Last week [May 29 to June 2] we were asked to provide community feedback on delivering the basin plan by Federal Water Minister Tanya Plibersek.
These are the latest in a never-ending stream of meetings and submissions relating to the basin plan, in which our communities have continued to engage with respect and a level of expectation.
But we could be forgiven for asking: Why do we bother?
Throughout the basin plan process the attempts at consultation appear to be nothing more than ‘tick a box’ bureaucratic exercises with no intention of taking notice, even though some excellent alternatives and solutions are continually presented.
Anyone who bothered to study the numerous reviews and reports that have been undertaken would come to an unequivocal conclusion: The basin plan was built on false modelling and as a consequence there have been numerous unintended consequences, including more significant social and economic damage to rural communities than was anticipated.
All the evidence tells us that water buybacks damage communities, especially small ones.
As a logical extension it would be reasonable to assume that due to the evidence that has been gathered, these devastating buybacks would be off the table for good.
The evidence also tells us that trying to force the original modelled volumes of water down the Murray River is not physically possible without causing unnecessary environmental damage.
And then we have the issue, proven time and time again, that South Australia’s unrealistic demands for more upstream water are not to protect its environment, but rather to ensure it has unlimited volumes for recreation, urban and industrial use.
None of the above can be disputed.
And so any reasonable person would conclude that it is necessary to review the basin plan modelling, review the true volumes that are required to protect the South Australian environment, and seek to achieve the right balance in water management so this precious resource is not wasted.
But no, that’s not what we get.
Instead, the Albanese Government insists on recovering water that is not needed for the environment, nor can it be delivered downstream. It wants to press ahead with buybacks, despite the proven damage they inflict on our communities.
And, like governments before it, Albanese and Plibersek are continuing with ‘tick a box’ exercises that cost a lot of money and waste a lot of time, but do not give us any positive result because the political imperatives outweigh the environmental ones.
Our communities will continue to engage in these processes, in the hope that one day someone will listen and common-sense will prevail.
But I won’t be holding my breath.
Robert Quodling
Yanco, NSW
10°C