Ovens Valley truffle farmers Mark and Taola Baldwin have endured a three-year fight over flooding which ripped away their land

Mark Baldwin grows the delicacy across two plantations at his Smoko property south of Bright and had earmarked land next to the river for another orchard.

However, flooding in 2016 saw that area inundated and his riverside fence and land washed away.

Mr Baldwin and his wife Taola allege the North East Catchment Management Authority, which has a duty to maintain riparian land, is to blame for the erosion.

They claim the government body failed to remove a tree upstream in 2010 and that created a new river course nearer their land.

“They knew there was a problem and they chose to ignore it,” Mrs Baldwin said.

Having failed to convince NECMA to answer their calls to repair the damage, the Baldwins took the authority to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Representing themselves, the couple argued at a hearing in March that NECMA had a duty under the Water Act to clear debris from the river and its actions had caused an unreasonable flow of water which in turn caused them an economic loss.

However, the tribunal’s senior member Eric Riegler found that NECMA did not have an obligation to clear the river of debris and the Baldwins did not have a case.

“The evidence, at best, points to the river having changed its course as a result of natural debris choking the water channel during a period of exceptionally high rainfall,” Mr Riegler said.

“This is a natural phenomenon.”

After the finding, the Baldwins discovered through the property’s previous owner and confirmed via a freedom of information request that NECMA had done upstream work in 2002 that included rock armouring of the bank. 

The couple say because that was not presented to VCAT, Mr Riegler was wrong to say there was “no evidence” of NECMA undertaking work that “has caused the river to alter its water course”.

Mr Baldwin said he had been told the only option to have VCAT re-open the case was to appeal to the Supreme Court and “it was going to cost us $15,000”.

Not wanting to endure that expense, the Baldwins are pushing NECMA to fix the damage and have been speaking to the organisation’s chief executive Katie Warner.

Ms Warner told The Border Mail: “Certainly we have sympathy for Mr Baldwin’s situation but as demonstrated through VCAT the damage has occurred as a result of natural flooding events.”

She flagged working jointly with Mr Baldwin to repair the ground.  

“Mr Baldwin has been provided with some options around our incentive programs,” she said.

“They provide opportunities for landholders to work with us to undertake works.”

Under the arrangement the cost of the rejuvenation would be split 50-50 between NECMA and the Baldwins.

There would also be a requirement that the Baldwins carry out fencing and revegetation improvements.

Mr Baldwin said he was not willing to entertain signing up to an incentive program because he’s concerned he would be liable for damage that may ensue.

“If there is a problem in the future they can say ‘you were part of it, it’s your problem’,” he said.

Mr Baldwin said a quote he had obtained for restoring the land put the cost at $175,000, while NECMA estimated it required a budget of $225,000.

Ms Warner said the work did not comply with the Natural Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements which govern funding provided by the federal government for flood repairs.

She said that to be eligible the damage had to involve essential infrastructure such as roads, bridges or culverts.

The Baldwins say the experience has left them concerned at what will happen next time.

“It’s completely changed our view on how we’re going to work our property and what faith we can put in NECMA that our neighbouring (truffle) plantation isn’t going to be washed away,” Mr Baldwin said.

“Where does it end if they don’t carry out riparian work?”