The Northern Territory Environment Minister Lauren Moss has proposed to amend the water act.
If passed, the amendment would regulate the water taken by all mining operations in the territory.
But environment groups and academics have called the proposed changes regressive and a "demonstration of dysfunction within government".
So why are some sections of the community so concerned?
Here's what the government wants to change
Simply put, the NT government wants to regulate the water taken by all mining operations in the Northern Territory — of which there are dozens — by making them apply for a water extraction licence.
Currently, some mines don't have a water licence, if they have an existing Mining Management Plan.
In 2019, the government forced mining companies to require a licence to extract water from territory rivers — water that taxpayers pay for but that is currently free for some of the biggest industries.
The government created a trigger to assess and licence water use when mine management plans were amended, but it soon realised that trigger could take years, or not happen at all.
The government has admitted there is "a lack of information and transparency" around how much water existing mines use.
To address this, the changes proposed in parliament by the environment minister would create a fixed two-year period for all mining and petroleum water users (other than fracking) established before 2019 to apply for a water licence.
Associate professor of environmental engineering at RMIT Gavin Mudd applauded the government's recognition of the problem but said "the devil is in the detail".
What are the big concerns?
If the amendments passed, the Controller of Water Resources would not be required to consider how much water is available now and into the future, or whether taking large amounts of water from the system for mining will have adverse effects.
Applications for licences would also not be advertised for public comment, which is a common practice.
Basically, mining applications would be subject to different requirements to other water extraction licence applications under the Water Act.
Dr Erin O'Donnell, a water law and policy expert at the University of Melbourne, who has spent years researching territory rivers, said the proposed amendments would remove any opportunity for the public to hold the government or mining companies to account.
"We need to know what is happening to the water resources that belong to all of us," she said.
"To give it away, without even telling people what's happening with their public resources, that's a travesty."
Dr O'Donnell said the other concern was that government would be asking mining companies to estimate their water use, because it doesn't have the capacity to find out itself.
Licences would then be issued based on those estimations.
Dr O'Donnell described it like handing out a "blank cheque" at the same time as incentivising mining companies to overestimate their water use.
"This is a really good opportunity for mining to get in first and really lock in their current and future needs when it comes to water well ahead of any other water user," she said.
"This will put continued pressure on water supplies throughout the Northern Territory and will continue to compromise not only other industry sectors, Aboriginal economic development and ecosystem health, but also potentially drinking water supplies."
Kirsty Howey from the NT Environment Centre said it was hard to believe the government authorised mining operations to go ahead in the first place without knowing basic information, such as water use.
"If the government is proposing to amend the legislation because they don't have the resourcing to assess water licence applications, and no one in government knows how much water mines are actually using, that's completely unacceptable and shows dysfunction within government," she said.
Dr Mudd, who has researched mining in the Northern Territory for the better part of two decades, said the lack of transparency in not opening up licences to public comment is a problem that can't be sugar coated.
But he said the amendments also leave room for other big environmental catastrophes, namely pollution.
Toxic chemicals are generally involved in the mining process and can make their way into waterways.
"We've seen some pretty severe cases of water pollution in the territory due to mining … if the quantity and quality of water is not being managed, we're not managing the full problem," Dr Mudd said.
What do proponents and government say?
The NT Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water Security Lauren Moss said the recently introduced amendments to the Water Act only apply to existing mines which have already been approved for their water use through the mining management plan.
Critics say mining management plans do not require the total amount of water used per year to be specified.
"Through this reform, the intention is to transition mines to regulation of their already approved water use through the Water Act," Minister Moss said.
"These changes do not mean a reassessment of a mine's water allocation, or a reassessment of availability or risk. This occurred with the approval of the mine and is already accounted for."
Minister Moss said mining water applications would be subject to the "advertising and public notice processes", which requires licence application decisions to be made public within 20 business days.
The mining industry body representative, the Minerals Council of Australia NT, did not respond to the ABC's questions before publication.
