The Water Management Amendment (Easements for Inundation) Bill 2026 updates water management laws to allow key authorities to create easements that permit temporary flooding of private land for flood mitigation and storage.
The government suggests it clarifies landholder rights, compensation processes and planning powers, aiming to improve resilience, reduce downstream flood risk and support coordinated regional infrastructure projects across affected regions.
But impacted landholders, irrigator groups, other stakeholders and our state and federal local members say it also means the government can flood private land without warning or consequence.
History was made last week when Federal Member for Farrer David Farley and NSW Member for Murray Helen Dalton came together for a press conference, united in their opposition to the bill.
“This will mean an end to private property in rural Australia,” Mrs Dalton said.
“The Minns Government is trying to give itself the power to order government floods over private property any time it likes, and there is nothing farmers and communities will be able to do about it.”
“Imagine if the Premier decided he had the right to flood your suburban house or apartment, and never have to ask for permission, or pay you for the damage he is doing. That’s what he will be able to do to us in rural Australia.
“I’m calling on every single Australian to oppose this government floods bill. If Labor gets away with taking control of our private farms, how can anyone be sure that their private property won’t be next?”
Mr Farley said policies like these will add to an already growing crisis, which could impact on future food security.
“Helen’s supporting the same constituents that I just won in Farrer, so we are very much aligned both on policy and intent, and more importantly on the aspirations for both Murray and Farrer,” he said.
“The Water Act of 2007 and the legislation around it ... had relevance in 2007. Has it got relevance now for the population? Has it got relevance to change the geopolitical environment we’re in?
“What we’ve really got to do is focus on the sovereignty of the nation.
“Water, food and energy secure a nation, and what we need to be able to do is make sure the Water Act, water management and any plan that’s attached to it is contemporary and forward focus for the future.
“So no piece of legislation or no policy can stay current. We need to be addressing the security of the nation for the future.
“We’ve just been through shock with our fuel, we don’t want to go through shock with our food.”
Murray Regional Strategy Group vice chair Louise Burge, whose Bullatale property would be directly impacted by the bill, said the impact of this bill extends beyond farmers.
“It will affect any property beside a waterway - caravan parks, tourist spots, other private property - it’s not just farmers.
“This bill means the government can raise river heights to increase environmental flows without prior assessment, without any consideration of third party impacts, and without having to mitigate any impacts.
“We have, in good faith, tried to work collaboratively with governments and agencies on water policy for 16 years, but it means nothing because they’ll now be able to do what they want when they want.
“We’ve already had a complete erosion of water rights, and now the government’s intentions means there is total disregard of property rights too.”
Southern Riverina Irrigators has written directly to NSW Water Minister Rose Jackson, who introduced the bill, to request the bill be overturned or ammended.
“The fact that you have taken away the rights of our farmers to control what happens on the land they own and have paid for is not just unjust, it is un-Australian,” SRI executive officer Sophie Baldwin wrote.
“And then to turn around and say, from your office in Sydney, we are going to flood you and hey guess what, it doesn’t matter if you have spent hundred of thousands of dollars on seed, fertiliser, agronomy and labour, there is no compensation for our mismanagement.
“The Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s recent Basin Plan review acknowledged some of the environmental objectives of the basin plan are unachievable, so I would like you to explain what environmental outcomes you are actually expecting from this flooding.
“I also ask you to take into consideration the fact that during a recent court action against the MDBA by irrigators across NSW and Victoria, the MDBA agreed over bank flows waste between 36-41 per cent of the volume of water.
“Is that in the best interest of the environment? I would think not.
“We ask you to amend your amendment and let our farmers continue to grow food to feed and support our nation.”
11°C