Watching Kerry O'Brien and Malcolm Turnbull jousting nationally about the much herald Water Policy, I could not help but wonder - What's it all mean?

From what I can gather the Feds are on a water buyback scheme that will be used to make the Murray-Darling flow again and to supply urban areas.

What I cannot understand - Why? Beside watching water flow where is the benefit? If the rural areas are not using water what makes the plants grow that provide the fruit and vegies for all the urban areas? Besides providing some nice looking rivers wont most of the water in the M-D just evaporate, little if any will reach the sea - and to what end.

If the water is to be used for urban areas where will those urbanites buy their tucker - from Asia via the Singapore markets? And at what cost?

Am I missing something here?

I think you ARE missing something rather important wayseer:

The need for us to live well within the means of natural provision. That is, with respect to water, to not push the boundaries of the supply capability and be very much aware that times that are drier than average have become the norm.

So, with the buy-back scheme, which will turn agricultural water back to nature if you like, a greater buffer will be provided for dry times, as well as an improved ecological flow…. and it is very important to get the balance between productivity and ecology right. It is an admittance that we have over stepped the mark (and terribly so) in the Murray/Darling.

Of course a lot of water is going to evaporate and run to the sea. And so it should. If we allow for a large fraction of it to do so, we will be (hopefully) allowing for a decent buffer to get us through the dry times.

Malcolm Turnbull makes my stomach churn. He’s one of these characters that supports Costello’s lunatic baby bonus scheme and the attempt to increase our birthrate. And then he has the gall, or ignorance, to talk about sustainability… with respect to water (or any other issue)!

If he is going to promote a stronger movement away from sustainability by way of increasing population growth rather than directing us towards a stable population, then what the hell is he on about with sustainable water usage?

Is he completely confused? Is he pulling the wool over our eyes? Does he really believe that we should have a rapidly growing population and hence a rapidly growing demand for food and fibre and other stuff and for export income that is produced off the land, with the essential input of water…. while our water regime is in crisis?

He blows my mind!

And one more thought….. is the reduction in food production any less desirable than the constant increase in demand for food in this country?

All those that are concerned about the reduction in water allocations or productive properties should be at least as much concerned about our continuous population growth… and those morons that promote it.

Wayseer,

Keep asking those two very good questions "What's it all mean?" and "Am I missing something here?".

Ludwig makes some very good points, and appears especially qualified to make points related to biospheric limitation factors, the 'tyranny of climate'. Quite a significant proportion of our species is capable of anticipating the effect of these factors, and planning to accomodate or modify their impact within a framework of mutual co-operation. This co-operation only works consistently in the presence of things called rights.

Let me get things straight. Historically, all landholders have had the right to use the rain that falls upon their land. Additionally, some landholders have certain rights to take and use water from rivers, aquifers, springs and so forth. This usage has long been regulated by things called laws. All of this subject to the proviso that the water is there to use in the first place. Presently, however, there is an overall shortage of (fresh) water for what we have taken as a (largely urban) community to be our present needs, let alone our foreseeable requirements, right? What, then, will be achieved by purchasing rights to water that does not exist? I suspect I am missing something here.

Having spent public funds to purchase rights to non-existent or presently inadequate water, our (largely urban) requirements will have been met, and, as a happy consequence, the river systems are also somehow going to fill and flow. I really mean it when I say I must have only a pedestrian intellect. It would seem that some, to the extent that there is any water to actually be had, are going to be dispossed of their right to it. The short word is 'robbed'. There obviously must be a series of steps by which this near-miracle of modern government (and rainmaking) will have been achieved, and equally obviously many persons involved in the policy formulation must know what they are. For my sake, albeit at the risk of boring the intellectually unchallenged silent majority, could even one of them please explain?

ludwig seems to be on the right track. At the moment there is not enough water for all the people who want to use it, or there are too many people for the water thats available, depends on what side of the fence you sit on.
Here are just a few details that seem to be being kept from the public.

Delta Electricity is taking and diverting 44ML (44 olympic swimming pools) a day from the upper Cox's River ie. Sydneys water supply and they are now increasing it's capacity by 10% that will put it up to nearly 50ML/day. Aquifers under the Newnes Plateau (a major supplier of Sydeys water in Blue Mountains west of Sydney) are being breached by coal mining. all of the "water make" is being pumped out by Delta and diverted to Mount Piper and Wallerawang power stations.

The State government is allowing coal mining companies to damage rivers and aquifers all over the state. If you go to www.riverssos.com/ you can get a very good picture of what they are doing. BHP recently donated $100,000,000 dollars to the State government and both they and the Government deny that it will influence the government in the future accepting of development applications for proposed mines.

There are a lot of people out here who have been fighting this problem for a long time trying to get politicians and media interested but up till now they couldn't give a damn (except Prime TV in the central west). If you hear a politician claiming that they are unaware of any aspect of this crisis then he is lying thru his teeth they have been informed their department heads, and some underlings, actually anybody whose email we could get, have been informed.