3 ms·

Nice! Perhaps the problem is that there's too much water on the market, due to the government handing out too much too cheaply? Edit: Ah, looks like yes; the g

Nice! Perhaps the problem is that there's too much water on the market, due to the government handing out too much too cheaply? Edit: Ah, looks like yes; the government was working on undoing this mistake by buying back water rights at large expense, but stopped because, errr, politics. Although it sounds to me like the real mistake here was maybe giving away rights to use water in perpetuity in the first place (which requires the government to "buy back" such rights), instead of selling non-renewable allocations by the litre (which would allow them to just raise the price depending on conditions, or auction the available water yearly etc). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everything-we-know/11037798 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everyt...

rstuart4133 7y ago
> Nice! Perhaps the problem is that there's too much water on the market, due to the government handing out too much too cheaply? No, the original design was done by CSIRO, the government scientific arm. AFAICT, is was pretty well done. The problem is entirely political. The river system is about 3000km long, and passes through 4 states. The state politicians suffer almost no repercussions by white anting the agreement or just wilfully breaking it, but often get lots of kudos from their local constituents by shoving it to the other states and the federal government. The media has done a number of exposés on farmers violating the agreement with no serious repercussions because the local state politicians - and the states run their respective police forces. It then degenerated into one state saying "if they are going to do that then we will too", aka tragedy of the commons. But, ask any politician and they will tell you it can only be fixed in a drought, when farmers all over the country are going broke and leaving the land in droves, and it's plain to every one if you want to avoid a repeat there are no other solutions bar a compromise that everyone follows. This is the first country wide drought since the one that gave rise to the original agreement. It will need to go on for a bit longer before some sensible things happen, but we live in hope. So despite how it's painted in the article, it's really an opportunity to put our house in order.
- nshepperd 7y ago
  The problem is always political. By "violating the agreement" you mean drawing water without paying for the required allocations (eg. disconnecting water meters), or? And the state politicians allow this because of competition, basically subsidizing local water by letting people draw it for free, while externalizing the cost to other states?

rstuart4133 7y ago

> Nice! Perhaps the problem is that there's too much water on the market, due to the government handing out too much too cheaply? No, the original design was done by CSIRO, the government scientific arm. AFAICT, is was pretty well done. The problem is entirely political. The river system is about 3000km long, and passes through 4 states. The state politicians suffer almost no repercussions by white anting the agreement or just wilfully breaking it, but often get lots of kudos from their local constituents by shoving it to the other states and the federal government. The media has done a number of exposés on farmers violating the agreement with no serious repercussions because the local state politicians - and the states run their respective police forces. It then degenerated into one state saying "if they are going to do that then we will too", aka tragedy of the commons. But, ask any politician and they will tell you it can only be fixed in a drought, when farmers all over the country are going broke and leaving the land in droves, and it's plain to every one if you want to avoid a repeat there are no other solutions bar a compromise that everyone follows. This is the first country wide drought since the one that gave rise to the original agreement. It will need to go on for a bit longer before some sensible things happen, but we live in hope. So despite how it's painted in the article, it's really an opportunity to put our house in order.

nshepperd 7y ago
The problem is always political. By "violating the agreement" you mean drawing water without paying for the required allocations (eg. disconnecting water meters), or? And the state politicians allow this because of competition, basically subsidizing local water by letting people draw it for free, while externalizing the cost to other states?