Who would that be?
Aidan,
Those who need that explained.

>Those who need that explained.
Then it's as I thought: it's showed you nothing of the sort, and you're instead forming that opinion based on whether people agree with you.

Aidan,
Hitting your nerve is getting tiresome, over & out.

individual,
Hitting anyone's nerve would be tiring when it always rebounds on you.
So rather than hitting out at those you hastily identified as enemies, I suggest you read up on meteorology and ecology.

I am reasonably confident Aiden Individual was not having a shot at you
Not sure why such a thread, both interesting and timely, bought out bickering
But it seems we can not avoid that no matter what the subject
I have faith in our future and do not doubt many schemes to return or re use water inland will come

I suggest you read up on meteorology and ecology
Aidan,
Will reading meteorology and ecology divert much needed freshwater inland ?
I know where you're coming from with your argument but just placing projects beneficial to environment & people into the too hard basket simply because there's no immediate profit doesn't cut it.
Don't you think a Bradfield-type scheme would be beneficial all round ? Don't you think bringing at least some of the greening of the inland back & reverse the drying of the interior since the arrival humans wouldn't be beneficial ?
The project would be very basic, low technology & that is what would make it so viable.
Don't think about your Super, think about how your Grand children can use your Super to make Australia a better place than what you helped make it.