NSW Farmers and National Farmers' Federation slam Murray Darling Basin Plan

NSW Farmers' president Xavier Martin said the proposed changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan would shut down farms, destroy jobs, accelerate riverbank erosion and raise food prices.

"By bringing (water) buybacks back onto the table, the Senate is taking a sledgehammer to the plan," he said.

"We've felt the socio-economic impact of the 2100 GL that has already been bought, and which can't even be put down the rivers anyway.

"So the concept that you would buy more and cause the taxpayer to confiscate more water is crazy."

The Murray-Darling plan sets out how much water can be taken from the basin annually and lets an environmentally sustainable amount be returned.

With water recovery targets lagging behind the initial June 2024 target, Labor wants to extend the deadline and use water buybacks to return 450 gigalitres to the environment by December 2027.

However, many local farmers in the basin argue that more water does not lead to better environmental outcomes.

It leads to bank erosion and fallen trees.

"These river banks are over-soaked from taxpayer water being surged down these inland rivers, causing the banks to collapse, causing these hundred-year-old river gums to fall in," Mr Martin said.

"We've seen sections where 10, 20, 40 trees have just piled into the river - it's nonsense."

Bungowannah farmer Andy Watson said 52 trees on his property fell into the river last year.

"Extra water is not going to solve the problem," he said.

"The banks just get too wet and soft, and these big trees just can't hang on.

"There has to be a drying period and a wet period, and just shoving more water into it doesn't fix our problems nor the problems downstream."

Mr Watson expressed frustration with the government's lack of consultation with farmers and basin communities.

"Get off your shiny arses and get down here and talk to us," he said.

"Come with me in a kayak, and I'll show you the river; I'll show you the damage.

"Don't hear it from the scientists or some interest group - come here to the real people, and we'll show you."

National Farmers' Federation president David Jochinke said pursuing buybacks didn't make sense when there was a long list of options to improve river health without devastating Australia's food bowl.

"What's being proposed is essentially buying water without having a plan to use it any more efficiently than the water already being used now," he said.

"We agree that we need more time to deliver on the programs; we agree that there are projects there that will have huge impacts and deliver real benefits.

"We share the frustration that multiple projects could give absolutely huge environmental outcomes for both state and federal governments being left on the desk of the water minister as we speak."

Mr Jochinke called for more transparency in the plan.

"There is no transparency on how it will be enacted or why they would target certain areas," he said.

"They talk about compensation, but we don't know how much that is, where that is or how it will occur because we don't know who will be targeted.

"A plan actually has an outcome; a plan has a clear definition about what it wants to achieve."

Meanwhile, a Senate committee released its report on the new plan in Canberra.

However, the Greens refused to back the new approach.

The Greens said the new plan amounted to "kicking the can down the road" and instead wanted several environmental protections factored in before they support it.

The Senate report wants the plan passed, but it suggests several tweaks.

These include more transparency measures, eligibility requirements for assistance packages to communities affected by water buybacks and more recognition of First Nations' water interests.

To read more stories, download The Border Mail news app in the Apple Store or Google Play.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: