Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"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. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
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... |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
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? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
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. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
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! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Irrigating Australia - food for thought
"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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
TRIAD OF INFAMY Or, the 3 replies from West Australia Premier ColinBarnett to Australia Mining Pioneeer Jean-Paul Turcaud SENT AS ACONFIDENTIAL NOTE TO THE SILENT MAJORITY | Australia | |||
Aquaducts - irrigating Australia | Australia | |||
food for thought | Edible Gardening | |||
Food for thought? | United Kingdom | |||
Food For Thought | Australia |