The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists criticised the draft Murray-Darling Basin Plan in a submission to the authority last week, arguing it manipulated science to “engineer a pre-determined political outcome’’.

In response, the MDBA has addressed each of the group’s

claims on its website’s “Mythbusting” page, systematically refuting each point.

Most of the Wentworth Group’s claims were fed by its concerns about the draft plan’s ability to guarantee the health of the environment.

It claimed the best publicly available science was featured in the Guide to the Basin Plan in 2010, finding at least 3800 gigalitres – and up to 6900 gigalitres – needed to be recovered from consumptive use to deliver a healthy basin.

But the MDBA argued it used a more detailed method of research to produce the draft plan, which recommended 2750 gigalitres of water be returned to the environment.

“The hydrological indicator site method has been independently reviewed three times throughout its development, the most recent review completed in November 2011 by a scientific panel led by CSIRO,” the authority’s response read.

“This review confirmed that this science is sufficient to use as a starting point for an adaptive management approach.”

The MDBA also bit back at accusations the draft did not take into account the effects of climate change, the impact increasing groundwater extractions would have on surface water flows, or the river system’s ability to cope with long, dry periods.

Coleambally Irrigation chief executive John Culleton said it was “a bit rich” of the Wentworth Group to criticise the draft plan after the anger its own report incited in Griffith in 2010.

The group’s report, which was released before the MDBA’s guide, recommended 65 per cent of the Murrumbidgee Valley’s water be returned to the environment.