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".