Part Two: Narrative continued

Key concerns being raised cluster around what might be seen as a disconnect between rhetoric and reality.

1. Adaptive management: what does it mean and what might it mean? As RobF notes, the ‘precautionary principle’ is in tension with an ‘adaptive management’ that Don Aitkin, NoelB, Denis Wilson and myself might endorse. It is not for want of input from concerned citizens that it remains vague.

2. Numbers and outcomes: one means little in the absence of the other. Numbers games become shouting across an ill-informed chasm but careful catchment by catchment analysis shows that the outcomes required by the Water Act will not be achieved by the proposed reductions. The weight then gets shifted to adaptive management.

3. Ground water allocations and mining: what will be the impact on surface water? The announcement that some 4000GL of ground water would be available, an increase from the existing 1787GL, stunned many of us: the MDBA had assured us there would be no surprises. The matter was not part of the CSIRO Science Review because it was not on the agenda when their terms of reference were set. When I asked the MDBA Chair about the impact of the increase on ground water, he said it was a matter of accounting. How the water was used, coal seam gas, reuse, was not within his purview. So Rhrosty, Saltpetre and Denis Wilson we have a real struggle here to find the balance and the fulcrum.

4. History: Thanks for reference Gary01. Mr P Science (‘P’ for pseudo?) reminds us history is watching. I doubt it will absolve us unless we lift our game. We have what is left of the 20 week consultation period to craft a Plan that meets the Act, is informed by peer-reviewed science and is good value for money. Keep agitating Zerochrysum. There are citizens who know the River, like Susan Hawthorne, Seamus and cardigan. Do not give up KEAP. I hope to rejoice, not wail, with Carolinem. If there a balance to be struck is must include passion for the river and reason

I watched in absolute horror as the recent disastrous Queensland floods devastated so much of the state; destroyed lives and livelihoods, family memorabilia and heirlooms.
Many green advocates displayed their calloused indifference, by suggesting people shouldn't build on flood plains; ignoring the fact that this is usually our poorest demographic, with few other options?
If there is no real empathy for them; then perhaps the plight of the dugong and our turtles might encourage it; and, some informed debate on mitigating the many repeated flood disasters, which all but wiped out our sea grass beds; and as a consequence, made very serious inroads into already threatened species.
One of the rivers that sent many times the volume of the Sydney harbour out to sea; to decimate the sea grass beds, is the Dawson. Reportedly, the Dawson and several other major rivers, used to flow west and add its/their volume to the MDB.
A dam at Nathan's gorge i.e., would allow that to reoccur; as well as preventing Theodore from being repeatedly inundated; or indeed, tons of harmful sediment from wiping out important sea grass beds. Other similar gorges ditto, with the water contained in the gorge(s) and nearly as narrow as the water course(s); thereby effectively limiting evaporation.
Our work ought not end there; as our very survival and that of a whole host of threatened species; could be largely determined, by how much of our most precious resource, we effectively husband!
Many upland landscapes can be forced to absorb more water; during the wet, and gradually release it much later; retaining harmful sediment, where it will actually provide a positive benefit; as well as, dealing with otherwise intractable salt problems; by placing an envelope of fresh over it!
With enough water stored, we could easily envisage sending an annual surge south, to help the Murray cod and river red gums etc, without also destroying any lives and or livelihoods? Which can only endlessly repeat in a warmer wetter future; and, essential extremely urgent flood mitigation; fatuously stymied by a largely mindless or imbecilic Ideological imperative?

Diane your article makes gripping bedtime reading and really clears the cobwebs from all the fuzzy mixed messages and pseudo science that shroud much reportage on the River and its future. The Burke and Wills story as both framing device and chilling allegory is stroke of brilliance. The embedded web links work well - the MDBC chair needs to be careful that he does not cast himself as Burke and share his fate.

Like several other commentators, members of my family have lived along the Murray for five generations (since the 1840s) and since I was a small child I’ve been entranced by the astonishing diversity of its waters as it approaches the ocean through the Lakes and sea-mouth. As an historian I’ve come to better understand the River through the intricate web of Indigenous living knowledges, and also through the long, often-overlooked history of cross-cultural engagement along its waters from early colonial times. I'm compelled now to read Sarah Murgatroyd's book - fascinating that the survivor of the expedition had Aboriginal children, much the same as William Buckley, probably a not an uncommon experience.

Thank you for focusing emphasis on the River as a living body rather than on water as a commodity of a 'working river'.

Thank you Prof. Bell for your astute analysis and analogy. Let's hope that this year we all make some positive progress with the MDB Journey.

Like you I have little confidence that the MDBA is using the right guides, or has acquired sufficient and suitable provisions for their journey into the unknown. Each of these journeys (Burke & Wills, and the MDB Plan)had a sort of vague objective, better articulated by their backers, but the consequences of the modern attempt are far more dire if they fail in their undertaking.

Thank you Diane for this impressive article. The comparison of the MDBA plan which will take Australia on a journey with the ill fated journey of Burke and Wills is very apt. If Craig Knowles and the MDBA, in their arrogance, refuse to genuinely listen to indigenous people, scientists, environmentalists and all who live in the MDB, who care for the rivers, who make a living of the rivers, then how will the MDBA journey end? Like the journey of Burke and Wills, in tragedy? Will it end with a dying river system?