"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.