“To suggest that any Queenslander should have needed to lobby for security of water supply is downright insulting. This was an accepted basic responsibility of all Australian State governments throughout the last century. Attention to it was effectively a duty of care for all elected to government over those years.”

Forrest, this most definitely has always been a basic responsibility of governments, which they have widely shirked. But you can’t confine the responsibility to governments. The community has a duty of care as well, and where things were pretty obviously going astray with government in terms of water-supply security, there should have been widespread lobbying.

We haven’t learnt much from this. We should be thinking of the bigger issue of overall sustainability in just the same way. Governments are steering us strongly away from sustainability, and the general community is having very little so say about it.
.

I don’t have a feeling for the cost of a pipeline from the Burdekin Dam to SEQ or whether the volume of water and rate of supply will address the problems. But I’m inclined to think that it is a reasonable idea, given the urgency of the situation.

I certainly don’t agree with Perseus that this water would be “stolen” from north Queensland. It is a public resource of all Queenslanders and indeed all Australians and it should be used where it is most needed.

A reminder that 1 litre of water weighs 1 kilogram. It is ludicrous to push hundreds of kilo's of water 1,600km just to have a shower. There will never be a pipeline from North Queensland, not in my lifetime, not in yours. It is far cheaper to desalinate water than pipe it up & down dale for large distances. Only in situations where water originates from high mountains can it be gravity fed long distances.
It should also be pointed out that over 75% of water is used by industry and agriculture. Demand from startup industry is hard to forecast and it is a brave politician that says no to jobs. The problems in SEQ are just a symptom of over expansion of both population and industry. The solution is simple, reduce both. If industry wants land and water it should move to Townsville.

Ludwig, you say ".... But you can’t confine the responsibility to governments. The community has a duty of care as well, and where things were pretty obviously going astray with government in terms of water-supply security, there should have been widespread lobbying. We haven’t learnt much from this."

If we haven't learnt much from this it is because the lesson is not yet over. As another contributor on this forum, CountryGal, has said in another water related thread, "it's probably best to just let it run out". The issue of domestic water supply management has been effectively addressed over the years by thousands of Australians. Contributors like Perseus, Hasbeen, CountryGal, Greg Cameron, and many others give pointers to exactly how this has been and can be done.

The Premier, before the recent State elections, gave an assurance that a plebiscite would be held in SE Queensland as to whether or not recycled water would be returned to the reticulated supply storage. Now, his government having been declared elected, he says that there will be no plebiscite and that recycled sewage will be mixed with the reticulated supply. The only opportunity for the community to have exercised any duty of care would have been at that plebiscite. Their likely predictable vote would have forced government disclosure and ensured much wider debate and community input.

When governments became major players in domestic water supply, accurate information as to risk management and reserve storage levels was placed out of the reach of the now dependent consumers. It was never necessarily obvious to the public that things were going astray in terms of water supply security, see Selwyn Johnston's OLO article and thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5477 . A duty of care, as you acknowledge, had long ago been taken on board by governments, and a public trust created. It is that public trust that has been betrayed, and it is, I suggest, unsafe to allow those who now appear linked to that betrayal to remain in charge of water management.

Let the lesson continue.

I am wondering what the water crisis would look like if we had no government involvement in the business of water supply.

Miketrees,

If governments were not involved in the supply of water, then the situation would be worse. The problem revolves around the significant variation in rainfall. Private enterprise has no incentive to invest enough to protect against drought. It would simply put the price up, a lot, when water became scarce. It could do this because no investors would put capital into competing infrastructure such as desalinators because they can only compete during drought - their marginal costs are too high at other times. For a private investor there's the risk that today's investment will be wiped out tomorrow in a flash flood.

Water supply is a natural monopoly. Accordingly, it can only be performed by governments, or by a private company functioning as a regulated monopoly.

Sylvia.

Well if we are stuck with having governments supply water, we need a way to remove politics from the decision making.
Do all other countries have governments supplying water?
And is there anything wrong with water becoming more expensive when its in short supply?
I know I have to pay more for water when its in short supply