I don't doubt for one moment that both the Liberal and Labor Governments are keen to make water a tradable commodity on an ever increasing scale. Already the Howard led Government is working out the final details of how to tax people for storing water in rain water tanks. A Federal take-over of water rights is the springboard for this insidious tax on people such as farmers and others who reside well away from water infrastructure and considered very unfair since those affected have often spent many thousands of dollars installing tanks and pumps and are also required to maintain their lifesaving supply, creating an ongoing financial commitment for the life of their stay on these properties. GST is also paid on all tanks, pumps, parts and equipment, so in effect, the Government will be double dipping yet again, but of course, that wouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Make no mistake, the privitisation of Australia's water will be a severe blow to all those who live away from a reticulated water supply and an added increasing cost burden to those who do not. How Governments can be so bloody minded in their willingness to pander to big business is beyond comprehension, especially when such a vital necessity for life is in question. This is truly unbelievable and reprehensible. If the Labor Government doesn't attempt to do something about this disgraceful situation, it should hang it's head in shame.

Things are looking up. I think it is the first time that an article from Arena has been published on this forum

Susan, thanks for the alert ;please keep us informed.
As a Nth Victoria irrigation cattle farmer I was very surprised to get the news in the mail today that the once sacred "Stock and Domestic" allocation would now be tradeable .This has never happened to my knowledge in the past .It is no doubt due to the severity of the drought.
The S&D allocation has always been tied to the property even when the property is sold.
We have about 7 megalitres - probably just enough to get us through the year without our, now down to 23% Irrigation Water Allocation.
I would hate to think what would happen to our small communities if the Multinationals and other big Companies get hold of the water in much of the bush. As the old bush saying goes if the country is not producing "we may as well give it back to the blacks".
I remember seeing a report on TV where a Palestinian farmer was shot at by the Israelis while trying to open a vital well on his land .
If you control the water , you control the population .
No doubt it won't worry too many of Howard's National Party weak-kneed but well heeled Colleagues-although Barnaby Joyce may make it uncomfortable for them as they and the Liberals probably send us ,pardon the pun-"down the drain" ! cheers, kartiya.

I am wondering if withdrawing water allocation from US owned Cotton growing enterprises will open the door for legal action under the terms of the US/Australia Free Trade Agreement for compensation....

What paranoid drivel this article is. The wicked US/Multinational/free trade/profit-mongerers are conspiring to take our water, and “without water none of us can survive more than a few days.” And we’re too stupid to notice because horrible Howard is“confusing citizens by claiming one thing while doing another.”

As if anyone seriously thinks that depriving us of drinking water is the effect, still less the intent, of water market reforms.

Export water to the USA? In a sense, we do this already (our biggest water users are in agriculture, and most of our agricultural product is exported, some of it to the Evil Empire). But if anyone expects to see water tankers filling up in the Murray-Darling and chugging off across the Pacific, they’ve got the same grasp of economics as Susan.

Water trading is an important step in managing the resource, directing it to where it’s most productive and providing less efficient users with the incentive to move on to other things. The mess we’re in now, with users believing their land tenancy gives them unlimited rights to tap a shared resource, and no fair and efficient system of allocating water between competing demands, is a product of exactly the approach Susan advocates.

If Australian's allow politician's to privatise water, then Australian's will need to be shot, along with the politician's who sell it off.

Nations that have sold of water face nothing but problems. In one European nation where water has been privatised, the company owns all water including rainfall in your backyard. This had made catching rain water a criminal charge of theft.

If the multinationals control the rainfall, it figures that they would also be liable for the damage caused by their rain :) Up here we measure rainfall by the metre - 4-6 metres for 2006!

Imagine if they were slugged with the damage rain water caused when it entered building after Cyclone Larry.

The damage rainfall causes to the national highway in northern Australia would have to be paid for by the 'owners' of the rain.

On a serious note, there are some people suffering terrible consequenses from privatised water. I seem to remember reading about a South American country that had some real difficulties.

Don't you just love the way the rich just can't keep their greedy paws off anything they might be able to screw some profit out of?

rhian,
right now Governments and water corporations are busy buying water rights for a song off desperate inland farmers to give the likes of the cities of Bendigo, Ballarat and even Geelong access to water for their long term populations and business expansion .
Multinationals and water authorities buy it cheap and sell it dear to rich cities ,while the bush and it's people continue to go backwards with yours and the Government[s] "the market God rules" attitude.
Ps.You probably like the American Healthcare Marketing System too,it's obviously very efficient .

kartiya jim, why shouldn’t “desperate inland farmers” have the right to sell their water if they want to? Aren’t they better off making that choice for themselves than having you make it for them? And isn’t providing drinking water for cities a better use of a scarce resource than growing water-hungry crops like rice or cotton?

And no, I don’t like the American Healthcare Marketing system, it’s a horrible mix of monopolistic private enterprise, regulated bureaucracy and inept govt provision, reflecting the worst of both systems

I had been wondering why Malcolm Turnbull was Minister for Water because it seemed such a thankless task with no cooperation from any of the states. But now I see that Malcolm Turnbull, the founder of Macquarie Bank, can make millions out of floating of tradeable water rights.

I had been curious as to why Peter Beattie was permitting the syphoning off of more of the Darling River flow.

In Melbourne we are incensed that Cocas Cola pays 2.4 cents per 20 megalitres to pump water out of an aquifer that also feeds a growing town Kyneton.

For 150 years we have had public utilities that have protected the water catchments and allowed cities like Melbourne to have very good water supplies. And like most people I know, I can't see any benefit in privatised water and I wish my elected representatives would represent the wishes and best interests of myself and my family.

IT AIN"T BROKE, SO WHY B*GGER IT?

Water trading is the process of buying and selling of water access entitlements. The terms of the trade can be either permanent or temporary, depending on the particular circumstances at the time. Chile, South Africa and Australia have water trading schemes, with Australia's considered the most sophisticated and effective in the world.

The first time that water access entitlements were separated from land title in Australia was in 1983, when South Australia introduced a permanent water trading scheme.

It is claimed that water trading can promote economic growth by shifting water resources from low value activities to high value activities. There has been substantial debate in Australia over the merits of adopting European style farming practices since European settlement in the eighteenth century in what is the driest continent (excluding Antarctica). The adoption of water trading may help facilitate a shift towards more sustainable agricultural activities by allowing the market to determine where water is used. This may have the effect of penalizing some activities, such as dairying, which has a relatively high water demand, but benefit some high value crops, such as grapes.

Water trading in Australia has not brought about all of the obvious changes. For example, there is evidence, that some water has been diverted to high value businesses, rather than high value crops. The reasons for these changes are complex, and occur because water markets are embedded in the existing social, political and industrial structures.

I couldn't find anything terribly threatening or anyone purchasing the right to rainfall. I can't imagine the Americans coming in and diverting all rivers and lakes into Western Australia to supply a "New Nevada" golfing and casinos habitat.

I'm searching for comments made by South Australia about their scheme but, so far nil. I think it would be helpful if anyone could supply a link to pro and con commentary on this experience since it's been going back to 1983.

cheers.

I don't know if Susan's water economics are fully sound or not but she has clearly opened up an important subject for informed debate.

Let's hear from some experts - the agricultural economists and political economists. Julian Cribb ? Bruce Haigh ? Hugh Stretton? Clive Hamilton? The Greens? Peter Garrett ?

The idea of leaving it all to Malcolm Turnbull and Macquarrie Bank - not to speak of Rumsfeld's cronies, Kellogg Brown Root and Halliburton who are getting their claws into South Australia in a big way - - instinctively worries me. If such entities control our water as well as our uranium what is left of our sovereignty ?

I repeat - let's hear from some experts.

I have no problem with water rights as long as it is a true user pays system. Whoever has the rights for a particular amount of water should also be liable at least for the cost of maintaining the infrastructure for water storage and distribution. Ownership of water rights without such a liability is synonymous with owning a house and not paying rates.

The NSW water management act 2000, implemented 2004, permits holding of water entitlements without having to own land. Prior to this entitlements have been tradeable by landholders within river systems since at least the early 80s.
By being tradeable the water will find it's way to the most profitable use, whether that be an urban water user, industry or growing cotton and rice. Obviously not all the water is required by urban and industry users so agriculture uses what is left, after environmental allowances, some 70% of water extracted for consumptive purposes. If cotton and rice give the best return for the water in their regions it would be a waste of a valuable resource to not get the most out of it.
Govt departments are now striving to achieve real returns on water delivery, management and associated assets. So how much is their to fear from new trading rules and privitisation? Not a lot if NSW activity since 04 is anything to go by.
Govt should make the effort to ensure Australian groups have the opportunity to match any offers or assist with credit facilites needed to keep water supply in Australian hands.

The privatisation of water is a growing global phenomenon that is being actively promoted by the WTO, often with catastrophic results - particularly in the Third World.

One only has to look at what Bechtel was attempting in Bolivia to see what's in store for us all.
http://www.democracyctr.org/waterwar/

This is a very serious issue that should be investigated further.

The trend is more widespread than most people realise.

Coca Cola for example, now controls 10% of the world's drinkable water and is on target to achieve 20% within the next decade. They utilise military satellites to locate viable sources in poorer countries and then move in and take control of the resource, usually to the detriment of the local population.

As for Free Trade Agreements, I believe that the USA/Canada Agreement included the right for US operators to compete with Canada's Postal Service. When they couldn't compete, Canada was forced to raise the cost of it's own Postal prices to allow the US competitors to compete "fairly".
Sounds like a great deal.

its good to see the author raising such issues - the implications as far as the FTA goes had escaped me so far. And those implications are scary. I have no great issue with market forces being allowed to determine a price for a good/service. What worries me in this case though is the potential for the good (water) to be controlled by a few large corporates with a large number of buyers. Basic economics would suggest that this is a great way to end up with inflated prices (the same way as fresh produce farmers in particular have suffered from deflated prices due to the corporate buying power of the few purchasers of their product). Lots of buyers, few sellers means that the sellers can set their own price (potentially this COULD be regulated, but that isnt the way our governments like to operate, so I suggest that this is not likely). This would be particularly the case should one company supply one area.

The thought of companies being able to claim rights to rainwater is even more scary. This doesnt even allow the possibility of being independent of the system.

As for taxes on caught water, the NSW govt was planning to introduce a tax on farmers who caught more than 10% of the rainfall runoff on their property. This was being introduced in about 1997 - not sure what happened, it kind of fell out of the headlines and hasnt been heard of since. Seems it doesnt matter what side of the political fence you are on...

Great link Wobbles,

I highly recomend other posters check it out.

This issue is far greater than people imagine, and Malcolm Turnbul is very talented in sniffing out the opportunity to make money for himself and his mates

Australians will be remembered as stupid people who were coerced into drinking their own sewage whilst their dwindling water supplies were sold off to the corporates. How stupid we are!
What to do?
How do we turn this around?
All day 29/1 we heard the likes of Beattie and Howard saying it is all right to drink recycled sewage.
How has it come to this?
Surely this is outrageous!

For more on this topic re drinking sewage as our water is sold off please read this article from The Age 12/1/07
This is happening in Powelltown, Victoria as we write.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anger-over-licence-for-bottled-water-firm/2007/01/11/1168105116676.html

Anger over licence for bottled water firm

Cameron Houston and Liselotte Johnsson
January 12, 2007
AdvertisementAdvertisement

A BOTTLED water manufacturer with links to the soft-drink giant Coca-Cola Amatil has been given the green light to extract pure drinking water for just $2.40 per million litres, despite plummeting water supplies.

The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has granted a permit to Sunkoshi Ltd to construct a pipeline and two tanks on the private property in Powelltown, despite objections.

They banned CocaCola from India's villages because they were drying up their underground fed creeks/resources which were used for decades by the farmers.The Indian gov stepped in and closed the CCfactories.
That stuff is bad for you anyhow,no great loss,how about it JH? close them here as well and stop obesity in kids at the same time?

Country Gal,
I think the Idea of the 10% Cap on water harvesting on private property is to stop the unprincipled harvesting of water in quantities that would affect downstream users . Fair enough .
If the downstream users start water profiteering from someone adherence to the law ,then there's a big source of friction .
I think the biggest problem with the Free market for water is when unproductive cities and towns accumulate water from desperately poor farmers [relatively speaking] and hold the asset for population expansion to feed wastefull economic growth that continues to increase the size of our "footprint" as we consume more and more of our natural resources .
Water Corporations put up the price of their cheaply acquired water at will and cashed up city and town folk pay without a wimper for their hot showers and sewerage systems.Farmers must wait for rain and a buyer for their produce .
Do we want well watered city expansion at the cost of a shrinking population in the bush ?
With already failing Hospital Services eg. obstetrics and dentists gone , are we just going to kow tow to the big city parties and their bush cronies feeding their expansion plans at the expense of the bush ?

Thanks for this article. The policies being followed by Australian Governments are examples of the sort of parts thinking that has led to the fundamental challenges we face in our economies and societies in our divided unsustainable world.

These challenges are perhaps greater than at any other time. They have arisen because of how we have been trained to think, plan and act as individuals and how we have applied this training to the way we organise and govern ourselves. We have thought, planned, organised, governed and acted as though our world is comprised of parts that can be separately exploited by humans and managed by us from one stable state to another. We have forgotten we are just one species in a complex natural world. We have tended to act without a sense of wholeness - without integrity. Meeting these challenges will require new approaches to how we are trained to think, plan and act as individuals and how we are trained to organise and govern. These new approaches will need to be based on our current scientific understanding of our world and the human mind. This scientific understanding indicates water is an integral part of our world.

Let us hope this article ignites quickly a balanced and integrative consideration of the issues involved by those with the scientific understanding and those who are well-rewarded to represent us. Even climate change "realists" should be able to change their minds in the face of overwhelming evidence.