Murray region landholders have increasing fears of government forcibly acquiring their land, exacerbated by the release of a new draft discussion paper.
The subject of a series of meetings in the region this month, the discussion paper suggests the NSW Government may use compulsory acquisition of land to claim easements, which will allow higher flow levels of environmental water to be delivered to South Australia under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Landholders have been highlighting for many years that the volumes of water being acquired and stored in upstream dams under the Basin Plan will not physically fit down the system without causing major disruption.
Wakool River Association chair John Lolicato, a long-time advocate for a more common-sense approach to the Basin Plan implementation, says recent meetings with NSW Government personnel have exacerbated landholder concerns.
“We know that due to constraints such as the Barmah Choke and numerous other physical restrictions, the volumes proposed under the Basin Plan simply cannot be delivered downstream without causing flooding of private and public land,” Mr Lolicato said.
“While governments also know this indisputable fact, it’s an issue that has been ‘kicked down the road’ for many years.
“Now, the New South Wales Government has prepared what it calls a draft Landholder Negotiation Regulation Scheme, with what’s called a ‘public exhibition process’ until October 27.
“After attending one of their information sessions in Deniliquin, and reading the draft regulations, I think farmers should be more worried than ever.”
Mr Lolicato said it was disappointing the eight planned meetings over two days in Deniliquin appear to be designed to limit informed discussion and questions regarding the process and the associated Reconnecting River Country Program.
“A better way would be to work collaboratively with our representative groups and hold public meetings, so the people attending all hear the same answers and questions,” Mr Lolicato said.
“However, that may mean the authorities would have to answer some difficult questions, and their process is designed to avoid this.
“Even the most basic data that is required by a landholder to make an informed decision regarding the negotiation process could not be provided.
“For example, on each landholding what are the proposed flows, including their height, duration, frequency, extent and timing. Without this information, how can a landholder decide what is in their best interest?”
Mr Lolicato said the draft regulations make it clear that landholders have two options – negotiation or compulsory acquisition.
“If the government undervalues a landholder’s property or the infrastructure required, and the landholder refuses to accept an inadequate offer, the minister can step in and grab what they want.
“Department officials at the meetings were unable or unwilling to answer genuine questions relating to realistic compensation packages for easements.
“When asked if compensation would be ‘event based’ or ‘one-off’, it was clear there would be only one payment, regardless of ongoing potential damage or liability.
“When asked about compensation if a crop was accidentally flooded by environmental flows, the answer was a distinct ‘no’ under the proposed legislation.
“So governments can ruin a farm business, negligently or accidentally, and there are no consequences.
“That is not the Australian way. In effect, they’re holding a gun at our head.”
While the negotiation process is under control of the NSW Government, Mr Lolicato said it was clear the MDBA’s proposed Constraints Roadmap could take over the decision-making regarding flow volumes and duration, thus absolving the NSW Government of responsibility.
“Many aspects of the poorly designed and implemented Basin Plan have been of huge concern for the nation’s food and fibre producers for nearly two decades, and unfortunately the situation is getting worse, not better,” Mr Lolicato said.
“In a nutshell, this latest legislation is designed to give the New South Wales Government the power to compulsorily acquire our land, and past experiences in any policy area tells us the landholder will not be fairly compensated.
“Even worse, it will make the government immune from any liability or litigation if water is released and it causes damage.
“The constraints issue has been the Basin Plan’s ‘elephant in the room’ for a long time.
“This new draft process has the potential for governments to pick winners and losers and create more division within our regional communities.
“It undermines the social fabric that holds our communities together.”
An information sheet on the proposal developed by Southern Riverina Irrigators highlights that at least 4000 landholdings across the Murrumbidgee and Murray region will be impacted by this regulation, with 2700 landholdings situated in the Murray.
Its chair Peter McDonald said this is another example of an “extremely poor policy”.
“New South Wales Government has basically said to the Riverina, ‘hey we want to come in and acquire your land, flood you every second or third year but don’t worry we will give you a one-off compensation payment, so it's all good’,” Mr McDonald said.
“It is just so ridiculous, I don’t have any words to describe it.
“The flooding is part of relaxing constraints, so more water can be sent downstream for ‘environmental priorities’, although we still don’t know what these priorities are.”
A RRCP handout provided to stakeholders claims the program has the potential to deliver benefits to regional economies in southern NSW, but Mr McDonald again highlighted there is a distinct lack of any detail.
“Riverina farmers and farmers right across the southern basin have been battling against this poorly implemented basin plan for years now, and rather than acknowledge there are some serious problems with flow targets and assumptions, departments want to swoop in and take our land, ultimately eroding our property right and a right to farm,” he said.
“What we really need is someone to have the courage to stand up against this mess, especially as the many deliverability flaws and unintentional environmental damage is rearing its head and can no longer be ignored.”
And to add further insult to the Riverina, Mr McDonald said this regulation will apply to any future environmental waterings that have the potential to flood our communities, not just the RRCP.
He said concerned landholders can write a submission stating their opposition to this regulation. It doesn’t have to be long, and it can be sent through to water.dpie.nsw.giv.au/landholder-negotiation-scheme.
Originally closing on October 27, the deadline has been extended to November 24 to enable landholders to learn more about this regulation.