Impractical proposal, bloody stupid proposal, build a hydro power station on every available dam in Queensland to generate power, back that up with some R & D on solar, and a few good sized wind farms as they have done in Denmark, 20% of Denmark's power is wind driven turbines, and presto! no further need for pipelines.

I'm all worn out now, that was so difficult to think through.

Ian Mott thanks for an informative article. I was one of those city folk who thought bringing water from Cairns sounded reasonable given that it was done for LA. I tell you I get stressed just thinking what it would be like had I stayed on my farm which relied on bore water.

I heard someone on the train the other day say that they were going to install a tank because it would improve the selling price of their house. Makes you wonder what the world is coming to.

“Yet, Beattie is spending billions to ensure that most of the population growth, and the resulting economic benefits, remain in the SE corner.”

Really? So what am I seeing on my regular travels from Cairns to Townsville, Mackay, Airlie Beach, Capricorn Coast, Hervey Bay, etc? Seems to me like these places are rapidly growing. Seems as though decentralisation in Qld is alive and ‘well’.

If we have to suffer continuous rapid population growth with no end in sight, I wish it would stay in SEQ.

What economic benefits? Even Beatty has said that population pressure is a major part of the problem in the water issue, the health issue and others. Even he can see that the continuously increasing tax revenue and economic turnover generated by ever-more people is very highly compromised by the increasing pressure on basic resources and infrastructure.

Ian Mott fails to even consider the notion of reducing the rate of this ever-increasing demand in SEQ for water, let alone stabilising the demand by way of stabilising population growth. The cold hard fact is that for as long as we have continuous rapid population growth that goes unaddressed, everything else we do or talk about with this whole water issue is at best just skirting around the edges of the problem and at worst actually facilitating this expansion and thus progressively worsening the whole issue.

There is some growth in coastal areas Ludwig, but none of it on a scale like that seen in SEQ. And if you were truthfully representing what you saw on your many trips around the north you would mention the vast distances between urban clusters that is still the dominant feature.

And Ian did point out that water tanks could supply all of normal household use from an average rooftop. But Beattie is going for the big project (a pyramid next?) to be seen to be fixing the problem.

Ian is slightly out on his proportions of beneficiaries in that the $2.2 Billion in borrowings is for 2 million Greater Brisbane water users (not redlands or Gold Coast). So half the state get indulged while the other half get to wonder what happened to their $2.2 billion.

And 2 million people equals 770,000 households. It would actually cost less money to buy every single household a 13,500 litre tank at $2,050 each. That would only cost $1.58 billion if none of them already had a tank.

But even that is not the main point. Who the hell do these people think they are who think they have no obligation to help themselves before claiming someone else's water with this bull$hit line about the interests of the majority must prevail over those of the minority.

It is boorish ignorance in the extreme.

Cairns is already connected to Brisbane by water. It is called the Pacific Ocean.

Ludwig,
If you look out your window you will not see Nazi Germany, although we may be heading in that direction, we in Australia still retain freedom of movement, it is known as feredation, the constitution, etc. In other words, the Victorians and New South Welshmen, are free to go where they please, and it pleases them to come to Queensland. Of course there is a lag in federal accknowledgement where distribution of taxes are concerned, hence many of the Queensland Government's trouble.

We must not take the "stop them at the border" approach, we must deal with the reality of the situation, that is 1500 people per week moving to Queensland. If they choose to stay in the s-e corner, in large numbers, the situation needs to be catered for. Yes regional Queensland is just if not more stretched for infastructure, because of the same situation. The Whitlam government used to allocate funding directly to local councils to more effiecntly deal with situations such as these.

The States have had funding slashed by Howard, and are unable to cope whilst Howard has $10.8 billion in the bank, or did until last week. Queensland especially North Queensland is badly in need of public transport, a decent Bruce Highway section, and public health funding, a direct result of Howard/Abbott slashing $1 billion in 2004, and of course non action on medical school training places at universities. As a guide the Hawke government built the huge Burdekin dam in the north. How many huge dams has Howard built?

At the end of the day, there is aproblem that needs a solution.

If piping water down can be done, great.

dams are the answer, with compulsory water tanks where possible.

we are not go9ing to forever be in drought, in fact this may be only 2 years from ending, so by doing things now we are extremely well prepared for 1,000,000 more residents in the south east corner by 2020.

I am from the bush too, but unlike alot of the greedy people north and in the bush that seem to post on here i like to see things shared where the need arises.

Maybe we stop transporting a few things your way, if the South East hits turmoil, so does all of queensland, and you will be far worse off.

Stop crying poor mouth and realise we must work together. Innovative solutions along with large infrastrucutre projects (like pipes and dams) are our ONLY OPTION.

Yes Perseus, the scale of development up the coast is less than in SEQ, although if you add it all together, I wonder how much less significant it really is. But the point is, there is hardly a policy of centralisation, as alluded to by Ian Mott.

I agree with you totally that SEQ should be helping itself before claiming water from far away, instead of helping itself to other regions’ water. The large-scale implementation of tanks is a significant part of this. If projects of such enormous cost as this pipeline are being seriously considered, then perhaps that money should be used instead to actually buy and install tanks throughout SEQ.

Wahoo Perseus… we have a significant point of agreement here!! Wonders will never cease!!
--

Shonga, I disagree with you that rapid population growth should simply be catered for. But I have never advocated putting up a ‘No Entry’ sign at the border.

Firstly, yes it is pretty fundamental right to move freely in this country. However, this is highly compromised – we can’t set up residence on public land or on someone else’s property without their permission. In fact, the choices for residence or short-term accommodation are extremely limited, all-considered.

Secondly, we have to balance the freedom of movement with the right of a community to protect its quality of life and environment.

Thirdly, there are many ways of implementing disincentives to slow or limit movement to crowded and resource-stressed areas. This should be a fundamental role of government as part of its duty of care in striving for the best balance between advantages of development and the disadvantages of overdevelopment.

It shouldn’t be difficult, and it certainly isn’t draconian.

And again, this population-growth-mitigation philosophy simply MUST be a major part of the water issue, along with many other issues, in SEQ and several other regions and cities around the country

Realist, we are all shared out.
We needed some doctors, but once we "shared" them with you, we had none.
Our ladies used to go to the hospital to have babies, but we "shared" again, now they have to go to the city.
Our kids were good at school, but another "share" job, & we have teachers who have not even studided the subjects.
We used to have trains, I wonder where they went, another "share" job?
A mate of mine had a bitumen road, but they ripped it up, as it was too expensive to maintain. "Shared" road funding?
Have you seen the new "Logan Basin draft water resource plan"? Looks like the bush is sharing again, & as usual, its all going one way.
Please don't offer to share anything else with me, I've got almost nothing else to loose.

Do not forget Peter Beattie hails from the Cairns Highlands, and that is what their tourism promotion called it, in Malanda. Cairns would be better off importing some of the S.E's population instead of exporting the water by pipe. There is even less increase in Queenslands population further west you go.

This idea is as rediculious as piping Brisbane's recycled water up the range to Toowoomba. We need a useful government that helps develop the whole of the state. Good article and all the comments are excellent, leaving me with little to add.

Elida, you say that "Peter Beattie hails from the Cairns Highlands" and that "Cairns would be better off importing some of the S.E.'s population instead of exporting the water by pipe".
Is there a significant amount of water to spare?
Is increaing its population a benifit to the place?
Until the last few months, the Atherton Tablelands - from Ravenshoe to Mareeba - had an extended period of water shortages and restrictions.
Continuity of White Water Rafting enterprises on the Tully depends upon the ability of Koombooloomba Dam to slop a drop downstream on appropriate occasions. And often the dam has little to spare.
Cairns itself continues to grow its population and infrastructure almost exclusively on land identified as a geohazard by Geoscience Australia. There is nowhere else to put it. At some stage it faces the certainty of inundation on the flats by cyclonic surge, and on the hillsides by landslip.
South East Queensland has its problems from an over-numerous population. But look closely at Cairns and its hinterland before blind advocacy of population growth for that area. In fact, look closely at such advocacy in relation to any area of Australia. Maybe even read the CSIRO's Future Dilemmas exercise.

Beattie wouldn't make "a country boy from Atherton's" armpit.

The interesting thing about all the Dam mega-projects is that the steps are in place to destroy their economic viability before a single sod is turned. If every SEQ Council is going to require every new housing development to install water tanks and incorporate storm water recycling systems for parks etc, then there will be no significant growth in water demand. (ZIPPO)

So the feasibility studies that have been used to justify the capital outlay are already out of date, based on false assumptions of future demand. So these so called solutions will not even begin their effective payback period for another 20 odd years.

And that means the debt will accumulate by the annual interest. And my discount tables for the accumulated value of $1 per period tells me that at 7% interest, over 20 years, this will amount to 41 times the annual interest on the $2.2 billion.

The original $2.2 billion will have an annual interest bill of $154 which will compound over 20 years by 41 times to $6.3 billion which must then be added to the original $2.2 billion to produce a mind boggling $8.5 billion that must be serviced by the annual water sales that are only just starting to come on stream. (pardon the pun)

By the time some of this water is actually being used it will need to cover $595 million a year (7% interest on $8.5 billion) from the estimated 100,000 megalitres of effective yield. And that, folks, works out to $5,950/megalitre (wholesale)or 6.3 times more than the current retail price of $940/ megalitre. It is just under a 10% annual inflation rate and an even more powerful incentive for buying your own water tank.

Meanwhile, back at "Shonk-central", $8.5 billion for a lake you can't build beside, storing water that no-one will use. A massive water evaporation system that doesn't even produce salt as an end product. It seems the term "smart state" is the 'newspeak' marketing spin for "Bimbocracy".

Perseus,
As usual old mate, you have outsmarted yourself. Common occurence when you go ever faster in a circle.

What on earth are you bung'n on, Shonga.

Why is the proposal to pipe water in Queensland "impractical"? I have yet to see the pro and con clearly set out. Please someone enlighten me.

ALAMO, Please read the comments of “Perseus,” who has done the costing of
Pipeing water over the distance from Cairns to the South East of Queensland.
I could find better thing to do with that amount of money, let alone adding on
The interest. We had our water piped from Blackwater, a distance of 12 miles, or 20
Kilometres back in 1982 and still we pay more, and limited to sprinkler use by
3hrs per day, compared to their 4-5 hrs per day. No doubt we are still paying interest
On the loan. Still, I calculated my water usage to cost me less
Than 2 dollars per day.Water delivery would be $1.00 to $1.50 per day.
Perseus, I won’t apologise for being satirical, it is in my nature.

Latest estimates of piping recycled waste water to Tarong Power Station just west of Brisbane suggest that the cost of water will need to double to pay for the $500 million project that will replace only 40,000 megalitres of dam water.

And this is why we don't even need to fully cost a pipeline from the Burdekin. We know with absolute certainty that the retail price of that water will have to increase to such a point that the humble household water tank will deliver a higher rate of return than selling Cocaine, with none of the risk.

All these mega-dreams are based on the assumption that the water mafia can just raise the price of water to pay for any grandiose scheme they can think of and the public will continue to pay. They are totally deluded.

Most water tanks will already deliver a better product at a slightly lower cost and that imposes a very powerful price ceiling on the domestic water market. And the higher the demand for tanks, the cheaper they will become. And the greater the losses will be from the mega-projects. Now that, is real people power.

Perseus on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 11:00:22 makes the excellent point that most water tanks already deliver a better product at lower cost. He further suggests that this will provide powerful constraints to the water mafia's grandiose money-making schemes.

Unfortunately our corporatised governments are so corrupt that, should tanks show signs of undermining the ability of the water mafia to profit from water scarcity, they will simply impose taxes on tank water, or even take over rights to it prior to selling those rights off, just as they have begun to with river water and farmers' dams.

The simplest arguments against the highjacking of public water for complex management are in defence of democracy. To compromise access by humans and other creatures to this natural resource once freely available to all for the ignoble purpose of irrigating population growth for commercial gain, is a dark deed against democracy and natural justice.

By the way, there is another forum about water in Brisbane on John Quiggan's blog at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2006/07/28/vote-yes-in-toowoomba/

if anyone wants to enliven the sparse arguments there.

Desalination might become a viable option. Recent research at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2006/NR-06-05-06.html] may result in a 75% reduction in energy requirements when compared with current reverse osmotic techniques. That would equate the desalination of seawater with the energy needed to pump water over a distance of 150 kilometres.

SHONGA

On 17 July you wrote: “We must not take the "stop them at the border" approach, we must deal with the reality of the situation, that is 1500 people per week moving to Queensland.”

I addressed this on the same day.

I would love to get a reply. Do you think my points are valid…. or do we need further debate?

The fact is – mitigating or capping population growth does not have to be a draconian practice, and can be something conducted entirely within reasonable democratic parameters. Continued rapid population growth with no end in sight is something that we cannot just sit back and accept.