*DING*....ok.. stop fighting and go back to your corners for a 1 minute rest... (Perseus and Remco)

I think you both have strong points, along with Berri who gave a very powerful personal anicdote.

The truth lies in between P and Rs points I think. We cannot ignore the 'shafting' which does occur when political interests exist. Also, there is 'shafting' of the natural order and resources for the sake of personal gain. So, ur both right.

The Biblical view on all this is twofold. 'Stewardship' of the environment and 'Do for others....etc'.

I urge a Biblical approach, because without it, we are at the mercy simply of the rich and powerful.

God help us if they lose the big picture and end up just accumulating wealth for its own sake.

King Hezekiah is one of my favorite characters to illustrate the danger of short sited thinking. When told by Isaiah the prophet that due to his freely showing the Babylonian ambassador all his treasures "You fool, don't you know they will come and take it all, though not in your lifetime ?" said.."Woah..cool... I don't have to worry, wont happen in my time".

But it did happen, and for us, poor stewardship of the natural world WILL result in a price, and it might just be 'no' multiplier effect on produce which now cannot be done due to salination.

So,.. rest time is over, *DING* u may resume the battle, but this time no blows below the belt :) look for the truth in both of your positions

Perseus, yes I have commented on you in generalities as there is no point in debating points of detail when they are unnecessary to the outcome. Instead of debating the economic costs and benefits etc, it become a matter of accepting there need be no divide between the urbanites and the country people. It is simply that some, notably politicians that promote it. I have refered to the old school (bags per acre group) only as a segment, a metaphor of those resistant to change - maintaining the old way of thinking.

It is absolutely irrelevant to discuss the multipliers etc if you were to acknowledge that the Murray belongs to the users. Step aside and allow those that benefit own it. To get away from looking to what you refer to as the "bimbocracry" to fund but allow for the "user pays" principle to apply. Once we let go of our attachments, let go of the perceived urban/rural divide, then there is no need for the lenghthy rationals you are supporting. Yes there is a cost. The cotton farmers will hurt as they incur greater water costs, but any change will promote winners and losers.

I suspect you have a lot to offer but I humbly suggest you accept that the greens and the urbanites are not your enemies (your 'windmills' as I hinted at) but sources of pressure to create a new way of moving ahead. Where the farmers take charge of their own affairs without looking to dodgy economic rationale (I am an economist btw) to justify handouts legitimised as they themselves feel unfairly treated).

This forum can help breakdown divides and create a new way of thinking and relating.

Redneck subhuman (I'll add 'in bred') hillbillys ? :) yes, P, that was a bit of a mouthful eh. Don't think Remco is that far yet, and his last post seemed more conciliatory, aaah..progress :)

Rem, your reference to 'old thinking' does seem a bit doctrinaire...
P has a point, and it is the economic 'trickle down' impact of any commodity in the value adding chain.

Your point seems to be that if we destroy the source of the commodity, there is nothing to debate, because its 'gone'.. fair enough too.

So, as I said, both points are valid, and what I observe is that there are a lot of politics in the farming community. Downstream people who have established crops or ways of using water become very annoyed if upstream farmers want to retain the water which falls on THEIR property, i.e. rain. And to me, the idea of making a claim on water which falls on someone elses land is just about outright theft or terrorism. Specially if they did not have much water dependant agriculture, then decide to put in something which needs more water.

So, the combatants are:

Downstream Farmers vs Upstream farmers
Greens vs all farmers.
Politicians vs anyone who threatens their re-election prospects.

Life in sure interesting. I wonder how one resolves the water issue ?
We have Turkey wanting to utilize the water of the Tigris (which Iraq depends on)... for massive agriculture, same thing I suppose. Hence, we can see why wars are fought.... its usually about resources.

Abraham had an interesting approach, he gave Lot all he desired, which was the fertile pasture lands, then God promised Abraham that in the end it would ALL be his anyway. Thats just how it turned out.
Lot was greedy and selfish, and he got his just reward.

The Murray is more than a salt drain and their are other indicators of health than salt levels at Morgan. How about turbidity at Howlong?

Have you seen the colour as you fly into Mildura?

No I don't want to see the Murray brim full all the year. I wouldn't mind the occassional flood to give the gums a drink and stir the cod into breeding.

Hey Jen, is there any part of our environment at all that isn't actually in the best shape ever and just generally fantastic and top-notch all round?

Maybe we should just stop wasting our money on rivers and use it for advertising the government's industrial relations legislation or something useful like that.

All the official analysis on the water needs of the Murray-Darling system have been based on the assumption that the original flow of water was equal to the sum of the current flow plus current irrigation diversions. And this has been a very neat way of presenting the 11,600gl of irrigation water as a loss to the environment.

Yet, none of the policy on fish and bird stocks appear to have included the expanded populations of aquatic species that now inhabit the irrigation ditches. And the fact that the water may have already flowed down much of the river before diversion is also ignored. It is recorded as a loss to the entire system, with implied ecological losses to match.

More importantly, even the so-called Wentworth Group were capable of getting their asynergistic minds around the fact that land clearing increases catchment water yield. But the policy process has never bothered to calculate how much additional flow has been added to the system by past clearing by upstream farmers.

There is a huge "smoking gun" being ignored by the government and the captured science community that indicates that farming activities may have almost doubled the total flow in the system but this increase is now being fully captured by downstream irrigators.

The decline in flows to the river mouth is an urban myth devised for the sole purpose of justifying an increase in so-called environmental flows (ie landscaping) at the expense of farming communities.