One of the negative comments advanced against such vision relates to the capital cost - where is the money going to come from? Will the government (taxpayer) have to fund it?

Actually there is a very effective way to fund required capital works of the proposed type that was first shown to us by the US railroad barons. They bought up all the land within reach of their planned railroads, then sold off half the land on a chequerboard pattern (I think of square mile lots) at a price reflecting the coming rail access. The funds were then used to develop the railroads.

The same principle could be applied here. Purchase all the land first for current value (or negotiate with current owners), then sell part of that land with water rights to farmers, agricultural companies and the like. By this means the required capital can be sourced from equity market or corporate sources without recourse to the taxpayer

Great to see some vision for the north. The North Australian Task Force report was a depressing farce.

All the governments have to do is get out of the way.

I wonder has anyone investigated the feasibility of putting some of the stored water back into the Great Artesian Basin or one of the other large aquifers.

Projects such as these also require large amounts of transport infrastructure. As seen on Landline this week, this seems to be a limiting factor just as much as water. My trip through the North last year, showed the roads to be fairly good, but an extensive rail network would also be needed to do justice to such a scheme. Also, who is going to build the new atomic power station(s) to provide the necessary energy for all the water pumps and train locomotives.

David

The problem is that to feed the world you might put in danger some tadpole that is close to extinction. How could you possibly consider this. And then these waters are more than likley to become sacred!. Oh we won't go there. Just let people starve.

Runner, that is a very Christian attitude to take. Perhaps a more pragmatic approach would be to draw a line west from Townsville and sell everything north of that to the Indians or the Chinese and let them work it all out for themselves.

David

Great post.
I really can't understand why proposals like this haven't happened before , I guess the Ord River scheme must have put a damper on such thinking , how times change ! People even in developed societies are starving big problem is they are broke , USA and UK for example extraordinary populations of people who will never be employed.How do we get people to staff your proposals out there in the sticks 100 deg all day all night with the Dingoes, Ticks & Snakes 200 Klm's to the nearest Pub.
Maybe the US & UK might be interested in Financing and Staffing your proposals liberating many of their 20th century Convicts.

Tully Flinders Gilbert rivers would not ring any bells for 90% of our people a draft like yours needs a Map from it they can catch your Vision.

Ah, the ancient Australian rural socialist, dam building ritual.

Yes, just what the economy needs, 5 more Ord river projects, private profits, massive public loss.

Ignore the economics, the fact that the Chinese and Indians are able to feed themselves, the poor tropical soils, the lack of suitable cultivars and build some dams, at taxpayers' expense of course.

It states in the 'About the author' that Everald is Chairman of the Australian Transport and Energy Corridor Ltd. If that is the case, perhaps he can please explain to me where the energy (oil) is going to come from to build all of this infrastructure and to transport, maintain and operate all of the myriad components suggested in this article.

Perhaps instead of doing some additional research on how the Kimberley, Pilbara and South-west regions of Western Australia can play into your picture, you should do some serious research, there is an abundance of information out there, on oil production, reserves and projections into the near future. World conventional oil supply peaked in 2005, some new capacity is being brought on-line from deep water sites, shale and tar sands, but overall projections are for a global oil decline rate of approximately 2 to 5 percent per annum.

I would like to see how all of this could be built with an energy crunch coming, not to mention the lack of capital available, lack of investment and the current global debt levels that are continuing to cripple the global economy and will do so for decades to come.

Finally, for what real purpose? As globalisation and trade decline, why bother turning natural environments into industrial agricultural land just to feed India or China, get real.

Lets hope Andrew Robb doesn't get the opportunity to waste more taxpayers money on follies like the one proposed by Everald!

Perhaps Andrew and Everald should bump heads together and come up with a plan to overcome our coming energy problems. Remember, the true driver of any economy is energy, not money, food, water, infrastructure or debt.

Geoff, if you watched the midday news today, you would have seen that BHP is about to start a new very large uranium mine in SA. There is no shortage of energy for projects such as this, just a shortage of the will to embrace modern nuclear technology too produce all the electricity that would be needed.

David

David, you wrote "Geoff, if you watched the midday news today, you would have seen that BHP is about to start a new very large uranium mine in SA. There is no shortage of energy for projects such as this, just a shortage of the will to embrace modern nuclear technology too produce all the electricity that would be needed." Unfortunately known reserves of Uranium are limited and will also peak well before Australia could get a 'new generation' nuclear (Thorium based most probably) reactor system set up.

Electricty generation is a key to our future energy needs, with an emphasis on electrical rail infrastructure to take over the transportation of goods from major ports to areas of need.

Oil and natural gas (and yes we have lots of gas, but again it is still a finite resource) are key components for fertilizer, pesticide, herbicides etc as well as in most modern products or the processes that drive the economy. I would love to see a suitable cheap alternative, unfortunately there are none.

BHP will take what it can while it can purely based on corporate profit and the need to satisfy shareholder wants.

There will be no transition to a new economy without the oil that remains, yet we use it like an infinite resource.

I just don't see any political or community need to develop or undertake what Everald is proposing.

Geoff

A lesson from the Ord River: first find out which crops will grow (and not be destroyed by pests). Then find out if there is a market for them.

Fertiliser I say.

Where will the fertiliser come from to grow the crops indefinitely?

And diesel.

Where will the diesel come from to build the dams and irrigation channels?

Please not from ethanol or bio crops (pay back time is too long or may never occur).

This comes across more as a resolution to think about the problem than a plan, but I’d like to see it keenly prosecuted. People who are worried about habitat need to acknowledge that habitat can be created as well as destroyed. The rate of population growth worldwide has been decreasing steadily since the 1960s, but we’re still trending to a peak of 9 billion humans in another 90 years. Cheap, plentiful, nourishing food could knock a billion off that total, maybe move it a decade or two closer. And Australia is far better placed to provide it than just about anywhere else. Food, unlike ore, is a renewal resource, always in demand. Yes, it’s a remote area. So was Las Vegas at one time, but it’s thriving now ... and without massage to its environment. Urban Greenies imagine Northern Australia as either wasteland or wall-to-wall sacred sites — choosing to remain ignorant solves most problems, if you’re so inclined.. Indigenous Australians could benefit hugely from real interest in their lives and lands, as opposed to the faux hero-worship and welfare on offer from naysayers. First things first, though. No real discussion of forward-thinking projects like this will be allowed by KRudd/Gillard Labor. We need a new election, ASAP. I hope Robb & his team are ready, whenever that happens.

Vanna ; Fertilizer too easy everyone has two exhaust ports that offer forth the best fertilizer imaginable after bacteria have done their job.

Garum Masala
Rather simplistic, but not practical or possible.

Every time a crop is harvested, nutrients are removed from the soil.

If the crop is exported, how are the nutrients returned to the soil to grow the next crop?

Peak phosphate may occur shortly, and fertiliser costs are now a major cost to farmers.

As for diesel, it is also one of the biggest costs for many farmers, and the reason why many have already left the land.

*And diesel.
Where will the diesel come from to build the dams and irrigation channels?*

Actually Vanna, we are not about to run out of diesel in Australia.
Australia is about to triple its gas production in the NW and a
substantial byproduct of gas is condensate. Globally it adds up
to about 10 million barrels a day, so our condensate production
should keep Australian vehicles going for a fair old while.

As to 50-100 years, I have not met too many who can accurately
predict the future, they are invariably wrong. The only one who
got it close to right was Darwin, who noted that species would
breed and multiply to their hearts content until one day they
would run out of resources and then that species population would
crash with a thud. Given that we humans have bred like rabbits over
the last 100 years and continue to do so, with an ever growing
human population, no doubt one day there will be a thud. So be it,
we clearly wern't smart enough as a species to take note of basic
biology.

Vanna I beg to disagree the amount of sewerage discharged into the sea is amazing for example the Sydney discharge is piped about 5 miles seaward it can be seen on the sea surface at Eden sometimes at least a mile wide slick .
My contention is it should be piped not out to sea but inland where it can be processed by bacteria into Fertilizer .

Northern water harvesting is better than dams on rivers.
Photos and info at the following link. (I have cross-linked The Forum).
http://justgroundsonline.com/forum/topics/barnaby-joyce-water-mp-attention

Maybe we should be at pains to distinguish between 'dams' and 'reservoirs'. It's not like Everald's proposing to build a huge concrete wall across an existing river, something that'd have significant downstream effects. We're talking more about creating a number of huge new lakes, from which excess water can be piped or channelled elsewhere for agricultural AND environmental use. Certainly, wildlife can be stressed by development. If, however, the 'development' involves turning a vanishingly small area empty desert (we've got more than enough of that!) into viable year-round water-rich habitat, we can have both productive farmland AND sanctuary for local wildlife.

Also, the proposal could add significant value to Aboriginal lands which are currently locked up. I can't imagine any problem attracting finance, both domestic and international, if Canberra is willing to clear the way by allowing Indigenous owners to build a future in the same way non-Indigenous Australians do, and have always done. The potential to create long-term employment for the land's owners is huge. Reckon it's the sort of thing Noel Pearson and the Cape York crew could get behind. Yes, it's hot up there; I've lived and worked in Townsville, Cairns, Mt Isa. No difference, really, between the Top End and Phoenix Arizona, or Albuquerque New Mexico ... save that it's a whole lot wetter in the rainy season. The only real objection I can see is ideological: too many sanctimonious urban gits sincerely believe Aboriginal people should live the way they did 30,000 years ago, like it or not. They’ll vote for CDEP and a new preamble to the Constitution, but not for genuine self-determination. Let’s flesh out a proposal, then let the locals decide.

Yabby,
So if we produce more diesel, will the local consumer be asked to pay average world price, or will the local consumer get the diesel cheaper than average world price.

Your a free trade man, so if the farmers get diesel cheaper than average world price, isn't that subsidising those farmers, or creating an unfair production environment?

Perhaps the local farmers have to pay average world price for diesel, according to globalisation.

Garum Masala
It is true that sewage can be composted or processed (quite easily actually) to obtain the nutrients that would otherwise run to the sea, and the most important nutrient to be extracted at this stage is phosphate.

The question is whether other countries that we export to will also compost or treat sewage to extract the nutrients, and then return those nutrients to us so we can grow more crops.

That makes it sustainable agriculture, but the short-sightedness of markets does not often favour sustainable approaches.

Trading partners would have to be carefully selected to enable long term sustainability.

*So if we produce more diesel, will the local consumer be asked to pay average world price*

Vanna, absolutaly. The local consumer will pay world price, plus
road tax, for they drive their vehicles on roads and it costs
money to build them. The companies on top of income taxes, payroll
taxes, and all the other taxes, will pay resource tax of IIRC around
40% to the Federal Govt. The State Govt misses out, despite having
to bankroll the onshore infracstucture.

Farmers will pay the world price, but they won't pay road tax as
their tractors don't wear out the roads.

Sewage proliferates algae.
Algae is already being turned into biofuel and has been used on navy boats and in jet aircraft.
Set a Google alert for algae.
The problem with sewage nutrient pollution in the ocean seems to be excessive nitrogen.
The real problem is the government and editorial gagging and suppression of ocean damage indicator incidents that would otherwise indicate need and type of solutions.