Yet another example of a State Labor Government without leadership. Full of promise and rhetoric before the election, all of which dissipates like a horizon's mirage with every step we take towards pursuing the pre-election promises.

The apalling incompetence, excuses, gross negligence of our spin doctor-focussed elected leaders, who assure us they are doing all they can whilst doing very little and take overseas junkets, (paid for with our money) is about to bite us very hard on the bottom.

Well, about bloody time. While Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth all have desalination plants in train, the one city that should have been first off the rank has done nothing. The existing cost structures and parameters of urban water are the only ones that can incorporate a large injection of desalinated water without major price distortions.

This current position of Adelaide, where they think they have a God-given right to take more out of the river when there is least to go around is not just intellectually lazy, it is downright obscene.

The Senator is correct; and we have been asking the Govt since 2005 to get on with it! Refer article written Sept 07; Experts need to stop playing with peoples lives and the health and well being of our communities. Waking every morning to the regular news bulletins and hearing the Experts and Politicians pontificate over what could be rather than what should be, it is time to deliver the services that the public is paying for and most likely prepared to share in any extra costs for water security.

It is true that Adelaide leads the nation's capitals in Waste Water recycling and re-use. It is also true that our reservoirs can only sustain the city for one season let alone a full year.

Now instead of discounting options such as Desalination let's look at some real facts. If greenhouse gas emissions, from the energy demand is an issue, how do we think that pumping and treating water from the Murray is any less demanding on our energy resources.

We have, in this argument, completely over looked our ability to generate more wind power south of Port Stanvac on the Flurieu Peninsula. The Plant in Perth has already demonstrated that capability.

The next issue is the brine return to the ocean. What an absolute disgrace that our experts again tell us that we will pollute Spencer’s Gulf. The Gulf conservatively contains over a billion gigalitres of water and is subject to southern ocean currents and swells. A 100 gigalitre plant can, at worst case scenario return 200 gigalitres at a concentration only 60% worse that what the source is. Seawater is at about 40,000 EC, and some may want to argue that it is up to 60,000 Ec. That being the case the return water may be around 100,000 Ec and when you consider the volume of return ratio it would be like holding a salt shaker at the end of the Glenelg jetty all day very day, with absolutely no effect on the local conditions.

Still the most important aspect is being overlooked. The Government talks about its responsibility to provide its population with an assured supply of safe and healthy drinking water, not to mention the importance of the home garden. The Health and Welfare of the community is far and beyond more important than the government’s reluctance to raise the price of water. Any sensible level of price to achieve that health and wellbeing must be put out to public scrutiny so that all potential sources of water can be utilized and the population has a choice to pay for the goods our live without it.

Finally populations next to the oceans of the world have choices, communities on the inland river systems do not. Are they any less important?

Ray Najar 090907 General Manager - Murray Darling Association Building 8, 300 Richmond Road - Netley, SA 5033 - Ph. 08 8226 4402

The question I wouild like answered is just how much water does Adelaide use? The actual water usage of Adelaide is only one of the considerations in relation to the state of the Murray River. The biggest concern relates to trying to use our rivers as irrigation canals, not just the usage but the way in which the irrigation industry control the flows.

I've no problem with Adelaide having a desalinisation plant (a good thing). Mary Jo's proposal to leave the limited water to the irrigators etc, whilst well intentioned, is not compatible with the reality of climate change & the requirements of a healthy river i.e. there is going to be less water with higher evaporation. Even if Adelaide has a desalination plant the river requires adequate flows not only for biological & ecological health, but also to from a fluvial morphology point of view i.e. to prevent reduction in channel dimensions, sedimentation etc. The reality is that we need to adapt to the changing situation e.g. more efficient farming methods, abandonment of marginal lands etc. Sorry, but that's the reality.