To give them credit, the Authority has at least recognised, after years of us putting the point, that the northern Basin and southern Basin are not the same. In the draft Plan documents they say:

“The northern and southern Basin have very different characteristics. The rivers in the north typically have lower levels of water use, are less regulated and are much more variable, than those in the southern Basin. The northern Basin rivers are only connected to the southern Basin at the point where the Darling River meets the River Murray. Very significant volumes of water are taken up by the environment or evaporate along the long, slow journey downstream. The northern Basin contributes relatively little to flow requirements at the Murray Mouth — around 18% under natural conditions.”

They go on to say that “… the Barwon–Darling and the Murray, rely on significant inflows from their tributaries. Some of the additional flows required to meet the environmental needs in these two catchments will need to be sourced from upstream catchments.”

In this regard an annual average of 143,000 megalitres, a very large volume of water, is earmarked for the general purpose of “improving the frequency and volume of instream flows in the Barwon-Darling”. This is a vague theoretical concept the benefits of which are not justified by any hard science in the draft Plan or its accompanying documents. The reality is that this can only be achieved when there are already natural flows in the system.

Environmental flow rules in the state water plans ensure that some of each natural flow gets to the Barwon-Darling. Therefore, frequency improvements are not really attainable. Volume improvements can be achieved by increasing tributary end flows (for the Border Rivers, at Mungindi) in small to medium events, but once again practical considerations emerge.

If the Barwon-Darling, a very sinuous river passing through an arid landscape, is dry, the extra volume is soon consumed by seepage and evaporation in the upper reaches. With no follow-up flows, the river reverts to its former dry condition quite quickly. If the river is wet, depending on the additional flow provided, some increase in the depth will occur, but because of attenuation (the natural lengthening and flattening of a flow over time) depth will decline rapidly as the flow peak passes downstream. A lot of extra flow would be needed to make any appreciable difference in height. The draft Plan does not tell us what the environmental benefit of this might be, and it certainly does not do so in the context of the social and economic costs.

Low and medium flows during drier times very rarely, if ever, make it to Menindee Lakes after months of travel. By contrast, large flows in the upstream catchments (floods) do pass through the system, and account for a very high percentage of the flows at Menindee. They do benefit the system all the way down.

Large flows in the Border Rivers are virtually untouched. Either rainfall has people pumping water off their farms, or diversions occur only until storages are full. Maximum pumping capacity is 16,000 megalitres/day. Flood flows can exceed 200,000 megalitres/day. All, or nearly all, the water from a flood passes Mungindi. This, and water from the Namoi, is the lifeblood of the Barwon-Darling.

It appears that no-one has calculated the relative contributions of floods versus low and medium flows. It is obvious that, without floods, the system would die. If the Border Rivers and Namoi ended in wetlands or inland deltas like the other northern tributaries, the Barwon-Darling as we know it would not exist. What quantum of benefit can be gained by attempting to supplement the outcomes of floods with increased low and medium flows? There is no reliable evidence in this regard. We revert to the tired old paradigm that “more water means better health”, and cling to the precautionary principle to justify what is essentially a policy rather than a technical position.

It is acknowledged that any flow, or any increase in flow, does provide some benefits, but at what cost? Reduced access to low and medium flows, which usually occur during the drier times when water is needed by crops, cuts farm gate production by tens of millions of dollars per flow event. In fact, lack of access to a particular critical flow can mean the difference between crop success and crop failure. If access is foregone, and the end flow thus created is consumed by seepage and evaporation in the first 100 kilometres of the Barwon, this can hardly be seen as achieving a sensible economic-social-environmental balance.

The inevitable conclusion is that the condition of the Barwon-Darling depends principally on upstream floods from which there is little, if any, upstream demand. To seek a small and as yet unquantified improvement by further reducing diversions from small and medium flows flies in the face of any reasonable interpretation of “maximising environmental, social and economic benefits”, especially given the Basin’s highest level of downstream contributions is already being made by the Border Rivers.

The Goondiwindi region, an exceptional example of a vibrant, modern, progressive community West of the Dividing Range, is highly dependent on irrigated production, as confirmed by the MDBA’s socioeconomic analysis and intrinsically understood by all those who live here. Vigorous efforts have been made over the years to diversify the economic base. As is the case in other parts of rural Australia and similar regions overseas, they have been largely unproductive. There is very little industry, and value-adding, where it exists, is at the most basic level. Cotton is the most profitable commodity produced, and cotton relies on water. In the future, broadscale horticulture will rely on water.

A 20% reduction in water availability would deal a crippling blow. The impacts are not linear – business overhead expenses do not decrease in proportion to income. As income declines, profit is the first to go. A tipping point is reached, and businesses start to close down. Tradespeople relocate to the mines or the coast, and retailers lay off some of their staff. Confidence plummets as the people who have opportunities elsewhere leave town. Real estate values and sales decline. Social problems escalate, and a once proud and thriving region is in danger of becoming a rural cot case. This is the worst case scenario.

And yet, scientists agree that the Border Rivers is a sustainable working catchment. It should be held up as a shining example, not threatened with decimation at the whim of governments obsessed by a concept of “equality” that will see everyone reduced to the same miserable common denominator. A good region will be condemned to mediocrity with no balancing measurable benefits of any kind. This is the tragic consequence of the interplay between social policy and scientific reason. This is exemplified by Penny Wong’s statement that “our government does not pick winners and losers”. What Ms Wong failed to realise when she said this is that you can have winners without there being any losers, and that big wins at the expense of small losses are actually in the national interest.

In the world there is a very limited supply of fertile arable land, and an even smaller amount that is suitable for broadacre irrigated production by a fortunate combination of topography, soil, water and climate. The world population is now over seven billion, predicted to climb to ten billion by 2035. The demand for food increases as more and more productive land is consumed by urbanisation. Our prime cropping lands are of the utmost strategic value. We have some of the best in the world in the northern Darling Basin. Every day we hear about the threat of recession, or even depression, due to faltering world growth. Yet here we are, in an amazing display of contrarian thinking, saying that we can decline rather than grow and be better off in the future.

Rural businesses are no different to any other businesses. Our whole economic system is based on growth. Look what happens to the share price of retailers and resource companies when their profit forecasts decline. Observe the panic of governments when growth stalls.

The profit forecasts for all the businesses in our community, agricultural and non-agricultural, are uncertain. In the Basin plan we have a deliberate proposal to under-utilise vital national and international assets, rather than proactively seeking ways to maximise their benefits within a framework of sustainability. Government should not apply the double standard of growth for some but not for others.

Commendably, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority seeks to “enable water recovery where there is least economic cost, to allow market forces to operate and so that consideration can be given to environmental water needs and system constraints that may limit river flows.” They say that “in the largely unregulated systems of the northern Basin, there are opportunities for achieving the same environmental outcomes with less water through a strategic approach to water recovery”.

Water savings, where scientifically justified, must come from infrastructure and operational improvements rather than buyback. This is the message we must convey loudly and clearly at the meeting on 14th February.