"Urban myth"? Perseus just search Google, see the range of government reports by a multitude of agencies - it is a DISASTER.

Not to ignore the tide, like King Canute, you are yet again tilting at the rural/urban perceived divide. For goodness sake, get off your horse.

But dont worry about the myth, dont worry about the conceptions and misconceptions, just promote the Murray going back to the owners and users.

Let the owners take care of it, not the so-called "bimbocracy" and this means user pays as water is a commodity as painful as the consequences of that will be to the heavy water users like the cotton industry.

Remco,
It is a fact that the removal of trees from a catchment will increase the level of runoff.
It is a fact that the volume of this increase is in proportion to the amount of rainfall.
It is a fact that a very significant part of the Murray Darling catchment has been cleared.
It is a fact that this clearing has generally taken place in the higher rainfall parts of the catchment.
It is a fact that the phenomena of vegetation thickenning and regrowth is less pronounced in the higher rainfall parts of the catchment because the economic returns are high enough to justify more frequent pasture maintenance.

So it is absolutely impossible for there to have been zero net increase in catchment water yield from past land clearing in the Murray Darling system.

So why is the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, and every government policy process in relation to that system, continuing to assume that this increase in yield did not happen?

It is a fact that millions have been spent on the Murray River and it is a fact that the general concesus is that there is a serious problem contrary Perseus to your "urban myth" problem. And why? Because if one owned it, then there would be a sense of possession and hence care.

There aint.

So, like so many divides in our society, instead of sabre rattling, mudslinging as occuring here as well, we acknowledged that in the end we can take care of ourselves and our property. Without that, there is neglect just like the street verge belonging to the shire/council.

Put the Murray (and other issues you and I have eyeballed on) back to those responsible and benefiting. Water is a commodity and so let it be traded. Hey, if you own it, guess what, you take care of it. Yes, there will be losers (including the parasitic "bimbocracies" as you refer to them who evolve empires based on disputes and resistance to change) but in the long term, the Murray, and the rural sector, will be the more robust.

The umbilicus to your bimbocracies must be cut. The new IR reforms is actually part of that thrust too. Get the "looters" represented by your bimbocracies out of our society. I have better things to do with my time too and I am sure you too.

Out of all your tangential, and indeed, positively orbital ramblings, Remco, I must agree with you on one point. And that is on the issue of ownership.

Currently, the decisions regarding the Murray Darling are made by urban political elites who have no real stake in the outcome. They all feel they can survive without any economic contribution from the MDB and all are certain of being fully insulated from any adverse consequences of their maladministration.

If, on the other hand, there was a new rural State covering northern Victoria, and two more covering inland southern and northern NSW, and another covering the Darling Downs and Maranoa in Qld, then the proper management of the basin would be in the hands of decision makers who have most to gain and most to lose from the consequences of their decisions.

It may not mean the end of the cheap shots, the pious positioning, the shonky science and the ignorant political spin, but at least there would be other parties with access to funds to ensure their proper exposure and removal from the policy process.

At least we would have all parties to the negotiations on an equal footing, with an equal need to be fully informed. At the moment it is garbage in - garbage out by urban daytrippers.

Better yet Perseus, instead of shaping the 'bimbocracy' (ie. the States) to the river, excise them out. Put the river back to the people who need it (and use it). Why create fuel for the "looters" (Ayn Rand) and give the farmers and users the FULL control (and rent it out to the recreational users etc). The river is water and so make water a tradeable commodity whose value is therefore related to quality (ie diminished by salt). Yes it will be opposed (notably cotton) but that's the price, better use with winners and losers. It's about accountability and making costs visible.

So much debate here and elsewhere is about people struggling in power systems (and I include in that the perceived rural/urban divide). It is also about disguised subsidies (but that is better discussed elsewhere where we have headbutted).

Get rid of the "bimbocracies" dont fuel them. "Looters" out, people in (and tolerate the screaming from the "bags per acre", "miles per gallon" mob.

So Jennifer Marohasy, to sum it up.

Get the bureacracies out of the Murray. No more money and endless reports that simply consumes resources and better applied.

Allow the users to take charge by acknowledging that water, like the land, is a resource. Water then becomes a tradeable commodity whose price is sensitive to its quality (including salinity). (Recreational users can pay a license fee if that's what is required).

Get the wider community to understand what it is all about. That is lose their receptivity to the politicians representing the old school (ie. mpg and bags/acre) mob and heavy users that are economically (as distinct from current cost accounting) subsidised cotton producers etc to adjust. Set up a once-off fund to help the mob that looks to Canberra to leave/adjust (hey there might be money left over from all those reports that dont need to be written now).

Get the bimbocracies out of this national icon. Give it back to the people that need it and make them accountable.

Idealism? Hmmmm.