Everyone spoke of their experiences and made some good suggestions; I commend them for their inputs. Particularly our local search and rescue volunteers whose president spoke very well.
My local Undera group also put forth an important series of questions, which was dealt with by your own byline writer, thank you.
What I did not hear, however, was probably the most important issue. Why it was allowed to happen in the first place. I got there slightly late, so if it was raised in the first 10 minutes or so, forgive my questioning.
The meeting chair mentioned in passing, dam levels and climate change, but unless I missed it, I don’t believe it came up again until the Undera group also mentioned it.
The fact that all storages on the Murray, Goulburn and Campaspe were at capacity, that the rivers were full and soil already fully wet, was concerning to many of us who know the system. With expected snow melt and spring rains on the way there was no buffer volume available to lessen the impact, nowhere for water to go.
This issue is not new — Rochester in 2011 suffered floods for that same reason!
River and catchment management is about more than just milking the last drop of profit from a system. It is also about responsibility to those who live downstream.
The potential impacts and losses from obtaining this maximum profit can be seen by the nature of the submissions to the inquiry. Millions of dollars and untold emotional distress.
These catchment designs were created to help alleviate flooding as well as provide irrigation water.
Has the influx of speculators, largely profit driven, somehow pushed this seeming change of policy, to hold onto all water regardless of potential damages? If so, the critical question to ask is, why so full?
Especially at that point in the season when we can be fairly certain more rain is still to come. If we start the water season slightly under capacity, the loss is insignificant compared to the loss we have seen with this recent flood.
Sadly we appear to have learnt nothing from Rochy 2011, and we’ve allowed it to spread now, across three river systems, causing even more widespread destruction.
I heard some excellent questions and well-thought-out improvements from this day’s inquiry.
I only hope that the actual root cause will be addressed too, so that we won’t need to use them next time.
Neville Archibald, Undera
Carryover water is hurting the system
Thank you to Simon Banks, the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder (Country News, September 12), for telling me why I cannot get an allocation for my low-security water, despite full storages.
There are about 7000,000 megalitres of low-security water shares owned in northern Victoria.
The reason given by Simon Banks is the huge volume of carryover water he has, which is vital for him.
My low-security water, I own and pay fees for, is also vital for my dairy farm, but I have only received one season of allocation in 15 years.
We have a situation with full storages that our low-security water cannot fit into.
Simon Banks and other high-reliability water share owners, have taken up so much more storage space than they own, through use of the carryover system.
This has led to an extreme over-allocation of storage space by Goulburn-Murray Water.
The victims of this policy are:
- All low-security water share owners, dairy farmers and any other irrigator who uses his water shares on his farm, and cannot carry their own water over.
- Goulburn-Murray Water, who have lost control of the storages until they spill. Control of the water has been handed to Simon Banks and all those who are able to use the carryover system for their own ends, without any concern for other water users.
- The Murray River itself. Reports continually come to me of river bank erosion, subsequent tree fall and silting, caused by too many high river flows.
- Towns and farms along the rivers in northern Victoria are flooding more than they should because Simon Banks and his carryover mates now have control of the storages.
With all this damage, Simon Banks wants the Federal Government to give him another 900,000 megalitres of high-reliability water shares for him to play with and carry over even more water.
John Brian, Tongala
We must stick with the basin plan
Inland Rivers Network has been a long-term advocate for healthy rivers, wetlands and groundwater in the Murray-Darling Basin.
The Murray-Darling Basin Plan is the best way to restore environmental health to Australia’s largest river system.
We applaud the Federal Government for picking up the pieces of the plan through introducing the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 to parliament before key basin plan deadlines are in place.
This bill provides an opportunity for all interests to regroup and find a way forward for the public good.
There has been much misinformation about potential flooding by environmental flows. Returning more water for environmental restoration will not involve anywhere near the volumes experienced during the recent large-scale floods.
Communities along the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Goulburn rivers should welcome the proposed investment into raising bridges, causeways and private land access that will be beneficial during natural flood events.
The purchase of easements to allow low to medium flooding of important wetlands and floodplain vegetation is a win-win outcome for everyone.
Similarly, the scare campaign about buybacks.
Regional communities have been impacted as much by trade to different districts, as new water uses like almonds emerge, as they have been by water purchased by governments.
Recent economic analysis commissioned by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority found that healthy rural communities depend on many other factors than water for irrigation.
Many communities in the basin have suffered from poor river health.
It is time to move on from parochial politics and orchestrated scare campaigns — let’s all work towards the best outcomes for the nation.
Bev Smiles
President, Inland Rivers Network
11°C