Facebook Google Menu Linkedin lock Pinterest Search Twitter

Advertisement

Murray Murmurings

Nov 28, 2011

New draft of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan leaves all parties unhappy

After a turbulent year, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority today released the draft of the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan which is aimed at restoring the health of Australia's most important river system. And it seems neither irrigators nor scientists are happy with the latest inclination of the Plan.

Share

After a turbulent year, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority today released the draft of the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin Plan which is aimed at restoring the health of Australia’s most important river system. And it seems neither irrigators nor scientists are happy with the latest inclination of the Plan.

Just 2750 gigalitres of water is to be returned to the river, a significant drop from the original draft guide which pushed for 3000-4000 gigalitres in cuts. In fact, it’s a drop from just days ago, when the MDBA website promised the 2800 gigalitres would be returned, a number it has bandied around for many months. 

“Our plan is flexible and will allow us to monitor and adapt,” said Murray Darling Basin Authority chair Craig Knowles. “It’s a plan that will achieve important environmental objectives and is a pathway forward that allows us all to continue to learn and build on our knowledge about how to better manage the Murray-Darling Basin for all of its values.”

Knowles took over the position of chair after Mike Taylor resigned late last year criticising the requirements of balancing the Water Act 2007 with the social and economic implications of the cuts.

At the time the cuts of 3000-4000 gigalitres was said to be needed in order to meet the objectives of the Water Act. Last year’s public meetings saw irrigators burning copies of the plan and thousands attend angry town hall meetings. The MDBA will now begin 20 weeks of public consultations over the plan.

Northern farmers are celebrating more than their southern brethren today, with 85% of the water cuts to come from the southern half of the basin. As Sue Neales and Jared Owens report in The Australian, only 15% of the 2750 gigalitres of cuts will come from northern NSW and southern Queensland.

“It’s done nothing for us,” said Victorian Farmer’s Federation water council chairman Richard Anderson. “We’ve had a new chairman and new process, but we’re still no better off.”

The cuts just aren’t enough to restore the health of the river, says Dr Jamie Pittock, a water researcher from the Crawford School of Economics and Government at Australian National University. “The amount of water to be reallocated is insufficient (2,800 GL) to sustain significant areas of freshwater ecosystems — the government’s own guide suggested in 2010 that as much as 7,600 GL need to be reallocated. The draft Plan makes inadequate allowances for the loss of water expected with climate change.”

“Returning more water to the freshwater environment will always help to a greater or lesser extent, but the draft Plan is a case of too little (2,800 GL) and too late (2019-2024),” argued Pittock.

Last year Peter Cosier, founder and director at the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists, resigned from his position on the 8-person testing committee for the Murray-Darling Basin Plan after the MDBA refused an independent scientific review of the new MDBA modelling.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority conducted two years of its own research and put together its own figure of 3850 gigalitres, explained Wentworth Group environmental engineer Tim Stubbs earlier this year. “The authority — after two years of its own research — sees an absolute minimum of nearly 4000 and then suddenly ‘new modelling’ says 2800 gigalitres, without giving any indication of how that amount will affect changes to the health of the river system,” Stubbs told Crikey in May. There has still no been an independent review of the MDBA’s scientific modelling.

Rain cooled the momentum for Murray-Darling reform, but it did not stop the possibility of future droughts or the effects of long-term climate change on the basin. Now reform will depend on political pull, writes Tom Arup in The Age:

“Tony Abbott will have to decide whether he wants to help fulfil Howard’s Murray legacy or exploit rural anger over the Murray plan as another weapon against the government. The danger in all this is that reform of a crucial asset will be lost to our short memories.”

To mourn what they say is the death of the river, Environment Victoria is holding a mock funeral in Melbourne today, where protesters will wear black, carry a real coffin and march their procession to the Melbourne office of the prime minister.

The whole proposed draft plan can be read online here. A review of the plan will occur in 2015, with the water cuts to be completely under way by 2019.

Advertisement

Advertisement

We recommend

From around the web

Powered by Taboola

9 comments

Leave a comment

9 thoughts on “New draft of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan leaves all parties unhappy

  1. fredex

    phil@acceleratorcommunications
    You said:
    “Please just get on with the compromise. At least it’s a step forward”
    The problem is that this plan is not a step forward because it attempts to compromise something that is incapable of such.
    Water cannot be magically created to flow into the river, there is a finite decreasing amount of inflow insufficient for the river to be sustained.
    This ‘compromise’ will cause the river to continue to degrade severely AND then irrigators, and all the other users of the river, will suffer.
    This “compromise” is a lose-lose scenario.
    “Compromise’ is a political concept, the river is a product of natural systems, it doesn’t recognize ‘compromise’.

  2. Holden Back

    So, it’s turning into another partisan divide on the back of the Coalition’s own Water Act, and will be an intractable problem until they’re back in government? They deserve to have it come and bite them in an uncomfortable place at the most inopportune time, if that’s how they’re playing it.

  3. phil@acceleratorcommunications

    I’m so bored with the predictability of this.
    I just pray that someone will be the grown-up in the room. Please just get on with the compromise. At least it’s a step forward. It can always be reviewed in another decade or so.
    For Barnaby, that’s my intelligence you’re insulting.
    And for Sarah, those are my taxes you’re wasting for a photo op at the river mouth (there’s no hypocrite like a Green one).
    Phil

  4. fredex

    Dossa
    A different inconsistency from Murdochistan in today’s Advertiser in SA.
    They ran the lines, simultaneously, that the environment wasn’t getting enough AND neither were [SA] irrigators.
    Apparently there is an infinite supply of water.
    I fear Murdoch’s SA child is going to play the parochial ‘us vs them’ game, where ‘them’ is the upstream states.
    Fingers pointing in all directions, mainly east tho’.

  5. Dossa

    The plan is “hopeless”, because on the one hand, too much water is going to the environment and, on the other, too much water is going to the irrigators. Spot the inconsistency. But the Murdoch Media, through Phony and Mony (aka Bananas Joyce), will use it as an excuse to bag the government and engineer NO ACTION at all. Can’t the Greens see this, or are they completely stupid? (Yeah, trick question.) Change: start small to grow big.

  6. fredex

    I’m an irrigator.
    I’m not happy with this proposed plan.
    The river has been severely short changed by this plan, the proposes environmental flows are woefully inadequate, and irrigators have, once again, been granted too much water at the expense of both a sustainable environment and a sustainable future irrigation industry.
    Too little water for the river arriving too late, not enough cuts in irrigation quotas.

    Short sighted, caving in to the irrigation lobby.

  7. Peter Ormonde

    One is increasingly tempted to a more direct solution.

    I’m beginning to think that abandoning John Howard’s restrictions on automatic weapons for the length of the Murray Darling system could help significantly. Let the town dwellers and graziers slog it out mano-a-mano in the irrigation canals and trenches with those who demand their water… a good old range war like the wild west – ranchers vs farmers… Adelaide vs the rest.

    Reducing demand and thinning the ranks of parochial self-interest simultaneously. This is a matter of national and indeed international significance… and it is being decided by book-burning louts. Who wants ’em?

  8. Hugh (Charlie) McColl

    Sorry Dossa, in your last sentence, who is “being used”? Do you mean The Australian newspaper being used by political parties or do you mean “the Greens and their supporters” being used by The Australian? Or both?

  9. Dossa

    Gee, will Tony Abbott do what’s right for the environment and the long term interest of farmers or will he seek to exploit “rural anger”? Tough one that.

    Perhaps we should wait till everyone agrees – the required paradigm when a Labor Government is in power. Of course, when the Conservatives are in power, the paradigm is “stuff those who voted against us and power ahead with rewarding our political backers.” The “scientific study into cattle grazing in Alpine National Parks” in Victoria by Baillieu is the classic example. Or the transference of $250 million from state education to private schools. Not a peep from the Murdoch Media on either. But stand by for wall to wall “outrage” over the Murray-Darling. The Australian will publish any negative comment from the Greens or their supporters. I wonder when they will ever realise how they are being used.

Advertisement

Telling you what the others don't. FREE for 21 days.