Australia has water - it just doesn't harvest it. For months of the year, the Fitzroy River is one of the largest rivers in the world. All its water runs out to sea. If Libya can build four thousand kilometers of pipes through the desert, why cannot we? It would take some big thinking but we are a rich country and we need to secure the economic future for our children and grandchildren. Our leaders need to think beyond the next election.

good point estelles, that would be real nation building, work for lots of people stuff that could not only drag you out of a GFC but solve an employment problem for the many tribes and people who live between the SouthEast and the NorthWest.

It would cost billions, yes and how many billions did we just spend on the GFC?

It wasn't shovel ready - why not? How many times do we have to stare at our problems and not have plans ready to DO something.

In the US, when they wanted to spend on the GFC, they pulled all the plans for roads and bridges upgrades and additions with refurbishments that they had ready and waiting, and got on with it - what did we do, political stunts and waste.

Unfortunately the recent reports done on trying to harvest water in the north west were stacked with anti-dams environmentalists, who go the result they wanted. That it's not viable, but it is in Lybia? Let's have another look at that, this time without the bias, but we won't as it was political.

So we still watch water flood into the sea.

The Mitchell floods regularly, but the ALP did a preference deal with the greens, so Melbourne lost that water source.

We have water, but the eco warriors lobby to deprive us - oh well, I guess they are happy that we have to build all these new coal fired power stations, that spec CO2, to run the desal plants, thanks greenies! That was well thought through, again.

We don't have to worry about AGW or lack of water or anything else to stuff up Australia, all the political dealing is doing it well enough.

Nice job of ignoring the elephant in the room, this.

"There are forecasts which indicate that population growth and climate change will result in up to 2.5 billion people suffering severe water stress within the next 15-20 years."

The elephant in the room as far as the Liberals are concerned would be the tight little group of their mates who want to make zillions out of charging for water.

Just got to make the punters more fearful about supply and blame them for 'wasting' water. Too easy!

The Liberals can't be too worried about water, haven't heard any squeaks from them about Kevin Rudd's 'Big Australia'.

cornflower - a conspiracy! So Julie is marketing for the conspirers? She's drawing attention to the problem so that no one will know?

"The elephant in the room as far as the Liberals are concerned would be the tight little group of their mates who want to make zillions out of charging for water."

Who are they? Or can't you say, just in case they are watching? What's a zillion?

"Just got to make the punters more fearful about supply and blame them for 'wasting' water. Too easy!"

Who is making the punters more fearful? The state and federal governments? Hang on, I thought you said it was the Liberal's mates? Are the State and federal governments working for the Liberal's mates?

"The Liberals can't be too worried about water, haven't heard any squeaks from them about Kevin Rudd's 'Big Australia'.'

What's Kevin Rudd's Big Australia got to do with water security? Or is that all part of the conspiracy? shhhh!

We'll just build more desal plants with Big Australia's taxes and more and more power stations to run them, easy - isn't that what all the ALP governments have done? Now Queensland is going to do it too, since Minister Garrett stopped them building a dam, they have to go desal for a guaranteed water supply.

So how is this helping the Liberal's mates?

Somehow it doesn't surprise me that since the State and Federal ALP governments have all worked to stop building dams, or consider anything besides desal plants, it is now the Liberal's fault.

Go cornflower...

Whatever you do, don't let the facts get in the way of your prejudices.

Amicus,

Can't Victoria just keep just one big coastal catchment undammed to show the kiddies?

Everything we do has a downside , sometimes we can intelligently plan our way around it , sometimes we cannot , if we go ahead anyway under the ideology "For the greater Good", the consequences can be dire .
I assume the Waterways you propose to Dam flow into the Gulf of Carpenteria , if this happens the result would be dire and would impact on many industries but mostly to the Fishing Industry and other aquaculture in the region would come to an abrupt end .

The Mitchel and environments below would also suffer for the same reasons outlined above , marine life depends on the renewal afforded by severe flooding and flushing beyond the shoreline seaward needs the mud and detritus offering protection to crabs ,Prawns etc, fish also billions of other bugs some microscopic that inhabit these areas , these places are the nursery of our Fishing Industries , I am sure everyone would require them to be Protected .

The water issue needs to be resolved , and in the end it will be resolved by sea water desalination using Solar Stills , water desalinated this way will not be cheap but due to advances in irrigation tech will be viable even for forestry .
The difficulty in promoting this is it is vast and expensive and RO Salesmen can do it for less expense but higher operating cost and deliver a fraction of the water that the Solar Still will.
Eventually we will run out of water even if it rains to historical averages then all sorts of impacts on our well-being and health will prevail to compel our leaders to examine other options to reject the RO con artists and opt for simplicity ie the Solar Still desalination .

Did Julie actually write this piece?

hugoagogo - hey no problem, I'll keep my investments in coal mining, they are sure going to be guaranteed for a long time since there is no other source of energy for desal on the horizon.

There are other catchments in other parts of Australia for the kiddies to look at - interesting justification, but sure why not, we seem to pander to all manner of justifications these days.

Do we have to treat each state as if it is separate to the rest of Australia - isn't that the problem now with the Murray Darling system, state vested interests? Whatever, let's keep those going by all means and not have a unified plan for all Australians.

For the kiddies, so they can see where their water supply might have come from. We should build a theme park there and a museum, with pictures of water sprinklers and kids playing under them - we could proudly tell them "that's wasteful!", and all the kids would see is adults who are happy to be over regulated, who pay for governments to supply them with what they need and instead are happy to be scolded if they ask for what they are paying for.

Its the duty (DUTY!) of government to supply all their citizens need, not to tell them to use less.

The allocation and use of water needs to be MANAGED to take into account the basic needes of agriculture, stress on basic i.e not the requirement for profit from the likes of Cubbie Station,the needs of the environment and the rights of the citizens of Australia to an adequate supply of potable water.
Therefore both parties need to grow up, get serious(Julie's little piece reads like an average year 10 essay)and get some guts in oreder to seriously address this pressing and fundamental issue. At the same time they must get rid of licences and Barnaby Joyce.
Bruce Haigh

"Julie's little piece reads like an average year 10 essay"

Posted by Bruce Haigh, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 3:14:51 PM

She probably thinks the same of your work Bruce.

Its hard to disagree with many of the points in this article.

But I agree with Bruce. It kind of reads like it was written by a high school student. I'm giving it a B+

"Julie's little piece reads like an average year 10 essay"

Bruce is showing his age. These days this would get a pass at honours level at most universities.

odo, Shadow Minister

So you reckon there is no money in it and the entrepreneurs are not in there lobbying? Pull the other leg.

Global Water Corp., a Canadian water company: "Water has moved from being an endless commodity that may be taken for granted to a rationed necessity that may be taken by force."

Fortune Magazine: "water will be to the 21st century what oil was to the 20th." Who owns water and how much they are able to charge for it will become the question of the century.

The privatisation of water is already a $ 400-billion-a-year business and multinational corporations will maximise their profits from water as a commodity by using international trade and investment agreements to control its flow and supply.

Too easy, just set up water commissions, get consumers used to paying for it by the litre, panic the living daylights out of them about the scarcity of water and the possible tax hikes to provide infrastructure for the overpopulation favoured by the Libs and Labs...then privatise the lot and the big bucks start to flow.

How is it that when we have 'discussions' on water, no one ever seems to mention man's interference with natural hydrological cycles as being THE major problem?

Peter Andrews, the Permaculture crew, the Czech government (see: http://www.vodnaparadigma.sk/indexen.php?web=./home/homeen.html) and many other credible sources address this vital issue, but apparently to no avail.

[Deleted for abuse and irrelevance]

To all the God haters and left wing radicals Keith D'lacy a former
"LABOUR TREASURER" of the Goss government is the chairman of the Cubby group . Please get your facts straight before you do more damage to the enviroment with all the hot air or you might be vortexed up into the hole in the ozone layer you are creating.

Cornflower I don't disagree that folks would love to control water, what I do disagree with is your parking it at the feet of the Liberal Party.

Why the Liberals? I think you have the wrong political party.

As far as I know the only state so far to allow their water to be privatised is SA under the ALP .. not the Liberals, and I believe that's a French company. (is this correct?)

Water desal in Victoria appears to be heavily invested in by the ALP and Union Superannuation funds, I don't know how it is in other states. Do they controlling interest, I believe the unions super fund managers have board positions (?)

So owning Desal plants, or being the major investors and sitting on the board of them, would appear to me to be controlling the water.

If you want a good conspiracy, then what about the ALP in Victoria locking up the Mitchell River so it can't be dammed, then making sure Melbourne has to get a desal plant, owned by the .. Unions and their political arm, the ALP.

So maybe that's why Minister Garrett did not allow Queensland to build a dam, they want them to build desal plants that then they can control.

Good theory or what?

I'm more worried by our own political parties and union movement controlling water management, than I am by the Canuks coming in - our water supply is already stitched up.

Can SA even get Desal now, or is that contrary to their agreement with the French company?

To be honest, we probably should let someone else manage our water supply, we've made a complete mess of it haven't we?

Bruce - Julie is writing for a wide audience, so has to dumb it down so even idiots can understand what she's saying. She is not writing a piece to meet your lofty levels and standards.

Aka - did you understand it?

Two excellent posts by two triliterate palindromes of OLO, containing two gems in the form of, perhaps, two of the 'right questions'. (They say success in investigation or research depends more upon asking the right questions than anything else.)



Posted by Aka, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 2:25:01 PM

"Did Julie actually write this piece?"



Posted by odo, Thursday, 1 April 2010 7:47:43 AM

"If you want a good conspiracy, then what about
the ALP in Victoria locking up the Mitchell River
so it can't be dammed, then making sure Melbourne
has to get a desal plant, owned by the .. Unions
and their political arm, the ALP.
.
Good theory or what?"



My answers:

Yes, I found this article on the face of it so disappointingly anodyne that I, too, questioned its origin. In only one respect did the author come to grips with specific proposals. That is in the third last paragraph, where the statement is made that:

"The Coalition believes that great gains can be made
in the Murray-Darling through investments in water
efficiency. Investments such as lining water channels
and re-engineering water storages would yield huge
dividends in terms of reduced evaporation and seepage
of this precious natural resource."

Wasn't that specific project one being advanced by the late Richard Pratt (with $100 million of his own money, if I recall correctly) at a time when the Coalition was in government? I also recall something to the effect that Richard Pratt encountered very significant obstruction in attempting to bring this project to reality. The question now, in the light of odo's question, or theory, is from whom and/or where did Dick Pratt get that obstruction? THAT question is absolutely MAJOR, odo.

Come to think of it, maybe Julie did really write this article! After all, she is an experienced politician, and at her level an important skill is to get somebody else to ask the right questions. I'm beginning to think she may have done that admirably well.

The French company referred to is Veolia Water. Its everywhere.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=495#9867

There is need for a wake up campaign that will expose reality.

Note in the 4th para of the following UN report re "dirty" water links to impact of fisheries and ocean ecosystems.

http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=617&ArticleID=6504&l=en&t=long

This is really about impact and consequences of human sewage nutrient pollution being dumped daily in the ocean food web ecosystem.

A major problem is government and/or media gagging and censorship of debate about situations occurring in the ocean, including such as stated in this UN report that apparently has not seen light of day in Australia.

Surely the Australian ABC is obliged according to Charter to report such significant information of substance and issues.

Lack of debate and subsequent real solutions is causing severe damage to the ocean environment and world food supply sustainability.

odo, "To be honest, we probably should let someone else manage our water supply, we've made a complete mess of it haven't we?'

Our engineers are just as good as any worldwide. Perhaps the terms of parliaments are too short for ministers to take notice of them and deliver good policy. Then there is the problem of poor cooperation between States and between States and the federal government, which likewise would not be solved and possibly made worse by outsourcing.

Hon; Julie Bishop ; Why don't you post a substantial reward for ideas with the science for more efficiency by volume by desalination .
IMHO Osmosis systems are not suitable for high volume sea water desalination .
Solar Evaporators have been used in Asia for drinking water since the advent of Plastic sheeting , Au needs to develop this system , mechanize it for our Sun drenched Future .

I recall many years ago a Politician offered a Stipend (?) or Reward for Ideas on how to develop something I think it might have been Sir Robert Menzies ? Perhaps you could find out how he did this and apply it again .

My background is Refrigeration , I have plenty of ideas but I don't have the resources ; over to you !

I agree with Forrest Gump's assessment; the only real 'meat' in this article was the third last paragraph.
The vast bulk of 'water loss' in the Murray Darling is in shipping the water -in the form of agricultural product- to the cities and overseas.
Once again, the onus on conservation falls on farmers and country dwellers, who are already experts on water conservation.
What steps have the cities taken to stop storm water flowing out to sea? This is rudimentary stuff, practised by all country folk.
For that matter, the water in the ag. products also ends up flowing to the sea, through a really stupid sewage system.
If you really want to make farmland sustainable, consider where farm products end up. The smart place to put dams is underneath cities.
A novel idea I think once mentioned in these pages is floating plastic bags (really big ones). Storm water could be directed into these bags, then floated around the coastline to areas of greater need.

The article isn't really about water, except insofar as it's about testing it--the political water.
I don't know about the rest of OLO, but I resent being patronised for political purposes--and it goes on a lot.
Such is the parlous state of popular politics, that no policy is embarked upon until its allure, or otherwise, is assessed. Pragmatics at the level of government is one thing, but pragmatics at the level of politics is......well, where we are now.

Politicians, try to stand for something on principal.

I googled this to see where the content had been borrowed from, and up it came in the Age from March 14.

Doesn't it still count as plaigarism if the full set of references are not provided?

Anyway, why bother to look to the international security angle?

This is a domestic human security danger today, particularly as both major political parties, and all of our business 'leaders' are cheering for a vastly increased Australian population.

The Qld Darling Downs city of Toowoomba is but one city with mindless ever increasing growth going on within its city limits and all around it with gas, coal, and water mining going on as if there was no tomorrow.

Bishop and her ilk, and goons like Martin Ferguson from the ALP, all support this endless growth.

So, what is the point of Bishops article here?

It hardly contains any rocket science, and her own party policies will make matters worse not better.

All in all, it is 'content free'.

I had a look at this article because I have a serious interest in water, I thought I would get some idea of the Liberal's policy on the subject - not just platitudes. I hope the appointment of Barnaby Joyce to the portfolio isnt further evidence of how serious they take the issue.

Senator Joyce is a distraction-force let loose when the news is slack or bad.

But he is no worse than Hefferlump or Tuckey, or a host of pollies from across the nation and from all major parties.

He'd probably do well leading the Qld crew of nitwits at state level though... a 'thinking man's' Springborg.

A 'toned down' Katter... or a hyped up hatter?

What exactly is the Coalition's policy on the major water issues - such as dams, the Murray, other interstate rivers etc?

Jasper,

Does your reference to etc infer that ocean water might be included in water science?