I've read that the traditional owners of the Kutubu gas field have split into warring factions; the same stick of dynamite used to sever the gas pipe might also disrupt the water flow.

Since dinosaurs didn't have pipelines in dry times they relocated to where the water was. If humans were encouraged to do the same it might work out easier in the long run, perhaps with a happier ending. Can't move to western Tasmania (rainfall 2500mm) because it's mostly national park.

In the WA we had a similar proposal rejected the pipeline or canal from the Ord river to Perth. At 2000+kms there were just too many unknowns and a huge (and uncertain) cost. The federal water commissioner can look at the general issue of water pipelines, under what circumstances are they worthwhile. It would be a waste of money for all the states to repeat the same exercise.

The Kalgoorlie pipeline has worked well for many decades but it is "only" 600kms. Perhaps there is a future for pipelines. But for capital cities you'd want to make sure that you spend less energy pumping water around than you would desalinating an equivalent amount of seawater.

Ahhh, all logic gets blown out of the water in the first few words of this article;

“Drought proofing South East Queensland in anticipation of 1.04 million additional residents by 2026….”

Tom Richman is talking about drought-proofing us. In other words, reducing the demand on the water resource and securing supply, while in the same breath just accepting that the demand will continue to rapidly increase, via rapid population growth!

If one thing is patently obvious with this resource, it is time to stabilise population. Continuing manic unending expansion when one of our most basic life-supporting resources is severely stressed is not akin to madness, it’s beyond it!

If we just allow this growth to continue, we won’t be drought-proofing SEQ at all. All of our gains in water-use efficiency and increased frugality will just simply facilitate this whacko growth which will lead to increased pressure on various other resources and take us further away from sustainability.

Gee Tom, you consider just about every crazy idea under sun to take water to SEQ and thus greatly increase the supply rate. But you don’t spare a thought for the possibility of mitigating the ever-increasing demand rate. This seems to be extraordinarily one-eyed.

Ok, so one or other of these schemes might have some merit. But ONLY if every attempt to stabilise population in SEQ accompanies it.

Attempts to solve the water crisis MUST to be part of a genuine sustainability strategy. They must definitely NOT be used as a means of taking us further away from sustainability.

Correction

"If one thing is patently obvious with this resource CRISIS, it is time to stabilise population".

Ludwig, in the posts, above makes a good point: in times of apparent shortages it is in the nature of government to address supply not demand. Although I think stabilising population is a unrealistic; pricing, useage, cultural attitudes seem to me to be the first place to start.

Having said that I've noticed the calls for pipes running here and there and wondered about the feasibility so, I appreciate the information in the article.

I'm aware that the northern rivers of NSW are in proximity to the SE Qld demand area but (and without getting into the spurious notion that states own 'their' own water) I wonder what the feasibility would be to (also) pipe some of that water south to meet the demands of greater Sydney.

“Although I think stabilising population is unrealistic”

Peter, does this mean that you think a continuously growing population with no end in sight is realistic?

It seems to me that working towards a stable population is eminently sensible, and thinking that we can continue to have open-ended growth is as unrealistic as you can get.

Of course, if we started working towards a stable population in SEQ, we would still have growth for a long time (unless we were really draconian about it) and the total population would be considerably higher than at present. We can’t just do it overnight.

Bearing this in mind Peter, would you then support a population stabilisation strategy for SEQ?

You are right; governments are for some weird reason unable to address the demand side of the equation in full, although they do address the per-capita demand factor.

With such heightened concern over water issues across the nation, the time is right to address this incredibly schizophrenic approach by governments to our resource and sustainability issues.

I just hope to goodness that influential people are reading this forum and that this basic message about the urgency of sustainability is pervading the whole community. I am pleased to say that over the last 12 months of my input, the signs are reasonably good.