Local Action: The Key to the Murray-Darling Basin Recovery

The Murray–Darling Basin Plan, launched in 2012 with a $13 billion investment, was designed to restore and protect Australia’s largest and most vital river system while balancing environmental, agricultural, and community needs. Over the years, the plan has focused on recovering water for the environment and promoting sustainable water management. But according to a more work is urgently needed, especially at the local level.

The MDBA’s most comprehensive report card to date reveals that while the health of the river system has improved compared to pre-plan conditions, serious issues remain. Native fish populations are in poor condition in 19 of the 23 catchments, and ecological degradation persists in areas where restoration has lagged. Issues include damaged floodplain vegetation, invasive species, and disrupted aquatic habitats due to re-engineered river channels.

These findings pave the way for the 2026 review of the Basin Plan, which will shape future water and environmental policy. Among the voices calling for change is Professor Seth Westra, a member of the Environment Institute and a long-time researcher of the Murray–Darling Basin. He advocates for shifting the focus from national water targets to local restoration efforts in his recent article for

Despite these challenges, the Basin Plan has achieved some important successes:

• Over 2,069 gigalitres of surface water have been recovered for environmental use

• Around 28% of previously diverted water now supports ecological health.

• Ecological decline has been halted at several critical sites.

However, these gains are not enough to secure long-term resilience, particularly as climate change intensifies pressures. By mid-century, streamflow in the Basin could drop by 20–30%, and even by up to 50% in some rivers. More frequent and extreme weather events further threaten the stability of ecosystems.

The MDBA report also critiques the current over-reliance on centralized, rigid policy frameworks that have struggled to adapt to local ecological needs. Experts stress that the Basin is not just a water delivery system—it’s a living, complex ecosystem made up of interconnected habitats, species, and human communities. Restoration must be localized and collaborative.

Recommended local actions include:

• Revegetating riparian zones

• Removing or modifying barriers to native fish movement

• Installing fish screens on irrigation pumps

• Retiring unsustainable or sensitive farmland

While local efforts can be more expensive, they offer long-term ecological and community benefits. Meanwhile, water buybacks—though the most cost-effective form of recovery are politically controversial and limited in scope.

The upcoming 2026 Basin Plan review presents a critical opportunity for reform. Experts propose:

• Setting clear environmental outcome targets

• Adopting ecosystem accounting tools to measure success

• Supporting local research and community monitoring

Without meaningful adaptation, risks include stalled restoration, overstretched government agencies, and declining public trust. A hybrid model, combining central oversight with local initiative, offers the most promising way forward.

Australia can also draw lessons from international efforts like the Colorado River restoration in the U.S. and China’s Yellow River Basin, where government support and community engagement have led to success.

The Murray–Darling Basin Plan report card sends a strong signal: while water recovery has helped, it is not enough. True ecological recovery requires empowering local communities, including landholders, Traditional Owners, and environmental researchers—to restore and protect the Basin’s future.

With collaboration, leadership, and science, the Basin can still become a global model for sustainable water management.