Not everyone is happy.

Marine biologists are concerned.

So is the prawn industry.

I did hear an interview with BHP in which their representative said that if there was any adverse environmental impact at all the project would not go ahead. I’d suggest you can take that with a grain of salt!

This spiel indicates that they have costed in greenhouse offsets, and that initial studies suggest the brine is not a problem. The starting date is given as 2012 if the project gets the nod.

Darren: why?

I can try and establish a monopoly on foodstuffs, and many essential drugs are supplied by private monopolies. What’s different about trading in water rights?

I guess examples of other commercial monopolies fail to persuade me that they are OK in all cases – especially where essential resources are concerned. The problem with trading of water rights is that we don’t want companies controlling for commercial ends that which we need to survive.

I also submit that the example of essential drugs does not support your case, witness the deaths caused by HIV that could have been prevented with cheap anti-retrovirals in Africa. The barrier in that case? Commercial interests of multinational pharmaceutical companies.

We are going to have to change to non-emitting sources of electricity anyway, regardless of whether we desalinate or not.

As to the relative cheapness of improving agricultural consumption, while I support that, in the case of, say, Melbourne it’s not clear that buying water out of the Murray-Darling is the cheapest way to go. It’s 120 kilometres through a mountain range from Lake Eildon to Sugarloaf reservoir (probably the closest connection to the Melbourne supply system).

I absolutely agree. 100%. And they [we] will have to be forced to do it.

Thanks for the link re Perth’s desal plant.
I found a source that states that the capital cost of that plant increased from the $387 million in that article to $434 million. And running costs from $20 million annually to $22 million annually.So I assume that the water cost has since risen to about $1.40 per KL.
At this point in time anyway.
Still if it doesn’t increase in the near future, as such things are liable to do, that’s not too bad.

I’m still concerned about the brine output , the greenhouse emissions [yeah I know it's all claimed as being covered by wind generated electicity but there is still an increase in electric consumption of many MWHs] that is estimated by one source at 100.000 tonnes pa.

Much much simpler and cheaper to reduce waste in agricultural consumption.

I agree with you that a lot of water is currently wasted by irrigators. But the only way they’ll clean up their act is if they have to pay a realistic price for their water.

As to your point about trading in water rights resulting in greater usage of those rights, well, everybody knows that the river is overallocated and governments are going to have to reduce allocations. Everybody but the National Party, that is…

Even at $2 per kilolitre, hannah’s son could buy his year’s water for $520. Desalination, which allows the production of unlimited quantities of potable water, can be done quite easily for that price.
My ears went red, I heard my name mentioned.
Robert where did you get that price from?
The only figure I have seen is about $4.10 per 100 or 200 litres [I forget which] for desalinated water.
Which is thousands of dollars for a domestic house.
And does not take into account the use of water to produce the electricity to make water [robbing Peter to pay Paul type of thing].

I’m very suspicious of the claims for desal water.

The problem with trading in water is that it inevitably has 2 adverse effects for consumers and the environment.
Firstly it drives the price of licences up.
My licence has increased in value about 5-6 times since I bought it a decade ago [which is nice for me].
More significantly it increases the use of water.
People who are not using water can sell that licence to people who will use it.
Thus increased use.
And it is precisely that which is the problem…the increased usage of a finite resource that is being treated as if it is infinite and which is being wasted in that its true value is not being paid by those who use it in vast quantities.
The simple answer to water shortages is to decrease the use of water.
At present usage is grossly wasteful with huge quantities being used to produce crops of minimal value.
If I had to pay for my water at my son’s price I would have to consider being far more efficient in my usage than is the general case along the river at present.
Because water is generally free to irrigators [pumping and licences are one off costs that are minor and business expenses that can be recovered through tax and capital appreciation] yet expensive to urban dwellers there exists a substantial subsidy to irrigators for the infrastructure provided by the govt.[dams and locks and pipes etc].
As I type this I can look out across my empty lagoon to a property on the other side of the river which despite 100kph winds yesterday and temperatures of 35 degrees plus was irrigating lucerne for fodder using SPRAY irrigation.
Criminal.
And common along the river.

I can try and establish a monopoly on foodstuffs, and many essential drugs are supplied by private monopolies. What’s different about trading in water rights?