|
February 09, 2007
And I thought that all the states would sign up to Howard's big water plan for the Murray-Darling Basin. The four states, which control the Murray-Darling system , were being asked to hand over control of the rivers to the Commonwealth in exchange for a huge upgrade of irrigation infrastructure and measures to address water over-allocations. But, to my suprise, it was not to be.
Bill Leak
Suprisingly, I agree: the states should not be required to surrender their constitutional powers over their rivers.The states expressed concern over inadequate financing for the plan, the lack of written guarantees of minimum water flows, and the Commonwealth's demand for a veto power over developments on flood plains.
I guess the premiers will sign eventually.That means that most of the direct benefits will flow to the many prosperous irrigators lining the banks of the rivers of the Murray-Darling Basin. That is the cost of getting the Nationals onside for a reform of the governance of the Murray-Darling Basin.
What is good about Howard's plan is the $3 billion to buy out excess allocations is some allowance for structural adjustment to finance unviable irrigators to leave the industry. What is bad about it is the big spending on upgrading irrigation infrastructure such as lining channels so there is less water loss from seepage, which will certainly deliver more water to irrigators.Why should the Government should fund it. Why isn't it all the irrigators benefiting from irrigation infrastructure spend the money to maintain and upgrade it. Why not increase the price of water delivered to irrigators as a way to change their behaviour?
|
Perhaps next time our illustrious leaders are climbing over each other to be seen at church they can ask their God to fix the environment....after all He made the whole place.
Shaymus, shaking his fist to the sky yells
HEY GOD!!! WHAT ABOUT SOME TECH SUPPORT!!!