Technical Information
Are our groundwater resources being sustainably used?
This document describes the sources of information, advice, methods, indicators and data processing procedures used to develop the reports. Reliability of data, as well as metadata attributes, are also described.
State NRM Plan Guiding Target:
Maintain the productive capacity of our natural resources.
State NRM Plan Representative Measure:
Proportion of SA’s water resources managed within sustainable limits, including trends in water use efficiency in irrigation areas.
Data collection period:
2002-13.
Expected frequency of reporting:
Annual.
Data sources:
1. Metered groundwater extraction data from the Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (DEWNR), relative to sustainable limits outlined in water allocation plans from various Natural Resources Management (NRM) Boards.
Indicators used:
1. Proportion of prescribed groundwater resources that were used within established sustainable limits.
Methods of data collection and processing:
Trends are based on the proportion of prescribed resource that were used within sustainable limits – where limits have been established. This was presented by financial year and expressed as a percentage, calculated using:
=
Information is also included for prescribed areas that currently do not have a sustainable limit and/or metered extraction data. For these prescribed areas the information is based on best estimates of sustainable limits and current rates of extraction. Information from these areas was not included in the “trend” section of the report, but they are included in the “Where we are at” section.
Areas that currently do not have metered extraction data include the Central Adelaide Prescribed Wells Area and Western Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM region), the Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges Prescribed Water Resources Area (SA Murray-Darling Basin NRM region) and the Far North Prescribed Wells Area (SA Arid Lands NRM region). With the exception of the Far North, the other areas will have meter data available in the next few years.
The Barossa (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM region) and the Clare Prescribed Water Resources Areas (Northern and Yorke NRM region) do not have sustainable limits outlined in their current water allocation plans. The Central Adelaide Prescribed Wells Area (Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges NRM region) and Baroota Prescribed Water Resources Area (Northern and Yorke NRM region) have had technical investigations carried out to determine sustainable limits, but the water allocation plans have not been completed.
More detail of use in 2013 from each resource is contained in the table below. The colours indicate if a resource was used wi thin its limit (green indicating use within limit, red indicating use beyond limit) and the percentage of use.
Note: Noora prescribed area has not been assessed in these report cards because there is no licenced extraction other than fo r salt interception schemes. Prescription was due to a border agreement with Victoria.
The number of prescribed groundwater resources used within sustainable limit (where limits and extraction data are available) Total number of prescribed groundwater resources (where limits and extraction data are available)
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia. © Crown in right of the State of South Australia.
Assessments from the SASP Target 75 were not used, criteria used to assess these varied and often relied on qualitative assessments for non-prescribed areas. It was decided that it would be best to focus on areas which had limits and track the portion of those which were used within their limit. The ‘Limit’ of each prescribed area that was used to assess use in these reports, were taken from the Water Allocation Plans, which can be found on each NRM regions website.
NRM Region Prescribed Area, resource Amount of sustainable limit used
Eyre Peninsula
Musgrave, Polda lens 32%
Musgrave, Bramfield lens 6%
Southern Basins, Coffin Bay A lens 86%
Southern Basins, Wanilla lens 97%
Southern Basins, Lincoln Basin 1%
Southern Basins, Uley South lens 75%
Southern Basins, Uley Wanilla 3%
SA Arid Lands
Far North
Total use is unknown but estimates are considered to be sustainable
Northern and Yorke Clare
No sustainable limit, but current extractions are considered to be sustainable
Baroota Has sustainable limit but no WAP
SA Murray-Darling Basin
Marne Saunders, Sedimentary 52%
Marne Saunders, Fractured Rock 23%
Mallee 60%
Peake-Roby-Sherlock, Confined 64%
Peake-Roby-Sherlock, Unconfined 0%
Angas Bremer 31%
Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges
Total use is unknown but estimates are considered to be sustainable, however estimated demand may exceed the limit in
the Currency Limestone and Tookayerta Permian Management Zones
Adelaide and Mount Lofty Ranges
Northern Adelaide Plains 52%
Barossa
Currently no sustainable limit, but current extractions are considered sustainable
McLaren Vale 67%
Central Adelaide
No sustainable limit, but current extractions are considered to be sustainable
Western Mount Lofty Ranges
Total use is unknown but estimates are considered to be sustainable, however estimated demand may exceed the limit in
the Hindmarsh Tiers and Myponga Basins
South East
Lower Limestone Coast Unconfined 20%
Lower Limestone Coast Confined 14%
Padthaway Unconfined 48%
Padthaway Confined 0%
Tintinara-Coonalpyn Unconfined 30%
Tintinara-Coonalpyn Confined 27%
Tatiara Unconfined 83%
Tatiara Confined 82%
The Kangaroo Island and Alinytjara Wilurara NRM regions do not have any prescribed groundwater resources and were therefore not assessed in this report.
Trend and condition scores
Trends were stable based on the percentage of groundwater resources that were used within sustainable limits in the last 5 years (2009-13). If the annual rate of change was greater than 2 per cent, the trend was classified as getting better. If the annual rate of change was between 2 and -2 per cent, the trend was classified as stable. If the rate of change was less that 2 per cent, the trend was classified as getting worse. In the 2014 report, trends were classified as stable because there was no change between 2009- 13.
The ‘where we are at’ condition score assigned was ‘good’. All (100 per cent) of the resources were used within their sustainable limit. Other categories are fair and poor. Fair condition is assigned if 50 – 75 per cent of resources used within sustainable limit, poor condition if less than 50 per cent of resources are used within sustainable limit.
Future reporting measures:
The current report focuses on prescribed groundwater resources which have a sustainable limit established and can be
quantitatively assessed against this limit. Future reports could include further assessment of non-prescribed resources. Areas are prescribed based on risks to the resource (e.g. high use or monitoring indicated that conditions of resource were not stable {salinity concentration and groundwater levels}). Therefore, non-prescribed areas are considered to be at low risk of unsustainable use.
The accuracy of future reports depends on the availability of metered extraction data. If these data are not available, it will not be possible to determine if resources are being used within sustainable limits. This could prevent resources from being managed effectively, potentially putting resources at risk of over-extraction and degradation.
The following government agencies contributed to this report:
DEWNR.
The following non-government agencies contributed to this report:
None.
Key stakeholders:
DEWNR, NRM Council, NRM Boards, agricultural landowners, water extraction licence holders, PIRSA, agricultural industry/technology groups, regional communities.
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia. © Crown in right of the State of South Australia.
Information reliability scoring:
Information is scored for reliability based on average scores given for information currency and applicability, and its level of spatial representation (Tables 1–3).
Table 1. Information currency Reliability Criteria
5 Information up to 3 years old 4 Information up to 5 years old 3 Information up to 7 years old 2 Information up to 10 years old 1 Information >10 years old
Table 2. Applicability of the information Reliability Criteria
5 All data based on direct indicators of the measure 4 Most data based on direct indicators of the measure 3 Most data based on indirect indicators of the measure 2 All data based on indirect indicators of the measure 1 Data are based on expert opinion of the measure
Table 3. Spatial representation of information (sampling design) Reliability Criteria
5 Information is collected from across the whole region/state (or whole distribution of asset within the region/state) using a stratified sampling design
4 Information is collected from across the whole region/state (or whole distribution of asset within the region/state) using a sampling design that is not stratified
3 Information is collected from an area that represents less than half the spatial distribution of the asset within the region/state
2 Information is collected from an area that represents less than 25% the spatial distribution of the asset within the region/state
1 Information is collected from an area that represents less than 5% the spatial distribution of the asset within the region/state or spatial representation unknown
Based on tables 1, 2 & 3 above, respectively, the information relating to prescribed groundwater resources sustainable extraction limits presented in this report has a reliability score of (5+4+4)/3 = 4.3 (Very good).
This report is linked to the following report cards/snapshots:
1. Are the water levels and salinity of our prescribed groundwater resources improving?
2. Are surface water resources being used within allocated limits?
3. Is irrigation efficiency improving in agricultural areas?
4. Is the water quality of the River Murray that we drink, swim in and irrigate with improving?
5. Is the ecological condition of the River Murray improving?
6. What is the ecological condition our rivers, streams and drains?
7. Are water flows out the Murray Mouth flushing sufficient salt?
8. Are water flows and water quality of the River Murray good enough to support ecosystems?
9. How much of our stormwater and wastewater is recycled?
Metadata description:
Project/Dataset name: Groundwater use information. Data provided 2013.
Abstract/description Dataset is a summary of the status of the State’s prescribed groundwater resource use relative to the sustainable limits described in Water Allocation plans.
Data types Spreadsheet
Organisation/ DEWNR business area that
sponsors/holds/manages the data
DEWNR
Date range Date: 2001/02. Last update: 2012
Study area South Australia’s prescribed groundwater resources
Data format Interpreted reports
Data distribution rules Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Is the dataset source data (raw),
value-add data
(analysed/summarised) or final indicator/score data?
Value-add
Photo credit details:
Owner: DEWNR
Scientific literature referred to in the report:
Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources (2013) Water Assessment Reports. Government of South Australia.
Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia. © Crown in right of the State of South Australia.
The following information is for internal use. It will not be published.
Author/s:
Nicole Christiansen, Simone Stewart, Enys Watt (DEWNR Groundwater) … External reviewers:
To be determined
People/departments consulted:
Enys Watt, Simone Stewart, Steve Barnett and Dragana Zulfic (DEWNR Groundwater).
Information that was omitted and reason:
Key information gaps: