The Federal Government has announced plans to sell back water entitlements to farmers along the Murray-Darling river system.

The Commonwealth currently owns almost 1,700 gigalitres of water in the basin, following several years of environmental buy-backs.

(etc)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-20/murray-darling-water-licences-to-be-sold-back-to-farmers/5207632

Very disappointing. Politics (mates, money, ideology) has gazumped years of discussions and negotiations that reached a scientifically valid compromise on environmental flow for the Murray-Darling basin.

Michael V said:

The Federal Government has announced plans to sell back water entitlements to farmers along the Murray-Darling river system.

The Commonwealth currently owns almost 1,700 gigalitres of water in the basin, following several years of environmental buy-backs.

(etc)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-20/murray-darling-water-licences-to-be-sold-back-to-farmers/5207632

Very disappointing. Politics (mates, money, ideology) has gazumped years of discussions and negotiations that reached a scientifically valid compromise on environmental flow for the Murray-Darling basin.

and you expected better?

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

The Federal Government has announced plans to sell back water entitlements to farmers along the Murray-Darling river system.

The Commonwealth currently owns almost 1,700 gigalitres of water in the basin, following several years of environmental buy-backs.

(etc)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-20/murray-darling-water-licences-to-be-sold-back-to-farmers/5207632

Very disappointing. Politics (mates, money, ideology) has gazumped years of discussions and negotiations that reached a scientifically valid compromise on environmental flow for the Murray-Darling basin.

and you expected better?

I hoped for better.

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

The Federal Government has announced plans to sell back water entitlements to farmers along the Murray-Darling river system.

The Commonwealth currently owns almost 1,700 gigalitres of water in the basin, following several years of environmental buy-backs.

(etc)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-20/murray-darling-water-licences-to-be-sold-back-to-farmers/5207632

Very disappointing. Politics (mates, money, ideology) has gazumped years of discussions and negotiations that reached a scientifically valid compromise on environmental flow for the Murray-Darling basin.

and you expected better?

I hoped for better.

When all the stars are falling down
Into the sea and on the ground,
And angry voices carry on the wind,
A beam of light will fill your head
And you’ll remember what’s been said
By all the good men this world’s ever known.

if you think about it.. Why did it take so long to get to this point. Why wasn’t it fixed long ago?

I have that on vinyl.

:)

Michael V said:

I have that on vinyl.

:)

so do I.. :) big fan.

What most people won’t see is that those who will be buying the water back.. will be those who had their hands out during floods, droughts and willie wliiie’s. The same ones who used the money from selling the water to buy up more land and then hold their hand out for some water.

roughbarked said:

if you think about it.. Why did it take so long to get to this point. Why wasn’t it fixed long ago?

Because when people do cost-benefit analyses (either formally or informally) assets held in common are either given zero value, or are grossly undervalued.

That’s why.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

if you think about it.. Why did it take so long to get to this point. Why wasn’t it fixed long ago?

Because when people do cost-benefit analyses (either formally or informally) assets held in common are either given zero value, or are grossly undervalued.

That’s why.

yair but it isn’t fair

>Because when people do cost-benefit analyses (either formally or informally) assets held in common are either given zero value, or are grossly undervalued.

communist

:)

Go get some plumbing see if can’t fix a leak.

transition said:

>Because when people do cost-benefit analyses (either formally or informally) assets held in common are either given zero value, or are grossly undervalued.

communist

:)

Go get some plumbing see if can’t fix a leak.

Plant a nut tree on it.

Probably the best thing the Feds can do is to use the income from sales of water entitlements to buy some of the thirstier farms on the M.D. and return them to the environment.

rumpole said:

Probably the best thing the Feds can do is to use the income from sales of water entitlements to buy some of the thirstier farms on the M.D. and return them to the environment.

It has always been about finding best practice management. The problem is defining and optimising that.

Maybe we should consider this in the light of the way Norway does.

Surveys done prior to 1876 had already defined places not to irrigate yet decisions made down the track have entirely ignored the science on that.

Maybe we should consider this in the light of the way Norway does.

Can you elaborate on that a bit ?

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

if you think about it.. Why did it take so long to get to this point. Why wasn’t it fixed long ago?

Because when people do cost-benefit analyses (either formally or informally) assets held in common are either given zero value, or are grossly undervalued.

That’s why.

yair but it isn’t fair

‘greed

rumpole said:

Maybe we should consider this in the light of the way Norway does.

Can you elaborate on that a bit ?

OK.
In Norway, the resource is oil and we all know how Norway dealt with the management of the income stream so that it benefits all in the future whilst having plenty to spend now.

Australia has more than oil to do this with and as yet haven’t. Notably with yet the one resource we still haven’t managed properly the future being the least researched and developed..

that last could have done with some grammar.

transition said:

>Because when people do cost-benefit analyses (either formally or informally) assets held in common are either given zero value, or are grossly undervalued.

communist

:)

On the contrary, putting a realistic price on everything, so the market system can be truly efficient, is something that any true liberal should enthusiastically support.

Unfortunately the pseudo-liberals who run the current government prefer to hide costs and try to fix the resulting problems with direct action from central government.

Good on Norway, that’s the way it should be done. The problem is that the Norway solution would be seen in Aus as “leftist” and would be subject to all sorts of retaliation by vested interests like the mining tax was. I don’t see either Liberal or Labor having a taste for the struggle.

With our particular topography and geology, the most precious resource we have could have taken some lessons from what existed before we started moving the chess pieces about. Yet though we did apply science. We didn’t stick to it. Whilst we did apply economics we mostly strayed from the bottom line of securing the future of the asset.

So what did Norway actually do? I am not familiar with their history.

Michael V said:

So what did Norway actually do? I am not familiar with their history.

interestingly, a search of abc news gave these results..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/search/?query=Norway+millionaires&x=0&y=0

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

So what did Norway actually do? I am not familiar with their history.

interestingly, a search of abc news gave these results..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/search/?query=Norway+millionaires&x=0&y=0

Yet ixquick gave these two top results

as:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-09/all-norwegians-become-millionaire-shareholders-in-world27s-big/5191480
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/norwegians-millionaires-norways-sovereign-wealth-fund/story?id=21488085

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

So what did Norway actually do? I am not familiar with their history.

interestingly, a search of abc news gave these results..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/search/?query=Norway+millionaires&x=0&y=0

Well there you go.

Oh, I see. I needed to know that a search of ABC News “Norway+millionaires” was the way to find out. In any case, none of those articles precis’ seems to give any information about Norway.

I’m currently trying to imagine, The various connotations one could throw at models regarding Norway doing the same with their over abundance of the substance known of as aqua, since they hardly use it for irrigating dry areas.

Michael V said:

roughbarked said:

Michael V said:

So what did Norway actually do? I am not familiar with their history.

interestingly, a search of abc news gave these results..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/search/?query=Norway+millionaires&x=0&y=0

Well there you go.

Oh, I see. I needed to know that a search of ABC News “Norway+millionaires” was the way to find out. In any case, none of those articles precis’ seems to give any information about Norway.

Probably there in the fine print if you read every word but I see you are getting the drift.

I see. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund, where asset sales money is placed. Maximum spend from the fund is 4% per annum.

Seems sensible to put common wealth sales income (eg royalties) into a special fund, not consolidated revenue. Mind, how would Australia raise its consolidated revenue when every incoming government promises to reduce taxes?

Michael V said:

I see. Norway has a sovereign wealth fund, where asset sales money is placed. Maximum spend from the fund is 4% per annum.

Seems sensible to put common wealth sales income (eg royalties) into a special fund, not consolidated revenue. Mind, how would Australia raise its consolidated revenue when every incoming government promises to reduce taxes?

It isn’t my place to comment, since nobody ever considered that I should be pushed towards a seat in government.

> The Federal Government has announced plans to sell back water entitlements to farmers along the Murray-Darling river system.

Thank goodness. Perhaps Abbott isn’t such an awful prime minister after all. Howard did a huge amount to damage by introducing the water entitlements in the first place allowing non-farmer robber barons to reap huge profits at the expense of farmers, while at the same time Howard use it as a blame-shedding exercise by claiming that losses in farm livelihood were due to private squabbles and were out of the Government’s hands. I call Howard’s policy deliberate war creation and tag it “let you an him fight”.