Jason, perhaps you should get a few facts right before you open your mouth.

My river boundry is the middle of the river, as surveyed well over 100 years ago. I have a right to graze my stock to that boundry. THERE IS NO PUBLIC LAND ON MY PART OF THE RIVER.

There is no requirement for mr to fence the river off. I have, because I don't want my stock on a high, steep, & dangerous bank. As I have a water harvesting licence, & I pump water to a couple of small, [quarter acre] dams, [ponds really, they don't catch much from rainfall], to water my stock, in most circumstances.

However, this is where some of the type of restrictions you wish to impose, start to cause problems. These small dams run dry.
Once the river gets below a certain level, I am no longer permitted to pump a few thousand gallons into these dams. I am not even supposed to pump water into a couple of small tanks to supply water troughs. I am only allowed to fill water troughs. I would have to fill these troughs, twice a day, evert day.

As an old bloke, with a history of heart attacks, my doctor tells me I should not go down the river bank to start a pump, even once a month. The 20 meters climb back up the very steep & slippery bank, is bad for me. I now have a problem. Do I kill my self, by pumping twice a day? Do I brake the law, & pump into a couple of tanks every few days? Do I go further, & pump a months supply into my dams?

Just what do you recommend?
Continued.

Jason, the last time I was in hospital, after a heart a attack, a neighbour opened my river gates for me, so my stock could get a drink. I left them open, until, after rain, the river was high enough for me harvest again. I did not loose any stock.

Perhaps you think I should have killed myself. Perhaps you should first try to get a more sensible set of regulations, so I can pump a few days supply. Perhaps you would like to come & pump water for me.

I look forward to your pearls of wisdom.

While your at it, you could suggest an answer for my mate, who has 63 kilometres of river winding through his place. Will you pay for, & build the 126Km of fence, & spend all day, every day, driving aloung this fence, pumping water for his stock. Perhaps you would prefer to pay 300% more for your food, to allow him to pay for this extra cost?

How is that fair Hasbeen when industries like QAF pump 5,000,000 litres per day out of the same river? http://www.qafmeats.com.au/about.htm

Just to support an intensive farming operation??

To talk of a spasific problem you have is unfotunate. The cost of saving rivers from degradation will be high for a handfull of individuals. Change will come about as a matter of necessity. Livestock and rivers are a bad mix. May i suggest a windmill to lift the water.

I'm a little bit in the dark here, Jason60.

I don't live in Victoria, so I am not familiar with the landholding situation with respect to river banks. Are you saying that a strip of land along the entire length of the Murray's southern bank always has been public land? Or, are you saying that in your opinion there OUGHT to be such a strip? Which is it?

If it is the case that a public reserve has always existed in this respect, then one answer I could suggest would be a class-action claim on the part of all riparian landholders for title to this strip on the basis of the Law of Adverse Possession. If what you claim to have seen is true, it would appear to be prima facie evidence for total neglect by the resposible authority of this land. Title should pass to the respective landholders, and the sooner the better. Cost to be awarded against the Crown for creating the necessity to mount the case in the first instance.

Land in private ownership is almost invariably looked after better than that in public ownership, and in this sort of situation for exactly the sort of reasons Hasbeen has described. IF there is a real problem in the landholders sole and absolute determination, that is.

On the other hand, if such a strip is proposed to be created by way of resumption, those same landholders would be well advised to retain the best land valuation counsel they can get to ensure the Victorian taxpayers pay the full cost to the landholders of the lost amenity of the river bank and their erstwhile riparian status. With any luck it should run into the hundreds of millions of dollars, or maybe more.

OT, I've always thought trespass upon rural land ought be an offence punishable by mandatory sentencing to hard labour. Doing fencing and riverbank weeding, for example.

"What the eye don't see, the heart don't grieve over."

What do you reckon, Hasbeen and Country Gal? You're both very polite.

Yes there is a 60m strip of public land that runs the entire length of the Murray River, on the victorian side. Much of which is rented to graziers or croppers. The rents are a nominal figure on a yearly basis and ongoing. The purpose of these permits, was for nearby landholders to look after the public land. But you will find much of the land is used for shade and access to water for livestock. Never have i seen landholders water being used on this land, thus it turns into a dust bowl.