IRRIGATORS are irate at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority's (MDBA) planning process, arguing their concerns about new water take limits and the rocketing price of water licences have been ignored.
Planning and consultation is underway for new sustainable diversion limits, to set the amount of water available for irrigation in valleys throughout the basin.
But irrigators argue if the authority doesn't take their concerns on board before the new regime comes into place, due mid-2016, the already heavy impacts of the reforms will intensify for irrigators.
Temporary water prices in the Murray district have skyrocketed as the allocation restrictions already imposed take effect, hitting a peak of $210 and finishing around $190 - compared to the $30 to $60 prices of just a few years ago.
NSW Irrigators Council chief executive Mark McKenzie echoed the views of many farmers spoken to by The Land when he said his group had been "talked to but we don't believe we are being engaged".
Mr McKenzie said the authority had "ignored significant local input" on the impacts of returning more water to river flows for environment benefits.
A flashpoint in the debate arose when irrigator groups accused the Basin Authority of glossing over their criticisms about the plan's impacts on the Yarronwonga to Wakool reach of the river.
MDBA chief executive Rhonda Dickson disagreed and said the concerns were accurately conveyed to government.
"Hundreds of people have been consulted at dozens of meetings about the constraints work we've been doing on behalf of the state governments," she said.
"The strong concerns we heard from people in the Yarrawonga to Wakool reach were clearly expressed in the public reports we have provided to governments."
A recent Murray region strategy meeting of local stakeholder groups, where delegates from 15 local stakeholder groups voted for a no confidence motion against the MDBA also called for an independent review of the recommendations put to government.
Mr McKenzie said feedback about flooding, water use efficiency and social and economic impacts of new water limits were not factored into initial plans on how the new diversion limits would be set.
"We have concerns that (the Basin Authority's) model view of the world does not gel with reality. I fear there will be flooding and other unacceptable economic impacts."
The four basin states have until November to submit their proposals for new diversion limits to the Commonwealth. Under the Murray-Darling Basin Plan inter-governmental agreement, NSW is chasing about 470 gigalitres of savings, which could come through various means including regulation changes and new in-stream infrastructure.
Mr McKenzie said details of the criteria which will be used to asses water saving works, dubbed environmental equivalency tests, have not yet been revealed.
"We still don't have the assumptions or deeper technical detail of how it works," he said.
However, Ms Dickson said the Basin Authority had briefed irrigator representative bodies as the Basin Plan rolls out.
"The details of the method have been available on the MDBA website since September 2014," she said.
"The science behind the process has now been through a full trial and the peak irrigator representatives have been updated on this."
Southern Riverina Irrigators chairman John Bradford, "Parkdale", Deniliquin, has accused the Basin Authority of "marking its own homework" when it produced reports to detail the community feedback, which he said omitted significant concerns from local farmers and irrigator organisations.
Like Mr McKenzie, Mr Bradford fears if the Basin Authority ignores feedback or rejects NSW government's proposals for water saving measures, dreaded water buybacks will be a grim reality.
"Buybacks are a win for water sellers, but they cause a big loss of production from the community. There is no social upside," Mr Bradford said.
