You know Steel, I can think of much better uses for Queensland water, than to let it run down the Darling, just to provide you with steam boat holidays.
Leigh, further to your post, is any place, like Adelaide, that demands 70% of its water be supplied by other states, realy entitled to exist. All that water, just to keep a bunch of old churches on the tourist rout, is a terrble waste.
In times like these we have to make sacrifices, & I believe Adelaide is the best bet. Upper Darling water will keep Brisbane going, & NSW, & VIC can use all the Snowy water axailable.
Yes ,we have to make sacrifices, & I nominate THEM, as my personal sacrifice

Narcissist,
The same thing happened in Newcastle during the restrictions years ago.

If water is now considered a commodity rather than a shared resource, then you should be entitled to use all the water you can afford to pay for and restrictions should not be possible under those conditions.

Raising the price is an artificial means of controlling supply when good will alone doesn't work.

Most everything in society is allocated by one thing, PRICE! The exceptions are where the government directly or indirectly seeks to allocate so then eg. a shortage of nurses in hospitals and teachers in schools where wages are artificially suppressed (hey there's no shortage of plumbers are there and we dont have to import them).

Those opposed to water being priced in an OPEN market should ask themselves, why water should be exempted from the operation of the market place. It is a scarce and essential commodity.

Those seeking the hand of government, should look at their track record.

Water is too important a commodity to be exempted from everything else in society.

I gotta say, you can't really argue with the point of this article.

There's an old phrase that goes something like "supply and demand."

That's the way it works I'm afraid.

That being said, while we obviously need to look at upping water costs, there needs to be some kind of assistance for businesses that require large quantities of water to operate - a sudden increase in costs would bankrupt too many and cause damage to numerous sectors of the market.

No doubt I'll be viewed as an agri-socialist here, but if we were to charge the water intensive industries similarly, numerous market sectors would be affected and it would drive up more thna water prices and have a larger ripple effect than intended.

There does need to be an increase in water prices, and yes, it needs to be extended to the majority of industries, but on an appropriate scale.

Staged increases would also be wise.

What has not been discussed is the primary reason about building the dams was to drought proof the country.

Then governments sold water licences, but did they sell too many? As a consequence demand eventually exceed the ability of the network of dams to supply the water.

Now better late than never, more efforts are being made to conserve water, open channels are now being enclosed etc. It is a shame that it took this water crisis to get the bureaucratic monster moving.

New areas were opened for irrigation by politicans and it obvious that the allocation of water exceeded the ability of the dams to meet those needs.

Once privatisation of water occcurs the private companies will come up with new and inventive ways of separating people with the dollar, some possibilities such as charging water users like fishermen and skiers for the right to put boats on what was once totally free water.

The only aim of this charging the public for public use of a once public assest, would be to provide dividends to private shareholders.

Teri, it depends what Shire you live in, how high your water charge is rated.