This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Water Rights in Australia and elsewhere

Jump to new

frugal.rock

Joined
3 May 2019
Posts
6,321
Reactions
9,980
It has been brought to my attention that the ownership of water rights are becoming an issue here and abroad.

Have heard of instances in US recently of water rights or licences being bought up by the Chinese Communist Party or affiliates.
(no US example supplied yet)

An example in the NT.

Labor sells HUGE water licence to alleged CCP-linked company after ONE day of consideration

Vote Labor, get China
www.advanceaustralia.org.au


Posted in the commodity section, 'cause that's the way it's being treated. ?
Not a "new issue" however a place for a collection of info and analysis.
 
30 years ago they started shuffling the rules and regulations around so they could take water off the farmers who owned the water rights.
Over the last 20 yrs private companies/government have accumulated large amounts of water from the farmers and now sell it off to the highest bidder. This is the greatest crime against the Australian people in ever. It will have far reaching problems to the reliable food system Australians have enjoyed up until now.
Everything to with food and the environment will be a tradable commodity.
 
Biggest crime here in WA in regard to water is that there is more than enough water in the North of the State and it is under ulilised by a huge percentage. Quite a few years ago a local MP, Mr Ernie bridge, who like CY O'Connor, was a man before his time. He wanted to bring water from the North-West as far as Kalgoorlie then it could be reversed pumped to the dams and weirs in the South-west. There was also a possibility of water being diverted to South Australia.
Unfortunately none of the wisdom he showed and the courage he had of his beliefs were carried out. Now we have 2 desal and a 3rd proposed to produce fresh water for an ever growing population, and the water in the Ord and Fitzroy, well it just sits there and most goes out to the sea.
 
I think the water rights trading system isn’t perfect, but it’s better than no system.

The the reason water rights trading is needed is that there is more capacity to use water in the system than there is actual water, so without restrictions farmers can literally empty rivers.

So we need limits on how much water each farmer can use, but also give the farmer the ability to sell their allotment if they don’t need it, or if the price goes high enough that some one who uses the water more efficiently can use it.
 
Well Mr value we agree on something The first sentence of this post.
But when governments take the water right away and then on sell it that is where it is wrong.
We don't have the same amount of irrigated areas here as compared to the East and though I am not a irrigator I tend to believe that the Wellington Dam here in the South West is properly managed to suit the irrigators need.
 
I don’t know the situation in WA, I am more familiar with the east coast market.
 
Chris Minns needs to go, quickly.
What idiot voted him/labor in?
The youngest idiot of all lately.

Coastal water rights cut for drought-affected farmers one year after they were tripled

Farmers say they have been blindsided by the NSW government's decision to remove water rights from coastal landholders, while the Nature Conservation Council says it will protect critical wetlands.
www.abc.net.au

Farmers issue grim warning on milk prices after govt's sudden water cap change

Milk prices are likely to rise, hundreds of cows may be forced to the abattoir and farmers will struggle to cope with managing droughts and bushfires after the New South Wales government made a significant change to water rights for agriculturalists.
www.skynews.com.au
 
Value Collector said:
@SirRumpole

Check out this short video, explains how Brisbane moves water around to supply itself from quite a vast network of dams.

Click to expand...

This is all good, bearing in mind that it services an established population on the east coast which has good rainfall.

If you look back at my post where I complained of the cost, you will find that I was referring to getting water west of the Great Dividing Range into areas that have significantly less rainfall and getting water there (via a "turn back the rivers" idea which has been proposed in the past) would be prohibitively expensive imo, regardless of the population it services.

The point I was trying to make is that there are natural barriers to population expansion and cost/benefit analyses need to be done that take these things into account as to whether expansion of population suits different areas.
 
And I am the conspiracy guy when I point to WEF and UN depopulation plans...
 
The South East Queensland scheme was built because of a 10 year drought.

Maybe Sydney needs to pump it waste water over the blue mountains, instead of out to sea and let it replenish rivers and dams on the other side of the divide.
 
Value Collector said:
Maybe Sydney needs to pump it waste water over the blue mountains, instead of out to sea and let it replenish rivers and dams on the other side of the divide.
Click to expand...
indeed that may be sensible ... or not.

Sydney has a desalination plant that seems to be underutilised. What are the politics of that? Warragamba serves most of Sydney, a few dams behind the 'Gong add to the supply. Any raising of dam walls would more be to cater to > 5 million pop, not for flood control, imo.

On the matter of 'waste' water, Wagga x2 seems to do okay drinking Canberra's effluent, because it has undergone tertiary treatment.
 
Value Collector said:
The South East Queensland scheme was built because of a 10 year drought.

Maybe Sydney needs to pump it waste water over the blue mountains, instead of out to sea and let it replenish rivers and dams on the other side of the divide.
Click to expand...

Well, it's the Catch 22. They won't do that because there are too few people to worry about, but people won't go there if there is insufficient water.

That's life.
 
Overally true, and most of the river flow of Europe is made of the processed waste of the city upstream, which is then fed to your own water processing plant ..and so on.
There is a small issue with oestrogen levels, drug levels ,etc which happen to be strong enough to be a threat to fishes ..and I would suspect to the downstream human consumers but hey free pill and extasy with tap water.
It is worth acknowledging most of Europe drink bottled water..with its own problem
 

Yeah, by the time the waste water exits the treatment plant its basically drinking water quality, add to time spent working its way down rivers and sitting in dams, to then get treated again before being put back into the system.

some rivers in the USA have a dozen or more town drawing water, and adding the waste water back to the river for the next town 50kms away to draw out again.
 
qldfrog said:
There is a small issue with oestrogen levels, drug levels
Click to expand...

You would consume more oestrogen in 1 glass of cows milk or a steak (from a female cow) than you are likely to consume in a life time of drinking recycled water.

Just because something can be detected in microscopic quantities don't mean it will have any affect.

Its like when people made a scene about glyphosate being detected in Ben & Jerry's Ice cream, but it would take 30,000,000 pints of it to kill you, but the sugar content kills you in 30 pints hahaha.

 
but the glyphosphate is in many foods , especially after Monsanto created several food crops that are 'round-up ready ( that is survive two sprayings of Round-Up before harvesting )

i will leave you to research the perils of that ( HINT read the translated Japanese research first start with GM soy )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...