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.