Why is Government Ignoring Advice from International Water Expert?

NEIL Eagle grows oranges and beef cattle on the flood plains of the Central Murray Valley near Barham. He was once involved in water politics as a former president of Australian Citrus Growers and former chair of the Murray Lower Darling River Management Board. Now he is angered by it all and particularly the new proposed Basin Plan.

“While government can ignore my advice,” he says, “I would expect them to at least consider the advice of their own international water expert, Professor John Briscoe.”

Neil recently wrote:

“IN 2010 Professor John Briscoe, Gordon McKay Professor of the Practice of Environmental Engineering at Harvard University and leader of the Harvard Water Program, was engaged as a member of the High-Level External Review Panel convened by the Murray Darling Basin Commission to review the draft Guide to the Basin Plan. Many of his comments in an invited submission to the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the Senate Inquiry remain extremely relevant.

In reference to claims by Malcolm Turnbull that “our water management has been extraordinarily ill informed in years past”, Professor Briscoe responsed,

“I found (and find) this diagnosis (a) extraordinarily widespread and (b) extraordinarily erroneous. What is obvious to me is that the overwhelming factor behind the dismal situation in the MD Basin was the dramatic reduction in rainfall and even larger reduction in river flows. It is equally clear to me that the Institutional Response (of the Murray Darling Basin Commission, that basin states, and farmers) was extraordinarily innovative and – within the bounds set by nature – effective. Not only for the economy but, as shown by the National Water Commission, for ameliorating the environmental damage of the terrible drought.”

The pressure of the environmental vote at the 2007 Federal election led to the utilisation of the Ramsar Convention, as the legal basis for usurping state powers with the constitutional amendments in the Water Act 2007.

Professor Briscoe commented,

“I have come to see opportunistic politics as a major factor in the development of the Water Act of 2007 and the current impasse.

And so the fundamentals of the Act were born – an environmental act in which Canberra would tell states and communities and farmers what to do.”

The framers of the Water Act 2007 had not read their Churchill. Democracy is, indeed, the worst form of government, except from all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. Yes, the consultative, participatory model of the MDB Commission did have its flaws, because consensus was difficult and often slow. But it is now obvious that the commonwealth-bureaucrats–and–scientists–know-better–then-states-and-communities-and-farmers-do (MDBA) model has, once again, proved to be much worse and even much slower.

The highly secretive ‘we will run the numbers and the science behind closed doors and then tell you the result’ MDB Plan process was not, in my view, an aberration which can be pinned entirely on the leadership of the MDBA Board and management, but intrinsic to the institutional power concentration that is fundamental to the Water Act 2007.

The secretive closed process effectively was denying any transparency, opportunity for knowledgeable input and rigorous review and debate.

In all my years of public service, often in very sensitive environments, I had never been subject to such an elaborate ‘confidentiality’ process as that embodied in the preparation of the Guide to the Basin Plan.

A corollary of this flawed process (and the ideas incorporated in the Act) was that there was very little recourse in the process to the immense, world-leading knowledge of water management that had developed in Australia during the last 20 years. Time and again I heard from professionals, community leaders, farmers and state politicians who made Australia the widely acknowledged world leaders in arid zone water management that they were excluded from the process.

My conclusion is stark. I believe that the Water Act of 2007 was founded on a political deception and that the original sin is responsible for most of the detour on which Australian water management now finds itself. I am well aware that unpredictability is an enemy and that there are large environmental, social, economic costs of uncertainty. But I also believe that Australia cannot find its way in water management if this Act is the guide.

I would urge the Government to start again, to re-define principles, to engage all who have a stake in this vital issue, and to produce, as rapidly as possible, a new Act which can serve Australia for generations to come. And which can put Australia back in the world leadership position in modern water management.

Neil offers the following solutions to the current mess:

1. The Water Act of 2007 must be redrafted to fully enable a balanced equal appraisal of the water needs of the Basin, as to social, economic and environmental interests and thus comply with the principles laid down in the COAG National Water Initiative.

2. MDBC Board Appointments must be made by the States. The Commissioners (Board Members) need to be again nominated by States, free of Federal input, to ensure balance and transparency, knowledge and expertise. This would re-establish that the MDB Commission which was a proven and successful model, under which Australia was acknowledged as the world leader in arid zone water management.

The only adjustment that should be reviewed may be to remove the Veto Power of any State, which can slow the decision process. This was demonstrated, once to my knowledge by South Australia vetoing the Upper States development of Dartmouth Dam for about six years only resolved with the raising of the South Australian water share component.

3. There must be proper Basin community and State water agencies involvement in the development of any balanced future Basin Plan.

4. There must be open outside Scientific assessment of the health needs of the Basin’s Rivers, with the identification of key environmental sites and of sustainable water yields.

5. The fresh water solution for the Lower Lakes in drought periods must be rejected. A weir constructed at Wellington and in periods of drought or low flows removal of the barrage boards, to allow the Lakes to revert to their natural estuarine state; with the reestablishment of the tidal prism between the lakes and the Southern Ocean.

It is totally unacceptable for the upper States to be asked to reconfigure their irrigation industry at great cost, while approximately 1 million megalitres per year is evaporated from this massive fresh water playground.

In conclusion, according to Neil:

The current direction of reform is unacceptable.

To have the new Chairman of the MDBC Craig Knowles, supported by Minister Tony Burke, indicating that they aim to draft and release a revised Basin Plan in a few months is impractical, arrogant and destined to commit the same fundamental errors of the first.

This comes after acknowledging that the first Draft Plan released in 2010 failed in the basics of: Proper community involvement; Involvement of the State agencies knowledge and expertise resources; Complete failure to properly review the assumptions in the CSIRO Sustainable Yield Assessments of Rivers which was conducted in the middle of a 10 year protracted drought; and Failure to justify the selection of key environmental sites in the Basin.

Of even greater concern is that our farm and irrigation leaders are complicit in not totally rejecting this new agenda of MDBC Chairman Knowles and Minister Bourke.

To have leaders such as Tony Windsor MP, now stating that the “pain” to the irrigators and their reliant communities will NOT be great – as already 900 to 1000 GLs has been recovered and they will only “need” to recover another 1000 to 1500 GLs, is not heartening. This effectively is still about two thirds of what was originally planned!

The desire to ‘recover’ specific water volumes has been questioned from the start with Professor John Pigram, stating at the start of the Living Murray Process, “Not one gigalitre of water should be removed from productive use unless the need of the environment can be fully justified” and the 2004 Federal House of Representative Interim Report on River Health concluding that there was NOT adequate science to justify the removal of any water from productive use!

Let us be quite clear – the proposed Basin Plan has little to do with river health or the environment, but rather a mechanism of ‘end of river flows’, to create a fresh water solution for the Lower Lakes of Alexandrina and Albert.

Neil J Eagle, Barham

****************
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201103/s3159086.htm
http://davidboydsblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/harvard-professor-john-briscoe-on.html
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/provisionswateract2007/submissions.htm