report - science delivery - colour - word 2010

Moonie River

Moonie River Model Results to Support Basin Plan

Requirements

Water Planning and Coastal Sciences

February 2019

Department of Environment and Science

ii

Prepared by

Queensland Hydrology

Water Planning and Coastal Sciences

Science and Technology Division


GPO Box 2454

Brisbane Qld 4001

© The State of Queensland (Department of Environment and Science) 2019

The Queensland Government supports and encourages the dissemination and exchange of its information. The

copyright in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC BY) licence

Under this licence you are free, without having to seek permission from DSITI, to use this publication in accordance with the licence terms. You must keep intact the copyright notice and attribute the State of Queensland, Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation as the source of the publication.

For more information on this licence visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

Disclaimer

This document has been prepared with all due diligence and care, based on the best available information at the time of

publication. The department holds no responsibility for any errors or omissions within this document. Any decisions made

by other parties based on this document are solely the responsibility of those parties. Information contained in this

document is from a number of sources and, as such, does not necessarily represent government or departmental policy.

If you need to access this document in a language other than English, please call the Translating and Interpreting

Service (TIS National) on 131 450 and ask them to telephone Library Services on +61 7 3170 5725

Citation

DES, 2019. Moonie River – Moonie River Model Results to Support Basin Plan Requirements, Queensland Department

of Environment and Science, Brisbane.

February 2019

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

Hydrology Project Number: 417 201.PR/3

iii

Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Current model 7

1.2 Proposed Model 7

1.3 Basin Plan Requirements 8

2 Moonie Source Model ........................................................................................................... 10

3 Model Scenarios .................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Without Development Scenarios 13

3.2 Current ROP/BDL Model (Scenario MI-0902A) 13

3.3 Intermediate Models 13

3.3.1 Current ROP 2018 (Scenario MI-1809A) 13

3.3.2 Restructured IQQM ROP (Scenario MI-1809J) 15

3.3.3 Proposed Source Water Plan with IQQM Inflows (Scenario MS-190207C) 16

3.4 Proposed Water Plan (Scenario MS-190207A) 16

4 Reconciliation with Murray–Darling Basin Plan Schedule 3 .............................................. 22

4.1 Current and Proposed BDL 22

4.2 BDL Differences Explained 24

5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 28

6 References ............................................................................................................................. 29

Appendix A – Flow Comparisons .............................................................................................. 30

Appendix B – Mass Balance....................................................................................................... 33

Upstream extent of Moonie River to Nindigully (417201B) 33

Nindigully (417201B) to Fenton (417204A) 38

Fenton (417204A) to Gundablouie (417001) 43


iv

List of tables

Table 1: Description of relevant model scenarios .......................................................................... 11

Table 2: Details underpinning model scenarios (with changes between scenarios bolded) ........... 12

Table 3: Change in Water Allocation Group nominal volumes (between BDL and 2018)............... 14

Table 4: Water Allocations movement (between BDL and 2018) ................................................... 15

Table 5: Transfer of Water Allocations (between BDL and 2018) .................................................. 15

Table 6: Unsupplemented Water Allocations in the Moonie Catchment ........................................ 17

Table 7: Long-Term Diversions from the Resource Operation Plan 2006 (MI-0902A) (1895–2009) ............................................................................................................................................ 22

Table 8: Long-Term Diversions from the Water Plan 2016 (MS-190207A) (1895–2009) ............... 23

Table 9: Comparison of water allocation group diversions under the current ROP/BDL (MI-0902A) and the proposed WP (MS-190207A) (decreases in red text and increases in blue text) (1895–2009) ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Table 10: Comparison of mean annual flow under the current ROP/BDL (MI-0902A) and the proposed WP (MS-190207A) (decreases in red text and increases in blue text) (1895–2009) ...... 24

Table 11: Long-Term Diversions for model scenarios (1895–2009) .............................................. 26

Table 12: Long-term modelled flow results (1895–2009) ............................................................... 27

Table 13: Scenario flow differences (decreases in red text and increases in blue text) (1895–2009) ............................................................................................................................................ 27

Table 14: Long-term mean annual diversions from watercourses under water allocations and licences: comparison of MI0902A, MI-1809A and MS-190207A (1895 to 2009) ............................ 28

Table B.1: Annual mass balance for proposed WP model (MS-190207A) to Nindigully (417201B) 33

Table B.2: Annual mass balance for proposed WP model (MS−190207A) from Nindigully (417201B) to Fenton (417204A) .................................................................................................... 38

Table B.3: Annual mass balance for proposed WP model (MS−190207A) from Fenton (417204A) to Gundablouie (417001) .............................................................................................................. 43


v

List of figures

Figure 1: Zones in the Moonie Water Management Area (QG 2019)............................................. 16

Figure A.1: Comparison of modelled flow at Flinton (417205A) – without development scenarios for previous (MI-0033B) and updated (MS-190207B) calibration ....................................................... 30

Figure A.2: Comparison of modelled flow at Nindigully (417201B) – without development scenarios for previous (MI-0033B) and updated (MS-190207B) calibration .................................................. 31

Figure A.3: Comparison of modelled flow at Fenton (417204A) – without development scenarios for previous (MI-0033B) and updated (MS-190207B) calibration ....................................................... 32


vi

Glossary

BDL Baseline Diversion Limit

CEWH Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder

MI Moonie IQQM

MS Moonie Source

ROP Resource Operations Plan

SDL Sustainable Diversion Limit

WAN Water Allocation Number

WMA Water Management Area

WP Water Plan

WRP Water Resource Plan


7

1 Introduction

The Moonie Model was developed by using Source Model as a platform. A detailed background to

the data used, methodology, calibration and validation of the model development is documented in

the Moonie River calibration report (DSITI 2016).

1.1 Current model

In preparing a water resource plan (WRP) and a resource operations plan (ROP) under the

Water Act 2000 (Qld), Queensland develops a hydrologic model to test management scenarios.

The current plans, viz. the Water Resource (Moonie) Plan 2003 (current WRP) and the Moonie

Resource Operations Plan February 2006 (current ROP), use the Integrated Quantity Quality

Model (IQQM) for the catchment models.

The current ROP model for the Moonie River also forms the basis for the audited Cap model which

supports Cap Reporting requirements under the Murray–Darling Basin Agreement and in the

transition to the Basin Plan Section 71 reporting. Note that the current ROP and Cap models use

different simulation periods but are otherwise the same.

1.2 Proposed Model

Queensland has developed a new model for the Moonie River as part of the review of the current

WRP and ROP and for the Water Plan (Border Rivers and Moonie) package being developed to

comply with Basin Plan requirements. This new model differs from the current model on the

following points:

Updated Methodology – Queensland has updated the model methodology based on the

learnings from previous model builds to improve the robustness of the model. This update

has come from model application, internal and external audits and developments external

to technology (DES 2018a). A key driver for this update was so that the model could be

used to determine the sustainable diversion limit (SDL) and the baseline diversion limit

(BDL) consistent with the Basin Plan requirements i.e. Chapter 10 and Position Statement

3 C Method for Determining Take.

Better Data – With every review more data becomes available. This is particularly

significant in the case of the Moonie where a new streamflow gauge at Flinton has provided

the capacity to better understand and simulate the flows in the stream. This is addressed in

the Moonie calibration report (DSITI 2016).

Overland Flow has been removed from the model as the information supporting this was

poor. When reliable information becomes available as Overland Certification occurs in the

catchment, it will be reflected in an updated version of the model.

Waterholes have been removed from the model as the information supporting this was

poor.


8

It should to be noted that there were changes to the water allocations between the new and current

models to reflect the transfer/sale of water allocations (in the period from current BDL to 2018).

The flow management/threshold of access conditions have been kept consistent for water

allocations, and any changes to water allocations were confirmed to have no influence on the Cap

model. This is demonstrated in Section 4.

1.3 Basin Plan Requirements

The Basin Plan prescribes requirements that Queensland needs to address to meet accreditation.

The key requirements that need to be addressed by the model are:

1. BDL – Baseline diversion limit of an SDL resource unit. The Baseline diversion limits are

determined based on development conditions as specified in Schedule 3 of the Basin Plan.

In general, the BDL is a sum of:

take from water courses

take from regulated river

take by floodplain harvesting

take by commercial plantation

take from basic rights.

The model provides a component of the take identified in Schedule 3 as the long-term

annual average limit on the quantity of water that can be taken from the watercourse and

from regulated rivers. The other forms of take are considered in the Water Accounting

Methods Report (DNRM 2019, in preparation).

2. SDL – Sustainable diversion limit of the Water Resource Plan area. The SDL is the long-

term average sustainable diversion limit from a SDL resource unit as defined in Schedule 2

and 4 of the Basin Plan. Clause 10.10 of the Basin Plan specifies that the Water Resource

Plan must set out the method for determining the maximum quantity of water that the plan

permits to be taken for consumptive use during a water accounting period. This method

may include modelling. For the Moonie SDL resource unit, Queensland prepared the

Source Model to meet this requirement. As there are no SDL adjustment measures

proposed for the Moonie, the difference between BDL and SDL is achieved by

Commonwealth water recovery. To simulate SDL in the model, the Commonwealth’s water

entitlements are treated as inactive (i.e. not used for consumptive take).

3. Annual Actual Take – Determination of annual actual take must be specified. As per clause

10.15 of the Basin Plan, the determination of the quantity of water, actually or estimated,

taken for the consumptive use by each form of take from each SDL resource unit will be

determined after the end of a water accounting period. The method used to estimate the

quantities should be same as used to determine BDL and SDL.

4. Environmental Water – Determination of the environmental water requirements of

environmental assets and ecosystem functions. Clause 8.51, sub-section (1) and (2) of the

Basin Plan list a number of measures to determine the environmental water requirements

of an environmental asset and states that a method to estimate them may include a

conceptual model. The Moonie River has a relatively intact flow regime with only minor

impacts. Existing environmental water recovered as part of the Water for the Future

program will assist in further protecting the existing flow regime.


9

5. SDL Adjustment Proposals – Models are an important tool for evaluating the SDL

adjustment proposals. Chapter 7 of the Basin Plan states that the Authority can propose

adjustments to the surface water SDLs if certain additional changes in infrastructure are

proposed through the implementation of ‘supply measures’ and ‘efficiency measures’.

Currently there are no SDL Adjustment Proposals in the Moonie. There may be a

redistribution of the Northern Basin shared reduction under Chapter 7 of the Basin Plan,

which could change the SDLs for each resource unit. However, this would be achieved by

Commonwealth water recovery, which is reflected in the model.

Sections 10.22, 10.49 and 10.50 of the Basin Plan specify requirements that the WRP package

should meet:

a) Section 10.22 states that a water resource plan must describe what was done to

comply with the requirements mentioned in Part 4, Chapter 10 of the Basin Plan.

b) Section 10.49 states that:

A water resource plan must be based on the best available information

The water resource plan must identify and describe the significant sources of information on which the water resource plan is based.

c) Section 10.50 states that:

“A water resource plan must identify any significant method, model or tool that has been

used to develop the water resource plan”.

This report covers the requirements outlined above.


10

2 Moonie Source Model

The Moonie River model was developed using the Source Model as a platform (Carr & Podger

2012; Welsh et al. 2012). A detailed background to the data used, methodology, calibration and

validation of the model development is documented in the Moonie calibration report (DSITI 2016).


11

3 Model Scenarios

In this section, the model scenarios are described. There were multiple scenarios run to

demonstrate the differences in model output between the current ROP and the proposed WP

models. A description of the model scenarios can be found in Table 1. The information

underpinning these models and the step changes between the scenarios is shown in Table 2.

All of the model scenarios cover a period greater than the Basin Plan (1895–2009) so they are able

to fulfil the Plan’s requirements. All results in this report are provided for the Basin Plan period.

These scenarios were used to simulate the extractions (BDL) under the Resource Operation Plan

for the Moonie River System.

The model simulated the Water Allocations (including those held by the Commonwealth

Environmental Water Holder (CEWH)) and Unallocated Water.

Table 1: Description of relevant model scenarios

Case

Number Model Name Description

Simulation

Period

Without Development

MI-0033B Without

Development IQQM

A scenario with infrastructure and extractions for

consumptive use removed from the model to

simulate the predevelopment flows.

1889–2011

MS-190207B Without

Development Source

A scenario with infrastructure and extractions for

consumptive use removed from the model to

simulate the predevelopment flows.

1889–2015

With Development

MI-0902A Current ROP/BDL

This model was developed in IQQM to underpin the

first generation Water Resource Plan and was later

extended to cover the Basin Plan Period. The model

corresponds to the Resource Operation Plan (2006).

This model has Moratorium (BDL) entitlements.

1889–2009

MI-1809A Current ROP 2018 Same as MI-0902A but with entitlements current as

at June 2018. 1889–2009

MI-1809B Routing Correction MI-1809A with routing correction implemented. 1889–2009

MI-1809G Without OLF, S&D

and waterholes

MI-1809B with all OLF, S&D and waterholes

removed. 1889–2009

MI-1809I Current calibration

structure

MI-1809G with standardisation of reach structure. 1889–2009

MI-1809J Restructured IQQM

ROP

MI-1809I with routing and losses reflecting new WP

model. 1889–2009

MS-190207C Proposed Water

Plan – IQQM inflows

Proposed WP model (MS-190207A) with inflows from

IQQM model. 1889–2009

MS-190207A Proposed Water

Plan

This model was developed in Source to underpin the

second generation Water Resource Plan

representing all of the Water Allocations and licences

in the basin. The model corresponds to the Resource

Operation Plan (2016).

1889–2015


12

Table 2: Details underpinning model scenarios (with changes between scenarios bolded)

Case

Number

Model

Name Platform Entitlements

Routing/ Losses

/Model Structure Inflows

Without Development

MI-0033B Without

Development IQQM None

Current ROP

(previous calibration)

Current ROP

(previous calibration

plus extension)

MS-190207B Without

Development Source None

Proposed WP

(current calibration)

Proposed WP

(recalibrated

inflows)

With Development

MI-0902A Current

ROP/BDL IQQM

BDL

Entitlements

Current ROP


Current ROP


plus extension)

MI-1809A Current ROP

2018 IQQM 2018

Current ROP


Current ROP


plus extension)

MI-1809B Routing

Correction IQQM 2018

Current ROP with

routing correction


Current ROP


plus extension)

MI-1809G

Without OLF,

S&D and

waterholes

IQQM 2018

Current ROP with

routing correction,

without OLF, S&D

and waterholes


Current ROP


plus extension)

MI-1809I

Current

calibration

structure

IQQM 2018

Previous calibration

routing and losses

with current

calibration structure

Current ROP


plus extension)

MI-1809J

Updated

routing,

losses

IQQM 2018 Proposed WP


Current ROP


plus extension)

MS-190207C

Proposed

Water Plan –

IQQM

inflows

Source 2018 Proposed WP


Current ROP


plus extension)

MS-190207A Proposed

Water Plan Source 2018

Proposed WP


Proposed WP

(recalibrated

inflows)


13

3.1 Without Development Scenarios

A without development case was simulated to describe the flow regime without any instream

extraction across the river basin for both the original calibration (MI-0033B) and the recalibration

(MS-190207B). The flows from these scenarios were used as the baseline for evaluating the effect

of various development scenarios on streamflow.

3.2 Current ROP/BDL Model (Scenario MI-0902A)

This model was developed in IQQM to underpin the first generation Water Resource Plan and was

later extended to cover the Basin Plan Period. The model corresponds to the Resource Operation

Plan (2006). This model has Moratorium (BDL) entitlements.

3.3 Intermediate Models

There are significant differences between the diversions in the current ROP model (MI-0902A) and

the proposed WP model (MS-190207A). To explain the source of these differences, a number of

intermediate models were developed. They are described below.

3.3.1 Current ROP 2018 (Scenario MI-1809A)

The proposed WP model (MS-190207A) includes entitlements current as at June 2018, as

opposed to the Moratorium (BDL) entitlements reflected in the current BDL/ROP model (MI-

0902A). As water allocations were transferred and/or moved modelling was undertaken to ensure

there was no change to Moratorium diversions. That is, while there has been movement/transfer of

allocations, there is no difference in the overall extracted volume for the Moonie Water

Management Area (WMA). Hence, the results for this model are equivalent to the ROP/BDL model

(MI-0902A). This is demonstrated in Section 4. The changes in water allocations between the

current ROP and the proposed WP are shown in Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 below.


14

Table 3: Change in Water Allocation Group nominal volumes (between BDL and 2018)

Water Allocation Group

Nominal Volumes (ML)

Current ROP (MI-0902A)

Proposed WP (MS-190207A)

WAG – K 1,263 1,263

WAG – L 1,143 787

WAG – I 12 12

WAG – H 799 637

WAG – G 3,010 182

WAG – F 720 1,908

WAG – E 126 1,226

WAG – D 3,658 5,816

WAG – C 6,626 6,626

WAG – B 11,311 11,311

Unallocated 1,100 0

Total 29,768 29,768


15

Table 4: Water Allocations movement (between BDL and 2018)

Water Allocation Number

Moonie Water Management Area Zone



04 Zone H Zone F

07 Zone G Zone F

08 Zone G Zone D

09 Zone G Zone D

30 Zone L Zone L and Zone F (equally)

34 Unallocated Zone E

Table 5: Transfer of Water Allocations (between BDL and 2018)

Transfer




Nominal Volume (ML)


Nominal Volume (ML)

1 23 2,832

5001 (CEWH) 760

5002 2,072

2 24 11,279

5005 (CEWH) 749

5006 10,530

3 30 712

5003 356

5004 356

4 Unallocated 1,100 34 (CEWH) 1,100

3.3.2 Restructured IQQM ROP (Scenario MI-1809J)

The conceptual structure of the model has been changed to better reflect both the water plan and

the standardised model/reach structure used for other models in the state. Under the rules of the

current and proposed planning instruments (ROP and WP), water allocations can be moved

anywhere within zones. To be consistent with the water plan, the water allocations are now

modelled at the downstream end of the zones (to account for potential movement of the


16

allocations). Further, overland flow and waterholes have been removed from the proposed WP

model as the information supporting them is poor. The losses and routing have also been updated

in the model. An IQQM model reflecting this structure, routing and loss update was developed to

provide direct comparison to the current ROP. This model runs with current ROP flows.

3.3.3 Proposed Source Water Plan with IQQM Inflows (Scenario MS-190207C)

Once the proposed Source WP model was developed, it was run with inflows from the current ROP

model. This allowed direct comparison with the restructured IQQM model (MI-1809J). The changes

between these two models reflects the platform differences between IQQM and Source.

3.4 Proposed Water Plan (Scenario MS-190207A)

The proposed WP model includes entitlements current to June 2018 and recalibrated inflows,

routing and losses. There is no significant water infrastructure of note in the catchment. Similarly,

there is no Water Supply Scheme, high priority demand or medium priority demand in the Moonie

River System.

The unsupplemented water allocations in the model are presented in Table 6 (and in the Moonie

River Entitlement Spreadsheet (DES 2018b)). The zones for these water allocations are shown in

Figure 1. The crop model was not utilised in the new model as the water availability and individual

water allocation/licence conditions control access. The water allocations are represented with no

infrastructure limit, an annual volumetric limit and flow conditions (where specified).

Figure 1: Zones in the Moonie Water Management Area (QG 2019)


17

Table 6: Unsupplemented Water Allocations in the Moonie Catchment

Water

Allocation

Number

Nominal

Volume

(ML)

Volumetric

Limits

(ML/year)

Max Rate

for Taking

Water

(ML/d)

Flow Conditions Special Conditions

Moonie Zone K

28 479 1,000 120 475.2 ML/day passing flow at Moonie River–Parrie Moolan Ck

Junction

Nil

29 784 1,700 120 43.2 ML/day passing flow at the point of take

Water taken under the authority of this water

allocation must not be stored unless the water is

being stored in the notified storage works as

described under Overland Flow Works Notification

Acknowledgement 183950 & 183951 and Works

Reference 17706 &17709.

Moonie Zone L


Water can be taken when 43.2 ML/day passing flow

at the point of take when there is 172.8 Ml/day

passing flow in the Moonie River at the junction with

Hayes Creek.


Water can be taken when 129.6 ML/day passing

flow at the point of take when there is 172.8 Ml/day

passing flow in the Moonie River at the junction with

Hayes Creek.

32 18 36 2.2 Nil Nil

Moonie Zone I

26 12 24 2.2 Nil Nil

Moonie Zone H

01 48 96 2.2 Nil Nil

02 284 950 120 86.4 ML/day passing point of take Nil

03 47 100 7.3 25.9 ML/day passing point of take Nil

05 145 400 21.6 86.4 ML/day passing point of take Water taken under the authority of this water allocation must not be stored unless the water is


18

Water

Allocation

Number

Nominal

Volume

(ML)

Volumetric

Limits

(ML/year)

Max Rate

for Taking

Water

(ML/d)


being stored in the notified storage works as described under Overland Flow Works Notification Acknowledgement 181837 and Works Reference 15761 & 15762.


Moonie Zone G


Moonie Zone F

04 162 430 64.8 1,200 ML/day passing point of take Nil

07 670 2,100 86.4 600 ML/day passing point of take Nil

11 240 480 7.3 Nil Nil

12 480 1,000 120 475.2 ML/day passing at Moonie River–Parrie Moolan Creek

Junction

Water taken under the authority of this water

allocation must not be stored unless the water is

being stored in the notified storage works as

described under Overland Flow Works Notification

Acknowledgement 183858 and Works Reference

17587 & 17588.

5003 356 1,300 60 700 ML/day passing flow at the point of take Nil

Moonie Zone E

13 60 120 12.1 Nil

When there is no flow in the Moonie River, taking

water under this water allocation is prohibited

whenever the water level in the waterhole is less

than 1.77 metres below the level at which the

waterhole would normally overflow or whenever the

water level in the waterhole at the pump site is

higher than 0.1 metre when the waterhole would

normally overflow.

14 66 180 3.9 Nil Nil


19

Water

Allocation

Number

Nominal

Volume

(ML)

Volumetric

Limits

(ML/year)

Max Rate

for Taking

Water

(ML/d)


34 1,100 1,415 86 43 ML/day passing flow at point of take Nil

Moonie Zone D

08 1,079 2,200 80 1,200 ML/day passing point of take Nil

09 1,079 2,200 80 1,200 ML/day passing point of take Nil

15 120 240 5.6 Nil

Taking water under this water allocation is

prohibited when water level in the weir pool of water

licence 49297Q is equal to or more than 2.9 metres

below the design crest level.

16 72 144 5.6 1,000 ML/day passing flow at Warrie Rd crossing

When there is no flow at the Warrie Road crossing

water can be taken from the waterhole until water

level in the waterhole is 1.6 metres below at which

the waterhole would normally overflow.

17 1,356 4,000 120 1,000 ML/day passing flow at Warrie Rd crossing

When there is no flow at the Warrie Road crossing

water can be taken from the waterhole until water

level in the waterhole is 1.6 metres below at which

the waterhole would normally overflow.

18 1,822 5,000 120 500 ML/day passing flow at Warrie Rd crossing Nil

19 48 96 3.9 Nil Nil

27 240 480 34.6 Nil Nil

Moonie Zone C

20 1,207 1,500 520

When the passing flow at gauging station 417201B (Moonie River

at Nindigully) is greater than 1,035 ML/d, the maximum rate at

which water can be taken under the authority of this water

allocation is 520 ML/d. When the passing flow at gauging station

417201B (Moonie River at Nindigully) is less than 1035 ML/d, the

maximum rate and flow conditions at which water can be taken

under the authority of this water allocation is:

- Maximum rate of 130 ML/d at a passing flow of 255 ML/d.

- Maximum rate of 260 ML/d at a passing flow of 515 ML/d.

Nil


20

Water

Allocation

Number

Nominal

Volume

(ML)

Volumetric

Limits

(ML/year)

Max Rate

for Taking

Water

(ML/d)


- Maximum rate of 390 ML/d at a passing flow of 775 ML/d

21 1,473 3,970 86


at Nindigully) is greater than 500 ML/d, the maximum rate at which

water can be taken under the authority of this water allocation is

86 ML/d.

Nil

22 1,114 3,090 86


at Nindigully) is greater than 750 ML/d, the maximum rate at which


86 ML/d.

Nil

5001 760 2,131 71




allocation is 71 ML/d.

Nil

5002 2,072 5,809 192




allocation is 192 ML/d.

Nil

Moonie Zone B

5005 749 2,125 66.4

When the passing flow at the weir authorised by water licence

43220Q is greater than 1,500 ML/d, the maximum rate at which


66.4 ML/d.


43220Q is less than 1,500 ML/d, the maximum rate and flow conditions at which water

can be taken under the authority of this water allocation is:

- Maximum rate of 0.3 ML/d at a passing flow of 21 ML/d.







- Maximum rate of 49.8 ML/d at a passing flow of 1,250 ML/d.

Nil

5006 10,530 29,875 933.6 When the passing flow at the weir authorised by water licence When there is no flow from the watercourse into the


21

Water

Allocation

Number

Nominal

Volume

(ML)

Volumetric

Limits

(ML/year)

Max Rate

for Taking

Water

(ML/d)


43220Q is greater than 1500 ML/d, the maximum rate at which


933.6 ML/d.


43220Q is less than 1500 ML/d, the maximum rate and flow

conditions at which water can be taken under the authority of this

water allocation is:








- Maximum rate of 700.2 ML/d at a passing flow of 1,250 ML/d.

storage, water can be taken from the storage

authorised by water licence 49231WQ at a rate of

43.2 ML/d until the level in the storage is 0.5 metres

below at which the weir would normally overflow

with all drop boards removed.

25 32 32 0.2 Nil Nil


22

4 Reconciliation with Murray–Darling Basin Plan

Schedule 3

The Basin Plan places limits on water extractions within the SDL resource units. The WP model

(MS-190207A) is proposed to estimate the available water, specifically the take from watercourses

for water allocations and licences. This will support the Water Accounting Methods proposed in the

Water Accounting Methods Report (DNRM 2019, in preparation) for the other forms of take and

classes of water access right. For the details on these proposed methods, see the report cited

above.

The following section provides the comparison and a breakdown of the long-term diversions

between the current BDL scenario (MI-0902A) and the proposed water plan scenario (MS-

190207A) using the Basin Plan simulation period 1895–2009.

4.1 Current and Proposed BDL

The BDLs for the current ROP/BDL (MI-0902A) and the proposed WP (MS-190207A) are shown in

Table 7 and Table 8, respectively. The overall reported take has increased by just over 3 gigalitres.

The proposed WP scenario has a 7.7 GL increase in unsupplemented diversion for the Moonie

WMA compared to the current BDL/ROP scenario (see Table 9). There is an increase in diversion

in all but one WAG. The proposed WP scenario also shows a significant increase in modelled

mean annual flow (see


23

Table 10). Modelled flow at Flinton has more than doubled, while modelled flow at both Nindigully

and Fenton have increased by more than 24 gigalitres.

The difference between the results of the two models is due to movement of entitlements, change

of conceptual structure of the model, change of modelling platform and significant improvements in

the methodology and data used. These changes and improvements to the model are described

further below (see Section 4.2).

Appendix B shows the modelled water balance for the proposed WP scenario (MS-190207A).

Table 7: Long-Term Diversions from the Resource Operation Plan 2006 (MI-0902A) (1895–2009)

Water Product Mean Annual Diversions (ML/a)

Take from watercourse – Unsupplemented Water Allocations 27,467

Take from watercourse – Stock Licences 44

Take from watercourse – Unallocated Water 1,100

Take from watercourse – Overland Flow 4,386

TOTAL 32,997

The Commonwealth held water was accounted for in the unallocated water at the time of the plan development. It was

later gifted to the Commonwealth.

Table 8: Long-Term Diversions from the Water Plan 2016 (MS-190207A) (1895–2009)

Water Product Mean Annual Diversions (ML/a)

Take from watercourse – Unsupplemented Water Allocations –

without flow conditions 1,614

Take from watercourse – Unsupplemented Water Allocations –

with flow conditions (Includes Commonwealth entitlements) 34,678

TOTAL 36,292

Table 9: Comparison of water allocation group diversions under the current ROP/BDL (MI-0902A) and the proposed WP (MS-190207A) (decreases in red text and increases in blue text) (1895–2009)


Current BDL/ROP

(MI-0902A)


BDL to Proposed WP Difference MI-0902A vs. MS-190207A

ML %

WAG – K 1,249 1,684 435 135

WAG – L 1,285 1,291 6 101

WAG – I 22 23 1 103

WAG – H 796 1,408 612 177

WAG – G 2,817 243 −2,574 9


24

WAG – F 782 2,732 1,950 349

WAG – E 256 1,528 1,272 597

WAG – D 3,754 6,890 3,136 184

WAG – C 4,149 7,433 3,284 179

WAG – B 12,358 13,061 703 106

Unallocated 1,100 0 −1,100 0

Total 28,567 36,292 7,725 127


25

Table 10: Comparison of mean annual flow under the current ROP/BDL (MI-0902A) and the proposed WP (MS-190207A) (decreases in red text and increases in blue text) (1895–2009)

Gauging Station Current

BDL/ROP (MI-0902A)


ROP to Proposed WP Difference MI-1809A vs. MS-190207A

ML %

Moonie River at Flinton (417205A)

34,495 82,325 47,830 239

Moonie River at Nindigully (417201B)

77,676 105,708 28,032 136

Moonie River at Fenton (417204A)

69,923 94,019 24,096 134

4.2 BDL Differences Explained

As shown above, there are differences between the diversions in the current BDL scenario (MI-

0902A) and the proposed WP scenario (MS-190207A). The results of the intermediate scenarios

(see Section 3.3 and Table 1) are summarised in this section to illustrate and describe the

differences between the current BDL and proposed WP scenarios (MI-0902A and MS-190207A).


26

Table 11 provides a comparison of the long-term diversions of the water allocation groups (WAGs)

between the model scenarios, and Table 12 shows the mean annual flow at three gauge locations

for the five scenarios.

The model has been updated in line with the current methodology adopted by Queensland

Hydrology. This varies from when the last model was developed in 1998.

Key differences between the two models and the change in diversions are listed below and the

long term diversion of the various scenarios from 1895 to 2009 are presented in Table 11:

1. Water Allocations were updated from 2009 to June 2018 to represent the trading that has

occurred since previous advice (MI-0902A 28.6 GL/annum to MI-1809A 28.6 GL/annum).

This demonstrates that changes in the last plan have not increased the overall take in the

Moonie.

2. Water Allocations 20, 21, 22, 5001 and 5002 were moved upstream of the routing and the

residual inflows in the Nindigully and Fenton gauge. This was because the water allocations

are located just downstream of Nindigully gauge. This representation of the water

allocations is better than the previous model which effectively placed the water allocations

at Fenton (MI-1809A 28.6 GL/annum to MI-1809B 30.5 GL/annum).

3. In the previous model there was a representation of the Overland Flow, Stock and

Domestic licences and waterholes based on stakeholder discussions. This is not the

methodology undertaken in other models as this information is not of a high quality. In the

development of the new model the Overland Flow, Stock and Domestic Licences and

waterholes were removed from the model in line with Queensland Hydrology modelling

methodology (MI-1809B 30.5 GL/annum to MI-1809G 33.8 GL/annum).

4. The model was updated to present the structure from the new model in the current IQQM

model. This quantifies the change in diversions due to the change in structure (MI-1809G

33.8 GL/annum to MI-1809I 33.8 GL/annum).

5. The model was updated to present the routing and losses from the new model calibration in

the current IQQM model. This quantifies the change in the updated routing and losses (MI-

1809I 33.8 GL/annum to MI-1809J 34.5 GL/annum).

6. The model was converted over to Source from IQQM with no other changes. This quantifies

the change in the model platform (MI-1809J 34.5 GL/annum to MS-190207C 33.9

GL/annum).

7. The Source model was then updated with the flows from the updated calibration. This

quantifies the change in the inflows (MS-190207C 33.9 GL/annum to MS-190207A 36.3

GL/annum).


27

Table 11: Long-Term Diversions for model scenarios (1895–2009)


MI-0902A

MI-1809A

MI-1809B

MI-1809G

MI-1809I

MI-1809J

MS-190207C

MS-190207A

WAG – K 1,249 1,351 1,351 1,466 1,453 1,453 1,431 1,684

WAG – L 1,285 955 955 1,092 1,094 1,094 1,092 1,291

WAG – I 22 22 22 22 23 23 23 23

WAG – H 796 640 641 1,058 1,288 1,288 1,293 1,408

WAG – G 2,817 202 202 213 194 194 199 243

WAG – F 782 1,874 2,051 2,157 2,161 2,161 2,230 2,732

WAG – E 256 1,386 1,386 1,432 1,427 1,427 1,431 1,528

WAG – D 3,754 5,753 5,753 6,322 6,343 6,888 6,635 6,890

WAG – C 4,149 4,153 6,430 6,915 6,681 7,255 7,142 7,433

WAG – B 12,358 12,304 11,688 13,148 13,090 12,756 12,442 13,061

Unallocated 1,100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 28,567 28,640 30,479 33,826 33,753 34,538 33,918 36,292


28

Table 12: Long-term modelled flow results (1895–2009)

Gauging Station


Current ROP 2018

(MI-1809A)

Restructured IQQM ROP (MI-1809J)

Proposed WP – IQQM Inflows

(MS-190207C)



34,495 36,249 41,010 42,332 82,325


77,676 77,365 78,519 78,644 105,708


69,923 69,640 76,988 78,310 94,019

Table 13: Scenario flow differences (decreases in red text and increases in blue text) (1895–2009)

Gauging Station

Entitlement Difference

MI-0902A vs. MI-1809A

Restructure Difference

MI-1809A vs. MI-1809J

Platform Difference

MI-1809J vs. MS-190207C

Inflow Difference MS-190207C vs.

MS-190207A

ML % ML % ML % ML %


1,754 105.1% 4,761 113.1% 1,322 103.2% 39,993 194.5%


-311 99.6% 1,154 101.5% 125 100.2% 27,064 134.4%


-283 99.6% 7,348 110.6% 1,322 101.7% 15,709 120.1%


29

5 Conclusion

The new model for the Moonie River has benefited from additional information that has become

available to update the legislative models that support the Queensland Water Resource Planning

process and Murray-Darling Basin Plan requirements. The models have benefited from:

New climatic and streamflow data

Updated methodology

Longer simulation period and better representation of climatic variability.

The high-level long-term annual diversions for the current ROP/BDL (MI-0902A), the ROP with

2018 entitlements (MI-1809A) and the proposed WP model (MS-190207A) are shown in Table 14.

CEWH entitlements are identified separately to assist with demonstrating how the SDL will be

achieved through Commonwealth water recovery in the Moonie SDL resource unit. For estimates

of the BDL and SDL, please refer to the Water Accounting Methods Report (DNRM 2019, in

preparation), as these estimates are comprehensive and include forms of take and classes of

water access right not considered in the IQQM models.

Table 14: Long-term mean annual diversions from watercourses under water allocations and licences: comparison of MI0902A, MI-1809A and MS-190207A (1895 to 2009)

Entitlement Type Current ROP/BDL

(MI-0902A) GL

ROP 2018

(MI-1809A) GL

Proposed WP

(MS-190207A) GL

CEWH entitlements only 0 2.3 2.8

Other entitlements 27.5 26.3 33.5

Unallocated 1.1 0 0

Total 28.6 28.6 36.3

As shown in Table 14, the proposed WP estimate of mean annual diversions is higher than the

current BDL/ROP estimate. As discussed above, this is due to restructuring of the model (to better

reflect the water plan), a change of modelling platform from IQQM to Source, and significant

improvements in data and calibration methodology. The new model demonstrates Queensland’s

commitment to improve on the previous model’s robustness and defensibility. All future models will

build on the new model and use the latest information, methodologies and technology available at

the time when the next new model is developed.


30

6 References

Carr, R, Podger, G. (2012), eWater Source — Australia's Next Generation IWRM Modelling

Platform, 34th Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium (December 2012), ISBN 978-1-

922107-62-6.

DES (2018a), Differences Between Source and IQQM Modelling, Queensland Department of

Environment and Science, Brisbane.

DES (2018b), Moonie River Entitlement Spreadsheet, filename: “Moonie entitlement

20160405_WA update 20180629_SV.xlsx”, Queensland Department of Environment and Science,

Brisbane.

DNRM (2006), Moonie Resource Operations Plan, Queensland Department of Natural Resources

and Mines, Brisbane.

DNRM (2019, in preparation), Water Accounting Methods Paper for Border Rivers and Moonie

Water Plan, Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane {still in

production}.

DSITI (2016), Moonie River Basin Source Model Calibration (Draft), Queensland Department of

Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Brisbane.

Queensland Government (2003), Water Plan (Moonie) 2003, Office of the Queensland

Parliamentary Council.

Queensland Government (2018), Water Plan (Border Rivers and Moonie) 2019 - Draft, Office of

the Queensland Parliamentary Council.

Welsh WD, Vaze J, Dutta D, Rassam D, Rahman JM, Jolly ID, Wallbrink P, Podger GM, Bethune

M, Hardy M, Teng J, Lerat J. (2012), An integrated modelling framework for regulated river

systems. Environmental Modelling and Software (2012), DOI 10.1016/j.envsoft.2012.02.022.


31

Appendix A – Flow Comparisons

Figure A.1: Comparison of modelled flow at Flinton (417205A) – without development scenarios for previous (MI-0033B) and updated (MS-190207B) calibration


32

Figure A.2: Comparison of modelled flow at Nindigully (417201B) – without development scenarios for previous (MI-0033B) and updated (MS-190207B) calibration


33

Figure A.3: Comparison of modelled flow at Fenton (417204A) – without development scenarios for previous (MI-0033B) and updated (MS-190207B) calibration


34

Appendix B – Mass Balance

Upstream extent of Moonie River to Nindigully (417201B)

Table B.1: Annual mass balance for proposed WP model (MS-190207A) to Nindigully (417201B)

Water Year

Tributary Inflows

(ML)

System Losses (ML) Unsupp

Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML) End of

Reach Effluent

Lag Link

Storage Routing

Link

1895 1,329 2 490 831 1 6 0

1896 45,275 19,292 8,172 12,696 3,918 1,197 0

1897 62,037 39,785 12,794 14,557 −3,917 −1,182 0

1898 87,186 54,500 14,259 18,384 11 32 0

1899 1,108 1 366 747 −2 −4 0

1900 3,802 15 1,133 2,500 58 96 0

1901 17,611 7,918 3,049 6,869 −70 −154 0

1902 92,046 64,308 9,744 17,550 188 256 0

1903 208,125 145,881 34,086 28,331 −94 −79 0

1904 71,254 47,612 6,969 16,888 −85 −129 0

1905 5,769 598 1,804 3,378 −3 −8 0

1906 128,145 90,914 15,554 21,609 20 47 0

1907 137,005 97,279 16,105 23,696 −22 −54 0

1908 9,797 5,378 1,375 3,027 3 15 0

1909 276,441 221,146 28,966 25,966 168 196 0

1910 352,835 289,837 35,057 28,331 −172 −218 0

1911 202,485 135,917 13,066 21,404 29,089 3,010 0

1912 238,009 194,105 29,327 28,331 −13,059 −695 0

1913 72,354 61,292 12,545 16,731 −15,989 −2,226 0

1914 705 2 298 556 −45 −108 0

1915 22,594 12,365 2,452 7,691 15 72 0

1916 463,617 390,675 44,686 28,331 −13 −61 0

1917 135,810 85,037 27,108 23,671 −1 −5 0

1918 1,265 87 167 1,002 1 8 0

1919 106,524 77,095 9,863 17,502 1,385 679 0


35

Water Year

Tributary Inflows

(ML)


Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML) End of

Reach Effluent

Lag Link

Storage Routing

Link

1920 371,815 296,259 40,426 28,331 5,707 1,092 0

1921 433,611 368,938 45,176 28,331 −7,092 −1,742 0

1922 866 1 251 634 1 −21 0

1923 141,951 90,972 25,370 25,613 −1 −3 0

1924 74,905 44,167 12,241 18,329 53 115 0

1925 75,895 57,463 3,887 14,656 −39 −72 0

1926 46,998 22,995 9,160 14,859 −5 −12 0

1927 112,479 76,623 15,003 20,822 9 22 0

1928 179,931 137,453 22,066 20,434 −11 −12 0

1929 3,793 227 1,100 2,464 3 −1 0

1930 36,633 19,320 6,046 11,209 23 35 0

1931 80,694 52,921 10,226 17,653 −32 −74 0

1932 1,369 1 493 845 7 24 0

1933 154,239 111,080 17,752 25,435 −6 −22 0

1934 5,847 639 1,727 3,510 −4 −25 0

1935 938 1 263 671 0 2 0

1936 423,376 360,992 35,359 26,975 9 42 0

1937 209,125 153,427 30,752 24,380 289 277 0

1938 112,292 73,691 16,882 22,263 −282 −261 0

1939 144,934 103,367 18,789 22,830 −12 −40 0

1940 222,857 174,860 20,639 27,340 3 15 0

1941 21,856 8,783 4,507 8,577 −2 −8 0

1942 45,499 24,439 8,182 12,870 1 5 0

1943 1,237 0 441 820 −4 −20 0

1944 147,758 95,014 26,023 25,767 544 410 0

1945 110,503 77,617 17,129 16,719 −545 −417 0

1946 144,226 113,777 8,650 21,766 5 29 0

1947 96,805 56,765 16,509 21,782 1,167 582 0

1948 12,385 4,061 4,062 6,014 −1,167 −584 0


36

Water Year

Tributary Inflows

(ML)


Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML) End of

Reach Effluent

Lag Link

Storage Routing

Link

1949 125,017 71,668 16,637 22,465 12,472 1,775 0

1950 721,070 632,552 74,430 28,331 −12,471 −1,771 0

1951 27,562 10,515 7,336 9,626 27 58 0

1952 716,348 634,474 53,633 28,331 −28 −62 0

1953 180,572 136,840 22,144 21,599 −2 −9 0

1954 560,662 471,807 60,442 28,331 22 59 0

1955 468,409 349,808 53,161 28,331 33,581 3,527 0

1956 68,369 70,386 16,846 18,281 −33,592 −3,551 0

1957 115,711 83,625 12,671 18,773 395 246 0

1958 338,597 276,236 35,122 27,943 −408 −296 0

1959 12,670 4,153 3,659 4,795 14 51 0

1960 4,112 64 1,238 2,861 −12 −39 0

1961 404,032 323,146 52,555 28,331 0 −1 0

1962 115,106 80,579 12,890 21,614 4 19 0

1963 1,439 5 412 1,027 −1 −4 0

1964 4,875 1,467 1,036 2,413 −6 −35 0

1965 2,252 0 668 1,529 9 46 0

1966 59,922 12,472 3,644 11,972 28,890 2,945 0

1967 88,846 76,960 21,098 22,629 −28,891 −2,950 0

1968 13,639 8,298 906 4,166 125 144 0

1969 150,140 117,797 12,789 19,864 −132 −177 0

1970 284,016 214,924 40,749 28,331 1 10 0

1971 28,244 10,933 7,503 9,800 1 6 0

1972 109,312 77,480 13,443 18,415 −3 −22 0

1973 170,644 142,776 11,417 16,441 1 9 0

1974 1,871 115 435 1,278 8 34 0

1975 346,512 285,590 32,640 28,331 −9 −40 0

1976 49,829 25,970 8,940 14,851 14 55 0

1977 5,561 1,125 1,466 3,000 −11 −19 0


37

Water Year

Tributary Inflows

(ML)


Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML) End of

Reach Effluent

Lag Link

Storage Routing

Link

1978 46,615 22,744 9,585 14,091 83 111 0

1979 1,362 97 564 906 −82 −122 0

1980 38,177 21,009 5,866 11,227 18 58 0

1981 140,554 110,081 9,135 21,443 −22 −82 0

1982 593,428 456,495 48,572 28,331 55,424 4,606 0

1983 350,530 317,878 59,785 28,331 −52,145 −3,319 0

1984 270,720 220,266 32,594 22,399 −3,276 −1,263 0

1985 8,283 3,019 1,825 3,460 −3 −18 0

1986 13,979 4,861 3,261 5,788 15 54 0

1987 491,009 401,007 61,661 28,331 3 6 0

1988 108,184 63,955 22,856 20,993 187 193 0

1989 85,510 54,936 14,196 16,594 −116 −100 0

1990 13,750 5,759 2,996 5,185 −79 −112 0

1991 9,434 2,563 2,620 4,289 −8 −30 0

1992 3,293 699 622 1,953 4 16 0

1993 116,915 82,339 11,626 22,981 −5 −25 0

1994 86,150 52,450 16,205 17,454 8 33 0

1995 567,091 470,237 68,285 28,331 97 140 0

1996 242,136 196,612 22,766 23,043 −106 −179 0

1997 41,140 27,777 4,631 8,668 13 51 0

1998 420,105 334,622 57,076 28,331 28 49 0

1999 26,949 10,965 6,932 9,157 −35 −70 0

2000 95,770 64,130 10,587 21,078 −5 −21 0

2001 27,017 12,357 5,278 9,361 4 18 0

2002 42,397 19,049 9,998 11,934 961 455 0

2003 167,251 127,521 21,040 20,131 −965 −476 0

2004 36,491 21,983 3,913 9,050 565 981 0

2005 42,915 22,442 7,933 14,100 −566 −993 0

2006 27,433 15,336 3,686 8,286 30 95 0


38

Water Year

Tributary Inflows

(ML)


Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML) End of

Reach Effluent

Lag Link

Storage Routing

Link

2007 188,835 140,845 26,310 21,804 −30 −94 0

2008 112,881 78,029 16,887 17,816 41 108 0

Average 138,154 105,708 16,647 15,798 0 1 0


39

Nindigully (417201B) to Fenton (417204A)

Table B.2: Annual mass balance for proposed WP model (MS−190207A) from Nindigully (417201B) to Fenton (417204A)

Water Year

System Inflows (ML) System Losses (ML) Unsupp

Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)

Upstream Tributary End of Reach

Effluent Lag Link

1895 2 7 7 2 0 0 0

1896 19,292 5 9,779 1,180 7,787 550 0

1897 39,785 6 26,505 2,130 11,705 -550 0

1898 54,500 2 36,000 1,793 16,709 0 0

1899 1 5 5 1 0 0 0

1900 15 2 4 13 0 0 0

1901 7,918 2 3,652 1,209 3,058 0 0

1902 64,308 82 40,038 3,180 20,607 566 0

1903 145,881 1,030 91,315 7,907 48,083 -394 0

1904 47,612 492 21,647 3,819 22,805 -167 0

1905 598 10 210 379 24 -5 0

1906 90,914 55 58,656 5,543 26,757 13 0

1907 97,279 450 62,396 3,878 31,459 -5 0

1908 5,378 7 2,664 1,626 1,100 -5 0

1909 221,146 50 177,191 5,395 38,484 126 0

1910 289,837 8,326 240,740 8,987 48,532 -96 0

1911 135,917 379 87,518 860 25,217 22,702 0

1912 194,105 1,036 133,299 6,485 48,193 7,165 0

1913 61,292 114 56,308 6,160 28,788 -29,850 0

1914 2 3 16 39 1 -50 0

1915 12,365 4 5,168 1,511 5,684 6 0

1916 390,675 6,968 339,844 9,235 48,532 31 0

1917 85,037 6 53,066 5,054 26,960 -37 0

1918 87 116 147 56 1 0 0

1919 77,095 24 53,754 822 19,591 2,951 0

1920 296,259 5,597 239,114 6,594 48,532 7,616 0

1921 368,938 2,953 327,270 6,656 48,532 -10,568 0


40

Water Year


Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)


Effluent Lag Link

1922 1 5 5 1 0 0 0

1923 90,972 254 52,265 4,509 34,452 0 0

1924 44,167 5,854 27,141 3,114 18,013 1,754 0

1925 57,463 99,906 118,048 4,663 36,338 -1,681 0

1926 22,995 5 10,947 1,548 10,578 -73 0

1927 76,623 7 51,180 3,042 22,403 5 0

1928 137,453 591 111,716 2,200 24,134 -5 0

1929 227 68 158 127 11 0 0

1930 19,320 109 9,103 1,611 8,703 12 0

1931 52,921 6 31,682 1,961 19,296 -12 0

1932 1 4 4 1 0 0 0

1933 111,080 85 66,998 5,445 38,715 6 0

1934 639 5 236 394 20 -6 0

1935 1 4 4 1 0 0 0

1936 360,992 4,085 319,042 5,910 40,072 53 0

1937 153,427 5 118,970 3,883 30,320 259 0

1938 73,691 433 43,577 3,796 27,061 -310 0

1939 103,367 282 70,084 3,520 30,044 0 0

1940 174,860 7 120,483 5,826 48,532 25 0

1941 8,783 3 3,363 890 4,560 -27 0

1942 24,439 543 13,964 1,410 9,609 0 0

1943 0 2 2 0 0 0 0

1944 95,014 4 58,200 4,814 31,346 658 0

1945 77,617 4 61,804 1,910 14,565 -658 0

1946 113,777 1,573 67,551 5,145 42,624 31 0

1947 56,765 147 28,557 3,660 23,056 1,639 0

1948 4,061 12 2,963 1,198 1,582 -1,670 0

1949 71,668 107 29,511 3,376 20,372 18,517 0

1950 632,552 78,873 669,491 11,906 48,532 -18,505 0


41

Water Year


Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)


Effluent Lag Link

1951 10,515 4 5,161 2,013 3,339 6 0

1952 634,474 40,312 619,871 6,304 48,532 80 0

1953 136,840 341 107,485 4,376 25,413 -94 0

1954 471,807 1,487 416,212 8,524 48,532 25 0

1955 349,808 3,431 275,325 7,109 48,530 22,274 0

1956 70,386 4 65,059 2,967 24,668 -22,304 0

1957 83,625 6 59,520 856 21,214 2,041 0

1958 276,236 9,155 234,494 5,442 47,497 -2,042 0

1959 4,153 2 2,287 1,521 347 0 0

1960 64 6 28 42 1 0 0

1961 323,146 5,428 272,174 7,868 48,532 0 0

1962 80,579 645 50,536 4,147 26,512 30 0

1963 5 7 10 31 1 -30 0

1964 1,467 3 674 704 91 0 0

1965 0 177 177 0 0 0 0

1966 12,472 360 2,826 1,140 3,503 5,364 0

1967 76,960 15 47,031 4,435 30,873 -5,364 0

1968 8,298 6 3,001 727 4,362 214 0

1969 117,797 3,839 91,257 3,263 27,330 -214 0

1970 214,924 262 160,875 5,784 48,527 0 0

1971 10,933 974 6,219 2,135 3,553 0 0

1972 77,480 72 53,893 3,439 20,219 0 0

1973 142,776 443,498 549,308 5,032 31,921 13 0

1974 115 2,183 2,149 75 87 -13 0

1975 285,590 365,009 597,429 4,648 48,521 0 0

1976 25,970 34,578 42,280 2,374 15,885 9 0

1977 1,125 3,961 4,205 443 446 -9 0

1978 22,744 431 10,654 3,738 8,682 102 0

1979 97 14 96 111 6 -102 0


42

Water Year


Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)


Effluent Lag Link

1980 21,009 1,800 12,039 1,709 9,058 3 0

1981 110,081 27,323 99,746 3,011 34,650 -3 0

1982 456,495 68,808 393,830 4,713 48,521 78,237 0

1983 317,878 1,416 335,991 11,262 48,532 -76,490 0

1984 220,266 247 186,285 5,979 29,996 -1,747 0

1985 3,019 57 1,278 1,623 175 0 0

1986 4,861 34 1,646 1,157 2,090 2 0

1987 401,007 539 345,746 7,207 48,532 61 0

1988 63,955 458 33,909 7,285 22,925 294 0

1989 54,936 1,891 34,704 4,670 17,719 -267 0

1990 5,759 155 2,917 1,640 1,431 -74 0

1991 2,563 46 1,278 1,033 312 -14 0

1992 699 94 444 278 70 1 0

1993 82,339 221 50,557 3,846 28,157 -1 0

1994 52,450 323 33,681 3,688 15,405 0 0

1995 470,237 301 413,960 7,862 48,532 184 0

1996 196,612 149 161,114 3,649 32,181 -184 0

1997 27,777 187 15,029 3,202 9,733 0 0

1998 334,622 6,711 284,212 8,505 48,532 83 0

1999 10,965 35 5,359 2,600 3,124 -83 0

2000 64,130 748 37,094 2,918 24,867 0 0

2001 12,357 77 5,864 2,438 4,131 0 0

2002 19,049 10 9,380 3,936 5,275 469 0

2003 127,521 39,794 134,879 6,492 26,412 -469 0

2004 21,983 96,596 98,703 2,723 15,544 1,609 0

2005 22,442 1,861 12,184 3,147 10,581 -1,609 0

2006 15,336 4 6,859 1,826 6,647 9 0

2007 140,845 685 110,275 4,742 26,522 -9 0

2008 78,029 159 55,599 5,092 17,435 61 0


43

Water Year


Extractions (ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)


Effluent Lag Link

Average 105,708 12,172 94,019 3,367 20,494 1 0


44

Fenton (417204A) to Gundablouie (417001)

Table B.3: Annual mass balance for proposed WP model (MS−190207A) from Fenton (417204A) to Gundablouie (417001)

Water Year

System Inflows (ML) System Losses

(ML)

Unsupp Extractions

(ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)


Effluent Lag Link

Storage

Routing

Link

1895 7 131 138 0 0 0 0 0

1896 9,779 85 9,864 0 0 0 0 0

1897 26,505 106 26,611 0 0 0 0 0

1898 36,000 43 36,044 0 0 0 0 0

1899 5 88 92 0 0 0 0 0

1900 4 46 49 0 0 0 0 0

1901 3,652 38 3,691 0 0 0 -1 0

1902 40,038 1,531 41,287 0 0 143 138 0

1903 91,315 12,459 103,974 0 0 -111 -89 0

1904 21,647 1,498 23,226 0 0 -33 -49 0

1905 210 193 403 0 0 0 0 0

1906 58,656 1,016 59,668 0 0 1 4 0

1907 62,396 8,353 70,753 0 0 -1 -4 0

1908 2,664 133 2,797 0 0 0 0 0

1909 177,191 626 162,275 15,482 0 22 37 0

1910 240,740 3,412 241,520 2,684 0 -21 -32 0

1911 87,518 4,284 83,923 2,291 0 4,136 1,452 0

1912 133,299 7,453 143,843 127 0 -2,516 -701 0

1913 56,308 1,980 60,645 0 0 -1,615 -742 0

1914 16 56 93 0 0 -6 -15 0

1915 5,168 71 5,238 0 0 0 1 0

1916 339,844 11,442 313,708 37,570 0 2 6 0

1917 53,066 104 53,179 0 0 -2 -7 0

1918 147 2,158 2,304 0 0 0 0 0

1919 53,754 440 52,714 576 0 549 355 0


45

Water Year


(ML)

Unsupp Extractions

(ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)


Effluent Lag Link

Storage

Routing

Link

1920 239,114 21,720 248,360 10,277 0 1,622 574 0

1921 327,270 8,642 319,034 19,978 0 -2,171 -928 0

1922 5 92 97 0 0 0 0 0

1923 52,265 4,723 56,988 0 0 0 0 0

1924 27,141 4,162 30,762 0 0 306 235 0

1925 118,048 12,944 131,387 111 0 -294 -212 0

1926 10,947 102 11,084 0 0 -12 -24 0

1927 51,180 136 50,904 412 0 0 0 0

1928 111,716 4,865 106,106 10,475 0 0 0 0

1929 158 1,267 1,416 0 0 2 7 0

1930 9,103 2,033 11,144 0 0 -2 -6 0

1931 31,682 92 31,774 0 0 0 -1 0

1932 4 82 86 0 0 0 0 0

1933 66,998 1,583 68,581 0 0 0 0 0

1934 236 91 327 0 0 0 0 0

1935 4 74 78 0 0 0 0 0

1936 319,042 10,258 282,889 46,397 0 4 11 0

1937 118,970 97 108,351 10,597 0 55 63 0

1938 43,577 8,043 51,753 0 0 -59 -74 0

1939 70,084 4,663 74,748 0 0 0 0 0

1940 120,483 126 120,604 0 0 1 4 0

1941 3,363 57 3,425 0 0 -1 -4 0

1942 13,964 10,094 24,058 0 0 0 0 0

1943 2 32 34 0 0 0 0 0

1944 58,200 72 57,870 0 0 217 185 0

1945 61,804 82 59,170 3,118 0 -217 -185 0

1946 67,551 21,889 89,320 114 0 1 5 0

1947 28,557 2,738 30,621 0 0 396 278 0


46

Water Year


(ML)

Unsupp Extractions

(ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)


Effluent Lag Link

Storage

Routing

Link

1948 2,963 220 3,863 0 0 -397 -283 0

1949 29,511 1,993 31,504 0 0 0 0 0

1950 669,491 18,143 622,420 65,215 0 0 0 0

1951 5,161 83 5,234 0 0 2 8 0

1952 619,871 19,320 527,226 111,943 0 8 14 0

1953 107,485 6,338 108,797 5,059 0 -10 -22 0

1954 416,212 8,494 402,434 22,268 0 1 4 0

1955 275,325 18,230 287,839 4,846 0 529 342 0

1956 65,059 80 66,015 0 0 -530 -346 0

1957 59,520 117 57,955 0 0 1,104 578 0

1958 234,494 19,555 242,799 12,932 0 -1,104 -578 0

1959 2,287 39 2,326 0 0 0 0 0

1960 28 119 147 0 0 0 0 0

1961 272,174 4,515 263,491 13,198 0 0 0 0

1962 50,536 11,757 62,289 0 0 1 4 0

1963 10 121 135 0 0 -1 -4 0

1964 674 60 735 0 0 0 0 0

1965 177 3,282 3,458 0 0 0 0 0

1966 2,826 2,748 5,570 0 0 1 4 0

1967 47,031 278 47,314 0 0 -1 -3 0

1968 3,001 115 3,018 0 0 41 57 0

1969 91,257 6,301 95,917 1,740 0 -41 -58 0

1970 160,875 4,875 165,751 0 0 0 0 0

1971 6,219 665 6,885 0 0 0 0 0

1972 53,893 1,332 55,225 0 0 0 0 0

1973 549,308 55,134 460,306 144,135 0 0 0 0

1974 2,149 733 2,882 0 0 0 0 0

1975 597,429 35,918 530,195 103,152 0 0 0 0


47

Water Year


(ML)

Unsupp Extractions

(ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)


Effluent Lag Link

Storage

Routing

Link

1976 42,280 4,246 46,465 0 0 23 38 0

1977 4,205 572 4,838 0 0 -23 -38 0

1978 10,654 2,794 13,347 0 0 42 58 0

1979 96 267 463 0 0 -42 -58 0

1980 12,039 7,848 19,882 0 0 1 4 0

1981 99,746 17,081 116,664 168 0 -1 -4 0

1982 393,830 42,803 399,372 17,470 0 16,028 3,763 0

1983 335,991 12,767 349,226 18,722 0 -15,684 -3,507 0

1984 186,285 4,581 170,679 20,788 0 -344 -256 0

1985 1,278 1,058 2,336 0 0 0 0 0

1986 1,646 627 2,272 0 0 0 1 0

1987 345,746 10,009 315,316 40,416 0 7 16 0

1988 33,909 8,511 42,269 0 0 75 76 0

1989 34,704 35,125 69,971 0 0 -71 -71 0

1990 2,917 2,876 5,827 0 0 -11 -22 0

1991 1,278 846 2,125 0 0 0 -1 0

1992 444 1,747 2,190 0 0 0 1 0

1993 50,557 4,097 54,576 79 0 0 -1 0

1994 33,681 6,004 39,685 0 0 0 0 0

1995 413,960 5,594 402,280 17,212 0 23 39 0

1996 161,114 2,771 146,802 17,146 0 -23 -39 0

1997 15,029 3,483 18,510 0 0 0 2 0

1998 284,212 6,076 265,042 25,196 0 19 32 0

1999 5,359 647 6,059 0 0 -19 -34 0

2000 37,094 13,894 50,988 0 0 0 0 0

2001 5,864 1,423 7,288 0 0 0 0 0

2002 9,380 188 9,567 0 0 0 0 0

2003 134,879 12,185 142,481 4,583 0 0 0 0


48

Water Year


(ML)

Unsupp Extractions

(ML)

Storage change (ML)

Error (ML)


Effluent Lag Link

Storage

Routing

Link

2004 98,703 2,142 94,122 6,697 0 8 18 0

2005 12,184 492 12,703 0 0 -8 -18 0

2006 6,859 68 6,927 0 0 0 0 0

2007 110,275 12,728 113,782 9,221 0 0 0 0

2008 55,599 2,953 57,529 992 0 10 21 0

Average 94,019 5,505 92,301 7,223 0 0 0 0

report - science delivery - colour - word 2010

Documents