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.