This is no time to be pedantic, however 'individual', note the language in Hasbeen's first sentence a few posts back.
Green, greenie, I was simply verifying what I am not. My focus is solutions to causes of islander malnutrition and national opportunities have arisen along the way.

Meanwhile how about upping the ante, for example by also challenging Hasbeen's run-away opinion of rubbish.

Poverty is everywhere. Possible solutions should be talked about and not put down for no reason by fat cats and knockers and others that don't care.

New projects and new industry to rehabilitate land and ocean water ecosystem environment could generate employment and income worldwide. All rivers link all countries to ocean food sustainability.

There is more chance from endeavouring to up the ante to alleviate poverty and hunger than rolling out an NBN or manufacturing chewing gum.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/08/congress-poverty_n_3000459.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=040813&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

Individual said;
Not very smart to start with a system that's already got holes at each end :-)

Sorry, didn't get your joke !

Baz,
I think individual was being funny or having a crack.

An aqueduct can be quite huge. In the US they have them big enough to carry barges full of cargo.
Gravity is the key, not costly power for pumps.

Gravity already takes water all the way from the upper Darling River to ocean at South Australia.

Do you have Google Earth? The pointer will show ELEVATION (bottom right corner of screen), say at Bourke, and at the Coorong sea level

JF Aus;
Understood that but I guess it would depend on whether they had a dam
at the top end to feed water continuously into a pipe or whether it
just ran when it rains.
If no dam then the water amount could be enormous and the pipe would
have to be very large, so an aqueduct perhaps would be the way to go.
A pipe would have the advantage that gullies could be followed rather
than needing bridges.
Anyway it is the principle that matters, get the water whatever it takes.

I think it would take at least 10 big gully type dams up high where there are only creeks and slopes. Water harvesting is a key.
There there could be more Cubby Station type water holding areas but supplied by aqueduct water instead of river water.

Windamere Dam is on a river but similar could suit northern wet season creeks and slopes. See here:
http://www.statewater.com.au/Water+delivery/Dams/Windamere+Dam

In this day and age with so much technology already available a flow via dams and aqueduct could be remote controlled including to put environment flow into wetlands.

Yes it is a case of get it happening whatever it takes.

I think it could be done if a fairdinkum politician helped to up the ante and make it happen.

It amazes me it has not been done already since the Murray Darling basin and other farmers are in such dire need of reliable water supply. That is saying nothing about needs of the Coorong and ocean food web nurseries.

P.S. I think this post may have reached my limit in a 24 hour period.

JF Aus & Bazz,
Of course redirection a literal river hundreds of miles isn't going to be a cheap alternative. But look at the alternative to this alternative ?
If the pressure of population can be taken away from the coast then it will be a viable project which will literally pay for itself in every which way.
Some places will require tunnelling, others canals whilst a fair bit of natural waterways can be enhanced also. The thing is it will be an economic stimulus with internal revenue side effects unlike the pointless wasting of good money we saw not so long ago. the other important thing is that peoples' mentality needs to be groomed to accept that such a project is not to invest money next week & expect to make a handsome profit next month. This would be a project that goes on over a couple of generations not just some short-term quick buck thing.