"Terryc" wrote in message
...

Seriously, if the rodent had been serious about fixing the
Murray-Darling water fisco and really started taken action, I would have
had to think seriously about voting for a bit of self interest; the
grandfather's farm is going to be lost if this situation continues much
longer.

The M-D water allocation is a nightmare. The fools have allocated more water
than would ever be available even if we were not in drought. People have made
investments based on water being available and it's now politically impossible
to turn around and say it isn't. What politician has the courage to take on a
problem where everybody will hate you for one reason or another no matter what
you do? If we had any statesmen around perhaps but with poll-driven populism
there is no percentage in it.

Secondly, does it really make sense to grow thirsty crops like cotton in
dryland areas based on irrigation? The only way to sort out what land use is
sensible is to choose the most cost effective one that doesn't destroy future
options. This requires a fair price to be set for resources and for
legislation to prevent "mining" the land, that is choosing non sustainable
options, which we have had too much of already. Once again if people have
investmented in a cash crop based on water being artificially cheap how do you
tell them that it cannot go on?

David