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.