News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Compulsory water buybacks a must: Xenophon 

Compulsory water buybacks a must: Xenophon

18 Aug, 2008 01:12 PM
Independent senator Nick Xenophon is supporting the compulsory acquisition of water licences to revive the ailing Murray-Darling river system.

The Australian Financial Review reports his strong stand in an article by Sophie Morris on Monday morning.

Support for compulsory water buybacks brings Senator Xenophon into conflict with farmers, who are urging the Rudd government to stick to voluntary water purchases.

The South Australian senator, who takes his Senate seat next week and is one of the senators holding the balance of power on many issues, said he agreed with scientists who had argued that the only way to save the rivers was to make an across-the-board cut in farmers’ water rights.

The Murray-Darling river system supports 40pc of Australia’s food production.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size


RELATED COVERAGE

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Here it comes! Today its your water, tomorrow its your land. Farmers will no longer able to secure any debt to either if there is no security of tenure. This will set an extremely dangerous precedent.
Posted by trev, 18/08/2008 11:40:27 AM
Of course there needs to be an across-the-board cut in water rights. This is very simple logic.

Otherwise the Murray Darling will die from the arse-up. Without environmental flows, how do we get rid of the 79000 tonnes of salt that enter the Lower lakes each year?

No community, or sectional interest, has the right to stuff up the long term health of our river systems.

Posted by Tony Pfitzner, 18/08/2008 12:46:32 PM
If water for the environmnet is more important than water for food production and if the most urgent need for environmental inflows is the lower SA lakes, then why would you buy water out of Qld and lose 80pc of it in evaporation in transit.

Why not start at the bottom (water nearest to the lakes) and work up up the river.

This would be a much more efficient use of dollars.

Posted by Rear View, 19/08/2008 6:37:05 AM
Here comes another axe wheeling polie thinking he can save the world that does not give a rats about the farmers.

Since the socialists have stolen 70pc of our water entitlements last year, without any compensation, it does not supprise me the socialists want the rest!

And no doubt these water acquisitions will be redistributed to business in wetter seasons.

All I can see is red.

Posted by Dave, 19/08/2008 6:55:51 AM
If we are in an era of less water and farmers are going to have less water, then the environment should too. Without dams, the Lower Lakes in South Australia would be inundated with sea water right now anyway.

The Murray is not dying.

You South Australian's have to decide which ecosystems you want to devote water to - NSW and Victoria can't be expected to waste more than 1 million megalitres of water on you for evaporation each year in the lower lakes and Lake Victoria.

Posted by Farmers are enviromentalists, 19/08/2008 9:00:57 AM
For all but the last 70years of the past 10,000 years, the Murray estuary has had tidal flows to both flush the system and maintain water levels that prevented acid sulphate problems.

The construction of the barrages turned this system into a fresh water lake and removed the safety valve that had worked perfectly well in every drought since the last ice age.

The South Australians have been pretending that there were no droughts prior to the construction of the barrages, but the mud cores tell us otherwise.

These people demanded more than 1 million megalitres of water from the dams just to cover the evaporation from the lake system but they've never paid for this indulgence because they claim it was for "ecological purposes".

In fact, it is an outrageous indulgence, funded mostly by the upstream users who cover the full cost of the dams.

Clearly, the metropolitan governments in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane have demonstrated their fundamental incapacity to represent their own rural minorities.

Posted by Ian Mott, 19/08/2008 9:24:59 AM
It may be very simple logic to someone who isn't staking their livelihood on it, but Tony, explain to me how cutting everyone's entitlement by 10pc or 20pc will help now.

In all the water plans I have seen there is a generous amount reserved only for the environment.

But the trouble is, in the middle of a drought, this water does not exist.

Some commentators on this issue are confusing the short-term issue with long-term sustainability.

It's easy to put forth simple solutions, as Mr Xenophon & Tony have done here, when you don't understand how the system works.

Posted by trev, 19/08/2008 9:37:34 AM
Take the water,starve the nation. Simple..a cut in the water would have big follow-through problems...loss of jobs..from farms and supporting industry's...we'll all have to eat more imported food as well.

The senator needs to do some home work before opening his mouth..the only senator that has any brains on the issue is Barnaby Joyce.

Posted by Kel-Rugby, 19/08/2008 10:31:49 AM
Dave,

I don't see red, but rather lots of watermelons - green on the outside and red on the inside.

Posted by Ben, 19/08/2008 7:11:31 PM
If Ian Mott wants to remove the barrages to allow the Coorong to be the estuary of the past, then all dams, weirs up stream will need to be removed, to let the river revert to its natural state.

Man has intervened, then man has to rectify.

Posted by Grant of Clayton SA, 20/08/2008 3:36:28 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES

Most popular articles

Ray White Rural IRRIGATION CONFERENCE 2010
 
Rural Bookshop
 
NQR Facebook
 
NQR Twitter


 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...