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.