Labor and the Greens claim victory over the Murray, while Coalition predicts disaster

ONE side of politics is celebrating a great victory — they stopped greedy irrigators from holding on to millions and millions of litres of water bound for the Murray-Darling. The other side warns the deal will be frightening for SA.

• Plan: Labor helps Greens gazump Government
• Opinion: SA Labor has most to gain from river fight
• Murray-Darling Basin plan explained
• Basin Plan failing, experts say

• READ BELOW: River flows at risk in ‘game of chicken’

• READ BELOW: Shackoners shut out from native title meeting

ONE side is celebrating a great victory — they stopped greedy irrigators from holding onto millions and millions of litres of water bound for the Murray-Darling.

The other side says they’ve shot themselves in the foot — that their “victory” will unravel the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, leaving an even bigger amount of water on land instead of in the river system.

The victorious are the Greens, Labor, SA Best and the Australian Conservatives, and cheering them on were a range of impressive scientists.

Federal Water Minister David Littleproud.

Those shaking their heads include the Federal Government, irrigators, farmers and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority, which did four years of research to ensure it was fine for communities and irrigators to keep 70 gigalitres while still protecting the environment.

The historic $13 billion basin plan was a century in the making. The then Labor government and the Coalition shook hands on it.

Almost everyone agrees the plan is good, and necessary. But the spat over its implementation is threatening its foundations.

So where will it go from here? There are a few options:

RESUSCITATION

LEGISLATION for the 70GL could be reintroduced. Labor was close to getting on board with the Government but the deal disintegrated. If the Government can satisfy Labor that SA would be protected, the legislation might stand.

Then NSW and Victoria would be back in the band and the plan can move ahead.

(Well, until it hits the next stumbling block — a vote on a 605GL reduction in the limits of what can be taken out. Oh, and the ongoing inquiries into water theft and rorting.)

WALKING DEAD

FEDERAL Water Minister David Littleproud says if Victoria and NSW are out of the picture, the whole plan is crippled. But the Commonwealth is bound by legislation to deliver 2750GL. That’s nowhere near the 3200GL SA wants.

The 450GL that is due to flow in the latter stages of the plan will not go ahead.

In fact, Mr Littleproud says it’ll be tough to get more water in the system than is already being saved — 2090GL a year.

Considering scientists originally said 4000GL was the minimum necessary for a healthy river — a number watered down in the final plan — 2090GL sounds terrifying.

A DILUTED OPTION

LABOR, the Greens and others opposed the 70GL change because they say the river needs the water more than the irrigators. They also want implementation of the plan improved to stop rorting. And on top of that lies a fear that the other states could screw over SA.

So if NSW and Victoria get back on board, and the 70GL change and the subsequent 605GL change are both made, happy days. Well, for a while.

They may pull out once the ­recovered water reaches 2750GL, leaving SA high and dry without that extra 450GL.

Mr Littleproud admits there is a trust issue, and how to fix it will be an ongoing topic.

ALL THE RIVERS RUN

EVERYONE stays on board the plan and commits to ­delivering 3200GL. Cue fireworks!

However, there are other, unpredictable things that could happen before fireworks.

That 605GL change is not as controversial as the 70GL because Labor believes that the environmental benefits of the plan can still be achieved through a range of projects, ­including better efficiency. But if we get to that vote — due in May — it will be another trigger point for division.

Not only is the plan complex, it’s operating in a very complicated environment. The state and federal governments are rarely at peace with other. Even if flaws in the plan’s implementation were magicked away and the science was crystal clear, there’d still be politics.

And there are far more than two sides to every story.

River flows at risk in ‘game of chicken’

By Tory Shepherd

SOUTH Australians should be “frightened” because more than a thousand gigalitres meant for the Murray are at risk, the federal Water Minister says.

David Littleproud has laid the blame for a Senate vote to block proposed changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan at the Premier’s feet.

He says the State Labor Government pressured the federal Labor Party into voting with the Greens to block communities in the north from keeping 70GL of water instead of returning it to the river.

Labor said they needed assurances that the entire 3200GL in the plan would be delivered before they would agree to any other changes — Premier Jay Weatherill said “every drop” of the plan had to be delivered.

FLOW-ON EFFECT: Irrigator Michael Trautwein is likely to feel the impact on his Riverland property near Renmark. Picture NAOMI JELLICOE

NSW and Victoria are set to pull out of the plan because of the vote. Mr Littleproud says they’ve “had a gutful” and their leaving could mean he can only ever deliver 2090GL instead of the full 3200GL, which is the minimum needed to save the Murray.

“Jay Weatherill thinks it’s going to change and he’ll get more water ... he won’t,” he said.

“He’s rolled the dice in an election campaign. He’s put at risk 1100 GL. If people in SA understand what’s happened, they’ll be frightened.”

NXT (SA Best), the Australian Conservatives, the Greens and Labor all played “very dangerous game of chicken”, he said.

The Federal Government will now start looking for different ways to get all the states back on board and deliver the plan.

Mr Weatherill said he would “expect Nationals representing upstream states such as David Littleproud and Barnaby Joyce to try to sell out SA”.

“And it’s little surprise SA Liberals would roll over and support moves to water down the plan for the benefit of upstream irrigators,” he said.

The Murray-Darling Basin Authority says science shows the 70GL can stay with communities without hurting the environment.

MDBA member Prof Barry Hart said four years of research, modelling and consultation had gone into the Northern Basin Review. Criticism of the results — the 70GL reduction — lacked understanding of the evidence, he said.

Prof Mike Young, a University of Adelaide water expert, said the plan was close to being “the very best” in place but compliance and better measuring of flows were needed.

“Now is the time to focus on getting the accounting, monitoring, compliance and regional plans right,” he said.

The National Irrigators Council said the decision was a “huge blow” that threatens the entire plan. “Senators have rejected four years of hard work by the independent authority and more importantly by the communities in the Northern Basin,” chief executive Steve Whan said.

Riverland irrigator Michael Trautwein, near Renmark, said: “My concern is this ongoing belief that irrigators can get more and more efficient and still produce the same wealth for the economy.”

Shackowners shut out from native title claim meeting

By Craig Cook

RIVER Murray shackowners and the council that administers the region have been shut-out of a meeting at Berri to discuss a native title claim over lands between the Mt Lofty Ranges and the river, leaving them none the wiser about moves to establish the claim.

Shackowners and Mid Murray council were denied access to the meeting between SA Native Title Service lawyer, Andrew Jantke, and an unidentified group at the Berri Hotel.

The meeting was the first step in establishing a possible native title claim that could affect an area west of the river from Morgan in the north and as far south as Swan Reach.

River Murray shackowners were not allowed to attend the native title meeting.

Blanchetown Shack Owners Association president Wayne Tredrea said his group were told by Mr Jantke they wouldn’t be welcome at the meeting but they did turn up and observe.

“We didn’t make a scene and we never would,” Mr Tredrea, who represents around 60 shackowners, said.

“We don’t want to cause any embarrassment to the indigenous people but we want to know what’s going on?”

Mr Tredrea said he asked for an update of the meeting but was told nothing.

“(Andrew) said to wait 12-18 months for a verdict and then hire our own native title lawyer — but we can’t afford to fight something like this,” he said. “We’d like to be invited to any future meetings.”

Council chief executive, Warren Peake confirmed to The Advertiser his staff were advised not to attend.

“I understand we won’t hear anything until an actual claim is lodged,” he said.

Native title does not override freehold land ownership, but the Mid Murray Council area has the highest concentration of the SA Murray’s 2500 shacks, 300 of which are occupied under long-term leases.