Listening to Rivers and Communities

Summary of the River Communities Final Report for the Murray–Darling Basin Authority

Why the report was written

Rivers in the Murray-Darling Basin are under growing pressure from climate change, droughts, floods, irrigation demands and long standing disagreements about water use. Many people who live and work along rivers watch these changes closely every day. They notice when water levels rise or fall, when banks collapse, when fish disappear, or when water becomes unsafe for people or livestock.

The report looks at how community knowledge and community monitoring could play a stronger role in river management. It was written to help the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) understand how local observations, lived experience and citizen science might support better water governance in the future.

Grounded in a regional case study in north east Victoria, the report also speaks to wider questions about how governments can work better with communities who already know their rivers well.

Rather than proposing one big, Basin wide monitoring program, the report asks a more practical question, how can governments work better with communities who already know their rivers well?

What the project did

The project combined two main pieces of work.

1. A whole of MDBA review
Researchers analysed MDBA documents from the past decade and interviewed MDBA staff to understand how the organisation has thought about community knowledge over time, and how, or if, it is used in everyday decision making.

2. A regional case study in north east Victoria
The study focused on the Murray, Ovens and Kiewa rivers. Researchers interviewed 50 people, including:

• riverfront landholders

• local community and Landcare members

• water managers and agency staff

• First Nations representatives from the Duduroa Dhargal Aboriginal Corporation (DDAC)

The project also held a community forum in Wangaratta where monitoring ideas were discussed and refined with local people.

A special part of the project was a pilot with DDAC at Ryan’s Lagoon, which explored a First Nations, Country centred approach to monitoring wetlands and floodplains. This included work on seasonal calendars and environmental history for the site, helping build a locally grounded foundation for future monitoring and care for Country.

What “community monitoring” means in practice

Community monitoring is not just one thing. In our report it includes:

• landholders recording river heights, rainfall, or erosion

• school groups testing water quality

• volunteers counting birds, frogs or platypus

• fishers reporting fish deaths or algal blooms

• Traditional Owners tracking seasonal changes, plants and animals on Country

Some of this work looks like citizen science. Some is about watching how management decisions actually play out on the ground. Some is simply people paying careful attention to the places they care for.

The key point is this. Community monitoring is already happening, but it is scattered, unevenly supported, and often ignored once data is collected.

How MDBA’s approach has changed over time

The report found that MDBA’s thinking about community knowledge has evolved in three broad phases:

1. 2012 to 2017. Local knowledge for implementation
Communities were mainly consulted to help implement the Basin Plan and manage local impacts.

2. 2018 to 2020. Trust and crisis response
Events like the Darling-Baaka fish kills highlighted the importance of local observations for detecting problems quickly and rebuilding public trust.

3. Since 2020. Recognising diverse ways of knowing
New programs now acknowledge lived experience, cultural knowledge and qualitative information alongside scientific data.

Despite this shift on paper, day to day practice has not fully caught up. Many MDBA staff still see community monitoring mainly as a way to engage people, rather than as information that could directly inform decisions.

What communities said matters most

Across the Murray, Ovens and Kiewa, people were remarkably consistent about what they care about and already watch closely:

• River flows and water levels
  Farmers and landholders check river gauges daily, sometimes hourly, because timing can mean the difference between saving stock or losing them.

• Water quality
  People want early warnings about blue green algae, pollution or low oxygen, before fish die or water becomes unsafe.

• Riverbank condition
  Erosion, slumping banks and loss of vegetation are visible signs that something is wrong.

• Plants and animals
  Changes in fish, birds, frogs, insects and riparian vegetation are widely used as indicators of river health.

People were clear that monitoring must be simple, practical and useful. They do not want to collect data that “disappears into a dark hole”. They want monitoring to feel worthwhile and not vague, extractive or symbolic.

Important differences between rivers

The study found that monitoring priorities differ by place:

• Along the Murray River, people were more concerned about:

  • high flows and flooding

  • bank erosion

  • river operations

  • transparency and trust in government decisions

• Along the Ovens and Kiewa Rivers, people focused more on:

  • local environmental condition

  • biodiversity

  • practical on-ground management

This means there is no one size fits all model for community monitoring across the Basin.

First Nations perspectives from Ryan’s Lagoon

Work with DDAC showed a very different approach to monitoring, one centred on Country, relationships and knowledge recovery.

Elders spoke about:

• the loss of cultural knowledge due to colonisation

• disconnection of wetlands from natural flood flows

• the need to restore seasonal rhythms

• using plants, animals and insects as “more than human” indicators of health

At Ryan’s Lagoon, monitoring was not just about data. It was about:

• restoring cultural practice

• teaching younger generations

• caring for Country under climate change

The pilot demonstrated the value of Traditional Owner led, locally specific monitoring, but also showed that this work requires long term funding, trust and commitment, not short projects.

What people want if monitoring is expanded

Support for community monitoring was strong, but conditional. People said it would only work if:

• the purpose is clear

• tasks are easy and fit into daily life

• results are shared back quickly

• data is visibly used

• communities know who is responsible for acting on it

People also want:

• better access to existing government data

• clearer explanations of decisions

• monitoring that helps solve real, local problems

Main conclusions

The report reaches several clear conclusions:

• Community monitoring is already widespread but poorly supported.

• Communities see monitoring as a way to make better local decisions, not just to “be engaged”.

• MDBA’s recognition of community knowledge has grown, but practical use remains limited.

• There is no single model that can be rolled out across the Basin.

• Flexible, locally grounded approaches are essential.

• First Nations led monitoring must be supported on its own terms.

What the report recommends

Rather than launching a single large program, the report recommends:

• trial small, local monitoring projects and evaluate them properly

• build trust through face to face engagement and feedback

• be transparent about how community information is used

• improve data access so information flows both ways

• support long term First Nations partnerships, not short term pilots

• use a relational co-monitoring approach that puts relationships, shared learning, local context and clarity of purpose at the centre of future work

• continue developing practical sub-projects, including riverbank monitoring, responsive monitoring, and especially a Community Climate Change Observatory

The big message

People living along rivers already do a great deal of careful watching, recording and learning. That existing local observation and effort is a strong foundation to build on. If governments take this knowledge seriously, rather than treating it as just “engagement”, community monitoring could strengthen river management, improve trust, and help everyone adapt to a changing climate.

Summary of the River Communities Final Report for the Murray–Darling Basin Authority, prepared by:

Professor Lauren Rickards 

Professor Nick Bond 

Dr Brendan McGinley 

Dr Ana Lara Heyns 

Stephanie Rosestone 

Dr Patrick Bonney 

Dr Simon Kerr 

Dr Jay Jozaei

The full report will be published by the Murray–Darling Basin Authority in coming months.