Water buybacks will cost communities

These were placed under administration by the Irrigation Commission.

The federal government has overridden Section 100 of the Constitution, using the RAMSAR International Agreement to take away water from the state governments.

The Water Act was passed in 2007 with provision that trade be recorded in a central Basin-wide transparent water trading register.

It has been 16 years and the federal government has failed the Water Act.

The federal Labor water minister favours more water buybacks.

The target is 450 gigalitres, plus 2100 already purchased, which means communities will lose out.

Meanwhile back in March the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder was selling 8000 megalitres at a price of $21 per meg, when the market price was $15 per meg.

The big question is how much water that was sitting in dams as environmental water. Did that contribute to the big floods of 2022?

I was shocked to discover that Australia and Russia are among the only developed countries that don't have fuel efficiency standards.

This means vehicle manufacturers have no incentive to send their best fuel saving technology to Australia.

Many Australians are doing it tough at the moment and a stronger fuel efficiency standard would save them money.

Last year, The Australia Institute calculated that nearly $6 billion in fuel costs would have been saved, and emissions equivalent to a year's worth of domestic flights would have been avoided if fuel efficiency standards had been adopted in 2015.

So, the federal government's recent commitment to the introduction of fuel efficiency standards is commendable.

How many costs blow-outs can our nation afford?

In various areas we are exceeding estimated expenditure. In areas like aged care and disability I believe it can be justified, but in others, such as water management, it is heading towards a massive and unnecessary waste of taxpayer dollars.

This could especially occur with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, with Environment Minister Tanya Plibersek insisting it be completed 'in full and on time', despite this being virtually impossible following three years of disruption through COVID-19 and floods.

This involves recovering massive volumes of water, despite the strong and growing view from scientists that it is not actually needed for the environment.

Which brings me back to the original question about cost blow-outs.

Originally, total implementation of the Basin Plan was estimated at $13 billion, much of which has been spent.

If Ms Plibersek gets her way and proceeds with water buybacks to achieve outdated targets, water market experts have estimated the cost at $20 billion.

Surely we will not go down this ridiculous path, just so the Albanese Government can appease environmental lobbyists.

Email your letter to the editor to letters@areanews.com.au, or post it to PO Box 1004, Griffith, NSW, 2680. All letters must be accompanied by a name (for publication) and address (not for publication). Or use the form below...