Cotton industry officials have called for the Murray-Darling Basin plan to be embraced and for all stakeholders to maximise the benefits of the proposed environmental flows.
Cotton Australia general manager Michael Murray says everyone involved should "accept the number and move on" when it comes to the volume of water to be recovered to ensure the sustainability of the river system.
"The focus now should be on absolutely maximising the environmental outcomes with the water that's available to the environment," Mr Murray told South Australia's royal commission into the basin plan on Thursday.
"What we don't want to see is, when the plan is reviewed in five years or 10 years, calls for more water to be recovered.
"We genuinely want to see the environmental improvements and we believe that it has to be done with a much more holistic approach."
Cotton Australia has also criticised the continual debate and academic argument over the implementation of the basin plan, which seeks to recover 3200 gigalitres for environmental flows, believing they detract from meaningful efforts by governments and stakeholders to successfully achieve reform that has real social, economic and environmental benefits.
"The basin plan is a mechanism that will achieve its objectives through long-term transformation, it is a complex and politically challenging task, that requires a large degree of compromise from all involved," the industry body said in its written submission to the inquiry.
"Cotton Australia takes the view that debate and effort should be channelled into optimising environmental outcomes from the water acquired and being acquired through the basin plan."
Also on Thursday, the war of words between royal commissioner Bret Walker and federal Water Resources Minister David Littleproud continued.
On Wednesday Mr Walker described Mr Littleproud's actions as "irregular and deplorable" in sending a letter and an attachment to SA Environment Minister David Speirs, which rejected the need for the royal commission and backed the constitutional validity of both the basin plan and the federal Water Act.
The commissioner said the letter was no way for the minister to communicate with the inquiry and was a "highly irregular and inappropriate" way for a submission to be presented.
Mr Littleproud responded that his letter and attachment was not intended to be a submission, prompting Mr Walker to double down on his criticism.
"It is regrettable that the minister insists that what he included in his letter to minister Speirs, under an explicit statement that he would be publishing it because of its importance, should nonetheless not be regarded by me as a submission," the commissioner said.
"I'm at a loss to understand what message, subliminal or otherwise, is to be gathered from that fiction."