<<EXTRACT>> 

19th June 2008 

Dear Professor Kingsford,

I was interested to hear your input to the item on PM last night, to which (Fair Water Use) was a co-contributor.

As much as we appreciate the opportunity provided by the ABC to contribute to the current urgent debate, the position of Fair Water Use was not made clear on yesterday?s programme. In common with the vast majority of environmentalists, local farmers and other residents to whom we have talked, Fair Water Use accepts that the lower lakes are beyond salvage as fresh water storages and that they must be opened to the sea, with efforts concentrated on saving the remainder of the system. If Murray water was prevented from entering the lower lakes, do you not agree that the release of compulsorily acquired water from the Darling headwaters could only have a significant beneficial effect?

As you know, much of the water that was absorbed by parched river beds on its way south would not be lost to the system, but would infiltrate back with time. The vast majority released would flow down the Darling and reach the Murray if man-made obstructions to flow were removed, permanently or temporarily.

Returning to your input yesterday, we were surprised by your comments that price of compulsory acquisition is the main issue in this crisis, and would like to suggest that the opportunity cost is considerably greater.

This is surely the time to make every reasonable attempt to improve the situation and to minimise the environmental, social and economic impacts of this crisis. It would be of tremendous assistance if respected individuals such as yourself encouraged Federal and State Governments to adopt proactive strategies: otherwise the future for the Murray-Darling is grim.

With kind regards,  Ian Douglas