While open discourse is essential to the progress of any initiative, we find it necessary to address several aspects of the EV report that appear misleading and potentially divisive.
It has become increasingly apparent that EV’s modus operandi involves resorting to sensationalism to captivate public attention and bolster their fundraising efforts.
Their assertion that the Murray River is now in worse condition following a 30 per cent increase in water held by environmental water holders is a case in point.
Such an assertion disregards the findings of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s scientists, who have consistently reported improvements in the basin’s overall condition.
Moreover, EV’s portrayal of Victoria’s role in the basin plan as undermining its progress is far removed from the reality recognised by established statutory and regulatory bodies.
There is no consensus within these bodies that Victoria has thwarted the basin plan.
In fact, the community perceives Victoria as committed to the basin plan’s balanced approach, evident through decisions to decommission water assets, investments in river health via community-led initiatives, and ongoing development projects aimed at water recovery.
EV’s portrayal of an idyllic world where adding more water can single-handedly restore our natural environment negates the complexities of people residing and producing food in living landscapes and established water storage and distribution systems.
It disregards the fact that the challenges at hand require a nuanced, multi-faceted approach involving a delicate equilibrium between human needs and environmental wellbeing.
The concerns raised in the report seem to stem from an urban-centric perspective that disregards the communities living within the basin.
The tone of the report appears to pander to urban audiences, particularly in Adelaide and Sydney, without acknowledging the unique circumstances and livelihoods of those within the basin.
Additionally, EV’s notion that agreeing to the basin plan is tantamount to undermining it contradicts the very essence of cooperative engagement.
Collaborative efforts, including ensuring secure and reliable water for the environment during dry periods, represent the cornerstone of a successful basin plan.
It is through targeted projects aimed at rehabilitating environmental flows that meaningful outcomes are achieved.
In conclusion, we find EV’s recent report to be riddled with misrepresentations and assumptions that detract from constructive dialogue and progress.
It is unfortunate that they undermine their own credibility and support from fair-minded individuals by adopting such an extreme stance.
The wellbeing of the Murray Darling Basin necessitates a unified, informed, and balanced approach — one that values both the environment and the communities that depend on it.
Suzanna Sheed and David McKenzie
Co-chairs, Goulburn Murray Irrigation District Water Leadership Forum
