The Wakool River Association said the NSW Government was suggesting it might use compulsory acquisition of land to claim easements, which would allow higher flow levels of environmental water to be delivered to South Australia under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan.
Association chair John Lolicato said recent meetings with NSW Government officials had exacerbated landholders’ concerns.
Mr Lolicato said the volumes of water being acquired and stored in upstream dams under the basin plan would not physically fit down the system without causing major disruption.
“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.”
The NSW Government has prepared a draft Landholder Negotiation Regulation Scheme, to be accompanied with public exhibition until October 27.
Mr Lolicato said the eight planned meetings over two days in Deniliquin appeared to be designed to limit informed discussion and questions regarding the process and the associated Reconnecting River Country Program.
“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.
“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.
“However, that may mean the authorities would have to answer some difficult questions, and their process is designed to avoid this.”
Mr Lolicato said basic data useful to landholders was being withheld, such as proposed flows, height duration, frequency, extent and timing.
“Without this information, how can a landholder decide what is in their best interest?” he said.
Mr Lolicato said the draft regulations made it clear that landholders had two options — negotiation or compulsory acquisition — and that any compensation would be one-off payments and not event-based.
“When asked about compensation if a crop was accidentally flooded by environmental flows, the answer was a distinct ‘no’ under the proposed legislation,” Mr Lolicato said.
“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.”
17°C