Media briefing: Fitzroy-Derby Water Plan

This document provides essential background, key issues, and context for journalists covering the Western Australian Government’s draft Fitzroy–Derby Water Resources Management Plan.

What is the Martuwarra Fitzroy River?

National Heritage Significance: The Martuwarra Fitzroy River is one of Australia’s largest and most intact free-flowing river systems. It was added to the National Heritage List in 2011 for its outstanding Indigenous cultural values.
Living Ancestral Being: For Traditional Owners, the Martuwarra is a living ancestral entity governed by First Law. It sustains culture, identity, community life, and subsistence food sources like Barramundi and Cherabin.
A Boom and Bust Hydrology: During the monsoonal wet season, the river expands up to 50 km wide, flooding vast plains. In the long dry season, surface flows stop, and deep groundwater aquifers feed critical river pools, springs, and refuges.
Global Ecological Refuge: The river supports the world’s most pristine tropical coastline, feeding coral reefs and mangrove forests. It is also the world's last global stronghold for the critically endangered freshwater sawfish.

What is the Draft Water Plan?

The Fitzroy–Derby Water Resources Management Plan (released for public consultation by the WA Department of Water and Environmental Regulation) sets the statutory rules for how water can be allocated, licensed, and monitored across the catchment and the Derby Peninsula.

Core elements of the draft plan:

Surface water rule: Formally locks in state policy prohibiting dams and new surface water extraction licences on the river and its tributaries.
Groundwater extraction: Sets volumetric extraction limits for regional aquifers (e.g., Wallal and Erskine systems).
Aboriginal Water Holding: Proposes setting aside approximately 25 gigalitres per year of groundwater for Native Title holders to support economic opportunities.
Governance proposals: Proposes establishing a Water Advisory Committee to guide future implementation.

Why This Plan Matters

A national precedent: Australia has a history of over-allocating major river systems before cumulative ecological impacts are fully understood, most notably in the Murray–Darling Basin. The Martuwarra represents one of the nation's last opportunities to get water management right before large-scale degradation occurs.
Groundwater threat: In monsoonal environments, groundwater is the subterranean life support system for dry-season survival. Pumping groundwater during dry months can take months or years to register in shrinking river pools and springs, creating delayed ecological collapse that is exceptionally difficult to reverse.
Regulatory and enforcement deficits: A 2025 WA Auditor General’s report revealed systemic weaknesses in state water monitoring and compliance. Journalists covering the plan must consider not just what rules are written on paper, but whether the state possesses the operational capacity on the ground to monitor extraction and enforce licence conditions.

What Traditional Owners Have Called For

Traditional Owners are calling for no surface water extraction, strict and enforceable limits on groundwater take, and genuine decision-making authority in water planning, licensing, monitoring and enforcement. They argue that advisory roles are not enough when decisions affect Country, culture and future generations.

Whilst the government has included some recognition of Traditional Owners in planning documents (e.g., acknowledging Aboriginal heritage values and intent to consider relevant Traditional Owner knowledge), many of the recommendations presented in 2025 focus on issues that determine whether the plan is protective in practice: enforceable groundwater limits, clear decision-making roles, access to technical information, cultural indicators, and the resourcing of monitoring, compliance and on-Country involvement.

Traditional Owners are calling for:

Strict, precautionary groundwater allocation limits that are backed by monitoring and review, not just modelling assumptions.
The creation of an Aboriginal Water Holding (AWH) with clear governance and clarity on whether water can remain in Country (not only be a tradable entitlement).
Shorter initial licence terms (e.g., five years) and staged licensing approaches, so that approvals can be tightened or reversed as impacts are observed.
Guarantees that Traditional Owners and Prescribed Body Corporates (PBC)s have timely access to technical reports and a meaningful role in assessment, monitoring and compliance activities.
Adequate funding for First Nations participation and on-ground monitoring, with concern that without resourcing the plan becomes “process without protection”.

Submission analysis

A detailed review of submissions from Traditional Owners, scientific bodies, conservation groups, and industry stakeholders reveals critical issues:

The "no dams" policy: Virtually all groups strongly support the prohibition of dams and further surface water extraction. Even many industry submissions appear to be focused on groundwater, off-stream storage or overland flow harvesting rather than advocating new dams in the Fitzroy itself. The dispute is increasingly about floodplain harvesting and off-stream capture rather than traditional dam proposals.
Groundwater limits: There is a near-unanimous rejection of the 40% of recharge limit as being too high and based on a "safe yield" concept that is no longer best practice.
Stronger governance and transparency: There was broad support for improved transparency, monitoring and public accountability in water management, including greater disclosure of licence conditions, water use data, monitoring results and decision-making processes. Multiple submissions cite the 2025 WA Auditor General’s report as proof that the state currently lacks the capacity to monitor and enforce licence conditions, making the plan's reliance on "adaptive management" risky.
Recognition of Traditional Owner involvement: Most stakeholders acknowledged the importance of Traditional Owner involvement in water planning and governance, although views differed significantly on the extent of authority that should be provided. Every Indigenous submission and several scientific ones (ANU, Griffith) demand shared decision-making or veto powers, rejecting the "advisory-only" status of the proposed committee.

Overview of submissions

Sector	Entity	Key concerns	Key recommendations
Indigenous	Kimberley Land Council (KLC)	Argues the plan undervalues Traditional Owners, adopts only a small proportion of Traditional Owner recommendations, and remains constrained by outdated legislation.	Adopt the full suite of Traditional Owner recommendations and strengthen Traditional Owner decision-making authority.
Indigenous	Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council (MFRC)	States the plan is not fit for purpose due to changes to catchment boundaries and inadequate treatment of groundwater science.	Recognise First Law principles and apply a more precautionary approach to groundwater management.
Indigenous	Walalakoo Aboriginal Corporation (WAC) & Gooniyandi Aboriginal Corporation (GAC)	Concerned about impacts on key aquifers and local groundwater resources. Reject the proposed Water Advisory Committee as lacking authority.	Replace advisory arrangements with structures that provide genuine decision-making power for Traditional Owners.
Conservation	Environs Kimberley (EK)	Argues the plan enables future large-scale water allocation in a poorly regulated environment. Raises concerns about existing groundwater extraction pressures around Derby.	Strengthen safeguards, improve regulation, and adopt a more precautionary approach to groundwater allocation.
Conservation	Conservation Council of WA (CCWA)	Concerned about impacts on threatened species and groundwater-dependent ecosystems. Argues ecological values are not treated as binding constraints.	Ensure ecological limits drive water allocation decisions.
Conservation	Pew Charitable Trusts	Supports the no-dams commitment but argues groundwater extraction decisions will determine the future condition of the river.	Use the plan to establish a stronger governance and protection framework.
Conservation	Beyond Gas Network	Concerned that public-interest provisions could allow water use for unconventional gas development.	Exclude or tightly regulate water use associated with fracking and unconventional gas projects.
Academic	Ward Conservation Lab (Griffith University)	Considers the proposed 40% recharge allocation limit ecologically unsound and highlights risks from large-scale groundwater drawdown.	Reduce groundwater extraction limits and better account for ecological risk.
Academic	Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists	Argues the proposed allocation framework does not satisfy the precautionary principle or adequately test climate-change scenarios.	Undertake additional sensitivity testing and apply a more precautionary approach.
Academic	Water Justice Hub (ANU)	Believes proposed extraction volumes are premature without adequate monitoring and governance.	Limit extraction to current exempt-use levels until comprehensive monitoring is established.
Other	Groundwater Consulting Services	Critical of current groundwater management and argues official recharge estimates are underestimated.	Reassess groundwater modelling and recharge assumptions.
Other	Recfishwest	Notes recreational fishing outcomes are largely absent from the plan despite the sector’s economic and social significance.	Include recreational fishing values and objectives within the plan.
Industry	Cotton Australia	Supports licensing of overland flow harvesting and argues controlled harvesting could support irrigated agriculture.	Develop a volumetric overland-flow licensing framework and trial a limited number of licences.
Industry	Kimberley Pilbara Cattlemen’s Association (KPCA)	Advocates for capture of high-flow events and overland flows to supplement water supplies.	Include a High Flow Capture provision allowing access to excess flows under defined conditions.
Industry	Gogo Station	Seeks a clear distinction between off-stream storage infrastructure and river damming. Supports harvesting wet-season flows into on-farm storages.	Provide investor certainty through clear guidance and flexible, real-time management rules.
Industry	Western Australian Water Users’ Coalition (WAWUC)	Supports overland flow harvesting as a means of enabling development away from rivers and floodplains.	Permit and encourage capture of suitable overland flows during the wet season.

Addressing Industry Claims

Industry claim	Reference	Reality
Water flowing to the ocean is wasted and should be captured for development.	Hancock Agriculture’s Gina Rinehart has argued that current licensing arrangements mean "99.9991 per cent of the water [runs] out uselessly into the Indian Ocean."	This framing ignores the role of river flows in sustaining floodplains, groundwater recharge, fisheries, mangroves, estuaries and cultural values. Water reaching the coast is not "wasted" - it is an essential part of how the river system functions.
Wet-season flows are surplus water that can be harvested without significant impacts.	PGA WA’s Digby Stretch has argued that greater use should be made of "extra surface water" and "surplus water" generated during large wet seasons.	Whether water appears abundant during floods is not the key question. Flood flows perform critical ecological functions, including maintaining wetlands, recharging aquifers and sustaining dry-season refuges.
Additional water extraction can occur without harming river wildlife or threatened species.	Multiple industry submissions argue that groundwater extraction, floodplain harvesting and high-flow capture can be undertaken sustainably if managed appropriately. Cotton Australia advocates overland-flow licensing, KPCA proposes a high-flow capture framework, and several industry stakeholders argue wet-season harvesting represents a lower-risk development pathway.	Mass sawfish deaths at Snake Creek demonstrates how sensitive the Martuwarra system is to changes in water availability and connectivity. Freshwater sawfish are internationally recognised as one of the river's most significant threatened species. In a system supporting endangered species, uncertainty should strengthen the case for caution rather than justify additional extraction.
Floodplain harvesting should be introduced through an overland-flow licensing framework.	Cotton Australia has recommended a "volumetric overland flow use policy" and proposed a trial of up to three licences of 6,000 ML each. The submission argues captured flows could be sufficient to "underwrite a viable irrigation industry".	Floodplain harvesting became one of the largest sources of growth in water extraction in the northern Murray–Darling Basin. Numerous submissions identified this as a major risk that could undermine the intent of the no-dams and no-new-surface-water commitments.
Pastoralists should be able to capture excess floodwater during high-flow events.	KPCA has proposed a "High Flow Capture provision" allowing pastoralists to "capture, store or divert a defined portion of excess water" once environmental and cultural requirements are met.	Defining "excess" water is not straightforward. High flows are often the mechanism through which floodplains, wetlands and groundwater systems are maintained. Water that appears surplus may still serve critical ecological and cultural functions.
Off-stream storages are different from dams and should be treated separately.	Gogo Station has requested guidance "explicitly distinguishing offstream ring tank and on-farm storage infrastructure from in-channel structures" to provide investor certainty.	The key issue is not whether infrastructure is located within or outside a river channel. The critical question is how much water is intercepted and removed from the broader river and floodplain system.
Harvesting wet-season flows into on-farm storages is a lower-risk development pathway.	Gogo Station has argued that CSIRO identified wet-season harvesting into ring tanks as a "primary, lower-risk development pathway" for the catchment.	Several scientific submissions argued significant uncertainty remains about groundwater connectivity, floodplain processes and long-term ecological impacts. Many stakeholders contend the evidence does not yet justify large-scale water extraction.
Overland-flow capture should be encouraged to support agricultural development away from rivers.	WAWUC has argued that capture of overland flows "should be permitted and encouraged to facilitate agribusiness developments away from the river system and the floodplain."	Overland flows are often hydrologically connected to wetlands, floodplains and groundwater systems. Their capture can still alter river function and downstream environmental outcomes.
Science says 1,700 gigalitres of surface water is "sustainable" for extraction	Many industry groups have pointed to the 2018 CSIRO ‘Water resource assessment for the Fitzroy catchment’ report as evidence for why surface water extraction is a viable option for irrigators.	The CSIRO report was a broad resource assessment of physical limits, not an ecological or cultural endorsement of extraction. The Kimberley's monsoonal climate means that water flow is highly seasonal. Draining surface water during dry periods or early wet seasons would disrupt the natural flood pulses that local ecosystems rely on, turning the river into a series of stagnant, disconnected pools. Leading economist Professor John Quiggin discredited the report’s dazzling economic and employment projections as reliant on outdated input-output modelling that grossly overstates commercial benefits while ignoring the reality of local job markets.
Reduced access to water will have impacts on animal welfare in region.	Hancock Agriculture has claimed that cattle will unnecessarily and cruelly die" without surface water extraction during dry years.	This is a deeply disingenuous use of animal welfare to cover up a push for high-intensity, industrial-scale irrigation (such as growing water-guzzling cotton or fodder crops). If a station's stocking density is so high that it relies on draining a heritage-listed river to keep animals alive, that is a failure of corporate management and overstocking, not a failure of environmental policy. Private corporations should not be allowed to degrade a shared ecosystem to subsidise unsustainable business models.
Groundwater development can reduce reliance on surface water.	KPCA has argued that capture and use of overland flows can "reduce reliance on groundwater resources" and provide a complementary water source.	Many submissions focused on the reverse concern—that surface-water interception and floodplain harvesting can affect recharge processes and increase cumulative pressures on connected groundwater systems.
The plan's restrictions on surface water unnecessarily limit economic development, innovation and entrepreneurship in the Kimberley.	WAWUC has argued that restrictions on surface water provide "no incentive" and stifle innovation and entrepreneurship. It said the opportunity to explore how adaptive management could support new surface water allocations had been "effectively denied" by the plan. WAWUC also called for a streamlined process for surface water allocations and argued that access to water is a prerequisite for economic activity.	The draft plan does not prohibit economic development; it sets limits on new surface water extraction in recognition of the Martuwarra's ecological, cultural and social significance. Many Traditional Owner, scientific and conservation submissions argued that uncertainty about groundwater connectivity, ecological thresholds and cumulative impacts justifies a precautionary approach. The key question is not whether development occurs, but whether it can occur without compromising the river systems, wetlands, aquifers and cultural values that underpin the region's long-term prosperity.
Adaptive management can safely facilitate additional surface water allocations.	WAWUC has stated there was insufficient opportunity to explore "how adaptive management could be used to manage new surface water allocations in a manner that doesn't impact negatively on the cultural, social, or environmental" values of the catchment.	Adaptive management can help manage uncertainty, but it does not eliminate risk. A recurring theme across Traditional Owner and scientific submissions was that some impacts may only become apparent years after water extraction begins and may be difficult or impossible to reverse. The Murray–Darling experience demonstrates that monitoring and adaptive management are not substitutes for precaution where ecological and cultural values are at stake.
Submissions from members of the public should carry less weight than submissions from industry groups and local stakeholders with direct economic interests in the region.	WAWUC's Rob Hall has argued that industry submissions represented people with "actual skin in the game" and questioned "what weight is given to a large number of identical submissions versus single submissions that nearly always represent members." He also expressed concern that technical arguments from regional industry bodies could be overlooked.	Public consultation processes are designed to capture both expert evidence and community values. The 50,000 Australians who participated did so because the Martuwarra is recognised as a place of national environmental, cultural and economic significance. The scale of public participation demonstrates widespread concern about the future of one of Australia's last great free-flowing river systems. Large numbers of submissions do not replace technical evidence, but they are a legitimate expression of community expectations and should not be discounted simply because they are numerous.

Timeline of Key Events

60,000+ years: Traditional Owners care for the Martuwarra under Indigenous law.
1960s: The Camballin Barrage is built as part of the ill-fated Camballin Irrigation Scheme to divert water for irrigation. Although no longer operational, the physical concrete structure (about 2.6 metres high) remains in the riverbed, creating a physical wall that prevents fish from moving upstream.
August 2011: The River and floodplain are added to the National Heritage List for Indigenous cultural values.
November 2016: Traditional Owners from across the Kimberley release the Fitzroy River Declaration, expressing great concern at the extensive development proposals facing the River and its catchment.
March 2017: In the WA state election, Labor commits to protecting the River.
July 2017: Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Agriculture pushes for greater access to water from the River.
September 2017: Gogo Station proposal for mass water extraction is cancelled amidst widespread public opposition.
June 2018: The Martuwarra Fitzroy River Council is formed.
December 2018: 40 critically endangered sawfish are found dead in Bilna Creek, a tributary of the River, on Hancock Agriculture’s Liveringa Station.
December 2020: WA Government announce creation of a national park around the River, extending the Danggu Geikie Gorge National Park north to Dimond Gorge.
May 2021: In response to a government discussion paper on water management, more than 43,000 people provide submissions opposing large-scale water extraction.
October 2023: WA Government releases policy including a commitment to no damming, no new surface water licences, a precautionary approach and stronger Traditional Owner involvement in planning.
November 2023: 17 sawfish are found dead in Blina Creek, a tributary of the River, on Hancock Agriculture’s Liveringa Station.
September 2025: Traditional Owners present 61 recommendations for the Fitzroy–Derby water plan, including stronger governance and enforceable limits.
March-June 2026: WA Government release Draft Fitzroy-Derby Water Management Plan for public consultation, resulting in 50,000 people taking part, with an overwhelming majority in favour of increased protections for the River.

Media Assets

The following assets are available for use by media outlets:

Photos and high-resolution footage of the Martuwarra and surrounding catchment.