The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Water Policy - Can someone explain

Water Policy - Can someone explain

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
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?
Posted by wayseer, Monday, 16 October 2006 8:47:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 16 October 2006 10:14:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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!
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 16 October 2006 10:17:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 16 October 2006 10:19:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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?
Posted by Forrest Gumpp, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 10:04:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by ryechus, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 10:52:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We have just started a new campaign, a prayer campaign that it doesn't rain so that these silly twits spending their $6.00 a week donation from little johnny on all those luxuries they couldn't afford under a Labour Government will start buying condoms and cut down the birth rate and give us all a chance of survival.
An expanding population will not sustain itself for long and you only have to look around the world to see it.
Posted by ryechus, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 11:01:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmmm

Seems what we have here is new age theorisms competing for resources and open political ground. Sort of like eugenicists, toilet drinkers, non-sustainabilitists and those that are stumped.

Wayseer and Gump have lept to a fine start running a new race. The conclusion of which will be that when the trees are gone, we will be able to see the way to answer the forrest of questions we were asking earlier on.

Perhaps when the sea rises, and the inland floods once again, convection will turn the dry around. Maybe we should send the dozers in now, and avoid disaster.

All those in favour, say Ay.
Posted by Gadget, Tuesday, 17 October 2006 1:36:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig has missed the point.
The baby bonus is to get the birth rate up to a sustanable level.
Ludwig is on about sustanability, well that applies to us all as well.
The birth rate is below 1.8. We need about 2.2 to maintain ourselves.
Thats what an aging population needs.
The CSIRO once said we can support about 25 million on the available water and they might reduce that figure now.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 11:29:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
O dear Bazz

Surely you don’t really believe this.

As this is really not within the subject of this thread, I have created a new thread just to address it.

Please see ‘Population growth misconceptions’ (It’ll take a while to be approved, I gather)
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 6:39:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks all - looks like I'm not all that alone.

Sustainability - balance - is the answer but I'm not going to kid myself and accept that all the mega-businesses will suddendly reverse their positions; neither will the super funds - all of which are driving the insane depletion of resources, including water.

We live on the driest and largest inhabitable island yet our policies are more in tune with those who in earlier times inhabitated Easter Island - where resources and water devastered the population whose only considered response was to have yet more children while they built yet more statutes to appease the gods who would hopefully send the much needed rain to support the ever increasing population. That scheme failed as the archaeological records confirms.

The buy-back scheme is another attempt to appease the gods and like the trial on Easter Island, this too will fail. Wonder what future archaelogists will make of all this.
Posted by wayseer, Wednesday, 18 October 2006 9:25:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy