So close, but so far
At the time of writing (August 22) Hume Dam was at 92 per cent and Menindee Lakes at 80 per cent full.
Hold tight - we’re checking permissions before loading more content
We have an abundance of water flowing down the Murray River, to the point where 45 gates are open at the barrages, with massive volumes of water pouring out to sea being wasted.
It will only take one big rain event for Hume to spill and we risk another catastrophic flood event, with predictions that the Menindee Lakes will fill by October.
Yet the humble food producers closest to the storages are told they are getting a mere 30 per cent allocation, and don’t expect much if very little more.
Can I be excused for thinking our bureaucracy and governments have gone totally mad?
In a supposedly civilised country, how can we waste massive volumes of water through transmission to the sea and have it sit in dams for evaporation, then tell our most efficient farmers they can only get a 30 per cent allocation?
Of course there is a long list from the NSW Government and its highly paid bureaucrats giving us their ‘reasons’ for the low allocation, including that our farmers have to ‘repay’ water for the environment, despite the environment being the biggest water holder in the country. It has also benefited from unregulated high flows over the past two months, so how much more does it really need?
It is such a shame that our region's leaders (community and government) continue to lack the unity and strength to fight on behalf of our hard-working irrigation farmers for a fair and equitable share of the drenched water resources.
Unless this changes soon, I’m concerned that staple food production in the Murray Irrigation Limited footprint may become a thing of the past for family-run irrigated agribusinesses.
Wake up, water bureaucrats, and allow the nation's most efficient irrigation communities to grow fresh, clean, staple foods that the city folk demand.
— James Sides
Deniliquin, NSW
Advocacy talk a coincidence?
Well, I thought I’d been snowed on in the middle of a warm sunny day. Fancy seeing Murray Irrigation talk about advocacy.
And what a coincidence – it comes just after two candidates for the upcoming MIL election have been telling us what we already know: that MIL has been weak in the advocacy space and needs to do much more.
Seems someone listened. Just about before you could say ‘where’s my water?’ we hear the MIL chairman on the radio and then he features in an MIL-prepared media release, telling us all about its advocacy efforts.
I’d like to ask: Where have those efforts been in recent years? And, did it take two candidates forming a joint ticket calling for more advocacy for someone to listen?
I suspect unless we get change at MIL, after the election it will be back to what we have become used to and we’ll get more of the same advocacy failure that we have accepted as being the norm.
Please, shareholders, do not let this happen.
Vote for Lachlan Marshall and Waander Van Beek so we at least have a chance to bring about change.
— Andrew Hateley
Finley, NSW
It starts from the top
There has been a lot of negative comment directed towards Murray Irrigation Limited, however I would like to firstly say it has not been aimed at the fantastic, helpful, on-the-ground staff who, on the whole, do an amazing job.
I’d personally like to thank them all for doing the best to deliver water and deal with any issues irrigators may have.
The main issue that myself and others have is what we believe to be a lack of leadership from the chairman and chief executive officer.
MIL is a very simple, small company and its sole purpose is to deliver water to its shareholders.
Why has this been made so complicated? Why can’t they just deliver the water when the shareholders require it, as it’s been done for 70 previous years?
There is less water to deliver, fewer channels to maintain and a $300 million semi-automated system to deliver it.
Yet the wages and fees increase and, as this happens, the divide from shareholder to company widens.
I encourage everyone to vote in this coming election for Lachlan Marshall and Waander Van Beek so we can get grower control back to our company.
Something that is constantly dismissed by MIL is that you, the irrigator/shareholder, own this once great company.
We are not customers, we all have shareholder rights and need to demand as such. Shareholders unanimously voted for land and water management money to be given back to shareholders through landholder associations as it’s our money, not MIL’s.
We unanimously voted for a better deal on escape agreements and also unanimously voted full support for SRI to continue in its impressive role in fighting for a fair share of water.
We need change, for the betterment of this whole area and footprint, not only for irrigators but the entire community who rely on irrigators’ income and who can see first hand the losses created by a lack of water.
— Jon Gatacre
Pretty Pine, NSW