Dr W.H. (Bill) Johnston

scientist@bomwatch.com.au

In light of ongoing climate variability and renewed rainfall replenishing Basin storages, Dr. Johnston urges caution in adopting sweeping regulatory plans grounded heavily in modelling and selective science. His comprehensive review suggests that the MDB’s ecosystems are inherently resilient, that hydrological variation is natural and cyclical, and that water management must balance ecological integrity with social and economic sustainability.

Paddle steamer “Tarella” at Swan Reach, on the Murray River in 1917 (State Library of South Australia).

Keywords

sustainable water use; ecological resilience and adaption; rainfall cycles and variability; ecological misinformation; environmental alarmism; data-free faulty models; science vs politics; agricultural and community harm; WWF; The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists; Purves Environmental Fund; institutionalised CSIRO bias

Summary

1. The Scientific Basis of the Plan lacks credibility: The Plan relies on biased, speculative modelling rather than empirical data, particularly unfounded projections of ecological collapse. Reports cited in the Plan are are based on “guesswork,” especially those using pre-European (1770) conditions as a baseline—conditions for which no data exists. Natural cycles of drought and flood have historically shaped the Basin’s ecology, and irrigation infrastructure has mitigated drought severity, contrary to claims of mismanagement.
2. Political Motivations & Constitutional Concerns: The Water Act (2007) undermines state rights under the Australian Constitution, with the Commonwealth leveraging international agreements to centralise control. The Plan priorities marketisation of water resources over genuine ecological or agricultural needs, risking food security and community cohesion.
3. Critique of Institutional Integrity: Scientific bodies like CSIRO and the Wentworth Group produced research to fit policy narratives, with dissent suppressed and disclaimers used to evade accountability. This erodes the role of independent science. Further, the Report uses cherry-picked data and lacks critical reviews on key issues (e.g., ecology and socio-economic impacts).
4. Proposed Alternatives: The Plan should have been rejected in its entirety and the Water Act (2007) should have been repealed. Instead, focusing on local water-use efficiencies, additional water should be returned to the communities that saved it in the first place, to create wealth, foster growth and ensure sustainability. Rather than diverting freshwater to irrigate the Southern Ocean, restoring brackish conditions in the Lower Lakes by removing the barrages would be a viable but politically and ideologically unpalatable option.

Conclusion: The Plan represents a derelict misdirection of resources, driven by alarmism and political expediency, with potentially dire consequences for agriculture, water dependent communities, and democratic governance.

Key points:

The ecology of the Murray-Darling Basin is self-repairing. That it is ‘near-collapse’ is an outright political myth.

Detachment and disclaimers from key institutions such as the CSIRO and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority downplay responsibility for the accuracy and implications of their work.Dr. Johnston perceptively asks: “if august institutions … will not stand by their work, why should the community be swayed by it or believe in it?”

Johnston portrays the Plan as a policy tool encased in “alarmist” rhetoric and “strategic” media releases rather than transparent, collaborative science.

The full report is available here: [tap this link]