The environmental, economic and social value of water to our floodplain communities is once again washed away under a tide of political games.  

“This is a landmark win for South Australia after more than a decade fighting for the water needed to protect the Coorong, Lower Lakes and to keep the Murray Mouth open,” said South Australian Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young after striking a deal with Federal Water Minister Tanya Plibersek this week.

Despite more than 34,000 gigalitres (GL) flowing into South Australia in the past two years, the dredges are already firing up to combat the Southern Ocean and according to Ms Young and those of the same ilk, an extra 450GL will make all the difference.

Once again, South Australia leads the Feds around by the nose while glossing over the impacts of the barrages, the south east drainage scheme, the topography and even the estuarine nature of the area.

The Basin Plan is underpinned by keeping water levels in the Lower Lakes above 0.4 metres AHD for 95 per cent of the time and above 0.0 metres AHD at all times, and ensuring the mouth of the Murray River is open without the need for dredging in at least 95 per cent of years. 

Who could forget that the 2016 floods ceased dredging for a whole 10 days.

These ambitions alone will be the yoke around the neck of the basin as the Murray-Darling Basin Authority will seek to drain the basin’s freshwater resources to dilute the sea and whitewash over the historical engineering failures of the dummy-spit state.

The latest push for water buybacks will see the additional 450GL targeted, along with the balance of the SDL projects estimated to be up to 315GL. This 765GL is a target of annual allocation and factoring in long-term sustainable yield over 900GL of water licences may be purchased to achieve this. 

The selective use of held entitlements to allocations is quite the useful political tool, one only needs to cast their eye over the MDBA’s Annual Water Take report, page 55 to be exact, to see that the total volume of held environment water entitlements is already 4,622GL. 

Come hell or high water, drought, or even famine, this nation will seek to dilute the sea and ignore any other environment than those that are under public management. 

How on earth will they deliver all this water? We have already seen the explosion in erosion of the Goulburn, Murray and Edward rivers in the past 10 years, despite a plan to “save our rivers”.

The answer is simple ‘constraints relaxation’. We have had communities and industries that had to work within the limits of the natural constraints like the Barmah Millewa Choke for the past 80 years, now the Federal Government, the MDBA and the water trading-loving Wentworth Group all seek a ‘no regrets’ constraints relaxation program. What about increased flood risk to our communities or the impacts to the river channel? Well, that’s offset by the benefits to South Australia’s vision to dilute the sea and the delivery shortfalls to their explosion of permanent plantings.

The fix is well and truly in when it comes to the Basin Plan, political agendas and political deals trump countless submissions, social and economic reports, destruction to our rivers, the killing off of our industries and communities, the increased costs to those remaining and the desertification of our floodplains caused by buybacks.

This week, the chair of the last Basin review Robbie Sefton put out a press release:

The prospect of a fresh round of water buybacks in the Murray-Darling Basin that sparked protests this week in Basin communities is evidence policy-makers are still not listening to communities or taking on board recommendations from the last review into the impact of management policies for this critically-important part of Australia.

Robbie Sefton, a Basin farmer and managing director of national communications consultancy, Seftons, chaired that last review into the Basin and is disappointed lessons from the past have not been learned, and Basin communities are bearing the brunt. 

“Buybacks have occurred in the past with what can only be described as mixed results. At the time the Panel travelled across the Basin consulting with communities, buybacks were overwhelmingly seen as the least desirable form of water recovery due to the long-term loss of economic resources and increased exposure to risks not offset by other compensatory gains,” Robbie said.

“This week’s protests are expressing that ‘oh no, not again’ sentiment, with many recalling the pain of the last round of buybacks after which they saw job losses, business closures and a fall in population as residents were forced to leave. They feel they haven’t been adequately consulted, and this time, the buyback proposal comes on top of increasing cost of living pressures, fuelling the anger and frustration of many.”  

Murray River Group of Councils chair says proposed changes in water amendment bill are ‘un-Australian’.

“The reintroduction of water buybacks would cause significant negative socio-economic impacts on industries, economies and communities” was the key message from Murray River Group of Councils Chair Cr Rob Amos. 

Cr Amos said that proposed changes under the Bill were inconsistent with the Water Act 2007 and the 2012 Murray-Darling Basin Plan, to which the Commonwealth and all Basin states agreed. 

“A key objective of the Water Act is ‘to promote the use and management of the Basin water resources in a way that optimises economic, social and environmental outcomes.’ However, the new Water Amendment Bill seeks to remove the socio-economic impact test from the Basin Plan implementation,” Cr Amos said.

“Independent research and our previous experience show that water buybacks cause massive job losses, business closure and a breakdown of the social fabric of communities. 

“So, to remove the socio-economic impact test from the Basin Plan is like sticking your head in the sand and ignoring what the data and community is telling you about what happens in reality.”

CEO of Southern Riverina Irrigators Sophie Baldwin said buybacks are lazy and a destructive way to recover water and the Restoring our Rivers bill will destroy our rural communities.

“Irrigation underpins the social, economic and environmental success of our communities and if you take away the major source of income, of course it is going to impact these people, it is dishonest to say otherwise.

“If Plibersek truly believes this bill will not negatively impact our communities, why is she removing the socio-economic test that is our only protection from buybacks?” Ms Baldwin said.

She said she finds it astounding the government is rushing ahead without even investigating the economic impact of this loss of water on the Australian economy.

“And, to add insult to injury, the minister cannot tell us how she is even going to physically deliver this additional volume of water through a system already imploding under current delivery volumes and constraints, this is just a disaster,” she said.

The “Plan” continues.