After years of neglect, the Murray Darling Basin plan received a lifeline as legislation to salvage the arrangement passed the Senate. The bill, focused on Australia's largest river system, outlines water sharing and introduces voluntary water buybacks by the federal government. The primary goal is to return 450 gigaliters of water to the environment by June 2027, addressing the shortcomings of the decade-old plan. However, the farming community remains vehemently opposed, expressing concerns that the plan will detrimentally impact regional communities and lead to increased food prices.
The National Farmers Federation has labeled the legislation as a "kick in the guts" and warns that additional water buybacks could devastate regional communities. Farmers fear the potential for job losses and increased water prices. Claire Miller from the NSW Irrigators Council emphasized the risk, stating that farmers should "be afraid" and expressing worries about the lack of clarity regarding the criteria for considering social and economic impacts.
The Murray Darling Conservation Alliance views the strengthened bill as a lifeline for the river system, offering a chance for survival amid impending drought conditions. Indigenous groups welcome a $100 million package for First Nations people to participate in water markets through the Murray-Darling Basin Aboriginal Water Entitlements Program.
Despite some support, large segments of basin communities oppose the plan, staging rallies in four southern basin areas in recent weeks. The concern is that the legislation may negatively impact the agricultural sector, leading to job losses and economic hardships. Federal Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek hails the legislation as a significant achievement for the Australian environment, emphasizing its importance in sustaining the million square kilometers of inland Australia that the rivers support.
Critics argue that the government needs to strike a balance between environmental concerns and the socio-economic well-being of the affected communities. While the legislation includes provisions for annual reporting on social and economic impacts, skepticism remains about the criteria used for assessments and their effectiveness in mitigating potential negative consequences.
Source: www.aap.com.au