As far as political slogans go, “No Dams” had an absolute simplicity about it which resonated with the vast majority of Australians.

The receding shore of Lake Alexandrina. Photo: Adelaide Now

Despite the localised concerns of Tasmanians, some sympathy from blue-collar mainland communities reliant on industries such as logging, and the arcane constitutional quibbles of a few States’ rights enthusiasts, most Australians happily bought the clear message conveyed by the bright yellow triangular bumper sticker.

The Franklin River was saved. The year was 1983. Twenty-seven years on and it’s obvious that while “No Dams” might have worked as an effective call to arms, “Save the Murray” is struggling to get beyond being an empty slogan as the nation remains paralysed as to how we should save it.

Funnily – or perversely – it was easier to save a river in the remote south-western corner of Tasmania which few of us ever see, which sustains no industry save for tourism and few towns, rather than one which runs through three states, serves as the nation’s foodbowl, provides hundreds of jobs, is home to tens of thousands of permanent residents and a haven for holiday-makers and weekenders.

The consensus that the Murray should be saved is being drowned out by diverse voices arguing that it has to be saved somewhere else. The argument goes that some communities are treating it worse than others, and that other communities should be shielded from the heavy lifting in terms of changing lifestyles and reforming or even abolishing some industries. 

The plan released by the Murray Darling Basin Authority last week is without exaggeration one of the most seismic documents this country has seen. In terms of the impact it could have on how so many Australians make their living, it’s like a 100-fold version of Industry Minister John Button’s Car Plan of the mid 1980s, which phased out tariffs in an automotive sector already battling against cheap labour in the developing world.

The report has been attacked from almost every angle – the biggest criticism going to its seemingly flimsy estimate, or guesstimate, that no more than 800 jobs would be lost if the plan to restore water by reducing its use by irrigators goes ahead.

At the other end of the spectrum, a long way from this blasé and unbelievable estimate of jobs lost, we have heard hyperbole, in the form of water riots, rural uprisings, a surge in country suicides.

It is not surprising that some in this debate – such as the more environmentally indifferent members of the rice and cotton industries who regard anyone who suggests they examine their farming practices as a dangerous pinko – have been quick to overstate the human toll of the MDBA plan.

What is surprising is that some of those who have agitated longest and loudest for real action to save the Murray now find themselves deeply uneasy at the type of action proposed.

Oddly, this shift is most obvious in South Australia. The two men who have been the most outspoken and effective lobbyists for the river are South Australian Premier Mike Rann and Independent No Pokies Senator Nick Xenophon.

Both men are unashamedly populist in the way they practice their politics – hardly a hanging offence given that being and remaining in politics is all about winning votes.
But there’s been a shift in their rhetoric this past week which underscores the very interesting politics surrounding the MDBA report.

Rann and Xenophon have both argued in the past that an independent authority needs to examine the state of the river and find a solution to halt its demise. They have also been scathing in their condemnation of the eastern states, accusing them of at best indifference and at worst outright vandalism in refusing to accept any reduction in water allocations upstream to save the Lower Lakes and sustain South Australian communities and industries at the bottom of the river system.

They have also at different times in the past been pretty provocative in their assessment of some industries, such as the gigantic water-sucking monster that is the Cubby Station cotton farm in Queensland, or the rice industries of the Riverina and Victoria.

But now that we have an independent report in our hands, one which recommends radical reductions in water use right along the length of the river, the reality of the proposals has sunk in.

What it means is that some irrigation-dependent towns in South Australia’s Riverland could become unviable with a proposed reduction in water use of between 26 per cent and 35 per cent.
Rann and Xenophon have both said this week that irrigators in SA have been using water within the sustainable limits for some 40 years, and that MDBA report fails to take that into account in subjecting them to similar cutbacks faced by the much more rapacious farms to the nation’s east.

The Liberal member for the Riverland seat of Chaffey, Tim Whetstone, a fierce critic of the MDBA plan, provided a reasonably succinct explanation of the difference between farming practices in SA and the eastern states.

“The MDBA has ignored its own data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics which shows that the SA Murray region has the highest average gross value irrigated agricultural production of any basin region at $9176 per hectare,” he told the rural bible The Stock Journal this week.

“This is almost three times the basin average of $3295/ha, and is the result of millions of dollars of investment in best practice irrigation and efficient irrigation infrastructure, yet we are being told it’s not good enough for the MDBA to even consider.”

Mr Whetstone, Mr Rann and Senator Xenophon may all have a valid point here. But the bigger issue is this. When a state such as SA has for decades been demanding an independent assessment of the river and tough decisions to return flows to acceptable levels, it makes it hard for the state to turn around with any credibility and demand exemptions or special deals.

A pure environmentalist would argue that the issue is not the manner in which irrigators farm, or the extent to which they are thrifty or wise with their water, but simply the much graver fact that so much water is being taken out of the river system in the first place.

This position is still being put passionately by the Greens, whose political representatives all hail from the inner-cities, and will never find themselves in the unhappy position of having to eyeball a third-generation orange farmer on the main street of Waikerie and tell them why they shut down the family farm.

But the flipside is that, in trying to save those communities from economic hardship, or even ruin, we’re consigning the river to a swift death.

It’s a hell of a choice to have to make. The fact that even South Australia is baulking at the human cost of saving the river suggests that the river is a very, very long way from being saved at all.

Most commented

58 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      06:01am | 15/10/10

      I live on the Murrumbidgee river which faces some of the biggest water cut backs and they couldn’t even put our rivers name in the header name of the report. Is it realy that smart to let our fresh water run out to sea, buy back paper water promisery notes and destroy river economies and towns ?

    • Ron says:

      08:13am | 15/10/10

      Perhaps you’re not aware that the water rarely makes it to the sea? The real choice is this, either we cut back on water use in a controlled manner, transitioning communities, or we keep going as we are and collapse into disaster annihilating communities. Pain cannot be avoided either way.

    • AliceC says:

      08:16am | 15/10/10

      @Peter

      That’s it, there is no fresh water going out to sea, and the SA people are paying to ensure the Murray mouth doesn’t close.

      I understand that the report findings may not be accurate, but something needs to change, or we all loose the Murray…

    • Scot says:

      09:16am | 15/10/10

      My goodness such naivety in these columns on what the real issues are. There has been a 10 year drought and now we are having a bumper year on rain and floods that will result in significant flows. What people do not realise is that the water rights the farmers have can only be used when there is volume in the river system and this has not been the case for years, Farmers have had to make do with their own methods of growing and surviving and many have not. The highest suicide rate is in the bush.  What we need is to divert agreed volumes of water from the north to the south instead os wasting $42B on some stupid NBN plan and also spend money on covering irrigation channels as has been done in Victoria. When we talk about evaporation there is more water lots form the river system than will ever be lost for the irrigation as farmers pay for water, why would they waste it, it will damage their ROI. If farmers stopped shipping or growing for 3 months Sydney Melbourne and Adelaide would be know what damage the Greens are doing to the country. NSW Labor is a basket case after 16 years of failed policies and poor delivery. We are becoming a third world country very quickly.

    • The Badger says:

      09:55am | 15/10/10

      Oh Scot,
      You know so much about so many things.
      If only you were running the country, you could save us from all this madness.

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      10:15am | 15/10/10

      @Alice C.. lets get a point of differentiation in your term South Australian people ..do you mean (i) South Australian irrigators and smaller sustainable communities OR (ii) Adelaide a 1 million person urban sprawl built on one of the driest parts of Australia ?
      @Ron.. I personally think the federal funding would be better served assisting willing growers move from less efficient flood irrigation methods to more efficient pivot, drip, hydroponic or sprinkler methods ..then perhaps buy out the remaining licences of those who do not want to make the transition. And sinking more money into Agriculture and Water use research..perhaps at least as much as they are spending on the likely white elephant “Carbon Capture & Storage”
      @Scott ..spot on about evaporation wastage I cant see why they can’t in this sunburnt nation of ours run a pipeline from the upper catchment areas of the river down to the lower catchment (perhaps Mildura/Renmark) and Solar power it..it would not need baseload power ..when the Sun shines it pumps when the Sun does not shine it doesn’t pump..in most parts of Australia the sun shines more often than not.

    • AliceC says:

      10:38am | 15/10/10

      @Peter

      Sure. I mean all South Australians who pay a SA Water bill (i.e. everyone who owns a property) pays a Murray river levy. This is so we can have the mouth kept open, as there is not enough water flowing to keep it open naturally.

      It doesn’t matter where Adelaide is located, if the mouth closes, that’s it for the Murray as a river. Murray Lake perhaps? That will be useful for everyone….

    • Gregg says:

      11:33am | 15/10/10

      @Badger,
      You would have to be one of the chief know it alls about and one who votes for a party that is seeing this country going further down the drain, water or no water and Fibre Optic all around the country is going to do SFA for it.

    • terben says:

      12:12pm | 15/10/10

      A good reason for letting water flow out to sea is that it transports salt along with it. if the river doesn’t flow, then the salinity will build up and then nothing will grow at all.

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      02:07pm | 15/10/10

      @AliceC ...just about everyone in Australia pays a water bill

    • Tony says:

      04:17pm | 15/10/10

      I don’t think that it is ‘fresh’ water that is running out to sea. I think you will find that the water going out the mouth takes with it high levels of salt, minerals, pollution and other substances that make the river system unhealthy if it does not flush out. 

      Why do you think farmers haven’t been able to use the river water recently? Too much salt! Too much blue-green algae! Too much pollution! Not enough water to flush it all through.

    • Scot says:

      11:36pm | 15/10/10

      Badger. You are my role model and inspiration. Thank you. You old dog you.

    • acotrel says:

      08:19am | 16/10/10

      ‘wasting $42B on some stupid NBN plan ‘

      Scot, perhaps the future of rural Australia lies in areas other than farming?  Have your kids moved to the city for their education yet? Do you think they’ll return to a mindless drudgery, or will they look for something a bit more hi-tech?

    • Scot says:

      05:38pm | 17/10/10

      Acotrel. Who would want to bring their kids in corrupt and inept place like Sydney. Education is one thing. Learning real values and respect is another and this is done at home in the country where life is real. Sydney is self destructing. Melbourne is much better and them would rather send them overseas for work. They can then come back to work in the country when they have all the skills and keep the home fired burning. You can keep your city.  Families in the bush can be self sufficient from these inept governments when it comes to food, water and electricity. If we stopped growing and did not ship to sellers then what would the Cities do?

    • AliceC says:

      08:42am | 19/10/10

      @Peter,

      Yes, just about eveyone pays a water bill, but only people in SA pay a levy on top of their normal water bill. The levy is over and above the normal access charge and usage price.

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      11:18am | 27/10/10

      @Alice C ..when you try supporting water to a city of over 1 million people located in a spot with less than 450mm annual rainfall (Adelaide) you deserve to pay a levy..

    • T.Chong says:

      06:09am | 15/10/10

      Farms / farmers are business people, and like any other business person, the bottom line is all that matters.
      Any political group, be they ‘irrigator associations’ , or unions always want more for their constituents - all well and good.
      The only problem is , the finite resource of water has been so stretched thru climate, and poor practices, that the resource is dissapearing, and the farmers have to change practices , and goals.
      All different sections of the water users see nothing wrong with what they do, but believe its the others who need to reform, not themselves, and so an impass is reached.
      The solution is not to hold document burnings- very bad image of such intolerance that to destroy a document some how is an argument not to change, the same as bad mouthing, and using passive aggresion in order to drown out anything you dont like.
      Rational discussion is whats needed.
      Whats the alternative? A disaster like the Caspian sea.

    • Joan says:

      08:55am | 15/10/10

      `Rational discussion is whats needed. Whats the alternative? A disaster like the Caspian sea`. How about you start being rational… Caspian sea???  more than slightly alarmist. The water is gushing from the mouth of Murray.  I suppose you propose that Australia imports all its food and people move back to the cities.. keep the rivers for the tourist- - new jobs for next generation - selling postcards and trinkets to tourists. The Franklin River region never serviced food basket area of Australia, silly to compare. A balanced approach is needed..to management of water and how could any report be made and advice given without consideration of future food requirements of nation? Labor`s new answer to everything is put Windsor in charge…. that`s a joke….. obviously Labor not serious at all.

    • T.Chong says:

      09:55am | 15/10/10

      Joan, the Caspian sea is now a dried out waste land, due to extensive, prolonged over use of its resource. Take time to find out.
      The farmers, towns around it would also have never believed it could fail.
      As for comparisons with the Franklin river, that I havent made, your right, that would be silly, so why did you mention it?

    • The Badger says:

      10:28am | 15/10/10

      Joan
      Why not read up a bit on things you decide to comment.
      S.A. has been paying more than 7 million dollars a year to dredge the Murray mouth opening.
      It is only now that it is flowing after being all but closed for a decade.

    • iansand says:

      11:00am | 15/10/10

      For “Caspian” read “Aral” (although the Caspian is getting a bit of a hammering too.

    • Joan says:

      11:35am | 15/10/10

      SA like Victoria busy dredging for mans convenience ..... natures natural way for rivers entering sea is to silt up, form deltas, ... always has been.
      As for the Capsian Sea ... a quick Google shows plenty of water - it is landlocked, natural loss of water is by evaporation, no real understanding why its levels drops and rises,  main interest in the area is oil of course.  So don’t understand how Caspian sea- landlocked relates to flowing Murray River.

    • Gregg says:

      11:46am | 15/10/10

      Another classic Chong Masterpiece for you do not even mention what all those water based businesses have as a product, mostly food to keep people alive and sure there’s something that needs to happen re managing what water we have in times of flooding and what can be harvested from the great divide.

      And @ Badger,

      You could do with some reading up yourself, there being a report from the early nineteenth century when the first explorer [ forget his name ] ventured by boat from the Murray into Lake Alexandrina and initially thought this is nice, such a large body of fresh water only to have overnight find it was very salty and undrinkable.

      That was well before irrigation upstream and the booms across the Lake Mouth, an attempt to turn Alexandrina into a long term fresh water resource.
      Well Mother nature with droughts has other ideas and if the full body of water was left to its natural state, just like all coastal water bodies the water inflow will have an effect on whether an opening to the sea is maintained.
      There’s at least a couple of permanent sand pumping installations along the east coast to keep water ways open.

    • The Badger says:

      01:58pm | 15/10/10

      Excellent Gregg

      you have started to learn the potential of the internet and are taking your first steps in finding information to enrich your knowledge base and scatter facts through your posts.

      Keep up the good work

    • Scot says:

      05:44pm | 17/10/10

      Yes, T Chong what you forgot to tell all your fans is the reason for the Caspian Sea debacle this was caused by the communists that Gillard and all her mates aspire to.  By the way you also forgot to tell your readers that since the fall of the communist regimes all over Europe. The balance is now being restored and given good snow falls and rain plus the physical repair to the system, the Caspian Sea is now starting to fill again? Has nothing to do with global warming or CO2.

    • Super D says:

      06:10am | 15/10/10

      I find the “River is dying” language not only emotionally charged but inaccurate.  What is really happening is as a result of water diverted upstream certain ecosystems at the end of the lake are suffering serious environmental degradation, particularly the lower lakes and the Coorong.

      I think that rather than simply shut down the irrigation schemes the onus needs to be on the greens to demonstrate how the agricultural production will be replaced.  Are we going to simply stop growing our food and start importing it?  Will we be expanding agriculture in the tropical north by sacrificing one of the so called “wild rivers” which is of less environmental value that the lower lakes?

      It’s time for the environmental movement to grow up and consider the non environmental impacts of environmentalism.

    • acotrel says:

      07:59am | 15/10/10

      I find two statistics interesting - we export 60% of what fruit we grow, and farmers in the Goulburn Valley had their quotas cut by 25% this year! What does it all mean?

    • T.Chong says:

      08:25am | 15/10/10

      And,SuperD time for the water users groups to grow up and consider the enviromental, and non enviromental impact of a dried out river system.

    • Ron says:

      08:27am | 15/10/10

      It’s not inaccurate, degradation is not restricted to the mouth of the river. The entire ecology of the river is at risk which will ultimately damage production even if water was available for irrigation.

      You don’t seem to appreciate that regardless of what the government does there will be less water. This sad situation is a consequence of the myopia of previous governments that allowed our resources to be exploited unsustainably. What you want to do is shoot the messenger.

    • AdamC says:

      08:36am | 15/10/10

      Super D, I agree about the use of language. A river can no more ‘die’  than one’s hair or fingernails can. It is not alive to start with. Nor is ‘the planet’ or ‘nature’, of course, but that is another issue.

      People seem to beat around the bush on the inherent trade-offs between environmental benefits and economic activity that supports people and communities’ social wellbeing.

      No doubt any plan to ‘save’ the Murray Darling will have economic and social costs that will be borne disproportionately by certain people and regions. It is important that those communities are compensated and that issues such as food security are addressed in any process.

      The problem is, sober and rational thinking is not as emotionally effective as ‘save the Murray’. However, it seems pollies’ own base calculations may be enough to give them pause.

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      07:09am | 15/10/10

      People seem to be missing some points here..fresh water falls as rain on land areas..from there it either seeps into the ground or evaporates..when it reaches the mouth of the Murray it goes out to sea (salt water) and is no longer fresh water ...Game Over

    • iansand says:

      07:40am | 15/10/10

      Ever been to the Murray Mouth?  Most of the time you can wade across it.  Not a lot of water gets to the sea.

    • Sam Chowder says:

      08:22am | 15/10/10

      I hope the fresh water will go through a re-salination plant before it goes into the sea.

    • mw says:

      10:08am | 15/10/10

      @Chowder : you mean to replace the salt they take out of the river to make the Murray River Salt all the gourmet shops are selling?

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      11:41am | 15/10/10

      @iansand ..why does the Murray mouth have to stay where it is ? If sea water is flooded into the lower lake area which has fairly salty water anyway then the Murray mouth moves upstream and the upstream fresh water does not have to travel so far to reach it.
      We are not in the stoneage here, we do have things like dredges pumps and other mechanical mechanisms to assist.

    • iansand says:

      01:24pm | 15/10/10

      Brilliant.  Define the Hume Weir as the mouth of the Murray and everything downstream from that is open slather.  Problem solved.  All it takes is a bit of lateral thinking.

    • mw says:

      01:49pm | 15/10/10

      @Peter: Because the Coorong is a protected wetland that the government has an obligation to preserve under international agreements.

      And lets face it if we let the mouth move once it’ll keep on moving… I guess you don’t have to worry until the system is dried up all the way to Hay though…

    • Peter Oataway, Hay, NSW says:

      02:05pm | 15/10/10

      @iansand ..Lower Lakes near the mouth could be opened up and inundated with sea water. This idea has been spoken about before. And how about we stop calling letting fresh water run out to the Ocean as returning water to the Environment..it is returning to the Sea.
      By the way the Aral Sea was a fresh water lake, it does have problems but like the Murray Darling Murrumbidgee Lachlan Culgoa Bokhara Balonne Moonie Condamine McIntyre Namoi Ovens Snowy and any others I failed to mention ...“unique” problems

    • iansand says:

      07:35am | 15/10/10

      The obvious solution is to make more water in the catchments.  Clearly impossible, so something has to be done so there is a reasonable allocation of water throughout the Basin.  At the moment, water use exceeds available water.  That should be pretty obvious to anyone (apart, perhaps, from National Party members).  Something has to change and that change will involve pain.

      Water should be priced to drive efficiencies.  If someone can demonstrate that they are using water efficiently they should get a rebate on the price.  No more flood irrigation or open channels, for example.  And perhaps no more water intensive crops such as cotton and rice in areas unsuitable for planting without massive irrigation.

    • Adele says:

      04:26pm | 15/10/10

      You can ‘make’ more water in the catchments: Planting trees produces water and increases rainfall. Better soil management means that when it does rain the water is kept in the ground doesn’t run-off or get evaporated as much.  Everyone needs to act to keep more water in the system - land and river. And it’s not that hard.

    • Sonia says:

      07:45am | 15/10/10

      Now is the perfect time for something to be done. I only hope Labour has the backbone to do it. There are no votes in this for Labor. They have no sitting members along the River and inaction will probably hurt them more than action. Given that it was the co-alition that commenced this process they should be showing abit more bipartisanship on the issue and not go for the short term win. This is not a battle they would wish to take on while in Government. They were happy to implement the unpopular workchoices because it assisted its voting base but this hard decision will directly and adversely impact their other voting base.
      I too have been disappointed with Xenophon and Rann. Clearly they have the most to lose if the River dies and have had to absorb the most pain but if they expect to return the river to some sort of health and not take some more pain they are dillusioned

    • Stiffy says:

      08:10am | 15/10/10

      Leeton in the MIA is the centre for Ricegrowers. Can someone explain to me the logic on why such a water intensive crop is grown there? Shouldn’t this crop be grown somewhere north of the equator and the MIA ricefarmers assisted onto a crop which requires less water.

    • mw says:

      10:39am | 15/10/10

      Because rice has a higher $ return per unit of water used than other crops….

    • AliceC says:

      10:40am | 15/10/10

      Sounds like a logical idea to me…. : )

    • Matt says:

      11:50am | 15/10/10

      Because it can be grown cheaply, efficiently and in an environmentally sustainable way.  You city folk believe every bit of propaganda the green movement spit out, dont you?

      Rice from the MIA feeds 50 million people daily. When you stop rice production in Australia, these 50 million people still need to eat and someone will have to grow that rice.

      My tip, more rainforest in Asia will be felled and turned into paddies. That will be a net win for the environment, won’t it?

    • The Badger says:

      09:08am | 15/10/10

      No Dams was nice
      I also like the still popular
      NO NUKES

    • MarK says:

      10:14am | 15/10/10

      Religion is strong in this thread.

    • Tedd says:

      12:20pm | 15/10/10

      Hydrology, Scientology, Waterology, or
      Baptists-seeking-river-baptisms?

    • mw says:

      10:42am | 15/10/10

      I’m highly concerned that all this talk of improving the health of the river may limit the availability of Murray River Salt. What is being done to ensure that foodies such as myself are protected from rampant inflation in the price of this pink gourmet condiment?

    • Cravat wearing toff says:

      07:38pm | 15/10/10

      I am somewhat distressed to read @mw that a trivial greenie concern, may actually impact my palette on a regular basis.  There must be a public hospital or state school that can be closed in order to reallocate allocations to this epicurean delight.

    • dancan says:

      11:07am | 15/10/10

      Let them keep going as is and kill themselves off.

      I laugh at these simple country folk who complain that we in the cities ignore them, cut back their resources and diminish their services.  And yet these country folk bicker and fight like children over something they’re directly responsible for.  They complain about the river being sick, then they complain about the solution to fix it while pointing fingers at each absolving themselves of any responsibility.

      Be damned and lie in the bed you made.

    • N says:

      12:34pm | 15/10/10

      Duncan; Wonderful holier than thou statement. By all means let’s allow these ‘simple country folk’ to die off trying to feed an ever increasing national populous. I guess we can all live on good intentions and self satisfaction right? Got any good recipes?

    • marley says:

      01:03pm | 16/10/10

      my goodness dancan - I didn’t realize you city folk never use water out of the river systems.  And that you never eat any of the farm products which depend on those river systems.  So of course, you yourself have no responsibility in this.

      Well, if the rivers dry up, and your food and water supply with it, I guess you too will be enjoying the bed you made.

      We’re all in this together.  It’s as simple as that.

    • Gregg says:

      12:27pm | 15/10/10

      George Bush is blamed for moving focus away from getting Osama to getting the guy with the smoking gun and creating a hell of a mess spread across two countries.

      You may well wonder what that has to do with the Murray but we are just as guilty of taking the focus away from feeding the Murray and wanting to have too much of a good life, putting booms across the Lake Alexandrina lower end which might be OK if we have regular good rainfalls which we do not.
      The mouth of the Murray and it’s headwaters are further apart than Osama and Iraq but we too have an almighty mess as well.

      David has made some telling comments in a few paragraphs:

      “The MDBA has ignored its own data from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics which shows that the SA Murray region has the highest average gross value irrigated agricultural production of any basin region at $9176 per hectare,” he told the rural bible The Stock Journal this week.

      “This is almost three times the basin average of $3295/ha, and is the result of millions of dollars of investment in best practice irrigation and efficient irrigation infrastructure, yet we are being told it’s not good enough for the MDBA to even consider.”

      It would seem sensible to use efficient use of water as a yardstick of where and how water is to be used but there is also more than that for the top priority for water use should also be in generating food for the nation.
      The case for right to use should not be on efficiency alone and a management plan should reflect that what should come first is to feed ourselves and the water rights for that should be first cab off the rank.

      That no doubt is where difficulties and self interests are going to arise and something like variable water rights to ensure essential domestic food producers have water supplies ahead of export businesses that can have more water if storages are full and river flow is above minimum healthy level.

      To cope with a greater population and export food production growth, it would seem obvious more water is needed on a more reliable basis and if the Sustainable Australia Minister or whatever he is called now has a thinking cap on, the sustainability of water supplies in the driest of continents should be high on his agenda.

      I read recently of some discussion occurring re a concept of harvesting Tasmanian west coast rainfall to divert in to the drier inland region.
      I can imagine the shock and horror the Greens and Environmentalists will have but surely they are not devoid of having an appetite!
      But as much as there may be scope for that, given the regular flooding of mainland east coast river regions of northern NSW is there not also scope for forgetting NO DAMS and putting in a few with diversion systems to have water flow back across the great divide to more DAMS and then on into the tributaries of the Murrumbidgee and the Darling.
      Yes, it could be done by pipelines and with environmentally power, even gravity and some mini hydro plants as well.

      We did the Snowy and then lost the focus and it is time we all though a bit smarter and you do not need the NBN to do that.
      It would also grow regional Australia and have money spent much more wisely than how any regional funds are likely to be squandered.

    • Patrick Kelly says:

      06:01am | 16/10/10

      Come on. South Australia only ever wanted the other states to lower their usage and clean up their act. SA is dependent almost entirely on Murray water and they wanted clean and abundant Murray water for their use. No surprises here. Entirely consistent with their self interest.

    • GGibson says:

      08:46am | 16/10/10

      Do you know what the Holy Bibles ‘Great Tribulation’ is about?
      Its about God getting so tired of mankind raping the planet…that He actually steps in and brings an end to all that has been going on these last 6 thousand years.
      If we wont look after it…we loose it.

    • Robert says:

      12:01pm | 18/10/10

      Ah yes, states rights still come first (according to some).

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

@TheStalwart an analyst in Sydney said it was a "sad day" http://t.co/vh4Yu4OgDD. I think he was just exhausted and gave up analyzing

ToryShepherd

@CatherineDeveny @sydwritersfest A wobble

Paul Colgan

RT @NASA: Amazing views from the International Space Station of Pavlof Volcano erupting in Alaska. http://t.co/vqBkkiOful

Paul Colgan

US Google Doodle features a girl's touching depiction of her father's return from Iraq http://t.co/4LiRFOntTY

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter