University of New England (UNE) scientist Professor Martin Thoms is considered an expert on environmental matters. He considered the idea of water buybacks for environmental purposes, based on a philosophy that healthy river systems equal healthy communities, had merit.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
So, I ask why did they buy those licences and would they have the maximum benefit to the environment?
- Prof Martin Thoms
He was aware of recent media interest in an $80 million water buyback transaction signed off under the watch of then Minister for Water, Barnaby Joyce, but said, scientifically, the big question was whether that amount of water was going to have a big impact on the environment.
"In the news it is a political issue and I can't comment on the politics," he said.
"From my point of view, were they the right licences to buy in terms of the water having a benefit to the environment?
ALSO READ:
"I haven't been privy to that decision making process. So, I ask why did they buy those licences and would they have the maximum benefit to the environment? Nobody is asking that question."
Prof Thom said the other question then became what was the process of the decision making?
"Was the money they paid for it correct? Well, I can't answer that. But the premise of the buyback was to restore health to the river system." he said.
You can't separate water issues and land issues.
- Prof Martin Thoms
"To me, that's an environmental evidence point of view, and I have not seen that evidence. I'm assuming it was there.
"I think the Murray Darling Basin is a useful example, with two take away messages for me. At the moment the focus is just on water and what I am saying is, that restoring the health of the river, and therefore the health of rural communities, has to be more than just water."
He said the landscape and the rivers in which the water flowed through were also critical factors.
"You can't separate water issues and land issues," Prof Thoms said.
"The second point is that, while we focus in on the Murray Darling Basin, we need an overarching body that looks after water and rivers [catchment areas] across all of Australia.
"Currently, we don't have that body. The last was the National Water Commission, which was disbanded before they brought in the new Water Act."
Resilience
Prof Thoms said the big Menindee Lake fish kill was of particular interest to him because this country had seen harsher conditions in the past, but without the same result.
"From a bigger standpoint, it had me wondering what else had been happening," he said
"I use the work resilience. For me, resilience is the ability to absorb a shock or a stress, but still maintain some type of vitality. Our latest work out of the Barwon-Darling in which we've used some quite novel techniques, we've been able to reconstruct past food-webs.
"A food-web shows you who is eating what, and where, and it can tell you how resilient it is. We've been able to reconstruct the food-web from 1860 to 1920 as a "predevelopment period or a reference period."
He said quite significant changes were being seen in the aquatic community in the Barwon-Darling, which was also related to riparian vegetation and poor river management.
"A lot of the management within the basin has been very simplistic," he said.
"If the only tool you have got is a hammer, then the only problem you have is a nail, and that is a very good analogy.
"We have the Murray Darling Basin Authority, and in some ways that's been very effective, but I actually think it needs to be given more teeth."
