|
September 14, 2004
I'll be on the road today showing some people from China Geographic around the river country of the Murray Mouth and Lower Lakes.
On the surface this looks to be okay--if it is tied to the National Water Initiative's objectives and timelines of reducing the over-allocation of water in the Murray-Darling Basin.
Then a project like the water proofing Adelaide, which will enable Adelaide to reduce its dependence on River Murray water, one can be funded. This reduction can be achieved by modernizing our water infrastructure to capture stormwater runoff from Adelaide's watershed in the western Mt Lofty Ranges; by recycling waste water in urban Adelaide and by increasing water efficiency in households and businesses.
This would be a significant step. Where is the ALP on this? What is it going to do? How is it going to achieve its goals of returning 1500 gigalitres to the River Murray? The ALP has gone very quite on the environment. Have you noticed? -- Since this is vital political issue in South Australia we can expect a counter ALP announcement in the next few days.
Wilcox
A discussion paper on the water proofing Adelaide project can be found here. The project has not progressed very far because the Rann Government has not put up the money. They talk the talk of Adelaide becoming a sustainable city, but they never put the money on the table.
It is the same with Adelaide as a solar city.
If the $2 billion is not linked into the objectives and timelines of the National Water Initiative, then the project's will be highjacked byboth the National Party and the recalictrant irrigators who see no reason why they should use technology to make their use of water more efficient.
Does this River Murray initiative mean that the marginal seat of Adelaide is looking a little bit safer for the Howard Government? Or will the state government counter it by banging away about the lost future competition policy payments?
Will more environmental policies be needed for those marginal inner urban seats. Or is a big ticket symbolic issue, such as saving Tasmania's old growth forests from destruction?
16 September
The ALP's River Murray rescue package has been announced It rightly concentrates on the core issue of restoring environmental flows, but makes no mention of the National Water Initiative, nor does it indicate how farmers will be compensated for reduced water allocations.
Though Howard appears to have outbidded Latham on the Murray the Howard package did not cut through in SA. It was blocked by Latham's proposal. Howard will have to do something more to cut through and stop the slow but steady drift to the ALP in Adelaide's marginal seats.
The Labor states have pulled out of the National Water Initiative because they have lost future competition payments. The Labor premiers have repudiated the $500million federal-state CoaG agreement and turned their backs on years of negotiations about the how risk from reduced water allocations is to be shared between federal and state governments and farmers.
How can they pull out of something they have already signed up to?
|
Is this the same group of Chinese Geographic folk who were dumped by Meg Lees when the PM snapped his fingers and demanded she present herself?
Herald-Sun