IT'S a time-honoured conversation topic at barbecues around Australia. Why can't we pipe all the water from up north down to the drying cities in the south?
While this chestnut wasn't exactly the prime focus of the Northern Australian Land and Water Taskforce, its one of many recurring debates that should have been closer to being solved as a result of the taskforce's 15-month, taxpayer-funded investigation.
But after the taskforce delivered its underwhelming report this week, it's one of many debates about the future of the Top End that remain sadly uninformed.
In truth, the most incisive part of the taskforce's report came on page 14.
Entitled "knowledge gaps for effective decision making", it sums up why the taskforce has barely progressed this fascinating and crucial issue at all.
"There are critical gaps in our knowledge and data sources . . . The water available for consumptive use is not well understood," the report concedes.
But wait there's more.
"While the amount of water in the landscape has been broadly quantified, detailed knowledge of how much water is available, where it could be taken from, and when it could be taken is currently very limited. The capacity to quantify sustainable yield is even more limited."
In other words, despite a 15-month federally funded investigation, the gaps in our knowledge remain as wide as the Kimberley's Fitzroy River in flood. (Across the floodplain, that's about 25 kilometres wide).
Rather than being hidden behind the "recommendations" of the report, page 14 should be printed in bold as a disclaimer on the front cover.
A virtual concession of either laziness, amateurism, disinterest or a severe lack of funding, page 14 hangs an asterisk over the legitimacy of every sentence in the report.
What the taskforce didn't do was commission new on-the-ground studies in the wilds of the north.
It didn't conduct new topographical studies of potential dam sites in the north, indeed, it did not compile any new data at all.
Instead it relied upon a single "desktop" study by the CSIRO — which itself did not collect any new data — and a collation of private research that was under way or completed into northern Australia's environments, industries and communities.
The true shame is that this week's coverage of the issue will be influential in forming public opinion on Australia's north.
Reported heavily in print and electronic forms, the key message the public will take from this week's debate is that the north is not capable of supporting agriculture in the future.
While that may prove to be true — we certainly don't know it to be true, not from this report anyway.
If you listened beyond the din of outraged farmers, you would have heard taskforce chairman Joe Ross saying: "It is possible for quite large growth in horticultural and agricultural industries, but in a smaller mosaic framework."
Criticisms of this report should not be read as a pro-development stance.
When this taskforce was set up, it was a welcome opportunity to take a proper look at a crucially important part of Australia's future.
A chance to guide changes that some in the agricultural sector are already pursuing, and to tackle some of the great barbecue myths of Australian life.
What we got in return was little better than a high school essay. Taxpayers deserve better.
* Peter Ker is water and environment reporter at The Age.
Email a friend