Unallocated water is water that has not yet been assigned to a specific water entitlement. The plan allows the chief executive to grant new water entitlements to take unallocated water only for a community purpose, an Indigenous purpose, or any purpose if the water is in the Bulloo catchment area or a groundwater unit (section 22). The total volume of unallocated water that may be granted is capped by reserve volumes set out in schedule 5. For each catchment area listed in table 1, column 1, the average annual volume for community or Indigenous purposes is stated in column 2. For the Bulloo catchment area, table 2 provides a separate volume. For groundwater units, table 3 states the total nominal entitlement for water licences to take unallocated water. These volumes are fixed and cannot be exceeded. This concept is critical because it defines the only avenue for new water access beyond existing entitlements, and that avenue is limited to specific beneficiaries and capped in volume.

Environmental flow objectives and water allocation security objectives are the two sets of targets that the chief executive must satisfy when making decisions under chapter 2 of the Act (section 20). The former are stated in schedule 4; the latter are defined in section 17. The plan requires that every decision be consistent with both sets of objectives. Consistency is assessed by using a model computer program simulation for the simulation period (section 21(1)). If using the model is not practicable, the chief executive may approve another kind of assessment (section 21(2)). This creates a gatekeeping function: the model's outputs dictate whether a proposed decision can lawfully proceed. The objectives themselves are not reproduced in the extracted text, but they function as binding constraints on the chief executive's discretion.

Overland flow water is water that flows across land after rainfall but not in a watercourse. Section 26 lists seven circumstances in which a person may take overland flow water, including under a water licence, for stock or domestic purposes, for prescribed activities, to comply with environmental authorities or development permits, if the water contains harmful nutrients or chemicals, or if the works used are existing overland flow works. A water licence to take overland flow water must state the purpose as ‘any’ and at least one of: maximum rate, maximum storage volume, volumetric limit, or average annual volume (section 27). This framework allows some unlicensed take for low-impact uses but requires a licence for more substantial or commercial take.

Groundwater limitations are addressed in section 29. A person may take or interfere with groundwater in a groundwater unit only under a water licence or permit, for stock or domestic purposes, or for a prescribed activity under section 20(2)(a) of the Act. However, subsection (2) creates an important carve-out: a person must not take or interfere with groundwater under the prescribed activity exception from the St George Alluvium (deep). That means even if a prescribed activity generally allows groundwater take, it does not apply to that specific deep aquifer. This is a targeted restriction on a particular groundwater source.

Existing overland flow works are works that were allowed before the plan commenced. Section 36 gives the chief executive a discretion (not a duty) to grant a water licence to a person who was using such works immediately before the plan commenced. When deciding what to state on the licence under section 27(b), the chief executive must consider the average annual volume the person was allowed to take and the estimated annual volumes taken over a period of up to 10 years before commencement. The chief executive may also consider the extent to which the person was allowed to take or store other water using those works. This transitional provision aims to regularise existing unlicensed use into a formal licence, but the discretion and the mandatory consideration of historical take create both an opportunity and a risk for existing users.

Model computer program is the default tool for assessing consistency with objectives. It is a simulation model that runs for the simulation period. If not practicable, the chief executive may approve another assessment. The plan does not define ‘practicable’ or specify the model, leaving room for administrative discretion but also uncertainty for applicants who depend on the model's outputs.

The plan directly affects the chief executive as the primary decision-maker bound by sections 19, 20, and 21. The chief executive cannot approve any decision that would increase total average volume or nominal entitlement, unless it falls within the specific exceptions for unallocated water or groundwater not in a groundwater unit. This incapacitates the chief executive from expanding the water take envelope, even if economic or social circumstances change. Existing water entitlement holders are affected because the cap protects their relative share from dilution by new entrants, but also prevents them from increasing their own take through licence amendments if that would increase the total. The cap may constrain the transferability of entitlements if transfers would aggregate to a higher total volume. Irrigators, miners, and other commercial water users who seek new or increased water access are the most constrained: they cannot obtain a new entitlement unless unallocated water is available for their purpose, and only community, Indigenous, or Bulloo/groundwater purposes are eligible. For commercial agriculture outside those categories, no new water is available. Indigenous communities are a direct beneficiary: unallocated water may be granted for an Indigenous purpose, defined broadly, and the reserve volumes set aside for that purpose cannot be used for any other purpose. Local governments and community organisations may apply for unallocated water for a community purpose. Landholders who take water without an entitlement (section 25) are limited to 2 ML from a watercourse (or 0 ML from a resource operations licence distribution system). Those using existing overland flow works are given a pathway to a licence, but must persuade the chief executive to exercise discretion in their favour. Groundwater users in the St George Alluvium (deep) are specifically prohibited from taking groundwater under the prescribed activity exception, which may affect mining or petroleum activities that rely on that aquifer for dewatering or other uses. Resource operations licence holders benefit from section 25(a), which reserves the water in their distribution system from any unlicensed take, protecting their operational water. Applicants with pending applications at the plan's commencement are subject to the new cap under section 35, potentially frustrating expectations built under the old 2003 plan. The plan also affects ratepayers and taxpayers indirectly: the compliance monitoring and modelling costs are borne by the state, and the cap may limit regional economic development, reducing employment and investment in the plan area.

Duty of the chief executive not to increase total take: Section 19(2) imposes a mandatory prohibition. The chief executive must not make a decision that would increase the average volume of water that may be taken under the plan or the total nominal entitlement for taking groundwater. This duty applies to all decisions except those about taking unallocated water under section 23 or taking groundwater not in a groundwater unit. Any decision that would have the effect of increasing the cap is ultra vires.

Duty of consistency with objectives: Section 20 requires that every decision under chapter 2 of the Act be consistent with the environmental flow objectives (schedule 4) and the water allocation security objectives (section 17). This is a substantive duty: the decision must actually achieve consistency, not merely be reasonably open. Section 21 makes the model computer program the default method for assessing consistency. If the model is not practicable, the chief executive may approve another assessment, but the duty to be consistent remains.

Rights to apply for unallocated water: Section 22 gives the chief executive a power to grant water entitlements to take unallocated water, but only for a community purpose, an Indigenous purpose, or any purpose if the water is in the Bulloo catchment area or a groundwater unit. These are not rights held by applicants; they are a grant of discretion to the chief executive. However, the reserve volumes in schedule 5 cap the total that may be granted. The process for granting is stated in the Water Regulation (section 24), not in this plan.

Rights to take overland flow water: Section 26 lists seven categories of permissible take without a water licence. These include take under a water licence, stock or domestic purposes, prescribed activities, compliance with environmental authorities or development permits, removal of harmful nutrients, and use of existing overland flow works. Each category is a right to take water without the need for a further authorisation, subject to any conditions in the underlying authority.

Rights to take groundwater: Section 29 allows take only under a water licence or permit, for stock or domestic purposes, or for a prescribed activity under section 20(2)(a) of the Act. The right to take under a prescribed activity is expressly denied for the St George Alluvium (deep). This is a restriction, not a positive right.

Rights of existing overland flow works users: Section 36(1) grants the chief executive a power to issue a water licence to a person who was using existing overland flow works immediately before commencement. The person does not have an automatic right to a licence; the chief executive may (not must) grant it. When setting the licence parameters, the chief executive must consider the historical take volumes and estimated annual volumes over up to 10 years. The person may also argue that the chief executive should consider other water taken or stored using those works. This creates a right to be considered, but not a right to a particular outcome.

Limitation on taking without entitlement: Section 25 creates a default right to take up to 2 ML from a watercourse (except from distribution systems of resource operations licence holders, where the right is zero). This right is for all persons, but it is a very small volume, effectively limiting unlicensed take to minimal domestic or emergency use.

The extracted provisions do not themselves prescribe penalties. Instead, they are part of a water resource plan made under the Water Act 2000, which contains its own offence provisions. Taking water in contravention of the limitations in sections 25, 26, or 29 would constitute a breach of the Act. For example, taking more than 2 ML from a watercourse without an entitlement is likely an offence under section 20(2) of the Act as read with this plan. Similarly, taking groundwater from the St George Alluvium (deep) under a prescribed activity in breach of section 29(2) would be unlawful. The Act provides for maximum penalties that may include fines and, for serious offences, imprisonment. Additionally, the chief executive may take enforcement action such as issuing a compliance notice, suspending or cancelling a water licence, or seeking an injunction. The plan itself does not specify enforcement mechanisms, but it defines the limits that trigger enforcement under the Act. For the chief executive, failure to comply with the prohibitions in section 19 or the consistency requirement in section 20 could be challenged by judicial review. A decision that increases total take would be invalid. Similarly, a decision that is inconsistent with the objectives could be set aside. The duty to use the model computer program (section 21) is also enforceable; if the chief executive uses an alternative assessment without a proper basis that the model was not practicable, the decision may be quashed. The transitional provisions impose mandatory considerations on the chief executive when granting licences for existing overland flow works (section 36(2)(a)). Failure to consider the historical volumes would be an error of law. The enforcement risk for private parties is that they may be prosecuted for unlawful take, which can result in fines, remediation orders, and loss of water access. For the chief executive, the risk is that decisions may be struck down, causing administrative delay and uncertainty for applicants and holders. The penalty severity under the Act ranges up to several hundred thousand dollars for corporations, depending on the provision.

This plan is a statutory instrument made under the Water Act 2000 (Qld). It therefore derives its force from that Act. Section 20 of the plan expressly references decisions under chapter 2 of the Act. The Water Regulation 2016 (or the current version) is also relevant: section 24 of the plan provides that the process for granting unallocated water is the process stated in the Water Regulation. Section 25 prescribes limitations for activities under section 20(2)(a) of the Act. Section 26 references the Water Regulation for prescribed activities and general authorisations. Section 29 also references section 20(2)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the plan cannot be read in isolation; it sits within a legislative framework that includes the Act and the Regulation. The plan also interacts with the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Section 26(d) and (e) allow a person to take overland flow water to comply with an environmental authority under the Environmental Protection Act, or to comply with a development permit for an environmentally relevant activity (other than mining or petroleum). This means that an environmental authority holder may take overland flow water without a separate water licence, but only to the extent necessary for compliance. This creates a potential interface: if the environmental authority requires water for dust suppression or rehabilitation, the operator may take overland flow water without additional water authorisation, but only up to the necessary volume. For mining and petroleum activities, this exception does not apply, so they must obtain a water licence or another authorisation under the Water Act. The plan also replaces the earlier Water Resource (Warrego, Paroo, Bulloo and Nebine) Plan 2003, which is repealed by section 34. Transitional provisions (sections 35 and 36) manage the shift, particularly for pending applications and existing overland flow works. The repealed plan no longer governs, but its historical effect shapes the baseline for existing overland flow works assessments. There is also interaction with resource operations licences. Section 25(a) provides that no unlicensed water may be taken from a part of a watercourse used to distribute water by a resource operations licence holder. This protects the licence holder's operational water from being siphoned off by others. Groundwater interactions: section 29 limits groundwater take to licences, permits, stock/domestic, and prescribed activities, but prohibits prescribed activity take from the St George Alluvium (deep). This may intersect with mining tenure granted under the Mineral Resources Act or the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Act, which often require dewatering. Those activities would need a specific water licence or permit for that aquifer.

The extracted provisions show two amendments. Section 18 was amended by 2017 SL No. 103 s 170. The precise change is not detailed in the extract, but the amendment likely adjusted the application clause. Sections 28 and 30 were omitted by 2016 SL No. 216 s 146 sch 20. These were presumably text that became redundant, possibly because the matters were moved to the Water Regulation or the Act itself. The plan itself was made in 2016, replacing the 2003 plan (section 34). The extract does not show the full amendment history of the plan, but these two amendments indicate that the plan has been updated at least twice since its commencement. Section 28 and section 30 are no longer in force. The omission of sections suggests that the plan was tidied up, possibly to remove provisions that were superseded or to simplify the text. The repeal of the 2003 plan is itself a significant amendment event. The transitional provisions (sections 35 and 36) were part of the original plan, not later amendments. They manage the transition from the old regime. For a practitioner, it is essential to check the current version of the plan on the Queensland Legislation website, as the extract provided is a snapshot and may not reflect subsequent amendments to other sections. The amendment to section 18 in 2017 is relatively minor, but the omission of sections 28 and 30 in 2016 (which is before the plan commenced, interestingly) suggests that those sections were removed before the plan even came into effect. The plan commenced on a date set by proclamation; amendment SL No. 216 of 2016 likely omitted sections 28 and 30 before the plan's commencement date. This is unusual but possible if the plan was amended before it started. The extract shows the current text after those omissions.

The extracted text does not cite any cases. No litigation history is provided in the source. It is possible that the plan has been the subject of judicial review proceedings in the Queensland Land Court or the Planning and Environment Court, but the user did not supply that information. As an analyst, I cannot invent cases. However, based on the structure of the plan, potential grounds for litigation include: a challenge to a decision that increases total take contrary to section 19; a challenge that a decision is inconsistent with environmental flow or water allocation security objectives (section 20); a challenge that the chief executive used an alternative assessment when it was practicable to use the model computer program (section 21); a challenge to the refusal or grant of a water licence for existing overland flow works (section 36) on the basis that the chief executive failed to consider mandatory matters or took into account irrelevant considerations; and a challenge to the grant of unallocated water outside the purposes permitted by section 22. The plan's cap creates a zero-sum environment, so any decision that grants water to one party may be challenged by another who is thereby excluded. For example, if the chief executive grants unallocated water for a community purpose, a commercial applicant who is ineligible may argue that the purpose does not genuinely serve the community. The water allocation security objectives are defined but not reproduced in the extract; their precise meaning could be litigated. The model computer program is not identified; if the model is flawed or not fit for purpose, a decision based on it could be challenged as unreasonable. None of this is actual litigation, but it is where litigation would likely arise.

The cap applies to ‘any decision’ not just new licences: Section 19(2) prohibits any decision that would increase the average volume or nominal entitlement. This includes decisions on licence amendments, seasonal water assignments, or conversions. A licence holder who wants to increase their take under an existing licence may find that the chief executive cannot approve it because it would push the total over the cap. The chief executive may also be forced to refuse temporary trades if they would aggregate to exceed the cap. The St George Alluvium (deep) is out of bounds for prescribed activities. Section 29(2) is absolute: a person must not take or interfere with groundwater from that specific aquifer under the prescribed activity exception. This means that even if an activity generally qualifies under section 20(2)(a) of the Act (e.g., dewatering for infrastructure), it cannot rely on that exception for that aquifer. The person must obtain a water licence or permit. Failure to do so is unlawful. Zero megalitres from resource operations licence distribution systems. Section 25(a) states that the total volume of water that may be taken without an entitlement from a watercourse part used to distribute water by a resource operations licence holder is 0 ML. That means no unlicensed take at all from those systems, even the 2 ML that is otherwise allowed elsewhere. A landholder adjacent to such a distribution channel cannot take any water without a licence, even for stock or domestic purposes, unless another exception applies. Existing overland flow works: the chief executive ‘may’ not ‘must’ grant a licence. Section 36(1) gives a discretion. A person who has been using works for years has no guarantee of a licence. If the chief executive declines, the person may lose the ability to take overland flow water unless they fall within another exception in section 26(g) (which only applies if the works are existing overland flow works, but after commencement, taking without a licence may not be covered). The transitional provision is meant to regularise, but it also creates risk. The model computer program is the default, but the alternative assessment is approved by the chief executive. Section 21(2) allows another assessment if not practicable. But the chief executive controls both the model and the alternative. This creates a potential conflict: the chief executive could deem the model impracticable to use a more favourable assessment, or conversely, insist on the model even when it is impracticable. The standard of review is whether the decision was reasonable. Schedule 5 tables are not reproduced in the extract. The reserve volumes for unallocated water are hidden in schedules that the user must locate. Similarly, the environmental flow objectives in schedule 4 are not reproduced. Anyone relying on this plan must obtain the full document. Purpose must be stated as ‘any’ for overland flow licences. Section 27(a) requires the water licence to state the purpose as ‘any’. This is unusual because most water licences specify a purpose (irrigation, industrial, etc.). This provision seems designed to preserve flexibility, but it may affect how the licence interacts with other water planning instruments, such as trading rules or water sharing plans that depend on purpose categories. Existing applications are subject to the new cap. Section 35 states that section 19 applies to a decision about an application made but not decided before the plan commenced. That means an applicant who applied under the 2003 plan for a new water entitlement may find that the application cannot be granted because it would increase total take, even though the application was made under a more permissive regime. The plan does not provide any grandfathering for pending applications. This is a harsh transitional provision that may have generated disputes.

For existing water entitlement holders, compliance requires monitoring your own take and ensuring you do not inadvertently trigger a change that would increase the total cap under section 19. If you seek to amend your licence (e.g., to change a condition or increase volume), you must check whether the amendment would cause the chief executive to exceed the cap. You should also ensure that any transfer of entitlement does not result in an increase in the average volume or nominal entitlement across the plan area. For new applicants, the only avenue for a new water entitlement is unallocated water under section 22. You must identify which purpose you qualify for (community, Indigenous, or any purpose if the water is in the Bulloo catchment area or a groundwater unit). You then follow the process in the Water Regulation (section 24). If you are a commercial enterprise not fitting those categories, you cannot obtain new water under this plan. Your only option is to purchase an existing entitlement, but the cap may limit how much you can take. For persons taking water without an entitlement, comply with section 25: limit take to 2 ML from a watercourse (and only if not from a resource operations licence distribution system). For overland flow water, section 26 lists lawful take scenarios. If you are not covered by any of those, you need a water licence. Pay particular attention to whether your works are ‘existing overland flow works’ - if so, apply promptly under section 36 for a licence. If you are taking groundwater in a groundwater unit, ensure you have a water licence or permit, or are taking only for stock or domestic purposes or under a prescribed activity (but not from the St George Alluvium (deep)). If you are a resource operations licence holder, you are protected against unlicensed take from your distribution system. For existing overland flow works users, gather historical records of your take: average annual volume, annual volumes for up to 10 years, and any other water you took or stored using those works. Submit a licence application under section 212 of the Water Act, referencing section 36 of the plan. Provide the chief executive with all the information the chief executive must consider under section 36(2). Be prepared for the possibility that the chief executive may not grant the licence on the terms you expect. For applicants with pending applications, contact the department immediately. The application is now subject to the cap in section 19. If it would increase total take, it is likely to be refused. You may need to amend the application to fit within unallocated water categories, if applicable. For anyone challenging a decision, review whether the chief executive used the model computer program. If not, request details of why it was not practicable. Check the environmental flow objectives and water allocation security objectives. If the decision appears inconsistent, seek legal advice on judicial review. Maintain records of all correspondence and data. Compliance with this plan is ultimately about staying within the physical limits set by the cap and the authorised take conditions. The chief executive is bound, so if you have a valid entitlement, your rights are protected. But the zero-sum nature means careful strategic planning is essential.