Colinsett provides us with a nice display of his erudition. Unfortunately, his approach is completely negative. My thought was to try and see if there is some way in which we can utilise Lake Eyre to assist in solving the water shortage. There are too may died in the wool knockers who are incapable of casting a wider net to see if there is a solution. However, several questions which he may care to address. He admits that Lake Eyre can be flooded by opening a path to the ocean, and that this will produce some 17.7 cubic kilometres of evaporation. This should produce clouds that will move across Eastern Australia.
Questions for Colinsett. How much rain will this produce? Will this be increased by cloud seeding?
What increased flow will this produce in the Cooper’s Creek and Diamantina River catchment and the Murray Darling Basin?
Will this increased flow in time wash out the excess salt in Lake Eyre?
Take into account the odd heavy rainfall which does actually flood Lake Eyre at various intervals.
If a greater flow is required, then can we divert the excess monsoon rainfall in North Queensland so as to flush out the salt over time?
Will the increased rainfall contribute to the Artesian Basin?
We must be positive and look for solutions. Which is why I suggested some bright young unbiased students should be assisted to review the problem and not leave the research to the armchair observers who already have formed a biased opinion. We will never solve the problem unless we have a fresh look at all the possibilities.

David Gothard, you say "He admits that Lake Eyre can be flooded by opening a path to the ocean--."
Hold it - I do not admit to any certainty for such flooding via the construction of any reasonable channel.
You seem to assume that geologists, soil scientists, meteorologists, mycologists, and ecologists have been sitting on their bums with no interest in the arena envisaged for your "bright young unbiased students".
Australia has a proud record of expertise in all the above departments; particularly in relation to our dessicated continent. They all were, at one time, "bright young unbiased students".
Their published work, and continuing research, has seldom provided the quick and favorable answers hoped for by politicians; so much so that they have become endangered species, and their work largely ignored in the political arena. Most of your questions have already been adequately investigated, although on-going.
Broadening the scene, I hope you don't take offence from my mention of a couple of books providing a fair appraisal of the overall picture. Both are authored by Mary White: "After the Greening", and "Running Down". They are delightfully presented distillations of much of the information pertinent to the discussion on water in Australia.
An example of unwanted research results is the CSIRO's monumental "Future Dilemmas" exercise. It was undertaken for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. It provided "Options to 2050 for Australia's population, technology, resources and environment". The options were not such as to delight the Government. The data is available to the public, but the material is avoided by the politicians. The team which provided it has been disbanded, and its expertise dissipated.
Regarding being left "high and dry", there is already a lot of information available. And much more is needed. As new material becomes available, I will accordingly adjust my opinion from what I have already obtained from across the wide spectrum available.

Collinset fails to answer any of the specific questions I posed. He appears to ooze expertise yet fails when asked for pertinent responses. Have I touched a sore point which his "Expertise" does not qualify him to answer. I am only putting forward an idea and it is up to Collnsett to provide answers. "Put up or shut up" as they say in the bush.

David, and others of like mind - I have already offended once by "putting up". It is not my intention to offend, so it is better to now "shut up" rather than "put up" more material - which you would, should it be not to your liking, rather filter out than contemplate. And you ask for six times the original dose! Rather than blow a fuse from reading a limited OLO blog on those matters, perhaps it might be more satisfying for you to chase up the readily available information for yourself.
But all of this is a side-show to the main consideration, which is the treadmill of everlasting population growth which feeds increased water consumption.
We can do much in relation to water shortages for cities and regions, but there are limits. Yes, we might reduce consumption considerably; yes we might, perhaps, be able to make more water (desalination, cloud seeding, etc.); however we can not keep that up indefinitely.
But the present, and any of the likely future governments, are hell-bent on increasing the population with no thought of pause in the future. Currently the unstated, but de-facto, policy is a rate of increase of one million each four years; from natural births plus immigration. That policy contains more voodoo faith (or uncaring) than science, in any expectation that might exist regarding water deliver improvements keeping pace with population increase - for Australia, or for regions.

It is how you look at the problem.
So there is a water shortage?
That is your own problem because of how you think.
Others like myself see no water shortage.
There is no water shoratage at all.
There is an over abundace of people.
That is the problem.
Australia has had 5000 years of Aboriginal habitation,
now white man only has 200 years here and white man runs out fo water.
Stupid white man, No?
Stupid white man, yes.

Colinsett appears to have been offended by my request for answers to several pertinent questions and it appears that I have reached well beyond his “expertise”. But then he reveals his dinosaur attitude that we should reduce our population. What a load of codswallop. We are firmly committed to a growing population and politically this idea will never wash. Almost the view of the Luddites and Malthus. A ‘stop the world, I want to get off ’ attitude. Let’s face it. We do have resources and must use our skill and intelligence to make the most of what we have got. Take a positive view old chap, come out of your ivory tower. You spiel a lot of statistical data as if you have some knowledge. Then start using it by making sense. Lake Eyre is below sea level. Water runs down hill. A channel joining the sea to Lake Eyre will inevitably fill the Lake. Q.E.D. Now start answering my queries….IF you have the knowledge?
You calculate this flooding will generate 17.7 cubic metres of evaporation. The moist air will form cloud, which will move to the East. How much rain will it cause over the Cooper’s Creek and Diamantina River head waters and the Murray Darling Basin? Using cloud seeding of course.
What flow will this produce in these river systems? Will this, plus the very infrequent natural flooding of the Lake be sufficient to flush out the salt? If this is insufficient then can we divert some of the monsoon rains from North Queensland to assist in the flushing process?
I make no claim to being skilled at such things and I rely on those who really are, to come up with practical answers to develop a positive solution to Australia’s very serious water and green power shortage.
Let’s have the benefit of your alleged ‘expert’ knowledge so we can develop a positive plan for the future. We could not go back to the age of the dinosaurs even if we wanted to