"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.

Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:

He asks the same type of questions.

I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.

Only in your mind.

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message

Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively for
water.

Oh rubbish! Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on earth and most
Australians pay very little for the scarce resource of water. If most
people paid the true economic value for the water they use, they'd be
horrified.

I live on a farm so every drop we use has to be provided by ourselves. To
do this with any degree of adequacy means 3 x 5,000 gallon tanks (+ other
freestanding ones), a bore, several dams, at least 5 pumps, God knows how
many hundreds of metres of 2 inch poly pipe and that is before one drop
comes out of a tap. I'd hate to think how many thousands of $s there is
tied up in all that infrastructure and that isn't counting the upkeep as
bits need replacing.

I have bugger all sympathy for complaints about how much water costs because
I think that most Australians are still getting water cheap. It's just
expensive in comparison to what they've paid in the past.

And if the various State governments do ever privatise water, then watch for
the squeals then as the commercial imperative comes into play - that's going
to happen soon with NSW electricity so we are thinking we may need to go off
the grid.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

Are you sure youre not Farm1?

I don't have the skills it takes to invent a number of multiple posting
identities and then remeber to switch between them, but I am always glad
when I see someone else who asks questions and trys to engage in a
"discussion" which is what these groups are for.

He asks the same type of questions.

I ask questions when you write responses in short hand and I can't
understand what you mean. It may make sense to you when you type it but it
doesn't always do so when it's seen on the screen.


You actually agree with me. but you dont see it?
Water is essential to keep the "whole" country going.
It should be essential services type stuff, and you call it rubbish?
You should be very scared. I am sorry if you dont understand some of the
things I see as "easy stuff" and maybe I should go into the nerds
section of such an area, but I am trying very hard in Victoria to wake
us up to a government wich is not building dams, allows run of, is
trying, and succeeding in making farmers pay for run of if they put a
dam in. These people are also involved in the Port Philip bay dredging,
not caring about others when they will probably damage the ecology
there. They're a bunch of government backed corporations, whose
identities are hidden behind, you will probably (guess this)
"shareholders" who may prove to be family members of government in
various guiswes.
We are also in the process here of having such a large population
increase in Melbourne and surrounds, that we could become bigger than
Sydney in population. And they're not building dams, or power stations.
Is that smart do you reckon?
I wasn't a greeny until, I wsaw some sense in becoming one..But dont
thoughtlessly follow their ways.

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.


I agree...

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:

He asks the same type of questions.
I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.

Only in your mind.


Whoops, What if I am also a she?

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.


I should have put it, another government person watching these news groups.

Jonno wrote:
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay
excessively for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to
"will pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.
Youre right. The Government has promised to make us pay through the nose
in the future, as more and more corps. abbreviation get their nose in
the through. They promised this year will see a large finacial increase
due to drought conditions, created by their not allowing for extra dams.
They created this situation...The drought was expected and is a part of
Australia. It could have been prevented...They wasted our resources on
other things. Like invading Iraq, and war.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.

I should have put it, another government person watching these news groups.

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message

Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.

Oh rubbish! Australia is the dryest inhabited continent on earth and
most Australians pay very little for the scarce resource of water. If
most people paid the true economic value for the water they use, they'd
be horrified.

I live on a farm so every drop we use has to be provided by ourselves.
To do this with any degree of adequacy means 3 x 5,000 gallon tanks (+
other freestanding ones), a bore, several dams, at least 5 pumps, God
knows how many hundreds of metres of 2 inch poly pipe and that is
before one drop comes out of a tap. I'd hate to think how many thousands
of $s there is tied up in all that infrastructure and that isn't counting
the upkeep as bits need replacing.

I have bugger all sympathy for complaints about how much water costs
because I think that most Australians are still getting water cheap.
It's just expensive in comparison to what they've paid in the past.

And if the various State governments do ever privatise water, then watch
for the squeals then as the commercial imperative comes into play -
that's going to happen soon with NSW electricity so we are thinking we
may need to go off the grid.

Why? Think about it.... To make money...

You actually agree with me. but you dont see it?

So why did you write:"By making them pay excessively for
water.

Water is essential to keep the "whole" country going.
It should be essential services type stuff, and you call it rubbish?

Reread what I wrote. I responded to your comment about being held to ransom
and paying excessively for water.

You should be very scared. I am sorry if you dont understand some of the
things I see as "easy stuff" and maybe I should go into the nerds section
of such an area, but I am trying very hard in Victoria to wake us up to a
government wich is not building dams, allows run of, is trying, and
succeeding in making farmers pay for run of if they put a dam in. These
people are also involved in the Port Philip bay dredging, not caring about
others when they will probably damage the ecology there. They're a bunch
of government backed corporations, whose identities are hidden behind, you
will probably (guess this) "shareholders" who may prove to be family
members of government in various guiswes.
We are also in the process here of having such a large population increase
in Melbourne and surrounds, that we could become bigger than Sydney in
population. And they're not building dams, or power stations.
Is that smart do you reckon?
I wasn't a greeny until, I wsaw some sense in becoming one..But dont
thoughtlessly follow their ways.

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:

He asks the same type of questions.
I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.

Only in your mind.
Whoops, What if I am also a she?

And why would that make any difference? A dumb comment remains a dumb
comment. You orignally had the thought that David and I were one person.
You said that "he" (Farm1) asked the same type of questions. When told that
one of us is a "she" you suddenly think it explains some arguments.

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to "will
pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Another government watcher?

And anyone who isn't, should be.
I should have put it, another government person watching these news
groups.

I doubt it from doing a properties check. I would be very surprised if any
government employee would be able to mung their addy.

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
He asks the same type of questions.
I am a "SHE"!!!!!!!!
Thats not a problem.
It only explains some arguments.
Only in your mind.
Whoops, What if I am also a she?

And why would that make any difference? A dumb comment remains a dumb
comment. You orignally had the thought that David and I were one person.
You said that "he" (Farm1) asked the same type of questions. When told that
one of us is a "she" you suddenly think it explains some arguments.


I give up!

"Jonno" wrote in message
Jonno wrote:
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
Terryc wrote:
Jonno wrote:

How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.
Who pays excessively for water?
You will. Just wait...

You've moved from "makigng them pay excessively" (present tense) to
"will pay) excessively (future tense). The two are not the same thing.

Youre right.

I know :-))

The Government has promised to make us pay through the nose
in the future, as more and more corps. abbreviation get their nose in
the through. They promised this year will see a large finacial increase
due to drought conditions, created by their not allowing for extra dams.
They created this situation...The drought was expected and is a part of
Australia. It could have been prevented...They wasted our resources on
other things. Like invading Iraq, and war.

I couldn't be bothered any more other than to comment that you need to
figure out which government you are writing about. The one which you
believe is responsible promising to make "us" pay through the nose is not
the same one invading "Iraq". It is not a one size fits all siutation.

I'd like someone to explain to me how providing extra dams is going to
magically result in increased available water? Will it make more
frequent rain? Less frequent evaporation? Increased transpiration from
trees? You can't dam up what's not falling from the sky...

From the (miniscule) study I've done in hydrology, it seems the
large-scale damming done in the fifties and sixties has utterly buggered
up some of our Australian river systems so that once-plentiful flow has
reduced to a trickle. Hydrology was not nearly as well-understood,
especially in this most arid land, as it is today.

In addition, wholesale clearing of trees has encouraged a rise in the
water table in some areas and a concomitant rise in salination, thus
killing ground cover and soil-binding trees.

Overstocking by hoofed mammals has permanently destroyed grass cover and
resulted in wind erosion of pugged ground and the loss of many native
grass species and herbs.

Overgrazing has resulted in stock animals ring-barking vital trees in
order to get moisture and nourishment.

I could go on and on, but I guess the point I'm making is that *with
hindsight* we have discovered all these facts about our land. The task
remains to fix the problems for the future. Simply breaking or adding
dams and 'restoring' habitats won't work, because you cannot revert to
the finely balanced systems that existed previously. Habitats form over
millenia, responding to changes as infinitesimal as a grain of sand at a
time. Vast changes made in this land by man have successfully knocked so
many landscape systems for six: repair is going to be necessarily as
vast, I think. Finer minds than mine are at their wits' end and I do
wonder how successful we can ever be...

Most other countries pay for their water, why shouldn't we, dry as we
are? We've had it too easy for too long and *something* is going to have
to pay for whichever water-conserving schemes are put in place for the
future. And why shouldn't we city dwellers pay through the nose for our
water which pours so lavishly from our taps? We who allow those taps to
run while cleaning teeth, washing hair, rinsing dishes, washing dogs and
cars, 'sweeping' paths - isn't it time we pulled our horns in just a tad
and paid for what the farmer holds so dear? I'm happy to watch my
camellias cark it if that might mean a few sheep could live a bit longer.

If you want to point accusing fingers at money-hungry governments, then
point them at the blokes who won't subsidise our primary producers and
*help* them survive in spite of the lack of water! I think that's a much
worse conspiracy than 'holding people to ransom' over water. Ask any farmer!

--
Trish {|:-} Newcastle, NSW, Australia

Jonno wrote:

Youre right. The Government has promised to make us pay through the nose
in the future, as more and more corps. abbreviation get their nose in
the through. They promised this year will see a large finacial increase
due to drought conditions, created by their not allowing for extra dams.

lol, some people still have to learn that the Earth is a finite world
and what that means.


They created this situation...The drought was expected and is a part of
Australia. It could have been prevented...

Do tell

Now if you really knew anything you would not be wasting your time
posting drivel in usenet.

"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