Simply brilliant. Every member of federal parliament, and Ken Henry, should read and reflect on Bruce Haigh's wise words here. These are the key sentences:

"Any analysis of the effect of climate change on governance must lead to the conclusion that the era of the privatisation of assets of public benefit and necessity is over. Scarcity and shortage will require the intervention of government to maintain a reasonable quality of life and evenly balanced productivity."

We simply are not seeing these powerful arguments in the public debate on water policy. They need to be out there, in the national public interest.

"The head of Treasury, Ken Henry, is, in my opinion, wrong in claiming that the market will regulate and conserve water through price. It will not. It will create winners and losers, cartels and monopolies, which will only work to the benefit of the big producers and the top end of town."

Can't be other than this under a Capitalist mode of production Mr Haigh. 'Executive' head of Treasury, Ken Henry is a poorly-educated, narrowly trained ideologue who, parrot-like, chants the neo-liberal rhetoric of the World Bank, IMF, the Chicago School and 'Washington Consensus'.

Their anti-social mantras have wrought environmental, economic, social and political havoc across the so-called 'Third World', and are now being imposed upon unsuspecting and politically naive 'middle-order' societies ... er, sorry, Economies!, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

Judging from the government's response to other crises, particularly financial ones, there is obviously only one answer to the obligation to provide water to whoever need it.

The government will just have to print water.

Why not? It seems to be the solution for everything else.

Much of the MDB water problem is due to over allocation. I cannot help wonder how this happened. Was it all public service incompetence or was some of it another brown paper bag problem?
Why is it necessary to generously compensate farmers if they lose water? Much if not all their irrigation capital expenditure was either subsidised or at least tax deductibe and they had many good seasons as they depleted the dams or underground reserves. As usual it will be those with little capital, understanding or clout who pay the bills of compensation.

Ten Commandments:

1. Put an end to the capitalist system

2. Renounce wars

3. A world without imperialism or colonialism

4. The right to water

5. Development of clean energies

6. Respect Mother Earth

7. Treat basic services as human rights

8. Fight inequalities

9. Promote diversity of cultures and economies

10. Live well, not live better at the expense of others.

-Evo Morales, President of Bolivia

Why do we continue to accept any government that is willing to sell the needs and good of the broader community into private hands? We have seen it with health, education, roads, infrastructure etc. In the public service and academia, 'partnerships'with industry and voluntary everything is the mantra of the day. And each time, we complain about the fundamental illogic of giving into private hands a public necessity and public good. And we point to all the failures of the previous sales. And each time nothing, nothing nothing changes. The economic rationalists trot out the same tired corpses mouthing the same tired hallucinations and we listen and respond each time as though we are still surprised that they haven't buried the body yet. Well, the high priests of this particular cult are not going to bury the body - it's going to have to be us to perform the burial. So, yes, keep complaining about it. But also demand that it change. Every time you vote. Every time you walk past your local members door leave a note under the door. Every time you see the same pap in the paper - write to the editor. Call into radio. Demand that media put 'balance' in their reporting - that if something is patently absurd, call it absurd! If we don't do at least this much, we are simply pretending to be dealing with the problem.

"Why is it necessary to generously compensate farmers if they lose water?"

Much the same reason as one would expect to be paid the full value of their home if it were resumed by govt, not the price it was in 1972.
Some have invested large amounts of money in water to grow their business , is it fair to just take it away, or underpay?

I'm not sure what you imply by generous, market price is market price. Under a voluntary buyback scheme the water is not lost, merely sold.

From the original article, indeed, used as the subtitle of the article:

"It is the right of all citizens to have access to a life sustaining supply of potable water."

Yes, but as the minium amount of water, to sustain life, for the average human being is 3 litres per day this statement is hollow, even doubling it to 6 litres per day, anyone and everyone, in most places in Australia, can get that much free by filling a large bottle from a tap at the local park. Sure, this isn't enough for washing clothes or more than basic hygiene, but is enough for drinking and cooking.

So is that what the article really is saying, or is it just spin?

If the article is about 'water futures' then the rather inane motherhood statement about citizens and rights to water could have been left out, as it is a distraction, or an attention grabber, like false advertising.

Hamlet, I am continually annoyed by the lack of knowledge displayed by people like you.

I live 60 kilometers from the Brisbane GPO. My local neighborhood watch delivers news letters to over 800 homes in our district, of about 2500 residents. We would have to drive over 20 kilometers to be able to fill your bottle with potable water.

Your government wants to build a dam, to harvest our water. When its harvested there is no plan to supply this water to us. Its to go to supply you & the rest of your mates in Brisbane.

Fair compensation in the bush? NOT BL@@DY LIKELY.

Hasbeen, I have no doubt that many people in Australia do not have adequate supplies of potable water, which is why I said:

"anyone and everyone, in M O S T places in Australia,"

My issue was with the attention grabbing byline, as the article

But you inadvertently raise another issue, which has been debated before, and that is: why do we insist on shoring up settlement in areas where settlement is untenable?

If the land HAS to be worked then it can be worked by people brought in for that specific purpose for set periods of time. The residence of the workers and their families can be relocated elsewhere.

If residence or cultivation of certain land is economically / ecologically unsustainable then perhaps the use of that land should be changed, possibly to 'leave this land alone'.

If a certain area 60km from the Brisbane GPO is so water short, then it should never have been settled in the first place.