1. In the case of water allocations in the MDB, this case-study shows the values of maintaining the correct and transparent use of scientific information in a complex aquatic/terrestrial system in which the following conditions hold:
There is considerable competition for fresh water in the MDB andthis had led to political conflict. Essentially, there is not enough water tomeet irrigation demand, much less maintain a biodiverse and functionalecosystem.
2.This conflict led to a program of national regulation of waterflows to maintain the river’s natural environment and provide for human use,the 2012 MDB Plan. This approach is, however, merely the most recentmanifestation of a debate that has gone on for well over a century and has includedseveral Royal Commissions.
3.The compromises reached in the 2012 MDB Plan do not satisfy allusers and there is a national debate on just how much water should be allowedto flow to the mouth of the river for both environmental needs and use by SouthAustralians.
4.The amount of data available to inform management decisionsabout water use and availability is very restricted and is subject to a certaindegree of interpretation.
5.Considerably more research is needed before any resolution ofthe likely state of the MDB prior to European settlement, or even before theimplementation of large-scale river diversions and irrigation schemes in theearly parts of the 20th century, can be understood. Even then it is possiblethat any such state would differ today regardless of human uses of the river.
6.The consistent and transparent use of scientific information,subject to peer-review and published in the scientific literature, is criticalto the resolution of these problems.
https://www.publish.csiro.au/PC/fulltext/PC18085" There is considerable competition for fresh water in the MDB andthis had led to political conflict. Essentially, there is not enough water tomeet irrigation demand, much less maintain a biodiverse and functionalecosystem."
Nuff said.
Raider
