A KEY element of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is achieving pre-determined flow targets at the South Australia border.
This has long been problematic, because past experience tells us that achieving the targets without causing upstream flooding to public and private land will not be possible – unfortunately, we have been seeing the damage this can cause.
Additionally, as we try to force so much water down the Murray River we are turning it into a drainage channel, while damaging river banks and improving the breeding conditions for European carp.
Yet the flow targets remain, because no one in authority has the political courage to acknowledge these consequences.
This being the case, surely the upstream communities which are being sacrificed to achieve these politically motivated targets should reasonably expect accuracy in flow measuring, as well as the collection of any data needed to ensure that this water is being effectively used for the environment it is supposed to protect.
But, no. During this current flood event we learn that a report from the SA Department of Environment and Water (DEW) tells us that SA flow calculations “should be interpreted with a high degree of caution” and that daily calculated flows “should not be considered a useful measure in relation to the forecasted flow and water levels”.
We’re also advised the DEW and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority are in the process of refining their modelling to allow for more accurate flow reporting.
So, for how long has flow measuring and modelling been at best unreliable, and possibly plain wrong?
Perhaps this is just another example of selective use of data to achieve the political objectives of the Basin Plan.
While I do not expect it will ever happen, if governments had any intention of delivering an effective plan with the balance we were originally promised, we would have a full review of its implementation to date.
This should include: (a) a detailed assessment of the environmental benefit from the water recovered to this point; (b) whether or not we actually need to recover more water; (c) if we do, can it be delivered without causing more damage and be accurately modelled; and (d) what complementary measures, both on-farm and off-farm, could be implemented to improve environmental outcomes without recovering more water from productive use.
Doug Fehring
Leitchville
