The condition of the river is not an abstract issue. It has direct consequences for the people who live along it and who continue to carry the financial, emotional and psychological burden of repeated flooding and uncertainty.
The community has already offered to assist in getting the necessary work done. Instead, we have faced a mountain of government department approvals, requirements and processes. We are now being told that further studies are required, despite the community already having a substantial body of information, studies and evidence concerning the river and its condition.
At what point does the process stop and practical action begin?
If there are legitimate environmental, regulatory or safety reasons why the river cannot be cleared, then those reasons should be clearly identified and explained to the community. If additional studies are genuinely necessary, then the North Central CMA should clearly explain what questions remain unanswered, why the existing information is insufficient, who is responsible for obtaining the answers, and when the necessary work will actually commence.
What is not acceptable is an endless cycle of studies, approvals and delays while the community continues to carry the risk.
The fundamental question is one of accountability: if the river remains severely restricted in its capacity, and another significant flood occurs, who will answer to the community about the decisions that were made — and the action that was not taken — before that flood?
The community should not have to wait for another disaster before the seriousness of this situation is acknowledged.
We are not asking for another round of bureaucratic discussion. We are asking for responsible agencies to use the evidence already available, identify any genuine barriers to the necessary works, and provide a clear pathway and timeframe for getting the job done.
Every delay has a human cost. It means more uncertainty, more anxiety, more financial exposure and more psychological trauma for a community that has already endured far too much.
We need action, accountability and a clear answer as to who is responsible for ensuring this waterway is capable of performing the function it is intended to perform — before the next flood, not after it.
John Baulch
Loddon River landowner
Benjeroop
