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.

Hasbeen may I say this, I do not dislike you but share almost none of your views.
And that fills me with pride.
Australia is a dry Continent,always has been.
Selling water we can never be sure we have at the expense of a river and a whole district, is unwise.
Sille are you sure you are aware just what is being discussed.
Put out for discussion is one plan, may be not even close to the final one.
It calls only for buying water from those who want to sell.
Lower river farmers, yesterday on radio national, said they no longer get floods, on once flood plan lands.
It seems both sides will not get what they want, but emotive?
Greens look wise and informed in comparison to that statement.

Hey! Forget The warnings and just go for it! Milk the planet for all its worth! We.....the people running the planet at the moment don't give a sh@t! And HEY! ( the people that are left to clean up ) Iam sure there will be some-thing left after we are finished.

You humans have to be the dumbest animals to ever evolve.

OH! This will be fun to watch.

OH dear.

smile

TTM>

On the other hand we can find a balance.
Keep a thriving farming industry and a living river.
If we understand both have to be the right size and sustainable.
Self interest is driving some who scream into the radio mike, the river is not capable of unlimited use.
We have seen this.
Drought bought this home to us, in fact bought about this first step report.
If every issue is to be turned in to a political issue,, regardless of truth, our country has far bigger issues than this.

I am no expert on this, but something that was said recently is that
no one can take water from the river unless it is at a certain level.
Then they can take some water depending on the height of the river.
If it is high enough they can take all their allocation.

So, as I see it if the river is dry it is because there was no rain.
It is not because the allocations are too big.
As for it not being compulsory, well that seemed very odd to me.

I think the suggestions about Queensland were to divert some water
from the rivers that run into the gulf south to the Darling and its
tributaries. Seems like a good idea to me.

There's a reason why change must come.

It's because if we continue the farming and water sourcing practices as we have been doing there will be NO Murray/Darling, No water available, No farmers, No farms, No agricultural employment, NO regional support towns.

The farmers and their support people are their own worst enemies. Look at them in their protests with their foul mouths, totally intransigent attitudes, their "we know it all" aggression. The reasons why they're in deep trouble is because throughout history they have misused their land and the water; they've farmed in a totally unsustainable way.

Changes must come. There is no choice.

That river system is a victim of australian business mentality & nothing else. Instead of fartarsing around with water allowances etc. we should ask those living on prime farming land to move. It serves no practical purpose to build suburbs on good farming land & then pipe water to naturally unproductive regions only to produce utterly unsuitable crop for this region.

One thing's for certain though, things must change. That's the only way farmers will survive long term. If they continue on as they have been, their grandchildren won't have any farms to inherit.

Indy certainly your point is a good one.
Bazz my understanding is it is not true.
We are told too much water has been allocated even for the good times.
Drought did make it worse but we have them often here.
This mornings editorial in Conservative flagship the Australian is worth a read balance and understanding rare in that paper.
Within well planned limitations we can have some farming and the river system.
But if politics over rules common since we are not going to have either.

Belly, you seem to believe all the crap mouthed by this dictatorial greenie lot, so here's a case study for you.

The burdekin has lots of water. Most of it still flows through the Burdekin Falls dam, & out to sea, where it kills coral. To take advantage of this water the locals developed a rice industry. Yes they committed something akin to murder to our hateful greenies.

They built a rice mill, & prosperity grew. The greenies hated someone making money by their own effort, you can't control those people who generate their own wealth, but there was not much they could do.

Unfortunately a lonely lost bird found one of the rice paddies one day. People wondered what this strange bird was. It was a magpie goose, & they had never seen one before, in that district.

Well this bird flew off & told his mates about this wonderful new sub development, where there was lots of water, & food everywhere. Some migrated with our explorer & set up a colony.

They bred quickly in this perfect environment provided by the farmers, multiplying so quickly that they started to cause real damage.

The farmer saw a new & unexpected pest, but our greenies saw a weapon. They demanded protection for these, [exotic to the district] immigrants.

As usual our misinformed city folk sided with the greenies.

The protected geese destroyed so much rice that the farmers had to give it away as a crop, it was no longer viable. The mill closed, throwing people out of work, but they were only country bumpkins, so that did not matter.

With the paddy's dry, the geese left, as did the greenies, just the empty mill stands as a monument to green hate.

Unfortunately for the country bumpkins down the Murray Darling, all too many of the greenies found them. I wonder how long it will take to destroy another industry, & the lives of thousands.

Doesn't matter of course, most of the greenies are in public funded employment, so no one important will be harmed.

We humans hasbeen are much alike.
We think much more of our views than others.
We like the Fonz rarely admit we got it totally wrong.
And a closed mind, content to think only my view is important is a symptom of getting it wrong more than right.
You seem to claim destroying the flow of the Burdekin River is an option?
Did you see the hell raising when it was proposed the River in Grafton could be diverted and water sent to Brisbane.
Your diatribe, that is what it is, about greens saving a river system, let you propose yet another river die?
I am not a green however I proudly am a conservationist.
You and I are very different, that pleases me, but your self confidence is vastly Miss placed

It is a waste of time talking to those who will not see.

No body can "save" a river, & anyone who thinks they can is an egotistical twit.

They can destroy the lives of many hard working people. Isn't it funny that few greenies ever do any real work at all.

" Isn't it funny that few greenies ever do any real work at all."

A typically ignorant view. Just what one expects from the "ME" generation. Tough luck for the environment, let's just exploit it for all it's worth, so when it's f#$k&d and the world is a waste land it won't matter cause i'll be dead. Hay, even better we will blame those commo greenies for not doing anything.

Selfish and self centred, that's the "ME" generation.

Tboy,
Tell us how you have managed your sustainable farm for profit in the Darling.

How many posting here have been farmers or food producers for markets?

Tboy,
Please tell us how to do sustainable farming in the Darling?
How many posting here have been productive farmers or food producers?

I think Philo Tboy may be gone.
But this thread is now one of a few that concern this subject.
I was surprised to see it had new posts.
Let us however look at those posts, lets start with the greens.
It is well known I think of them as middle class socialists, often remote from reality.
Hardly however people who produce nothing.
The inference that the greens home is Nimbin and such, that they walk the streets in dress like gear smoking wacky backy is fun!
SELF INTEREST,it drives some in politics to refuse to see the whole truth, greens voters more often than not send the kids to private schools.
They mostly do want better out comes for the environment,and for the most part, like any party members, think they are contributing to it.
But like any party, leadership often goes in far different directions than they want.