The benifit of supplimentry water to the environment is that in flood years, the river would actually flood, and "flush" the system. This would return the river to more natural flows of flood and drought.

There have been findings that constant flows that will be provided by buying general security water entitlements will increase salinity in wetlands and rivers. This is because the rivers will no longer go through the natural wet and dry periods.

And now that harvested flood water will flow to the sea instead, creating no jobs, no wealth, no investment in the bush. Good one Labor.

Let me first say that I like the idea of helping the environment. What I would question is why is it that both the State and Federal Labor Party's are reluctant to give details on their purchases? They are using public funds to buy these properties, so in my opinion the public has the right to know all details. Could they have an alternate agenda that they don't want us to know about?

I don't get this.. Barwon Darling irrigators had 67 percent of their water entitlements confiscated by NSW Government.. yet at Tandou they are paid for the water.. (as they shoud have) why have we been treated differently ?? Trev

It's not about water, it's about supporting big business again!!

There's something that smells like a ripe political dead fish about this whole deal - Why? Consider these facts (a) the 250GL being purchased was only ever available to Tandou after high rainfall and flood events about once every ten years or so in normal climatic times (according to Tandou's own website) (b) The company's directors valued the total water allocations of the company (including this 250GL) at $33,571,000 in 2007 yet the State and federal governments are paying $34M for just this speculative opportunist portion of their total water resources. (c) It was probably significant that the press briefing was at 4pm on a Friday afternoon to bury this Government decision after most media outlets had closed for the weekend. Is this yet another example of Government knee-jerk reactions to the unfolding Murray Darling water crisis? This definitely requires some serious investigative journalism on behalf of us taxpayers to uncover the real facts beneath the political spin - but are there any real investigative journalists left in the rural media?

Great news. What people upstream don't seem to realise is that the Murray downstream of the Darling junction doesn't get flood events anymore, even in high rainfall events upstream. As a result our river environment is deteriorating to a point where there will be no jobs, no wealth and no investment in SA. Are these things that only upstream users should be able to enjoy Brindi?

You hit on a good point fridgimus. The lack of flooding on the Murray is, as you say, non-existant any more because of the storages on the headwaters of the southern systems (Snowy Scheme, etc.) That is partly why the dams were built in the first place, as the river communities suffered from having their towns, businesses, pastures & crops ruined by the regular flooding. It wasn't that long ago when the Hume Weir had to be lowered due to wall movement, that the downstream farmers proposed suing the state government for their losses caused by the resulting floods, as they saw it as 'state-owned' water doing them damage. In the current droughted situation we live in, water is being prioritised to the area of greatest benefit (towns, then high-value production) & in an open market situation will find its way to the most sustainable use in the long term. There are some who say that even with water, many parts of the southern agricultural areas were unprofitable & this is why they are being focussed on to help the remaining farmers change or exit. To apportion blame on other farmers only reduces everybody's security, as the green elements will pick both sides off eventually. While it's a bitter pill for anyone to swallow, change is coming to us all & our future will be largely determined by how sustainable our farms, businesses & communities are in the long-term. So, fridgimus, don't fall for the 'my place is more deserving than yours' argument. If you are sustainable, you will have a sound future, as will the rest of us.

I agree Trev, but my point is that if the satus quo remains, we will get to the point where irrigation in SA is unviable due to environmental conditions. It will count for nothing that our irrigators are sustainable.