Heat anger and maybe miss understanding but surely this story has many sides.
Some time ago we started an investigation.
We thought the river was dieing ,maybe it still is.
What is the truth behind this storm?
Is it true this recommendation is not set in Stone.
Or that the 30% proposed reduction is ONLY for those who want to sell.
Has the river got rights to flow.
Do those living near its end also have a right to water.
A complex issue, one we need not let drift in to political slanders, but surely saving our water, understanding it is limited has to be spoken about.

Yes Belly, a complex problem.
I see some contradiction with government policy.
The farmers say less water means less food.
What does that do to increased population ?
Perhaps it means population must reduce.

We import significant amounts of food now.
Can we afford to increase our dependence on imports ?
It would put us at the mercy of the a short supplied
food market.

Very complex Bazz , but not yet even close to government policy.
Some who shout and scream, others who have been heard on radio national seem to forget a few things.
The prosed cuts give much more water than was available during the drought.
In fact more water not less than the last few years
Without the rain we would have no water about now.
The proposed cuts are voluntary, no forced selling.
We have not been able to supply all water paid for, but still charged for it, for years.
water has to be there to be sold/used will it always?
Food cuts? should we be growing rice?
And is the out come no matter what it is going to please every one
I think the board has not done its pre release work ,and that far too many self interested but uniformed mums and dads are playing politics with what was set up as an environmental inquiry

Belly you are talking emotive bull.

The people living at the end of your river have, for the last 2 years, had 80% of their irrigation allocation, supplied by those up stream who have had none. A strange sort of equity, in any one's book. I suppose you think it's fair that the up stream people ahould loose 34% of theirs, so those at the mouth can get 100%.

The water is only going to be used to fill a couple of dams, yes that right, dams. They call them lakes, as it plays better on the heart strings of those dumb enough to fall for the con.

I did not realise just how naive you are mate. Don't you see that when the cannery closes, due to insufficient fruit, all the orchards are lost. With the jobs gone, people leave. The bank doesn't get enough business, & closes, closing other business without the draw of the bank to help supply custom. The hospital went a while back, but now it's the school.

Now we have a few sheep & cattle, where once was a town, all to please some greenie egos, & supply a nice fresh water sky venue in South Oz, in an estuary that should be salt.

If you tried to erect those barrages today, you'd have a greenie revolt, but they hate irrigation more than dams. Those South Ozzies had better be careful, those same greenies are sure to find some fish, frog, or mosquito, who's habitat is more important than them, & their lives, too.

Try reading up on what happened to the Burdekin farmers, when some greenie bull got traction with our Labor government.

The South Australians built a barrage to keep the seawater out of the lower Murray lakes. The lakes then slowly filled with fresh water. The South Australians now accept this as the norm. The whole debate has been hijacked by the greens and the self appointed high priests of the so called Wentworth Group.
Open the barrage and leave the water buy back to those who wish to sell, to target up to 45% of the water from productive irrigation areas will damage food production and local economies for little benefit except inflate the Wentworth group and satisfy some of the Greens need feel fuzzy and warm

There is no question that the way we have treated the murray darling system is appalling. What you say of SA is right but it is not the only case of the misuse of water on the system. Weirs, dams locks they all contribute to the problem but without doubt the biggest impact has been the drought, can not fight over what is not there.
The problem is not so much the flow, the system has always stopped flowing in the dry periods that this country is known for it is the lack of floods. Death of the ecology of flood plains, wetlands, river gums are all evidence. This can also be seen in the Snowy river and the whole of the snowy river scheme.
Probably most concerning is the over political way this is being handled with the farmers crying victim and the government lacking clear direction. If anyone took note of the farmers meeting in Sheparton the other day the murray darling catchment authority were not sure of their modelling and more or less admitted it was wrong.
To really cap it off there is now a debate going on here about damming the northern rivers and pumping it over the mountains. Do we never learn from our mistakes. Some farmers in the irrigation districts speak as if we are selfish and they have a right to the water because we have had so many flood the last couple of years, well it was only a few years ago we were also in drought never ming the importance of those floods to our ecology.. If it is so good here come buy land and farm it but don't destory our ecology with your greed.