Could someone please tell me what the government means by"climate change" for unless we know what they mean we may as well save our breath to cool our porrage. also why doesn't the government solve the crisis with all the water that they have purchased.

Wasn't former deputy prime minister Anderson one of the geniuses at the helm for a decade when the water crisis was coming to a head? That Government's "let the market have its head" approach was a brilliant strategy. Now we have a new set of geniuses trying the exact opposite: Nationalise the environment. Lock the farmers (read 'red neck enviro-vandals') out. Everything west of the Blue Mountains is a basket case anyway. Turn the lot into National Parks and put everyone on the dole. Shut down agriculture and buy our food from 'friendly' countries like Indonesia and China. Surely we're smarter than that.

Don't you love the way politicians go for short-term, local politically expedient 'solutions'? Who cares about the rest of the country!

Mr Anderson doesn't get it.

It's not about sending water down from the north now. That should have happened naturally many months ago, when many rivers were flooding in Qld and Northern NSW.

Because of over-allocation, all this water was snapped up. None of it even got past Menindee Lakes.

The plain and simple fact is (and good science will prove this), that too much water has been allocated. The Murray's average flow out to the sea is 1/6 of what it was naturally.

That's the same level of over-allocation that lead to the Aral Sea disaster in Russia.

If you don't know about what happened to the Aral Sea, Google it.

In response to Richie 10:

Mate, 'Climate Change' is this generation's excuse for returning this country to pre-settlement condition, except for the cities and coastal towns of course, because 'people' live there.

Michael, this crisis has been brought to a head by drought. The issues have always been there, but the drought has exacerbated them to this point.

It's funny that people in the city veiw National Parks as these wonderful havens for native flora & fauna, where city people can go to make themselves feel good about their 'environmental credentials' then they drive their car home and eat their food and wear their clothes while cursing Aussie farmers for being the spawn of satan.

People who actually live near the national parks see them as havens for feral flora and fauna that affect their businesses - and a bloody great bushfire risk on their doorstep.

People who actually live out here in 'The Environment' all the time, tend to see what the situation really is...and not what the spin tells them it is.

Harsh words, Michael, but true!

This problem has been brewing ever since 1813 when the colonies moved west and successive governments encouraged it, but then as now, didn't fully understand the ramifications.

Unfortunately, politicians come and go and their agendas alter over time.

There hasn't been one that has come up with a fool-proof solution.

Progress is a double-edged sword, when encouraging any development...whether it be agriculture or national parks, one should be cogniscent of the long-term affects.

Globalism has reduced the control individual states (countries) have over their affairs and we should be doing the same.

What we need is the attitude of "look not at what your country can do for you, rather what you can do for your country"

This federal government and its state counterparts must agree on this and a whole range of other projects if we are at all to survive.

We should be deciding on how big this country can get given its limited resources rather than just increasing population, exports, resource usage and other business.

If not dig a big hole in the middle of Australia...and hope it rains!

It's all about perceptions! Unfortunately at the same time as the government is appearing to be saving the environment by buying productive grazing and irrigated cropping land using 8MLs per ha it is giving tax incentives to superannuation schemes to develop almonds and olive groves using 14 MLs per ha. Water buy back is all about getting the ownership of water away from individual farmers and into the control of corperate entities!!

John Who? Nothing like yesterday's news! Why didn't he do something so that it wouldn't get to a situation where there is so much conflict. Of course the basin is over allocated. Next thing he will be running out the old turn the coastal rivers inland.

The water doesn't exist for the Commonwealth's $50 million buyback offered recently, they were licences, which all said and done are only allocated what the other irrigators are getting this year anyway, which means that there is nothing extra going into the river except for a taxpayer funded ego trip.