<3 Obama.

[smeck]

If you give people a free water license, it's no different to giving them a dollar subsidy like the US do with crops, or Europe does with cows.

It's completely different, it's water. You aren't charged for water you collect, you are charged for water supplied to you. Its not a subsidy, its a user pays arrangement. If you collect your own water you pay for the infrastructure to do so, if your water is supplied to your taps you pay to use someone elses infrastructure to get the water there. It is not subsidising to not charge for something you don't own. The health system is not comparable in any way, shape or form. Subsidising is offsetting the cost of producing something to lower the cost of the final product, like tax breaks or waving rates charges, something Councils and State governments regularly do with Manufacturing to get businesses established in their area. Given the Mining industry get none of this but still pay royalties, water is merely another tax deductable business expense like fuel, as it is for every other company in this country. Even if you bill them for water they will claim it against their profits and the Government receive less royalty, ie. pointless. What you are suggesting is the Government come around after a storm and check your rain gauge, then bill you accordingly. Or perhaps you are suggesting that you sink your own bore and install your own pump, then the council come along and put a water meter on it?

So what we have here is a socialist situation where the public subsides its own healthcare, and a free market system where you either pay the council to have your water delivered or you pay for your own bore field to get it yourself, or you build storage and collect it from the sky. There is nothing provided here, there is no service to subsidise. I suggest if you want to charge everyone for water we pay a price per litre, then an infrastructure charge depending on your location, so someone pumping from a bore pays for the water only, someone in Sydney pays for the water, and the dam, and the treatment, and the desalination plant, and the pumps, etc. You're talking about charging the mining sector the same price for water as someone in Sydney, but not actually providing the water (only access to it), you are effectively using the mining industry to subsidise domestic water infrastructure and useage. Now your being a leftie.

As for Cubbie, they pump off the flood plain and they get the water that gets lost through seepage and evaporation, the stuff that never makes it to the river. Hence the reason their water storage is so big, they only get to pump every couple of years, instead of farms along the river basin that pump whenever they need it. So in net effect its closer to pumping it from the artesian basin, it's not like pumping it from the river.

 

[FR Drew]

Smeck, you were the one who suggested a flat charge for water, not me. I simply provided a ballpark costing based on a non excess domestic bill. Personally I agree that your flat rate plus infrastructure charge is a great idea, but I still maintain that it'd kill the uranium mining and beef sectors outright and probably the rice and cotton as well. Obviously you wouldn't charge domestic water rates, but when you look at the fact that a kilo of beef uses the same volume of water as I do in 2 years, it does make you wonder how viable it is...
(for what it's worth, as an aside, I'm in Canberra and it'd appear that our household uses about a third of what you quoted as the city's domestic usage average per person. This is across our last 18months worth of water bills. That's including a bath every night for my daughter and a shower every day for my wife and I.)

In this country, we have a finite supply of the stuff, it shouldn't be a free for all that you grab what you can off the catchment. In most areas there are limits on how much of the catchment you have to let pass through and how much you can dam off for your own use. (Some parts of Qld would appear to be an exception where some monster licences were handed out by Joh).

I maintain my opinion that as a finite resource we seriously under charge high volume users for it and if it were charged for appropriately at a rate set by the market (with infrastructure supply charge and excess usage charges on top), many industries now getting an effective free lunch wouldn't survive. If they aren't paying the real cost of the resources they use to be viable, then no matter what their so called value, we're subsidising them in a manner, it's simply not direct cash in hand.

Basically, you have to subsidise farming in the western world, otherwise no-one would do it and you'd simply have a consumer culture with on production outside the cities. Unless you want your country areas to die outright, farming needs subsidy, but it's not seen as "lefty" policy for some reason.

 

[Arete]

The "cost" of agricultural water usage in Australia should not just take into account supply but also the enviromental costs and indirect damage to other industry. No one who's been there in recent times would argue that the Murray isn't pretty much fucked. There is no longer any viable commercial freshwater fishery in Australia.
The cost of restoring the Murray, if it were even possible would be astronomical. Given that the major cause of the degradation is in large due to agricultural users interrupting the flooding/drying cycle of the river, if we were to charge farmers the REAL cost riverlands irrigation, production of many high profit margin crops would become unviable overnight, or practices would become vastly more water efficient.

Personally, when I see biofuel corn being flood irrigated from an open, unlined dirt channel hundreds of kilometers long in country with a net precipitation loss, I'm all bloody for the farmers paying for the restoration of the river.

That said, the destruction has been caused by both government and agricultural greed. More licences have been sold than there ever was water in the river. The net management of inland waterways and irrigated farming in this country has been forehead slappingly stupid.

 

[smeck]

...............Basically, you have to subsidise farming in the western world, otherwise no-one would do it and you'd simply have a consumer culture with on production outside the cities. Unless you want your country areas to die outright, farming needs subsidy, but it's not seen as "lefty" policy for some reason.

I only suggested a flat rate because you're determined to cost the inputs of various sectors. You can call it a subsidy if you want, it isn't and never will be, that's the reason why it's not seen as a 'lefty' policy. Drought relief is a subsidy that must go, those farms need to fail, but mining use less water than any other commercial sector and probably make 50 times the profit. You won't bankrupt them with a water bill. As for the viablility of beef, it's unviable at domestic water rates, but so is industry. Put a price on it and you'll see where the break even point is, then you can talk about a subsidy. Of total water usaege, shutting Mining down would save 2%, insignificant numbers considering there are several hundred mines paying billions in royalties, closing our three operating Uranium mines would less than 0.05%, hardly the stuff that makes billion dollar operations unviable because of a water bill. Steel is something like 3kL/tonne to produce, thats $6 at excess water rates. 8kL/ounce of gold, that's AU$16 of water for US$1100 per ounce, considering most mine water is recycled Mining can afford water, if you can put a price on it there'll be no need for a subsidy. The numbers say 65% of our water goes to growing food and 11% to households, just over 3/4 of our water, if we could drop that to 60% I wonder how the rivers would look?

Some monster licences were handed out by Joh, but check which former Labor Treasurer is running Cubbie now and what legislative changes occured under Wayne Goss and his Chief Mr K Rudd. Also have a look at the water entitlements below Cubbie in the Lower Balonne, the NSW farms can pump whatever they can store, there is no limit. We know about Cubbie, we are aware of the Darling basin situation, getting the Labor mates to do something about it is another problem and it won't solve a whole lot if NSW don't get in on the act as well. So much for Rudd ending the blame game, he'll certainly never be quiped about as 'action man'.

Arete, seeing rice grown along the Murray was a weird day, but it is commercial greed. We have some stupid practices, the Romans used to cover viaducts, we leave them open? Perhaps we need a Thatcheresque PM to do the 'close the coal mines' routine on Murray irrigated farming regardless of cost/unemployment, but who in Parliament has the balls for that? The 'real' cost is hard to establish, the real cost to the Murray is staggering but the Ord river farmlands in Nth WA are thriving and the Burdekin dam irrgates huge chunks of Nth Qld with minimal enviromental side effects. The science here is difficult, the maths even more so, 'real' is word that becomes very local and thus very very political. Getting rid of irrigated farming in areas with a net precipitation loss is good science, charging the entire Agriculture sector the 'real' cost of irrigating from the Murray is bad management.

That's what I'll give Obama credit for, at least he believes in something other than his poll numbers.

 

[Arete]

Arete, seeing rice grown along the Murray was a weird day, but it is commercial greed. We have some stupid practices, the Romans used to cover viaducts, we leave them open? Perhaps we need a Thatcheresque PM to do the 'close the coal mines' routine on Murray irrigated farming regardless of cost/unemployment, but who in Parliament has the balls for that? The 'real' cost is hard to establish, the real cost to the Murray is staggering but the Ord river farmlands in Nth WA are thriving and the Burdekin dam irrgates huge chunks of Nth Qld with minimal enviromental side effects. The science here is difficult, the maths even more so, 'real' is word that becomes very local and thus very very political. Getting rid of irrigated farming in areas with a net precipitation loss is good science, charging the entire Agriculture sector the 'real' cost of irrigating from the Murray is bad management.

Assuming we do something about the Murray clusterfuck - who pays for it?
The taxpayer?
The agricultural sector as a whole?
Sunrice?

And none of this takes into account the contiuned unsustainable water use in the MDB, or the rising saline water table... or the fact that dozens of fish and reptile species from the lower lakes now only exist on borrowed time in ponds in a couple of scientists backyards in suburban Adelaide and Melbourne - on the off chance that someone does something about restoring habitats before they become inbred.

We don't have any pollies with the balls to step up and sort that mess out. And sure it will twang all the heart strings that losing jobs in rural Australia always pluck. But - given current practice and the rate of land degradation, at least to me it comes down to - do we let them do it for another few decades, TOTALLY fuck it to the point where the damages is irreversible and the practice no longer profitable or do we suck it up now, end the lunacy that is flood irrigation in an emphemeral semi arid zone and try not to turn vast tracts of the riverlands into wasteland?

To me the cost of a few decades more of rural jobs in corporate primary production vs competely degrading the lower Murray riverlands is a no brainer. Might not be to others, but the damage is undeniable.

 

[FR Drew]

What he said.

 

[smeck]

Assuming we do something about the Murray clusterfuck - who pays for it?................... Might not be to others, but the damage is undeniable.

I doubt anyone who has actually seen the Murray will deny the damage done, even seeing the Coorong will highlight the problem. I'm all for closing down the irrigated farming in that area, or seriously re-evaluating the sustainablility level and buying back what ever is needed. The tax payer will end up footing the bill here, I doubt any one else will cough up. Putting a levy on the whole industry will just end up making the public consumer pay anyway, and probably inflate the market when (if ever) the levy is withdrawn. Personally I think the funds should come out of the politician's superannuation fund, inter-twine their future with all those affected and hold them accountable for years of inaction.

 

[Pungers]

Dang it!

Yeah Im with seventyseven. F$$! Obama's healthcare plan. Its a socialist policy and 1 step towards being Communist.... and we all know by now (I hope) that Socialism doesn't work. It will help the bludgers and freeloaders (none of you fellow mtbers I hope!), but honest HARDWORKING folk,.. working families... you know what Im talking about, they will suffer by paying the brunt of the bill.

 

[Ek155]

Socialism doesn't work.
but clearly pure capitalism doesn't either.

let the water debate continue..?

 

[PINT of Stella. mate!]

Yeah Im with seventyseven. F$$! Obama's healthcare plan. Its a socialist policy and 1 step towards being Communist.... and we all know by now (I hope) that Socialism doesn't work. It will help the bludgers and freeloaders (none of you fellow mtbers I hope!), but honest HARDWORKING folk,.. working families... you know what Im talking about, they will suffer by paying the brunt of the bill.

Bad troll! Get back under your bridge!!

 

[rabatt]

some light morning reading before i head off to work...

interesting how healthcare becomes economic argument becomes water debate... water was the most interesting

 

[placebo]

I've seen this table too, and whilst it may be great for economists, applying it in the above way seems quite flawed to me, as it would rely on the assumption that GDP is proportional to population.

Spending an equivalent proportion of your gdp is great if that's the case, but if it's not then you're expectiing the same results for less expenditure per head covered under your system.

That's not to say that the gdp isn't proportional, I just think that making an call like that without considering the rest of the situation is very narrow sighted.

That was a bit of a troll, with the defence references, though with the cost increases of the F35 it's quite applicable to many economies with UHC provisions. The inability of the US to buy their projected amounts of these fighters in part because of inefficient market conditions within their economy raises the unit cost of each aircraft for all other purchasers, including Australia, Great Britain and Holland.

However, you can find total health care costs broken down by expenditure per person, cost of specific drugs (such as lipitor) in comparison with OECD and other economies, total cost per year per person, total cost per visit per person including government assistance in comparison with other economies. None of these reinforce any point other than to illustrate the structural market distortions in the US system in favour of the insurers in the US system. Amounts of bankruptcies per year in the US with breakdowns for reasons is also indicative, the majority cause of bankruptcies is due to health care debt. If an insurer denies a claim, then you must go to court and litigate against them. It's a less efficient system in comparison in total cost and in health care outcomes than any other system in any other first world economy over decades of comparison. A UHC system is proven to be both a more inclusive, and more efficient system of health care provision, because the largest purchaser of health care in the market (the government in these UHC systems) has the most power in deciding pricing as a monopoly, and an electoral interest in providing the most positive outcomes to the largest number of people i.e. their voters.