PLovett, I think the current problem (now that the land the Marree Man is on, has been registered as Aboriginal Land - whereas, when the MM was created, it would have been "unallocated Crown Land") - is that the Aborigines who now own that parcel of land (Aboriginal Lands are the equivalent of Freehold Title, but they can never be sold) are divided on the benefit of the MM "construction" (for want of a better word) to them.
Firstly, the MM was created without any reference to them. As far as I know, no-one has carried out any research or logged any Aboriginal Sacred Sites in the area covered by MM.
You can laugh or sneer at Aboriginal Sacred Site claims, but they are a recognised part of our development, legal, and claims systems today, and they have to be considered when any development work is undertaken.
The Aborigines would want to know how they could benefit from a giant marking that has effectively defaced their land, according to them.
They can fence off Aboriginal lands that possess sought-after attractive features (i.e., Uluru) for ground visitors/tourists - and charge entry fees to provide them with income - but they would say they have no way of extracting income from aerial viewing of what they would consider to be, a "white mans mark" on their land.
From my research, it appears a very deep and wide cut was made in the soil, a depth varying from 20-35cms, according to on-site reports - and up to 40 metres wide.
A cut that deep creates erosion problems, and concentrated runoff during heavy rain events, in places where major runoff would not have previously occurred.
All development and exploration work today comes with strict orders with regard to pollution, runoff control, re-vegetation of disturbed areas, and intensive protection of native flora and fauna.
For the MM to be re-cut - firstly, Aboriginal owner approval would be needed, sacred sites identified, and plans then submitted to the governing land protection authorities, showing how all of the previously-mentioned items would be addressed to meet all the current legislative requirements.
The plan for the re-cutting of the MM would have to show a major economic/social/financial benefit, to more than one party, as part of the submission.
The days of just roaring out there and ripping into substantial land-altering projects, with no reference to anyone, are long gone.
I strongly suspect the bloke who most likely carried out the MM project (Bardius Goldberg), was of the "old-school", "bugger-the-laws" type - but even in 1998, he ensured the ownership of his "workmanship" was shrouded in mystery, to ensure he wouldn't face likely retribution, on more than one level.