://doi.org/10.1071/MF09319 Royal Commission report. Australian Government, Canberra,
Australia. https://cdn.environment.sa.gov.au/environment/docs/
Porter, J. L., R. T. Kingsford, and M. A. Brock. 2007. Seed banks
murray-darling-basin-royal-commission-report.pdf
in arid wetlands with contrasting flooding, salinity and turbidity
regimes. Plant Ecology 188(2):215-234. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Strayer, D. L., and D. Dudgeon. 2010. Freshwater biodiversity
s11258-006-9158-8 conservation: recent progress and future challenges. Journal of
the North American Benthological Society 29(1):344-358. https://
Postel, C. S. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. Nature’s
doi.org/10.1899/08-171.1
services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. First edition.
Island, Washington, D.C., USA. Stuart, I. G., and C. P. Sharpe. 2020. Riverine spawning, long
distance larval drift, and floodplain recruitment of a pelagophilic
QSR International Pty Ltd. 2020. NVivo 12. Version 12.6.0. QSR
fish: a case study of golden perch (Macquaria ambigua) in the arid
International Pty Ltd., Burlington, Massachusetts, USA. https://
Darling River, Australia. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and
www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysis-software/
Freshwater Ecosystems 30(4):675-690. https://doi.org/10.1002/
support-services/nvivo-downloads
aqc.3311
R Core Team. 2018. R: a language and environment for statistical
Swirepik, J. L., I. C. Burns, F. J. Dyer, I. A. Neave, M. G. O’Brien,
computing. Version 2018.09.2+382 “Ghost Orchid” release. R
G. M. Pryde, and R. M. Thompson. 2016. Establishing
Foundation for Statistical Computing Vienna, Austria. https://
environmental water requirements for the Murray-Darling Basin,
www.R-project.org/
Australia’s largest developed river system. River Research and
R Core Team. 2021. R: a language and environment for statistical Applications 32(6):1153-1165. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.2975
computing. Version 2021.09.2+382 “Ghost Orchid” release. R
Thoms, M. C., and F. Sheldon. 2000. Water resource development
Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
and hydrological change in a large dryland river: the Barwon-
Reed, M. S. 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental Darling River, Australia. Journal of Hydrology 228(1-2):10-21.
management: a literature review. Biological Conservation 141 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(99)00191-2
(10):2417-2431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.07.014
Turner, D. 2010. Qualitative interview design: a practical guide
Reid, A. J., A. K. Carlson, I. F. Creed, E. J. Eliason, P. A. Gell, for novice investigators. Qualitative Report 15(3):754-760. https://
P. T. J. Johnson, K. A. Kidd, T. J. MacCormack, J. D. Olden, S. doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2010.1178
J. Ormerod, J. P. Smol, W. W. Taylor, K. Tockner, J. C. Vermaire,
University of New South Wales. 2020. Water information system
D. Dudgeon, and S. J. Cooke. 2019. Emerging threats and
for the environment database. University of New South Wales,
persistent conservation challenges for freshwater biodiversity.
Kensington, Australia.
Biological Reviews 94(3):849-873. https://doi.org/10.1111/
brv.12480 Vella, K., N. Sipe, A. Dale, and B. Taylor. 2015. Not learning from
the past: adaptive governance challenges for Australian natural
Rogers, K. H., R. Luton, H. Biggs, R. O. Biggs, S. Blignaut, A.
resource management. Geographical Research 53(4):379-392.
G. Choles, C. G. Palmer, and P. Tangwe. 2013. Fostering
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12115
complexity thinking in action research for change in social-
ecological systems. Ecology and Society 18(2):31. https://doi. Walker, K. F. 1985. A review of the ecological effects of river
org/10.5751/ES-05330-180231 regulation in Australia. Hydrobiologia 125(1):111-129. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5522-6_8
Roshier, D. A., A. I. Robertson, R. T. Kingsford, and D. G. Green.
2001. Continental-scale interactions with temporary resources Walker, K. F., F. Sheldon, and J. T. Puckridge. 1995. A perspective
may explain the paradox of large populations of desert waterbirds on dryland river ecosystems. Regulated Rivers: Research and
in Australia. Landscape Ecology 16:547-556. https://doi. Management 11(1):85-104. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrr.3450110108
org/10.1023/A:1013184512541
Wallace, T., C. Sharpe, P. Fraser, R. Rehwinkel, and L. Vilizzi.
Scown, M., M. Thoms, and N. De Jager. 2016. Measuring spatial
2008. The impact of drought on water quality and fish
patterns in floodplains: a step towards understanding the
communities within refuge pools on the lower Darling River. The
complexity of floodplain ecosystems. Pages 103-104 in J. Gilvear,
Murray-Darling Freshwater Research Centre, Albury, Australia.
M. T. Greenwood, T. C. Martin, and P. J. Wood, editors. River
Wallis, P. J., and R. L. Ison. 2011. Appreciating institutional

complexity in water governance dynamics: a case from the
Murray-Darling Basin, Australia. Water Resources Management
25(15):4081-4097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9885-z
Water New South Wales (NSW). 2020. WaterNSW real time data.
Water New South Wales, Parramatta, New South Wales,
Australia. https://realtimedata.waternsw.com.au/.
Water New South Wales (NSW). 2022. Menindee Lakes facts and
history - WaterNSW. Water New South Wales, Parramatta, New
South Wales, Australia. https://www.waternsw.com.au/nsw-
dams/regional-nsw-dams/menindee-lakes
Webb, McKeown and Associates Pty Ltd. 2007. State of the
Darling; interim hydrology report. Murray-Darling Basin
Commission, Canberra, Australia. https://www.mdba.gov.au/
sites/default/files/archived/mdbc-SW-reports/17_State_of_the_D
arling_Interim_Hydrology_Report_2007.pdf
Zeitoun, M., and N. Mirumachi. 2008. Transboundary water
interaction I: reconsidering conflict and cooperation.
International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and
Economics 8(4):297-316. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-008-9083-5
Appendix 1
Table A1.1 Summary of 24 pairwise comparison coefficients between different stages of water
resources development (1890-1959 (pre-development), 1960-2008 (development), 2009-2020 (water
recovery), used to test for differences in annual rainfall in the catchments of each tributary river system
(see Fig. 1) of the Darling River flowing to Menindee Lakes and their relative flow contributions1
Contribution to River Period 1 Period 2 Estimate SE z.ratio Pr(>|z|)
annual discharge
in the Darling (%)
All 1890-1959 1960-2008 -8.12 5.29 1.53 0.12

catchments 1890-1959 2009-2020 -5.25 9.70 0.54 0.58
1960-2008 2009-2020 2.86 10.00 0.28 0.77

23.2 Border 1890-1959 1960-2008 -37.36 32.18 1.16 0.24
Rivers 1890-1959 2009-2020 -40.50 58.52 0.69 0.48
1960-2008 2009-2020 -3.14 60.12 -0.05 0.95
15.4 Condamine- 1890-1959 1960-2008 5.72 30.76 -0.18 0.85
Balonne 1890-1959 2009-2020 -13.28 55.83 -0.33 0.81
1960-2008 2009-2020 -19.00 57.31 0.23 0.74
1.2 Darling 1890-1959 1960-2008 -38.08 23.93 1.59 0.11
1890-1959 2009-2020 -77.18 43.94 1.75 0.07
1960-2008 2009-2020 -39.09 45.33 -0.86 0.38
14.2 Gwydir 1890-1959 1960-2008 -97.63 33.28 2.93 <0.01*
1890-1959 2009-2020 -36.23 61.21 0.59 0.55
1960-2008 2009-2020 61.40 63.19 0.97 0.33
22.6 Macquarie- 1890-1959 1960-2008 -60.12 34.17 1.75 0.07
Bogan- 1890-1959 2009-2020 -11.88 63.07 0.18 0.85
Castlereagh 1960-2008 2009-2020 48.23 65.20 0.73 0.45
23.4 Namoi 1890-1959 1960-2008 -113.52 35.55 3.19 <0.01*
1890-1959 2009-2020 -81.80 65.50 1.24 0.21
1960-2008 2009-2020 31.71 67.67 0.46 0.63
0.01 Paroo 1890-1959 1960-2008 -29.57 26.81 1.10 0.27
1890-1959 2009-2020 -12.38 49.23 0.25 0.80
1960-2008 2009-2020 17.19 50.78 0.33 0.73
0.01 Warrego 1890-1959 1960-2008 -14.84 41.80 0.35 0.72
1890-1959 2009-2020 -23.60 76.90 0.30 0.75
1960-2008 2009-2020 -8.75 79.38 -0.11 0.91
Table A1.2 Rainfall stations and station numbers for each catchment used to create an annual
rainfall index. BOM annual cumulative rainfall data (comprised of 12 cumulative monthly rainfall
values) for each station was averaged before it was weighted to each catchments contribution (%)
to the Barka/Darlings flows. This allowed us to account for gaps in data availability among the
rainfall stations.
𝑅𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 = 𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑟𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 (𝑚𝑚) ×
𝐶𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐷𝑎𝑟𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔 (%)
Catchment Rainfall station Rainfall station number Data available

Border Deepwater 056008 1890-2019
Condamine- Mitchell 063076 1892-2019

Balonne
Dulacca 042010 1890-2015
Darling Ivanhoe 049019 1890-2016
Ivanhoe AD 049000 2000-2019
Gwydir Guyra PO 056016 1890-2019
Guyra Hospital 056229 1982-20191
Uralla 056034 1902-20192
Bundara 056006 1890-20153
Macquarie Bogan Binnaway 064013 1890-20194

Castlereagh
Blackville 055006 1890-20195
Oberon 063063 1890-20196
Gulgong 062013 1882-20197
Sofala 063076 1893-20198
Namoi Nundle 055041 1891-20199
Weabonga 055172 1900-201910
Quirindi 055049 1890-201911
Paroo Hungerford 044181 1890-201912
Warrego Nive 044057 1890-201913
Morven 044050 1890-201914
Minnie Down 035190 1894-201915

1
minus 1999,2002,2006. 2minus 2004, 2005, 2008-2011, 2016, 2018. 3 minus 1976, 2004-2007, 2012,2013. 4 minus 1993, 2001,
2000, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2018. 5 minus 1941,1942,1981,1989,1999,2001,2002,2004,2007. 6 minus
1992,1989,2005,2016,2018. 7 minus 1999,2003,2014. 8 minus 2002-2008, 2010, 2014,2016. 9 minus 1999-2008, 2013,2014. 10
minus 1962,2004,2008,2013-2017. 11 minus 2014. 12 minus 2005,2010,2011. 13 minus 1973,2001-2013. 14 minus 1998-
2003,2010. 15 minus 1985,1989,1996,2002-2018.
Table A1.3 Coefficients and model fit values of linear regression used to model annual flows on the
Darling River at Menindee when there were no data (dates x-y), based on annual flows at the
Wilcannia gauge. lm(formula = Menindee ~ Wilcannia)
Estimate Std. Error t-value Pr(>|t||) Model Fit Values
Intercept -116.81 316.07 -0.37 0.09 Adj. R² = 0.90 R² = 0.97

Menindee 1.26 0.06 21.08 <0.01 F(1,46) = 444.55 p = < 0.01*
Figure A1.1 Plotted linear regression model of Wilcannia annual flows and Menindee annual
flows (R² = 0.97) *p=<0.05
Figure A1.2 Residual-fitted, residual frequency, and normal quantile-quantile plots for log
transformed data used for linear regression model of Wilcannia and Menindee flows using 72 years
where data from both locations were recorded.
Residuals vs Fitted
Histogram of wil_men_regression$residuals
2
4
0.5
25
20
0.0
Residuals
15
Frequency
−0.5
10
5
−1.0
6 7 8 9 10
0
Fitted values
lm(Menindee ~ Wilcannia) −1.0 −0.5 0.0 0.5
wil_men_regression$residuals
Normal Q−Q
2
4
2
Standardized residuals
0
−2
−4
−2 −1 0 1 2
Theoretical Quantiles
lm(Menindee ~ Wilcannia)
Figure A1.3 – a) Location of the Darling River Basin (grey), within the Murray-Darling Basin,
Australia, showing Menindee Lakes (ML) and the seven tributaries of the Darling River (DR); Paroo
River (PR), Warrego River (WR), Condamine/Balonne River (C-BR), Border Rivers (B-R), Gwydir
River (GR), Namoi River (NR), Macquarie-Bogan-Castlereagh River (M-B-CR). b) Locations of the
main seven Menindee Lakes; Lake Balaka (LB), Lake Bijijie (LBi), Lake Tandure (LT), Lake
Pamamaroo (LP), Lake Menindee (LM), Lake Cawndilla (LC), Lake Tandou (LT), within the Darling
River floodplain, showing the weir pool, Lake Wetherell with installed flow regulators (open red
circles) and the proposed regulator on the Morton-Boulka channel (filled red circle), channels (solid
red line), Kinchega National Park (green), the aerial waterbird survey band (hatched) and Menindee
town and flow gauges at Menindee and Wilcannia on the Darling River
Table A1.4 Daily flow thresholds and their relevant flow rates and ecological rationales (NSW
Government 2018) used for analysis long-term changes to flows in the Darling River at Menindee
Lakes.
Threshold Flow rate Rationale

Cease to flow <90 ML day-1 All native fish species maintained
Very low flows 90-400 ML day-1 All native fish species and their
ecosystem functions maintained
Base flow 400-4000 ML day-1 Local movement of native fish
maintained
Small freshes 4000-10000 ML day-1 “River specialist’ and ‘generalist’ fish
species spawning. Improved condition
of native fish species. Recruitment of
‘river specialist’, ‘generalist’ and
“flow specialist’ fish species.
Large freshes 10000-20000 ML day-1 Spawning of “flow specialist” fish
species. Improved ecosystem
functions and pre-spawning of native
fish.
Bankfull 20000-29,000 ML day-1 Recruitment and spawning of
“floodplain specialist”
Overbank >29,000 ML day-1 Inundation of floodplain. Stimulating
flowering, germination and seeding of
floodplain vegetation communities.
Breeding and recruitment of native
fish species. Waterbird and frog
habitats promote recruitment and
breeding.
Table A1.5 Summary of outputs from linear regressions for the annual frequency of seven flow
threshold (days/year) over time (year), from 1881-2019.
Estimate Std. Error t-value Pr(>|t|)
Cease to Intercept -1425.70 484.45 -2.94 < 0.01*

flows Year 0.78 0.25 3.15 < 0.01*
Very Low Intercept -443.26 353.67 -1.25 0.21
Flows Year 0.26 0.18 1.43 0.16
Base Flows Intercept 127.57 398.62 0.32 0.75
Year 0.00 0.20 0.01 0.99
Small Intercept 286.69 266.20 1.08 0.28
Freshes Year -0.12 0.14 -0.86 0.39
Large Intercept 312.62 222.86 1.40 0.16
Freshes Year -0.14 0.11 -1.19 0.24
Bankfull Intercept -317.42 162.51 -1.95 0.06
Year 0.18 0.08 2.15 0.07
Overbank Intercept 604.44 436.39 1.39 0.18
Year -0.28 0.22 -1.24 0.22
Table A1.6 Summary of outputs from pairwise comparison of coefficients (from ANOVA) used to
test for difference in annual flows of Menindee Lakes, through three stages of water resources
development; 1890-1959 (pre-development), 1959-2008 (increasing development), 2009-2020
(water recovery).
Period Period Estimate SE z value Pr(>|z|)

1959-2008 2009-2020 1.30 0.68 2.08 0.03*
1890-1959 1959-2008 -0.08 0.38 0.00 0.9
1890-1959 2009-2020 1.21 0.66 -2.14 0.03*
*p=0.05
Table A1.7 Summary of conditional average outputs from linear models of total waterbird and
functional group counts (from East Australian Waterbird Survey data; Kingsford et al. 2020), flows
at Menindee Flows (Flows) and time (Year).
Functional Variable Estimate Std. Error Adjusted SE z value Pr(>|z|)

Group
Total (Intercept) 107.11 99 100.62 1.06 0.28
Flows 0.63 0.24 0.24 2.6 0.01*
Year -0.07 0.04 0.04 1.9 0.06
Shorebirds (Intercept) 109. 93.6 95.40 1.14 0.25
Flows -0.07 0.03 0.04 1.74 0.09
Year -1.16 1.03 1.07 1.1 0.23
Piscivores (Intercept) 52.94 62.6 64.91 2.35 0.02*
Flow s 0.66 0.17 0.17 0.2 <0.00*
Year -0.07 0.03 0.03 2.3 0.01*
Herbivores (Intercept) 43.06 79.35 80.64 0.53 0.59
Flows 0.73 0.24 80.64 2.93 <0.00*
Year -0.06 0.04 0.04 1.35 0.17
Large (Intercept) 89 106 95.4 1.13 0.64
Waders Flows -0.04 0.07 0.06 1.21 0.05*
Year -1.16 1.34 1.03 1.01 0.22
Ducks (Intercept) 237.10 89.53 92.44 2.54 0.01*
Flows -0.11 0.04 0.04 2.53 0.01*
Year 0.35 0.25 0.26 1.4 0.2*
*p=0.05
Table A1.8 Mean counts, total percent decline, and annual percent decline of total waterbirds and
functional groups between two development periods in the Darling upstream of Menindee;
increasing development (1983-1988) and water recovery (2014-2019).
Functional Group Period Mean Total % Annual %

Decline Decline
Total 1983-1988 14188 68 7.5

2014-2019 4421
Shorebirds 1983-1988 705 No significant No significant
decline decline
2014-2019 146
Piscivores 1983-1988 2941 44 7
2014-2019 1646
Herbivores 1983-1988 2716 33 6
2014-2019 1808
Large waders 1983-1988 193 9 1
2014-2019 176
Ducks 1983-1988 7630 72 11
2014-2019 2098
Table A1.9 Interview questions. As interviews were semi-strutured, the phrasing and order of
questions asked were not identifical for each participant. Follow up prompts (e.g how/why)
were used to gain more indepth responses.
Interview questions
How long have you lived in Menindee/this region?
Is Menindee Lakes important to you and your community?
Tell me about your experience living in Menindee/this region?
How do you use the Menindee Lakes?
What changes to the Darling River and the Menindee lakes have you seen in your lifetime?
How important are native fish to you and your community?
Have you noticed any changes in the numbers and type of native fish?
Have these changes affected you and your community?
Do you think these changes (if any) will affect your community in the future?
What are the most significant of these changes on you?
Do you know anything about the government’s proposed changes to the Menindee Lakes?
If so, what do you think about these proposed changes?
Is there anything you would change about these the proposed plans?
Menindee Lakes rely upon flows from the Darling River, what do you think about changes
to the river upstream of Menindee?
How do you think these issues should be addressed?
Broken Hill once relied upon Menindee Lakes for its main water supply, what do you think
about the solution of the pipeline from the River Murray?
Are you involved in any of the groups that the government has established to consult the
public?
Are you satisfied with the way your community has been consulted about changes to the
river and Menindee Lakes in the past?
how/why?
Do you think there is sufficient information provided about these changes and what they
will mean for the lakes?
Is there anything you would change about how your community was engaged in the
development of these changes?
Appendix 2
Table A2.1 Chi-squared goodness of fit tests for given probabilities between themes
discussed by interviewees. Sample sizes were sufficiently large for χ2 statistic to be
compared. Observations were classified independently.
Theme Residuals X-squared df p-value

Farmer Community Traditional
Owner
Cultural -2.83 -2.40 5.23 41.23 2 <0.01*
Ecological 2.4 -0.67 -1.68 9 2 0.01*
Gov. 0.4 1.34 -1.74 5.01 2 0.08
Management
Hydrological 1.43 0.30 -1.77 5.4 2 0.07
Social -1.11 4.27 -3.15 29.4 2 <0.01*
*p=0.05
Table A2.2 List of themes and issues, with code definitions and percents within transcripts.
Theme Issue Code (%) & Definition
Allocation of Water (3) - Allocations of water

through the Barwon-Darling WSP
Broken Hill pipeline (5) - The consolation process
and decision to construct the Broken Hill pipeline
Consultation Process (11) - Dissatisfaction with
the government consultation process for the
Menindee SDLAM project (e.g accessibility, what
parts of community were involved, whether
community knowledge/needs were incorporated
into decision making)
Evaporative Savings (2) - The proposed plan for
saving water by reducing evaporative losses for
Government
Government Management the lakes
Management
Holistic management (1) - Managing both
upstream and downstream systems as a whole
Information basis (3) - The information basis for
government management decisions
Institutional Complexity (2) - The complexity of
different scales of governance for the Lakes
Issues of trust (11) - Community distrust/trust of
government decision making and genuine
engagement with communities.
Public vs Private Gain (1) - Criticism that
government water reform resulted in private gains
at public cost (infrastructure subsidises)
Regulation of water use (1) - Regulation of
allocated water use by government
Water diversions (1) - Water diversions from the
Darling (Illegal)
Water Sharing Plan (2) - Changes to allocations of
water through the Menindee Lakes WSP
Changes to flooding events (1) - Changes in the
frequency of flooding events for the Darling and
Menindee Lakes
Changes to flows (4) - Changes to flows for the
Darling and Menindee Lakes
Water Quality (2) - Changes in water quality for
Hydrology
the Darling and Menindee Lakes
Connectivity (2) - Connectivity between different
parts of the Lower Darling
Evaporative Losses (2) - The evaporative losses
from the Lakes as serving an ecological function
for the Lower Darling.
Ecological Processes (2) - Reduced ability of
Menindee Lakes and Darling river to support
ecological processes in general
Aesthetic (1) - Changes to the aesthetic value of
the Darling River and Menindee Lakes.
Number of fish (3) - Reduced abundance of fish in
the Darling or Menindee Lakes over time.
Water
Types of fish (1) - Change in types of fish in the
Ecosystem
Darling or Menindee Lakes (reduced presence of
Services
Ecology locally important species i.e Golden Perch)
Fish Kill (2) - The series of fish kills at Menindee
in 2019/2020 in reference to flows
Other Ecological Changes (5) - Other ecological
changes witnesses in the Darling and Menindee
Lakes.
Ecosystem Services (3) - Changes to the
ecological services that the Menindee Lakes or the
Darling river provide to surrounding communities
(e.g water supply)
Activity (4) - Reduced access to sites on the
Darling and Menindee Lakes to connect and care
for country
Artistic (0) - Reduced access to artistic resources
Cultural from the environment (e.g. mussels shells)
Place based Education (1) - Ability to use sites to
practice place based education
Identity (1) - Existence and protection of
Barkandji cultural identity
Knowledge (3) - Lack of recognition and
incorporation of Barkandji knowledge in decision-
making.
Right to water (1) - Lack of cultural flows and
recognition of Barkandji customary rights to water
Sites (1) - Reduced access, protection and lack of
recognition of cultural heritage sites.
Spiritual (1) - No recognition and protection of
story places
Community Services (0) - Reduced community
services e.g. RTCs, local health clinics for
Menindee town.
Community Identity (3) - The role the Darling and
Menindee Lakes has in how the broader
Water community identifies itself
Ecosystem Community Health (4) - Aspects of the mental
Services and physical health of the community
(Con.) Employment (1) - Reduced local employment
opportunities.
Local Economic Activity (3) - Recued economic
activity in the area surrounding the Menindee
Lakes and Darling River (e.g fruit picking, local
Social
businesses closing)
Population Declines (0) - Declines in the local
populations for Menindee.
Recreation (4) - Changes to the usage of the
Menindee Lakes and the Darling for recreational
purposes e.g. fishing, swimming due to the
condition of the Lakes/River.
Social Cohesion (0) - Co-operation between
different parts of the community in engaging with
government consultation.
Tourism (2) - Reduced local tourism for the
Menindee lakes and the Darling with the
reduction in flows and flooding events.
Table A2.3 List of online survey questions, organised by theme with response types from
seven-point Likert scales and quantity.
Question Response (number responses) 18 total.
Water Have you noticed any environmental change A great deal (5)
Ecosystem to the Darling River and the Menindee lakes A lot (5)
Services while living in Menindee/Broken Hill?
How would you respond to the statement: Strongly agree (15)
“Changes to the management of Menindee Agree (2)
Lakes has degraded the environment” Strongly disagree (1)
How would you respond to the statement: Strongly disagree (17)
"Changes to the management of Menindee Disagree (1)
Lakes have benefitted my community"
How would you respond to the statement: Strongly agree (17)
"Management changes to Menindee Lakes Strongly disagree (1)
are likely to impact my community in the
future"
How important are native fish to you and Extremely important (18)
your community?
Have you noticed any changes in the Strongly agree (13)
numbers and types of native fish in your Agree (5)
area?
How important are waterbirds to your Extremely important (17)
community? Moderately important (1)
Have you noticed any changes in the Strongly agree (11)
numbers and types of waterbirds in your Agree (6)
area? Somewhat agree (1)
Government The government has future plans for Yes (11)
Management Menindee Lakes. Do you know about these No (7)
proposed changes to the Lakes?
(If Yes) Do you agree with these proposed Strongly disagree (6)
changes? Somewhat disagree (1)
Menindee Lakes rely upon flows from the Strongly disagree (13)
Darling River, do you agree with changes Somewhat agree (1)
that have been made to the river in the past?
Broken Hill once relied upon Menindee Strongly disagree (10)
Lakes for its main water supply. Do you Disagree (1)
agree with the solution of a pipeline from the Somewhat disagree (1)
River Murray to supply water for Broken Hill Strongly agree (4)
instead? Somewhat disagree (2)
"My community has been sufficiently Disagree (2)
consulted about changes to the Darling River
and Menindee Lakes in the past"
"The Government has provided sufficient Somewhat disagree (3)
information about changes to Menindee Disagree (2)
Lakes"
"there was significant information provided Disagree (3)
before comments from the community on Somewhat disagree (1)
these changes were sought out" Strongly agree (1)

Es 2022 13594

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Es 2022 13594

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Es 2022 13594

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright © 2023 by the author(s). Published here under license by the Resilience Alliance.

Scale, evidence, and community participation matter: lessons in effective and

Phase Time Significant policy Description Flow regime Reference

Theme Stakeholder group Interview quotes

Wallis, P. J., and R. L. Ison. 2011. Appreciating institutional

resources development (1890-1959 (pre-development), 1960-2008 (development), 2009-2020 (water

All 1890-1959 1960-2008 -8.12 5.29 1.53 0.12

1960-2008 2009-2020 2.86 10.00 0.28 0.77

Catchment Rainfall station Rainfall station number Data available

Condamine- Mitchell 063076 1892-2019

Dulacca 042010 1890-2015

Darling Ivanhoe 049019 1890-2016

Ivanhoe AD 049000 2000-2019

Gwydir Guyra PO 056016 1890-2019

Guyra Hospital 056229 1982-20191

Uralla 056034 1902-20192

Bundara 056006 1890-20153

Macquarie Bogan Binnaway 064013 1890-20194

Blackville 055006 1890-20195

Oberon 063063 1890-20196

Gulgong 062013 1882-20197

Sofala 063076 1893-20198

Namoi Nundle 055041 1891-20199

Weabonga 055172 1900-201910

Quirindi 055049 1890-201911

Paroo Hungerford 044181 1890-201912

Warrego Nive 044057 1890-201913

Morven 044050 1890-201914

Minnie Down 035190 1894-201915

Estimate Std. Error t-value Pr(>|t||) Model Fit Values

Intercept -116.81 316.07 -0.37 0.09 Adj. R² = 0.90 R² = 0.97

Threshold Flow rate Rationale

Estimate Std. Error t-value Pr(>|t|)

Cease to Intercept -1425.70 484.45 -2.94 < 0.01*

Period Period Estimate SE z value Pr(>|z|)

Functional Variable Estimate Std. Error Adjusted SE z value Pr(>|z|)

Functional Group Period Mean Total % Annual %

Total 1983-1988 14188 68 7.5

Theme Residuals X-squared df p-value

Theme Issue Code (%) & Definition

Allocation of Water (3) - Allocations of water

Question Response (number responses) 18 total.

You might also like