As a long term admirer of the writings of Bruce Haigh on international issues, I'm now pleased to read his stringent critique of Howard's water policy, or lack of. But wish he had made suggestions for policy changes. Since Haigh apparently now farms at Mudgee, I wonder why he has not been involved in the Mudgee Environment Group's campaign to save stretches of the Goulburn River from mining impacts (info@stonecottages.com.au) An 8 km stretch of this beautiful river has already been "re-located" to facilitate mining and right now plans may be approved which will crack, drain and pollute this river even more.The NSW government can have the mine plans moved back to a safe distance from the river but, judging by past practice, it is happy to wreck NSW's rivers in order to get the royalties. Extensive and escalating mine damage to rivers, creeks and aquifers should be a major issue in any consideration of water policy. And this is a State not a Federal issue.

It is good to see Bruce Haigh's clear and thorough analysis of Howard's cunning, ruthless, and effective methods of putting it over the electorate with spin. It could well be that the issue of water will be the one that wakes up Australians to Howard's record of deceit, of our loss of civil liberties, unfair treatment of asylum seekerss, wrong directions on Iraq, on climate change, and on sycophantic support for George W.
To add to Howard's disgrace on water policy, there is his hypocrisy regarding nuclear power. Nuclear power uses about twice as much water as does coal, and many times more than renewable sources. Nuclear power also releases huge quantities of hot water into waterways or the coastal sea.
(Not that I think he really wants nuclear power anyway - it's probably just Howard's smokescreen for the plan to LEASE Australia's uranium, inviting back nuclear wastes from overseas)Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

I agree we have been aware of anthropogenic created climate change for over 25 years. We have been aware of the affects of pollution for centuries. The Howard government has no excuse for its neglect of Australia’s welfare during its term. Certainly the imperatives facing this country for the next decades and centuries will force us and future generations to look back on the Howard era with distain at the level of folly of this government. Sadly Australia has been burdened with a 19th century government in the 21st Century. Historically Australians have held chips on their shoulders always conscious that Australia lagged 20 to 30 years behind the world but ironically Australians sustained a government whose views and levels of awareness are 100 years backward.

What’s done is done; Labour through Rudd has shown that it will continue Howard’s slip backwards. It will be a good decade before real water shortages and resulting famine strangle this country.

While the Government fantasises about market forces acting as some sort of rain dance there is no planning of real water management, no stock piling of waste and urban storm water. No stock piling of grain and non-perishables to stave off approaching famines. There are no plans to arrest growing desertification. There is little attempt at protecting biodiversity so that natures own buffers could offer us protection.

Its been three years and the Health Minisiter couldnt effectively vaccine the nations children against bird flu. Instead he wastes tax payers time and money on pandering to his superstitious beliefs.

As Hurricane Katrina exposed the U.S government as weak and muddled so to the Victorian bushfires, water shortages, desertification, growing carbon emissions have exposed the Australian Government as same.

It is easy to blame the states when the attitude of the Commonwealth is that of “let them eat cake!”

God must be jealous at the amount of blame given by the Howard haters. Just hope it does not rain to much before the next election to spoil your whinging.

Bruce, it's all very well to critise lack of progress in the water debate, but what are your solutions. You give great credit to Mr Howard for being able to virtually singlehandedly control the country but then claim "he is not smart". This seems a bit incongruous.
Can the federal govt "take" control of water or do the states have to "give" control. Why up until now was it necessary to take control of water. The main Murray Darling basin state govts had all intoduced new water mangement acts addressing many of the issues, but obviuosly a prolonged drought postpones the outcome and judgement. To blame it on any govt is ignoring the severity of the drought, and merely political ranting.

There are no excuses for the Government Rojo. Governments have been aware of climate change for over 25 years.