What if a bit of nation building took place in this budget?
Rather than waste effort in making the north our mantra just yet why not spend on water?
Why not forever send every drop of sewage inland to be used not into the sea?
Why not at high water marks after rain send some river water inland?
The costs to do this may be high but in 20 years it will look very cheap if we do it now.
A snowy River type scheme is not out of the question and the whole country would benefit.
While the north may well one day be our fruit bowl we do need far more than coastal city's for this country's future.
Some water may travel less than 100 klm before we put it to use why not try it Mr Howard?

I can think of few good reasons why we shouldn’t do this sort of thing:

Economics and surety of supply come to the fore.

Many people desire to utilise every last drop of water that we can, in order to maximise nation-building. That is, to maximise the extent of agriculture and to pander to the ever-increasing urban expanse.

I say that this is a crazy and disastrous way of thinking about the whole issue. We should instead be utilising the easily available water and making sure that there are very large safety margins. Ok so we have grossly overstepped the mark in SEQ, Sydney, the Murray/Darling… and the rest. Some fandangled schemes such as desalination plants are probably advisable in the circumstances, in order to keep society from collapsing. But for goodness sake, NOT for expansionist nation-building!

The great schizophrenic thing here is this notion of continuing to increase all things human in the face of fundamental life-supporting resource restrictions.

We should look at nation building as national consolidation rather than continuous expansion. And this means pulling back as quickly as we reasonably can on the magnitude of demand in our water-stressed areas at the same time as we implement some larger water-provision schemes and improve per-capita efficiency.

The LAST thing we should be doing is propping up the current continuous growthist paradigm by building the likes of the Bradfield Scheme or massive energy-hungry desal plants or tapping groundwater at unsustainable rates or building more dams or building huge pipelines or recycling sewage for domestic consumption.

If we are going to do any of these things, let’s make sure that we plan for population stabilisation, and perhaps population reduction and redistribution in some areas, and a reduction of agriculture in some areas with perhaps a bit of expansion in the north, if there are any undeveloped areas with adequate soils and reliable water supplies.

(ludwig) hear! hear!

While we can talk about a world more like one we would want I live in the one we have.
Just in the upper hunter closer to the coast than Scone dams have been empty for over a year.
Hills and valleys are barren, pet horses have been killed and people have ended their lives unable to face the dreadful impact of this drought.
I find nothing wrong with nation building, understand some wish to limit this country's population growth.
Even find common ground here we must remember no water scheme can ever drought proof our country.
And that every human footprint damages it, but surely reality tells us we are not in our lifetime going to see such a world?
Water must be used better and sewage recycled not dumped into the sea.
If it was a matter of national defense the money would be found.
Money exists to build a nation lets use it.

It is still not clear what you envisage by building the nation Belly. You agree with me in part, but do you agree that we should be consolidating and not expanding?

Yes we’ve got the national surplus to do great things with nation building, or national consolidation. Ironically, this resource boom which is highly unsustainably, has given us an excellent opportunity to gear the nation towards sustainability.

Costello has implemented a few moves in the right direction in the latest budget. But his overall growth (expansionist) ethic old-style economic rationalist approach is still firmly entrenched.

We are now seeing a strongly conflicting approach with this mix of promotion for economic expansionism and for increased frugality and efficiency. Let's just hope that it continues to evolve, with the balance swinging steadily away from continuous growth.

In regards to piping water from the Clarence River . I would like to get something clear . That huge expanse of water you all have seen while driving over the Grafton bridge is nothing more than a salt water lake , just like the ocean that is only 30 k's downstream . If you travel 20k's upstream by boat you will have to get out and push as a child can walk the 20 metres across the "Mighty Clarence" . Dont take my word for it though , drive by road the 50 k's through Copmanhurst to the Lilydale bridge and see for yourselves . The water is no more than 1.2 metres deep and no more than 20 metres across . We would love to be able to help everyone out but there is no water to spare . If a dam was built it would stop all flow and the river/lake below would soon silt up and be destroyed . The statement of Peter Beaty re. generating electricity at the other end of the pipeline is ridiculous . You would have to have pumping stations the size of Kmart pumping around the clock for weeks into a storage dam at the other end with enough fall to give the thrust required to turn the turbines , the amount of water left over after losses , leaks , evaporation etc . Would run the turbines for a day or two . There is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine which is what Peter Beaty has in his mind . It would cost 100 times more in energy to pump the water compared to what you could recoup . Anyone out there that could tell me if this idea could work ? My idea is to maybe use the huge tides in the top end to channel sea water to existing inland lakes and low ground in the countries interior . The water would be evaporated by the extreme heat of the interior , forming rain clouds that would hopefully drop there loads on the continent .