And Kang, so little of substance in reply by yourself and others. Can I assume then that you do not doubt the official stats on water flows in the snowy catchment? Good, at least we are one step up from a flat earth.

And Liam can't do any better than a bit of abuse. Being called a drongo by the Kangs and Liams of this planet could only be regarded as a badge of honour amongst reasonable men and women. And no fellas, I am not even a member of the IPA so if you really want to treat your paranoia you should put your bong away and stop smoking the hydro.

Ian Mott has shown very clearly that if East Gippsland Independent State MLA, Craig Ingram, wants "...28 per cent of the original flow to be returned to the Snowy River” then his wish has already been granted. Mr Mott shows that "the current mean annual flow of 1.644 million Ml is actually 96 per cent of the pre-settlement flow". No one has shown any error in Mr Motts' calculations. It is not a question of being for or against the environment. It's a question of being able to add up.

Maybe Perseus can help me. I am having trouble understanding what an 'annual flush of 300,000 megalitres over a period of 100 days during spring/summer' is supposed to achieve. My simple-minded approach suggested to me that something is being 'flushed' through the river. However, if the flush is being achieved by 'only 3,000 megalitres that is recycled 100 times' then surely that last 3,000 megalitres is going to be something to behold?

Why dont we just build the rest of the Bradfield scheme the rest of the top end water projects.

Then we could send some extra down to the snowy.

It would be great work for the long term unemployed and immigrants.

I suppose he could have been a bit clearer, Eljayel.

What would happen in nature before the dams was that 513,000 megalitres from melting snow would take about 100 days in Spring and early Summer to melt and flow down the river. And this would average about 5,130 megalitres of flow each day.

So if the expert panels have decided that the part of the river below the dams, but above most of the tributories that still deliver water to the river, needs at least 300,000Ml of the original 513,000Ml to restore the flow of this part of the river for the normal 100 days when it used to flow, then that works out at 3,000Ml of flow each day.

But when a pipeline and pump is used to return each days flow to the starting point it means that the first days flow of 3,000Ml can flow back down on the second day and again every subsequent day until the 100th day when the total volume of 300,000Ml of flow has been achieved.

In reality, once the seasonal peak flow has been achieved the daily volume in circulation can be reduced to conform to the normal natural flow and continue to be recirculated for the remaining 265 days at 1,000Ml a day to bring the total volume of river flow to 565,000Ml (ie 265 days x 1000Ml + 100 days x 3000Ml = 565,000Ml).

In such a case, the total flow under recycling could actually exceed the pre-settlement flow volume but only require the actual use of 1,000Ml. All the rest of the water in the dams could then be used for urban or agricultural use.

As long as there is a willing buyer for all the water that is saved in this way, and the price they pay is high enough to cover the cost of the recycling pipeline and the cost of pumping, then there is no reason why a much higher portion of catchment flows can be captured in Dams for other use.

I don't want to be rude, Perseus, but did you actually read my post? I have read the article, and the posts. I asked about the purpose of the 'flush', i.e. What does the annual flush achieve? My worry is that, if it actually flushes something from the river, then I don't see how pumping the 'flushed material' around the same stretch of river 100 times achieves anything at all.