It seems Mr Compton is a greenhouse sceptic, only interested in getting more coal mines on line. He doesn't seem to have heard of lots of scientific work in the last few years that show it is our land-management practises that are leading to less rain combined with the havoc humans have wreaked on the global atmosphere.

As for the population issue, it's really a matter of what we do with the water and how we consume, not how many of us there are. Only a small percentage of our water goes to city water supplies. Much more goes on irrigating crops for export to other populations. Or to cooling power stations or for use in mines or aluminium smelters.

As for big dams, you can build them, but you can't make it rain. The so-called solutions sound more like Howard's picket fence- so last century!

Welcome to OLO cherax

“As for the population issue, it's really a matter of what we do with the water and how we consume, not how many of us there are.”

It is not just water provision to population centres that is affected by growing populations. Water that goes into agriculture, powers stations, etc, goes towards providing food and other resources and export income for our population. It is all affected by continuous human expansion.

Mr Compton is involved directly in increasing coal exports. Eight new coal mines in the Surat basin. Great! Our scale of coal exports is enormous! But apparently never big enough. Again, with population stabilisation in Australia, we wouldn’t feel so pressured to continuously increase coal production, or exports of whatever resources we can increase the supply of

I thought that the equation on this was widely known, but apparently not.

Households consume only around 15% of Australia's water resources. And over the past five years, we have reduced that consumption from 96.5 KL/person annually, to 84KL/person.

If farmers had achieved a similar efficiency gain over the same period, they would have "released" an additional 73KL/person for consumption by the general population - enough for an additional 17 million people.

Not many votes in telling farmers to be more productive though, so I expect the government - and all future governments - will stay as far away from this one as they can.

As for opening a new coal mine, surely this is a classic example of what Private/Public Partnerships were designed for?

The coal mine and its rail feeder system can be built into the cost/benefit analysis of both the corporation and the government, taking into account the need for the company to make a profit, and the government's need to encourage economic growth. If the equation works out, the money will be surely found, and an equitable deal on building, owning, operating and if necessary transfer, can be worked out.

It is such a no-brainer, I'd offer to help put the plan together. I charge a lot less than Macquarie.

I understand your perspective, Pericles, but you have missed an important point. The 15% of urban use is not actually used at all. The water simply passes through or over a human, or his wastes, before being flushed down a pipe where it's disposal is percieved as a problem to be fixed.

But there is not a farmer in Australia who would not loan his irrigation water to the city users, if, and only if, the city could be trusted to return that water to him when his crop needed it. Primary treated sewerage has $9 worth of nitrogen per megalitre and the soaps can substantially reduce the need for lime on acidic soils. So what the city regards as a problem the farmer would regard as a value added product.

The cities could access a much greater proportion of the total available water and have no adverse impact on total supplies. The only limiting factors are the distance that such water can be accessed and returned, at the cost of the city, and within comparable price ranges.

And with effective decentralisation, and devolution of political power to independent regions, the actual share of total available water used by urban areas could be reduced even if the population were to double.

It puts all Ludwigs population snake oil in an interesting light, don't you think?

Population, water crops per drop,coal mining,water and regional devleopment,Federal power, local power, bush versus city, right wing versus left wing ............... still compartmentalising one issue, one group one perspcetive against another ...........mmmm... adds strength to the fact we need a new way of working and thinking about water and a much needed apporach which adds a ethical and moral position which includes much needed mutality (benefit to the whole) in decision making

Provides only more evidence to seek to work differelty with a different focus to achieve solutions to complex problems

c'mon everald you can't be serious put the commonwealth in charge of water. what about the nathan dam, held up for years because the Federal Minister did not take all factors into consideration under a Federal Act. The High Court ruled the Federal Minister stuffed it up. The Nathan Dam will now be delayed another ten years whilst the Federal Minister tries to get it right. With all due respect you won't live to see it built and won't get to see the surat basin opened up for coal mining because the federal minister stuffed it up.