Bruce Haigh, if you are still reading posts: "In my opinion the sustainable use of water is the single biggest challenge facing our nation and should be addressed as such" misses the big picture.

The sustainable use of water is nothing more than a subset, one of many within the fundamental problem; although it might be the first subset to most clearly manifest itself.

The fundamental problem is disregard of simple mathematics by politicians, business, society, in "progressing" the nation. By similar disregard, your article is embedded in the problem.

There is mathematical certainty that we are unable to indefinitely continue increasing rates of resource use, such as water. While our population increases, it must be matched by a decreasing rate of per capita resource use. And there is general consensus that we are presently not well-off in relation to water, among many others.

The parliamentary wings of political parties, be they Democrats Greens Labor or Coalition, all support the current rate (about 1.16%) of population increase, which is due to a 1.9 fertility rate plus nett immigration. That rate would double our numbers by 2067. If we are parched now, how tough is the problem being left for our grandchildren to solve?

Bruce, I think it would be great if your articles, such as this one, could acknowledge the basic cause underlying the problem you address. Yes, it is difficult when the retail industry exhorts people to spend more (on essentials?) at Christmas and at every other time of the year; when advertising thunders for growth in consumerism; when the property/business councils, the real estate and housing industries, the media, all proclaim the "benefits", the "necessity" of increased human numbers to underpin increasing rates of consumption of finite resources. And when they push levers of persuasion onto all sides of politics to facilitate such growth.
If only you would incorporate some comment that stability in population numbers and rate of consumption was a necessity, not an impossibility, for continuance of civilised living. And make that a necessary accompaniment to the fixes you propose!

west, models used by NSW govt have previuosly identified what a 1 in 100 year drought will do. Tri-state agreements specify what will happen during such an event, and here we are. Whilst severe drought is expected, how do you plan for such an extreme event. The fact that SA will receive 75% of it's entitlement flow in such an event shows at least some planning took place.
Where a national policy needs to come into place is to plan for anunprecidented repeat next year. Remaining water must be allocated to greatest need, whichever state that is without state bickering.

This article reads like someone with a personal grievance against Howard. However, when Howard became PM in 1996 no water crisis was apparent. Since then, actually since 2000 (when, for example, Sydney’s water supply exceeded 80% capacity), no one could have predicted that El Nino conditions would dominate the next 6 years, resulting in serious rainfall deficits in SE Australia. I think the response by governments at all levels has been reasonable. In the meantime, individuals are doing their bit by installing tanks and water saving devices. People will quickly adapt to change and find solutions to the present crisis, as they already are. We certainly do not need some dictatorial water authority, as suggested by the author, and the belief that such an authority would be a-political is ludicrous. The greatest stress on Australia’s fresh water resources is our constantly increasing population.

Water has been an issue in Australia for both black and white inhabitants.It became an economic issue when white squatters bought up the water holes and river banks in order to control the surrounding land.There have been various responses to wealth creation and population increase including a pipeline from Perth to Kalgoorlie in the late 19 Century.
Population increase without planning and new infrastructure has put a strain on all resources. Crowding the coastal shelf has not helped to properly uitilise scarce resources and nor has antiquated and inappropriate methods of farming and land use.
You will notice that I have not mentioned salinity which is having an increasing impact on water quality and agriculture.
I first wrote about water quality,salinity and land use in 1980.
A small band of journalists tried to raise levels of awareness in 'The Australian' in the mid to late eighties but the editor, poured buckets on them and not much got into print.It was judged that there was no interest 'out there'.The drought may have caused some to focus on the issue of water, caused others to panic and others to go into denial but as an issue of great importance it has been with us for a long time.
What is new, in my opinion, are governments who are unable to plan for the future.Lacking in immagination,driven by a private enterprise philosophy which frees them from responsibility they are the embodiment of 'she'll be right mate'.
I don't respect Howard and I didn't respect Beazley,who was at UWA at the same time that I was.Can Rudd the builder do it?He has yet to demonstrate that he has some metal.
Not only are both major parties at federal and state level failing to address, plan and co-ordinate around the issue of water, they are failing equally on infrastructure,health and education;and in the federal sphere in defence, foreign affairs and immigration.If the Chinese were not papering over the cracks the goods on offer from both parties would not sell.
Bruce Haigh

Colinsett writes;

“The sustainable use of water is nothing more than a subset, one of many within the fundamental problem; although it might be the first subset to most clearly manifest itself.”

The fundamental problem is the worship of continuous growth. And the fundamental issue that this is in direct violation of is the achievement of sustainability.

Howard’s biggest flaw by far is the promotion of massive growth in population and the consequent continuously increasing demand for water and all sorts of other resources.

In the near future the Australian populace will get their headspace around the fundamental need to stop expanding and to live within our means…. and to bloody well pull back on the scale of demand on stressed resources such as water, instead of just blundering on and increasing the demand!!

Ultimately, Howard’s legacy will be his lack of adjustment towards sustainability, and indeed his strong continued momentum away from it, at a time in our history when there is an IMPERATIVE TO DEAL WITH IT!

My impression from some of the things that Kim Beazley was saying was that he was just starting to get his headspace adjusted towards the basic issues with sustainability and the protection of a healthy society and quality of life… when he lost the opposition leadership.

I was hopeful that Rudd would continue from this point, but alas there is no sign of it.

So that just leaves Howard free to continue on with his rampant antisustainabilityism.

Ludwig "My impression from some of the things that Kim Beazley was saying was that he was just starting to get his headspace adjusted towards the basic issues with sustainability and the protection of a healthy society and quality of life… when he lost the opposition leadership."

Was that the devious Mr Howards doing too, or was it the influence of big business. There must be a conspiracy theory in there somewhere, surely.