When will right wing politicians realise that not everything is "for sale" and certainly not one of life's essential elements. We elect Governments to manage and provide essential services, because we do not trust business to do the right thing by consumers. I have for example recently learned that most ice-cream contains pig fat to bulk it up, odourless, colourless bulking agent.

Water falls from the sky, that all of us do not have the ability economicly to purchase large rainwater tanks to supplement our water supply is irrelevant to this issue. We pay our taxes, and we expect value for money, it is as simple as that. If we shop at Big W, we expect likewise, but do not necessarily recieve it.

This is why we elect Government to manage these things, so if they do not, we have a chance to remove them from office. We can not remove Big W from trading, however we can stop a Government which is not governing, provided we have an alternative for whom to vote. At present, we do not have that option, and it's long overdue that we did.

In Chaos theory, when the number of consumers times their consumption rate exceeds the replenishment rate of an essential resouce you get a chaotic consumer population collapse. This collapse is mathematically undefinable, most often very violent and prevails until consumer numbers again make the resource viable.

It is true of Australia's water resources.

Although mathematically undefinable, the solution to the outcome will entail Federal and State Governments abandoning their lofty aspirations for bigger denser populations in city centres, large monopoly bank owned agriculture enterprises and the emergence of Australia and especially its leaders as world powers.

This is already becoming evident in NSW and it will rapidly accelerate.

The Federal government may be surprised to learn that on pure geographical analyses, Australia is destined to have a carrying capacity of around 23 million, Tasmania 40 million and New Zealand 6o million.

I'd like to see how they fit that into their self interest distorted NWI.

In the meantime the QUALITY of LIFE for the 23 million destined residents of Australia will depend NOT on how we manage water reserves but how we manage our land and our geography, to encourage more water to enter the continent from coastal rain bands.

Continental Thermodynamic manipulation is the answer. The way to achieve this is:

* Patchwork flooding of South Australia's salt lakes using solar desal technology and canals and pipes from Port Augusta. This will very slightly cool central SA and allow purely coastal rain bands entry to NSW and Victoria on a more regular basis.

* Creation of 100,000 engineered wetlands (EWBs) at strategic catchment saddle points all across Australia. This retains desert heat energy which can WORK for the country. It currently moves in atmospheric and oceanic gyres to the roaring forties where it does a fine job of melting fringe ice caps, much to the delight of fundie Greenhouse Warmers.

So how many funding applications does ANU have in train that can expect improved prospects as a result of this exposure? All good motherhood stuff but nothing that would make me more confident in ANU's capacities.

Come back when you have a set of maps of the Murray Darling system that shows the extent of deviation from presettlement mean stream flows, both positive and negative, on a monthly, quarterly, annual and decadal basis. Factor in increased water yield from past clearing, deduct reduced water yield from regrowth, identify wasted evaporation from shallow, grossly inefficient storages like Menindee Lakes, Lake Alexandrina etc and compare actual so-called environmental releases today with pre-settlement 10 decile ranges.

And even then we still reserve the right to kick the crap out of the NWI because it has the gall to suggest that "diverters" (farmers) have to bear the risk posed to water yields by incompetent fire hazard management in National Parks.

If this article is an indicator of your grasp of the issues then it might be best to take a look at what other institutions can offer.

What a joke of an article, semantic rubbish. I wonder if those that wrote it actually understand that they said nothing. They certainly are a product of the current approach to edcuation, sure is an example of what we have to look forward to if we have to rely on these educated types to advise us.

Acually I feel so sorry for them both, as they will see in a few years how inadequate their edcuation has been and how unprepared for life they are. But I expect they will get a good paying job in the PS or teach. That thought frightens me.

The National Water Initiative seems to be fundamentally flawed in that there is nothing mentioned in the aims to even suggest that the continuously increasing demand on water resources, caused predominantly by increasing populations, will be in any way addressed. Neither does this objective appear in any of the associated organisations. The NWI must therefore be considered largely defeated before it even started, because the rate of increasing demand is set to overwhelm or at least significantly dilute just about any gains that can be made in other areas, at least in urban and expanding agricultural areas, and whole vast regions such as SEQ, coastal NQ and coastal SW WA. As per usual with these sorts of things, the continuous growth factor is completely ignored.

“The NWI recognises that sustainability must be the first priority in principle”. Obviously they don’t have a clue about what real sustainability means. It is impossible with the blind acceptance of continuous unending human expansion.

“…it appears dominated by a determination to promote water markets.”

So it is actively promoting the increase in demand!!

“Even a quick reading, however, shows the NWI is fundamentally a policy designed to achieve environmental sustainability.”

Oh please!!

And in the very next sentence; “much of the NWI focuses on the promotion of economic activity”

It is just a rolling series of complete contradictions!

It seems that this is just another example of our manic pro-growth government trying to pull the wool over our eyes, by pretending that they are addressing sustainability issues while charging forth in the most totally unsustainable manner at the behest of their vested-interest big-business buddies.

Don't fall off your chair, Ludwig, when I say there is some merit in your point. The prevailing urban doctrine on sustainability of water use is the oft attributed response from an Adelaide City bureaucrat as to how they will deal with increasing demand for urban water; "Oh, we'll just put a few more rice growers out of business".

The current conflict between ever expanding urban use and the maintenance of existing rural use is one that crops up (sic) whenever an urban majority government is put to the test of delivering justice to both the majority urban and minority rural interests. And of course, the minority farmers always get done over. It is the same from Los Angeles to Adelaide. And it is done in a context of disgraceful waste by the urban majority.

This is unlikely to be the case if the negotiations are between two states, with one leader representing an urban position and the other representing a rural position. That is the only way to ensure that the science can be fully tested by competing, publicly funded teams and argued by equal competing parties.

Continued.

The current situation where one urban Premier, backed by an urban based scientific and policy team attempts to discuss and equitably resolve rural water issues with another urban Premier, backed by a similar urban based scientific and policy team, is clearly not delivering any form of just and equitable treatment to the rural minorities in either state.

It is a structural failure that, ironically, imposes an adversarial element that is unlikely to be present if the rural users were represented by their own champion, their own rural state Premier.

This may sound contradictory but there is no need for any framework of competition in water use. For it is doubtful that there is a single irrigation farmer in the country who would not gladly loan his water allocation to the city, provided the city undertook to return the water to him as and when he needed it, at the cost of the urban user, with the fertiliser (sewerage) added.

For the simple fact of the matter is that most urban water use is not an actual use at all. With the exception of garden use (which can be supplied by on-site collection), the rest remains as water but with a bit of soap, dirt and some waste product added. That soap is very useful on our acidic soils and typical primary treated sewerage has $9 worth of nitrogen in it per megalitre.

So there is not a fundamental competing interest between rural and urban use. There is just an outrageous ignorance and arrogance on the part of the urban community that their need is greater than a minority farmer's need, that their need cancells a minority farmer's need, and that their need comes with no attendant obligations to properly deal with their part of the water cycle and hand it on in good condition to any other person who could make good use of it.

It is as if the world starts at their mouth and ends at their backside.

Ooow my poor head…. not only did I fall off my chair - I spent an hour on the floor in ga-ga land! P P Per Per Perseus actually said that something I wrote has “some merit”! I wish I could give him a cuddle!

But alas, I still disagree with his notion of separation of urban and rural politics to the extent of forming different states.

“The current conflict between ever expanding urban use and the maintenance of existing rural use is one that crops up (sic) whenever an urban majority government is put to the test of delivering justice to both the majority urban and minority rural interests. And of course, the minority farmers always get done over.”

I think this is overstated. We are all suffering due to population growth, inefficient water usage and bad management by politicians. We suffer in a very unequal manner, but this not highly correlated to urban and rural divisions.

Anyway, even if there is a significant discrepancy in some areas, to the disadvantage of rural people, the formation of a separate state for them is beyond all practicality, and it would still sit within a nationwide urban-dominated and continuous expansionist political regime.

The answer is not further divisions between rural and urban residents, it is just the opposite: the promotion of tighter unity, and of genuine sustainability which means tackling this continuous growth factor head-on.

Water policy needs just about the same set of prerequisites for many other big issues and indeed for the very rescue of our whole society from the enormous looming resource issues. This includes political reform – optional preferential voting, referenda on lots of things, outlawing of political donations and in short, making governments accountable to the people and not beholden to big business. And it includes free and open speech, which is gravely suppressed, as per 4 Corners last night, and as per the need for many correspondents to go under a ‘spewdonym’ on this forum.

My approach is thus very different to that of Perseus.

The real irony of the situation is that more than enough water falls, particularly in the northern regions of the country to sustain the population of the entire country- the problem is that we have neither dammed the right areas nor invested in the infrastructure needed to avoid a 'water shortage'.

Making people pay more for water will not help. Desalination plants only have capacity to be a stop gap measure. So what do we do? It seems to me that the Greens have hijacked the issue of the environment to such a point that damming certain valleys in North Queensland would be never entertained. The left has taken such an aim at farmers over the past decade that any large scale investment in grey water irrigation is only a pipe dream (pardon the pun).

For all his failings Sir Joh had the right ideas when it came to water- Dam up north where they measure rainfall in metres and build a pipeline down. He also pushed like crazy to have grey water diverted from drains to farms-this would have positive effects on rivers and water tables. Beattie and the other ALP premiers have become so bogged down in feasibility and environmental studies that they are neglecting to cater for the future.

“It seems to me that the Greens have hijacked the issue of the environment to such a point that damming certain valleys in North Queensland would be never entertained”, writes wre.

There has been a very determined effort to look at dam sites throughout north Queensland. I was involved in a number of those as an environmental consultant, more than ten years ago. There are lots of suitable sites, but the reason none have been built is because the economics just don’t add up, nor come anywhere near it. Our rampant pro-expansionist mentality is as strong as ever, so you can bet your last cent that if any one of these dams was even close to being economically viable, there would be an enormous push to make it happen.

Even the mighty Burdekin Dam, which has led to massively increased irrigated sugarcane areas, has the most enormously discrepant economics. And this is just the traditional economics, without taking into account environmental negatives.

“Sir Joh had the right ideas when it came to water- Dam up north where they measure rainfall in metres and build a pipeline down.”

What? Why? Hasn’t SEQ grown into a hugely prosperous area without this? Hasn’t it got enough of its own dams, within a reasonably high rainfall area? The main water problem that SEQ has is politicians obsessed with cramming in ever-more people when it is patently clear that it is time to plan for limits to growth.

Ludwig the reality of the situation is that South East QLD will continue to experience massive population growth for as long as there is demand. No state or local government can legislate to stop this demand. Perhaps one day property will become to expensive but that factor is the only economic factor that can really be considered in the water debate.

This is solely because without water we are all stuffed. Therefore if it costs billions to dam and pipeline then so be it.With all due respect all the feasibility studies in the world don't keep the dams full and as a nation we are getting to the point where money has to be spent whether it can be recouped or not.

I do agree that the Burdekin dam has been over utilised for sugar cane and otherwise unsustainable agricultural ventures. There most definitely needs to be a very close look at how to divert grey water and increase water storage facilities.

So Ludwig was involved in the economic analysis and viability assessments for dams in North Qld, was he? Say no more. Given the conspicous lack of intellectual penetration on economic matters demonstrated on this web site, then it would certainly be time to take a close look at these documents. For Ludwig is no stranger to loaded assumptions, extrapolation to extreme cost scenarios and the incorporation of worst case probabilities as if they were statistical certainties. Ditto the Burdekin. What exactly, are your economic credentials Ludwig? And apart from fronting up for a departmental pay packet, what, exactly are your economic achievements?

At least an independent state of North Queensland would have the nouse to use accountants and economists for viability assessments, and let the local blackfellas develop their own land.

Perseus needs to take a cold shower and relaaaaax. His anger overtaketh him.

Perhaps he might like to reread his post, along with the last one of mine to which he responded, and try to imagine what the average calm and sane person might make of it.

Then having reread it, did he find anything in it that is relevant to this debate on water policy?

.
“No state or local government can legislate to stop this demand.”

wre, no state government has even tried. Not even the Carr government, which was interesting given how concerned Bob Carr always was about Sydney’s growing population.

However, some local governments have. Mike Berwick, Mayor of Douglas Shire in north Queensland, has been in his position for many years now, with a policy of limits to population and development. Others have followed suit to some extent – Noosa and Byron to name a couple.

Governments CAN mitigate population pressure. In fact it is one of their most fundamental roles to balance the private enterprise push for ever-more of everything with the protection of the community and environment. The really big problem is that governments are far too closely associated with the big end on private enterprise.

What you seem to be saying, if I dare to extrapolate, is that there is nothing we can do about continued population growth in this country, and that we will simply have to accept that it will take care of itself in its own good time, with all the consequences that it will bring.

We could build heaps more big dams and long pipelines. We could direct a huge amount of money into these projects, which would take money away from other ever-more needy areas and/or cause us to be taxed at a greater rate. Then yes, we might actually have water security….for a little while, until the population builds up the point of stressing that resource again.

Doing something like this would facilitate population growth, leading to a greater demand exerted upon resources that are equally or more stressed.

So Byron, Noosa and Douglas Shires are the way to go, Ludwig. You really are a fringe dweller, aren't you. These shires make pronouncements about population control and then seek maximum publicity for themselves through all sorts of stunts and then complain about more people arriving.

Byron's water supply is in a parlous state because the gravel washed from unpaved roads have silted up the local Dam. One district has had no additional bitumen in the past 30 years. The catchment has also undergone a five fold increase in the area of woody weeds and regrowth and this has almost halved the effective water yield. And they now want a new dam worth millions.

And the green "mandate" in Byron Shire is actually held by an electoral minority of local residents who depend on an equal number of transient voters, who are gone before the next election, for their majority. So spare us the posturing for the gullible, Ludwig. It is a disgrace the way you have sought to gag legitimate discussion on water solutions with all this fringe population scheiser gestalten.

Crikey, poor old Perseus really does have a hang-up with his ‘Germanic’ slander. How to win friends and influence people!! How to make others on this forum think of him as a level-headed contributor. mmmMMMMmmm

Don’t you just love the contradiction in this; “…..have sought to gag legitimate discussion on water solutions with all this fringe population scheiser gestalten”

Apparently my discussion is not legitimate, but his use of deliberately offensive slander is. And all in the same sentence!

Does he really think that population size and growth rates are not intimately related to water policy?

The fact remains, some local councils are very much aware of growth pressure and have made solid attempts to deal with it. That directly affects their plans for water infrastructure. The effectiveness of this growth mitigation might not be high. But at least it is an indication that not all of our decision-makers are in the pockets of big business.

As a 5th generation Australian who has lived and worked in London, Athens, Hong Kong, Vancouver, Sydney and now Brisbane, the mind simply boggles at the sort of population pressures that poor old Ludwig must be under in Far North Queensland.

Did he get his anti-population fetish in a blinding flash one day when he found two people in front of him at his local bank? Did a whole 8 vehicles pass his house in a single hour? Have the western suburbs of Charters Towers extended a whole 400 metres in the past decade? Whoa! Stop the bus, Ludwig's got future shock and wants to get off.

This clown doesn't want to improve anything because it will only encourage more humanity. So tell us, mate, when was it you were captured by aliens, again?

Whheee wh wh whhoo whoooow

Yet again we see a post from the mighty Precocious that is full of sputum and has 0% to do with the subject at hand.

Here we have someone who has apparently (although you can’t believe a word he writes) lived abroad, as well as in Australia’s two most population-pressured cities….. and he reckons my concerns about continuous population growth are bogus!!

Oh well, if he insists on holding onto his position at the loony end of the spectrum, so be it.

So why do I bother responding to his trash?

Well, this forum has shown to serve two purposes: serious debate on all manner of very important issues and entertainment value.

He serves the latter beautifully. So may he continue to provide a bit of light relief from the seriousness of OLO discussions, at his own expense.

Although he has proven himself incapable of giving a proper response, I ask again; “Does he really think that population size and growth rates are not intimately related to water policy?”, and in a further futile attempt to prompt some intelligent reaction, I ask; how can we possibly formulate effective water policy, let alone simplify water policy, if the demand is going to be forever increasing?

I'm starting to get the impression that you blokes don't like one another.

Now, why would that be?

Here is the definitive response, Ludwig. The scale of the underutilisation of water, and the scale of the waste of water, and the scale of the potential for multiple use of water, and the scale of the misallocation of water, are all of two or three orders of magnitude greater than the scale of our actual population, the scale of the change in that population, and the distribution of that population. But you have continually argued that any attempt at improving the former must be abandoned because of your irrational fear of the consequences of the latter.

You are just a no-where man, making all your no-where plans for nobody.