There has been much said about the Murray-Darling Basin Authority over the 10 years of Basin Plan implementation.

The authority appeared like a bureaucratic utopia to implement the Basin Plan, measure, report and score its own progress, conduct community consultation to the devastation it was creating, set its own terms of references to reviews or challenges and provide a learned ‘authority’ ear to each revolving door politician that graces the water or environmental portfolio.

Where do we draw the line, what are the rules on this political battlefield? Is it legislation? The environment? Perhaps national interests or food security?

The latest attempt by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to justify the hydraulic land clearing and loss of capacity of the Murray River needs to be called out for what it is – mismanagement in breach of the 2007 Water Act.

Six potential options to address the declining regulated flow through the Barmah–Millewa have been detailed in a report released by the MDBA. Options range from bank stabilisation, dredging, running other rivers harder or using systems that farmers pay to maintain.

As I sat and listened at the last MDBA meeting on constraints, it was stated when questioned about the explosion in downstream development that commercial interests could set up wherever they wanted. “They’re not making new water” was the catch cry, but let’s run that logic past the 2007 Water Act.

Schedule 3 of the act states water access entitlements may be traded either permanently, through lease arrangements, or through other trading options that may evolve over time, if water resources are physically shared or hydrologic connections and water supply considerations would permit water trading.

The river is connected, so I guess they can. I wonder what else they stipulate.

All trades should be recorded on a water register. Registers will be compatible, publicly accessible, and reliable, recording information on a whole of catchment basis, consistent with the National Water Initiative.

We missed out on that one, despite the federal government spending $30 million to create one, then dumping it in 2011.

What else does the act say?

Restrictions on extraction, diversion or use of water resulting from trade can only be used to manage:

(a)  environmental impacts, including impacts on ecosystems that depend on underground water; or
(b)  hydrological, water quality and hydro‑geological impacts; or
(c)  delivery constraints; or
(d)  impacts on geographical features (such as river and aquifer integrity); or
(e)  features of major indigenous, cultural heritage or spiritual significance.

I don’t know about you, but a lot of that last section would seem to indicate that permanent or temporary trade destroying the river channel, delivery constraints, water quality, river integrity, environment, ecosystems or cultural heritage is to be controlled by the legislation already in place.

Having legislation appears not to help, having a sitting environment minister in government didn’t help either, even community groups raising concerns receives a label of angry, greedy irrigators.

Will it take the collapse of a river system? Legal action? Or just the financial teat running dry?

A fine bipartisan legacy to leave our future generations.

This article appeared in The Koondrook and Barham Bridge Newspaper, 25 August 2022.