A query on whether the Queensland government's current review into the management of the Great Artesian Basin would encompass the amount of water taken by the resource sector epitomised the competing interests in whatever water might be available in western Queensland in future.

Nearly a year after public concerns about the plan to inject industrial waste into GAB aquifers were upheld with state government help, the 10-year plan that governs the management of the basin and other regional aquifers in Queensland is open for discussion and being thoroughly scrutinised.

Over 50 people from a wide radius attended a forum in Longreach on Monday, September 1, organised by the Remote Area Planning and Development Board, aimed at demystifying the review and, in RAPAD chairman Tony Rayner's words, help the region engage constructively in it.

"We're not here to make decisions today," he said, adding that people were both strongly in favour of and against using artesian water for irrigation, and urging attendees to have respect.

The management of the finite resource is one of Australia's most contentious natural resource debates.

Assistant Primary Industries Minister and Gregory MP Sean Dillon was in attendance but most of the explanatory work and questions were fielded by Water Department executive director for water resource management, Hamish Butler.

Responding to the query about the resource industry's water usage, Mr Butler said that in Queensland, mining companies had a statutory right to take water that wasn't being looked at as part of this review.

Later in the Q&A session, he added that CSG water use wasn't being considered alongside that of the rest of the public.

"It's just managed differently," he said. "The CSG industry has an underground water framework; studies are done and reports provided every three or four years."

Water resources strategy specialist Tom Vanderbyl, who compiled RAPAD's submission to the review, used that to highlight the group's view that risks crept into the management plan if there were inconsistencies.

"Our submission says they have to be considered side by side," he said. "There has been a lack of cohesion about the way GAB water has been allocated in the past; all takes should be considered together, including those from resource users."

The part of the management plan that sets aside an unallocated water reserve, and whether some of that can be released, is under the most scrutiny.

There are 28,498 megalitres of UAW in the plan, 17,278ML of that in the Eromanga and Galilee sub-basins.

RAPAD's acting CEO Morgan Gronold described this as a significant amount, saying its submission had done modelling on how that could be used to grow the region's economy.

"We're not asking for big government spends, but to enable private enterprise to take risks," he said.

There was plenty of interest in cap and pipe schemes, which have been in place since 1989 and which were acknowledged by all quarters as the most successful NRM programs to have occurred in Australia, maybe globally.

There are still 36 bores to rehabilitate and 335km of bore drains to replace, which Mr Butler described as a very ambitious goal.

Barcaldine producer Paul Doneley suggested that the department should "go a bit harder" after what he said was the failure of the last plan, to complete the work and give the department a solid base from which to make decisions from.

Mr Butler mentioned funding constraints and a lack of workers in his reply.

Mr Vanderbyl said it was the success of cap and pipe schemes that was leading to the current discussions of alternative uses for the water saved.

"The timeframe for cap and pipe is at risk, and noxious weed and biosecurity risks are rising too," he said.

Mr Butler introduced the topic of water markets and trading, saying it was not the best it could be.

Seeking clarification, Muttaburra's Boyd Webb asked if there were plans to trade on a commercial basis, where people without property could buy and sell water.

"This is where most of the Murray-Darling problems have come from," he said.

Mr Butler said they were looking at selling water within catchments, saying they were effective in moving water to where it needed to be.

"It's about having flexibility among the existing cohort of users," he said.

"You could seasonally assign water, or temporarily trade.

"We want water in the hands of the agricultural industry, used effectively."

Mr Vanderbyl said current trading rules were too restrictive, created 10 or more years ago with old science as the basis.

"There's a lot more information available now, which means that those rules should be reviewed and looked at again," he said.

"One of the things we heard this afternoon is that it needs to be for the benefit of those who live here, for the landholders who are actually working the land and making production from that, rather than just doing it as a speculative activity.

"The plan can put in the rules, or at least the guidance for the rules, to make sure that this trading and the movability of water is for the benefit of the local economy and not just for some speculative activity."

Cr Rayner said it was important to make sure collective priorities were reflected in the new water plan, to secure a future where water supports both the environment and the economy.

Mr Dillon said the government was committed to ensuring the resource was protected, and there for use, not locked away unnecessarily.

The review will be a two-year process, and Mr Dillon urged anyone with a need for water to ask about it now.

"We want to get this review right, and this year is your one shot to get it right," he said.