CSIRO and Melbourne Water researchers advise that a new tree planted may be drawing moisture from the soil for up to 240 years.
Where, due to a lack of fire PREVENTION work we lose forests, new plants grow and the water available for harvesting is reduced.
Why, therefore do we argue the merits of cool burning if it is going to protect our forests - and our water supplies?

What exactly is your question Phoenix?
I know tree planting has an effect on flow into rivers - esp if all trees are planted at once and in an area of normally high inflow.
Replanting previously cleared dry Mallee farmland with Mallee Eucalypt communities is important for a number of reasons.
Mallee revegetation also has less effect on catchment inflows as it is done in dry areas - the problem being establishment is difficult due to dry conditions!
Originally mallee would have established only in abnormally wet years. The huge underground lignotubers of mallee trees may survive for 500-1000 years (carbon sequestration not destroyed by intense fires).

What seems to be the problem with native trees having a drink for (why only 250 yrs) survival? The more trees the merrier as they also draw water from air.Oxygen levels will also increase so bring'em on I'd say!

Btw, they should be more concerned about aquifer steeling as the C-cola does and probable others, instead of turning millions of years of collecting water (as aquifers do) into a product which only increases the risk to get all sorts of diseases,they should be stopped immediately raping this country of it's most valuable resource. This by the way should be an election issue of the most importance.