"Jonno" wrote in message
u...


Do you work for the government perhaps?

No I don't. Do you imagine I am suporting the way that governments have dealt
with water in the past - if so you haven't understood a thing I have written.
Do you imagine all government employees agree with government policy - if so
you haven't spoken to any such employees or understood them either.

In other parts of this thread you have claimed that we are paying too much for
water and that more dams should have been built. As others have said there
isn't much point in building dams if there is no water to catch or if they
simply wreck part of the land or if is just going to be wasted.

Please explain how building more dams would have made water cheaper. Who
would have (will in future) pay for the dam building if it isn't the consumer
through the price of the water they buy? As others have also said part of our
problem is that neither the domestic consumer nor the farm irrigator is yet
paying a fair price for water. By fair I mean one that will:

- support the construction and maintenance of infrastructure
- encourage people to treat water as a limited resource and so something worth
conserving
- encourage agribusiness to make rational market decisions about the crops
that they grow in relation to world markets.

I don't consider growing cotton and rice in dryland areas via irrigation to be
anything like rational. The only reason it is done at all is because the
price of their water is subsidised.

Did you read the source material I started this thread with? Or even the
quote that I extracted? Here let me refresh it:

"Proposals such as the
Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New South
Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There is
no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally, there
is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally feasible.
As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the
assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. "

Yes we will pay more for water in future but for reasons not related to your
unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Jonno, you are entitled to your opinions
but you will have to accept that you are not going to convert anybody to your
views without giving any reasons.

David