The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | The Bullroarer

6 comments on The Bullroarer - Tuesday 2 September 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Cretaceous on September 3, 2008 - 7:25pm

I'd much rather have *extinct* State Governments and a surviving river system, rather than the other way round, but there we are.
;-)

You're quite right Thirra. Over-allocation. Even more amazing is that farmers who have no physical water available can apparently sell their "rights" so that some other bastard can over-extract from one of the few remaining pools !

How is it that a government hand-out from many years ago must now be repurchased at huge expense by the taxpayer? Why can't we just turn it back into nothing again without having to pay? Just say, "So long and thanks for all the salination, guys!"

I heard the other day that the highly desirable shire of Coleambally has even offered us a "job lot". - All of them will walk away for a mere $3.5 Billion...(!) The only minor problem with this is that these rice growers have no *actual* water to release into the Koorong, or anywhere else, just 3.5 Billion dollars worth of paper "rights" to sell back to the taxpayers!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

SP on September 4, 2008 - 8:15am

I think you are being a bit harsh.

Licenses come with fees.

In WA many farms were sold with conditions that a certain percentage of the land be cleared.

A legally binding right, even with the environmental damage caused is still binding and a valid instrument. If it was an error to issue it... who should bear the burden?

If farmers purchased land and licenses from the agents of society in good faith, should they be punished for following the advice, or behaving in the legally, if misguided, ways advanced by the major economic ethos of the age; growth at all costs?

These licences and rights were issued on our behalf, and farmers have been encouraged to behave in particular ways. We issued them, and we collected the yearly fees to build the infrastructure to promote certain economic activities. So maybe we should purchase them if it produces an overall reduction in water use.

If you really believe what you say, then I guess it should be fine for Governments to just rescind your house ownership, which is just a "right" to occupy a plot, when they want to build a freeway thru your backyard. Obviously you needn't be recompensed.

;-)

PS
I totally agree that over allocation is a/the big issue and that our use of the landscape needs rethinking.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.