Sophie Baldwin, The Koondrook and Barham Bridge Newspaper
They often say things change with time but when it comes to water and the basin plan, it doesn’t seem to make much difference, especially for the Upper Goulburn River Catchment Association (UGRCA).
The UGRCA has been concerned about the impacts of flooding on their properties and their towns ever since the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) floated their Constraints Management Strategy.
This strategy was meant to be a way of overcoming the natural constraints of our river system to send large pulses of water downstream (unnatural floods) seven years out of ten, for environmental outcomes.
This strategy does not currently take into account any environmental damage inflicted to upstream communities.
It was abundantly clear to Upper Goulburn landholders that environmental, man-made flood flows proposed by the MDBA for delivery to the Lower Goulburn, Murray and South Australia would cause untenable losses to farm productivity, significant loss of amenity and infrastructure, devaluation of property and of course, increased major flooding risk.
Representative of UGRCA, Jan Beer, said the MDBA initially proposed flood flows of 20,000ML/day, although these have since been reduced to 14,000ML/day maximum, gauged at Molesworth – a volume landowners maintain still causes significant flooding, as shown by current flows of that magnitude in the Upper Goulburn.
UGRCA addressed their issues in an official letter in 2015 and now, eight years later, are still trying to get some acknowledgement that 14,000ML/day causes massive economic and environmental impacts.
“As we approach the end of the basin plan time frame, we are really starting to see the problems, faults and the madness of this whole plan, and constraints continue to remain a major issue for landholders and community in the Upper Goulburn.
“The MDBA has admitted relaxing constraints will not deliver the outcomes they originally thought, which include 80,000ML a day at the SA border, will have no influence on flows below Torrumbarry, cannot keep Murray Mouth open, nor will they enhance environmental outcomes as proposed, so why we are even persevering with this nonsense is beyond me,” Jan said.
The Upper Goulburn was hit hard by floods, which devastated the region in late 2022 and with dam operators currently releasing 12,000ML/day from Eildon, and with the weir sitting at 98 per cent, the community fears another flood is imminent.
“Our landholders haven’t recovered from last year and they are petrified of another major flood. The way the system is now managed and the fact the dams are kept so full increases the flood risk significantly for downstream communities like ours,” Jan said.
Landowner John Baynes had a levee blowout during last year’s flood. He contacted numerous authorities, who have passed the buck on repair – department inaction has meant the broken levee is again directing water onto his river flats.
“I lost all my permanent pasture in the flood and it was going to cost me $50,000 to re-sow and another $50,000 for fertiliser. I couldn’t afford either, so I spent $10,000 on sowing annuals.
“I now have a levee, which was built by government agencies in the 1950s, that the department refuses to fix, letting water onto my river flats again and I am extremely angry,” John said.
His property is now so sodden, he has lost twenty-four 300-year-old river red gums, which have fallen over in his paddocks.
He also said the benefits of any vegetation regeneration done since the 2022 floods has now been subject to inundation once again due to the broken levee and will be completely lost in the next imminent flood.
“If the MDBA wants to flood us out seven years out of ten, how are we, as farmers, or our environment ever going to recover?” John said.
Local farmer Andrew Perry has put the MDBA on notice, stating if they continue to flood properties with man-made floods, the MDBA could be facing a very big legal stoush with affected landowners.
This article appeared in The Koondrook and Barham Bridge Newspaper, 13 July 2023.
