Murray Darling Basin Authority
The Murray-Darling Basin Authority Draft Plan, released yesterday, includes a reduction in water use of 2,750 gigalitres per year, compared to 2009 baseline diversions. So there will now be extra 2,750 GL/y in environmental flows. Does this give the right balance?
The candidates for the biggest loser are (1) the irrigators, (2) the Basin communities and (3) the environment.
The extra environmental flow is estimated to lead to a reduction in irrigated agricultural production of about 11%. But the irrigators won’t be the big losers because they will be compensated by the water buyback scheme.
The sudden resignation of Murray-Darling Basin Authority chair, Mike Taylor, was a reminder that with complex national reforms, there’s many a slip between cup and lip.
Two schools of thought emerged. One cast Mr Taylor’s departure as a setback because a strong advocate of a healthy river system had been muzzled. The other held that an enviro-fundamentalist who saw the good as the enemy of the great, had bowed out clearing the way for a workable deal for the river.
Actually both are true.
Latest 2 of 51 comments
View all comments-
Ask a stupid question says:
You might have addressed my question to Rosie, notsurprised, but you didn’t answer it. Thanks for your permission to continue asking. I guess I’ll just have to struggle on as best I can without your replies. Read more »
-
notsurprised says:
Can you read? Your question was already been addressed in my first post. Feel free to repeat ad nauseum, just don’ expect anymore replies from me. Read more »
The green people consulted “the science” and demanded human sacrifice to the river to make it well.
The writer of the Murray darling Commission draft report, that suddenly became a guide to the draft report (yet to be seen), declared that the legislation establishing the Commission required him to ignore the socio-economic effects of taking away irrigation entitlements and first concentrate on the wellbeing of the river – very green.
Trouble is the Water Act establishing the Commission in fact did require the Commission to consider the impact on people, communities and livelihoods. Section 3 (c) of the Water Act clearly sets out that the objectives of the Act include economic and social considerations.
Continue reading "Weird green science sells the people up the river" »
Latest 2 of 48 comments
View all comments-
Ryan says:
Persephone is just spouting the Labor/Greens party line, and what she is telling you as a staffer is that “Labor and the Greens blames the farmers”! Read more »
-
Scot says:
Persephone. When you own and run large country properties as our families are doing and have done for over a 100 years I will listen to you. Until you have then I will not. Put your money where you mouth is. You have no idea what it takes to run… Read more »
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
How much fun is it retweeting people who can't spell?
In other Olympian news, Steph rice is advertising Sunrice Chinese style Mongolian chicken. Think about that for a tick
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
On a hiding to tweet nothing over mining jobs
You know you’re in strife as a political leader when you must rely on the almost uniformly vacuous…
An NT intervention policy coming to a suburb near you
A controversial policy from the Northern Territory intervention has managed to get through the atrocious…
An insight into a particularly tricky relationship
Marc Glasby has been married to his wife Belle for over thirty years. Three years ago, Belle was reunited…
Nosebleed Section
choice ringside rantings
From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
Michael S says:
"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone
Change Up! says:
I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Latest 2 of 31 comments
View all commentsAdd your comment