The article below is from my friend Diane Bell. Diane is:
Professor Emerita of Anthropology
The George Washington University
Washington DC USA 20052
Writer and Editor in Residence
Flinders University SA 5001
Visiting Professor
School of Social Studies
University of Adelaide SA 5055
Whither
Science?
‘The draft Plan released for public comment by
the Murray-Darling Basin Authority on the 28 November 2011 does not provide the
most basic information required to allow anybody to make an informed decision
on the future management of the water resources of the Basin.’
So
begins the withering critique of the MDBA draft Plan
by the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists (WGCS) in what should be
essential reading for anyone concerned with the future of the Murray-Darling
Basin, the communities and economies that rely on a healthy river. But, I would
venture, it is also essential reading for those concerned with the quality of
democracy in Australia. The Plan, after all, is to manage the MDB in the
national interest.
In advocating that this draft Plan be withdrawn,
the WGCS examine five fundamental pieces of environmental
information necessary for a credible Basin Plan.
1. The
water regime that the best available science says is required for a healthy
working river;
2. The
cost and feasibility of overcoming river management infrastructure constraints
so that environmental flows can be delivered downstream;
3. The
impact of increased groundwater extractions on surface water flows (and vice
versa), recognising that many groundwater systems in the
Basin are directly linked to the river systems;
4. Accounting
for the risk to river health from climate change when setting long-term
diversion limits; and
5. The
volume and frequency of flows that are required to keep the Murray mouth open
during times of drought and to discharge salt from the Basin.
With
respect to each point, the WGCS finds the draft is fatally flawed. For
instance, while endorsing the MDBA methodology that identifies 122 hydrological
sites across the Basin and the focus on 18 indicator sites for detailed
analysis, the WGCS points out that the draft only addresses 4 of the 18 and
even then the information is incomplete and there is no information as to the
level of extractions required to satisfy the stated objective of the draft
Plan.
With
respect to the assertion that 2,750 GL will deliver an open Murray mouth
nine years in ten, the WGCS notes the draft Plan fails to say how and whether
this will satisfy the objects of the Water Act. And where is the discussion of
how 2,750 GL will achieve the flushing of the 2 million tonnes of salt that
accumulates each year from the MDB out to sea?
The WGCS states that no scientific reasons are
given for doubling groundwater allocations. What sense are we to make of three
year, $ 5 million CSIRO
research project that recommended groundwater extractions be
reduced? And I would add: What of the argument of Professor
Craig Simmons, Director, National Centre for
Groundwater Research and Training, that groundwater will be a major determinant
of Australia’s future as the climate warms and our population swells?
How could it be that after so many years, reports,
research and reviews, we have come to this pass? Why, rather than defend and
refine the existing peer-reviewed science of the October 2010 Guide
did the MDBA start again with ‘new science’? Why have the repeated calls of
environmental groups, the CSIRO, and the WGCS for independent, transparent and
comprehensive peer reviews of the ‘science’ fallen on deaf ears?
In part it seems Craig Knowles, the MDBA Chair,
sees the scientific community as offering one view of many in a power play of
diametric opposed opinions. When the WGCS walked away from the process in May 2011,
Knowles reportedly said: ‘The Wentworth Group clearly have a lot of
skin in this game and they're trying to make their position known and stronger
and I guess that's their right.’ Of their critique of the draft Plan, he noted
their views
were well known. His refrain: ‘All views will be considered as part of the
consultation period.’
But this is not an exercise in relativism. Some
‘views’ carry more weight than others. In
developing the Plan, the Water Act 2007 sets the bar as ‘the best
available scientific knowledge and socio-economic analysis’.
What then are we to make of the charge from the
WGCS that the draft ‘manipulates science in an attempt to engineer a
pre-determined political outcome'? Can
science be practiced under political conditions that pertain? If not, what is
to be done? To whom is the MDBA accountable? What recourse do we have as
citizens if the Plan is an inadequate basis for informed decision-making?
$10 billion of taxpayers’ money is in play. Will we insist that the MDBA
deliver a scientifically credible Plan for the nation or are we beguiled by the
tug-of-war metaphor?
Professor Diane Bell has
published ten books
and numerous articles. Her
current anthropological research
is amongst the peoples she calls the ‘Water
Tribe’.
PLEASE NOTE: Miss Eagle has a companion blog to The Network titled Rivers Research. There is a lot of stuff on Rivers - particularly the Murray-Darling Basin and documents relating to the Proposed Plan for the Murray-Darling Basin - there.
Further Reading:
