Does anyone think it is interesting that the lying rodent wants to repair the Murray/Darling, and have more water capacity in it at a time when his old mate Ron Walker is beginning a nuclear power company. Water is of course one of the key components for nuclear power stations, it seems Mr. Walker would like to build one in Victoria, and one in South Australia.

Could there be secondary benefits to having more water in the Murray/Darling....

My major concern is not about Chairman Ron who has no regard for the little people. As Lord Mayor Ron famously wanted to preserve horse riding around the tan, is notorious for making his workers work 10+ hour days in cramped offices with broken chairs whilst the board room has space and ergonomic furniture for their weekly meeting. Chairman Ron raged when the Commonwealth Games volunteers complained about the food but it was Prince Edward who ate in the canteen.

My concern is that the Minister for Privatisation is also Minister for Water. I am concerned about his dismal performance on 7:30 Report against Peter Garrett when he quite clearly hadn't learnt the talk. If the Commonwealth controls the Murray Darling Basin water supply then we can kiss our food supplies good bye!

Billie... even though it's unlikely I'll ever vote Liberal, I don't think it's fair to say Turnbull did miserably on that 7:30 report interview.

I've always defended the ABC, though on that instance it was clear Garrett had plenty of time to state his entire case, but Turnbull was always cut off... plus he was defending a government that really has been slack on environmental issues, so to do a decent job in that interview was one hell of an ask.

For my two bob, I don't think the Murray Darling issue has much to do with nuclear power at all. I think it's more to do with the fact that water is becoming the top concern for those in drought declared areas.

Look at Brisbane. Level 5 restrictions being introduced.
The reasoning behind the water announcement was to curry votes for the election, with any nuclear considerations so far in the background to that concern they're nearly negligible.

Besides, something clearly does need to be done about water, so even if it is largely to curry votes, I'm not so sure you can simply dismiss it as vote buying.

What is interesting is the Bradfield Scheme, while clearly unfeasible, would actually deliver additional water. As far as I can tell, all the government is really doing for the murray darling is purchasing water entitlements: read, relocating farmers. Not a bad move, but not a lifesaving one.

Problems with Murray Darling Basin water

1. I know a farmer that paid $46,000 for his water rights this year and was not allowed to take any water - makes my $1200 domestic water bill look paltry.

2. There is lax policing of water allocations. One farmer has been caught sticking sticks in his meter countless times with no penalty.

3. Some states allocate twice the amount of water than is available in a wet year

4. We are using more water per head of population than we used to, to generate electricity, because we soak in the shower etc

5. Do we want to adopt a strict user pays regime where we might find that all the MDB water was used for rice/cotton and towns while the orchards, vineyards and dairy industry lost its water allocation

6. Are we going to manage the land in the catchment area to encourage rainfall and capture run off. i.e. restrict forestry and encourage revegetation

Malcolm Turnbull didn't begin to address those issues and just indulged in loud, repetitive tub thumping.

Turn Right,
Something clearly needs to be done about Industrial Relations also mate, but Howard's not changing that. The lying rodent, always has at least two agendas for anything he does, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.

billie,

I don't understand why we "kiss our food supplies goodbye" in relation to the commonwealth takeover of water. What will they be doing with the water? Or have you realised you haven't been paying enough for food. The best return for water is producing fresh vegies, but it's only a limited market. You will end up paying more for milk, but you pay more for bottled water so that shouldn't be a surprise.
Bread and meat don't rely on irrigation so you won't starve.

Talking about water, the Murray Darling controversy is nothing new. There was much talk before the Great Murray River Project of feeding northern tropical waters into the top end of the Darling.

Peter Beattie, premier of Queensland brought it up again just recently, with the same answer from critics that it
could be done, but would cost too bloody much?

Well now, if it can be done, surely now is the time with Costello just blowing his bags that he now has over one trillion bucks in his Future Fund.

A major problem above the headlands of the Darling in upper Queensland seems to be sandy soils which cannot carry the flow of water even with massive channelling.

It has been so interesting to note the work of the huge Japanese mechanical borer used under the precincts of southern Perth as part of the almost completed railway line to Mandurah.

Just ask Peter for a half dozen Jap borers to drill through that Queensland high country and it could be Bob's your Uncle to overflow the Murray, and maybe we could do something similar in WA from the Ord and Fitzroy, especially as water after a major downpour flows naturally from well north of Wiluna all the way to the Moore River just north of Perth.

It's always good to read stuff showing concern for our rivers. But does anyone realize that there are 14 river systems under threat in NSW from mining operations which the NSW Government, in its desperate search for cash and the millions it gets from coal royalties, is approving hand over fist in spite of expert warnings ? Rivers are being cracked, depleted and polluted in the process and remediation is not a permanent solution (grouting cracks with cement is not going to last through the next earth tremor).

Neither major party nor the press want to take up this issue, though rivers even in Sydney's drinking water catchment are being/have recently been cracked and drained and polluted. The so-called Catchment Management Authorities are powerless to help, and refuse even to print photos of cracked river beds in their newsletters. Academics won't help either - lest they lose their lucrative consultancies or sponsorships ( e.g. try asking the "BHP Chair of Environmental Sciences" at Wollongong Uni for a bit of help and advice on how to protect rivers from mining !! )

The long term consequences transcend State vs Federal power, the point is that the water is commodified as a commercial asset.

As such, it has to be perfectly clear that the water belongs to the land, it therefore belongs to the Australian people. It must never be influenced by private interests other than farmers who are already stakeholders.

This is serious if the States perpetually disagree all the time over this, but if there is Federal intervention, we need a safety clause to this to guarentee that water is not commodified and used for further private comercial interests.

There is much comment on the need to harvest the water that flows during the Northern wet season. I should mention that even here in Cairns, we have water restrictions and we do have bad years (2002 springs to mind.)
The problem with harvesting water in the far North is that it is hard to store the stuff. Generally the land is flat and it is hard to build large storage areas. Those areas that do have rain catchment valleys that could be dammed also have valuable agricultural area's (The Atherton Tablelands and North Tropical Coast) that are Australia's tropical fruit bowl. Also it is not feasible to destroy World Heritage Rainforest if the intention is to build storage dams. Australia would be rightly damned if we tried that stunt.
And lastly a litre of water weighs one kilogram. Pumping megalitres of water is equivalent to pushing millions of kilo's of any other substance. A lot of effort is involved.

Rojo, there is plenty of irrigated wheat and lots of sheep and cattle are fattened on irrigated pasture - water is more essential to the production of the "basics" than you may think.

Billie, I know plenty of farmers that have had to pay those types of sums for water entitlements that are non-existent. That's doubly hard when without the water you cant produce anything to pay the bill. Assistance to farmers has come in the form of interest-rate subsidies and the dole (barely enough to live on) - little yet to help with the cost of water that cant be had.

The problem is that there are no easy answers, and plenty more people are going to be hurt before anything is achieved.

The best solution - put a bunch of retired farmers on the Board to make the hard decisions. You would be hard pressed to find a fairer bunch of people, that are little influenced by profit, and that have a good understanding of the interaction of the environment with its dependants. Most farmers, especially the older generation, are prepared to make hard decisions for the greater good - just the sort of people that we want making decisions that are going to effect us all long into the future.

Shonga, I'm with you on questioning why. A meeting of the coalition was held north of Bundaberg recently. No body was invited, yet a large number of outside supportive business people turned up to discuss damning water here. Gladstone is not far from here, and it has been touted as a possible site for a nuclear site. Excuse my suspicions. Managing rivers? Managing for what? Is this the forerunner of absolute control over rivers? I have a doubt or two.
arcticdog.

Country Gal, yes I am aware of how much water is used to irrigate pasture and cereals. They use 40% of all water extractions. However given that a greater amount is produced dryland, and we export 60% or so,(we produce more than we need even from dryland) then I'd say he still won't starve if irrigation water finds it's way to more profitable uses.

I commend your thoughts on "hard decisions for the greater good", few look beyond themselves or for the long term: greater than one lifetime. Few get to plan their businesses generations ahead.

rojo already we are importing many foodstuffs from overseas.

I have no problem with importing dairy produce from New Zealand but wheat from the Ukraine, fresh green vegetables from China - yes I worry about the purity of food.

When you buy Arnotts biscuits check whether they were made in Australia or just packed here. When you buy Home brand biscuits you will find they are made overseas.

The most productive dairy industry in Australia is irrigated land in the Murray Darling Basin and as the large supermarket chains tie up the distribution chains they are forcing farmers to accept rock bottom prices ex-farm gate so its quite likely that more farmers will be forced off the land.

As petrol prices start to increase, transportation costs will rise and it will not be economic to transport food across the world and sell it to consumers at a low enough price.

And rojo I do not drink bottled water unless I can taste the blue green algae in the tap water.

Rojo, just what are your "more profitable uses" for water? Nuclear power downriver in SA?

Seriously, if you want good infrastructure planners used to dealing with tight budgets, and good resource planners, who think in terms of generations rather than 2 years, employ a bunch of farmers. Its seems there will be plenty needing a job within a few years anyway....

Country Gal, that was my original point entirely,"what will they(govt) be doing with the water" in response to us "kissing our food supplies goodbye". I was merely pointing out that even IF the water wasn't used for meat and wheat we still wouldn't starve. I don't know what is profitable in all areas, and what alternatives there are. Cotton is good up North, if they've got water and permanent plantings go well with the high security water provided by the Murray. So far.
Milk is an essential, so if water prices were to increase, then this will eventually be reflected in milk prices.
Reforms to water will most likely impact pasture irrigation for beef, as the returns /ML aren't as good as say Rice/cerals. I don't think this will be by govt intervention but rather ROI economics.

Anyway why would they build a nuclear power plant in SA? Theres not that big a population, and there are other rivers than the Murray.

billie, sorry I didn't mean you specifically drinking bottled water I should have said people.

Whether or not the Commonwealth has control of water will not change the fact that water will find it's way to the most profitable use. The risk you correctly identify is dairy farmers not getting a good enough margin now and electing to get out and sell their water to tax schemes or to govt. Supply could drop significantly forcing prices well beyond what could be considered a fair price today. But the supermarkets won't care, they only work on margins, it will be the consumer who is most affected. If you can afford it don't buy homebrand milk.

I share your thoughts on buying Australian produce, knowing we have the safest and cleanest food possible.