We will never drought proof Australia, that much is clear but why not pump just some flood waters inland?
We could run the pipelines for a while right alongside the ones that bring water to our towns.
Yes it would have a cost,but just maybe the benefits would out weight them.
The hunter is in flood and just a 100 klm inland water would save real pain and suffering.
In time we could pump water from already full inland dams to ones further inland still, not a make grass grow in the desert plan no dream of an inland sea but why not try?
We already pump water many kilometers in western Australia and costs are unlikely to ever be more than the benefits, ideas?

Good question belly, but I think it could also be broadened out.

Of the serious rainfall we have experienced in NSW recently, how much is collected, and how much is simply washed away into the sea?

The problems we are facing are the result of the cumulative effect of government negligence over many decades. And instead of demanding that the governments involved actually do something about the root cause - inadequate collection and retention mechanisms - we meekly accept all kinds of restrictions and privation, and to cap it all are threatened with a downstream (sorry!) impact on consumer pricing due to insufficient water to provide power cheaply to the grid.

How stupid are we, simply to accept that somehow, it is our fault, and we have to pay the price?

Where does the responsibility lie for planning ahead? For paying people to examine the problem from all angles - urban population growth, long-range weather trends, farming requirements - and come up with solutions before the event, rather than wring their hands in mock despair and divert the attention away from themselves, when their abject failure becomes apparent?

What do we pay these people for? And when, oh when, are we going to stand up and hold the bastards accountable?

I think you'd have to consider the cost. The cost of cleaning up the damage from the flooding, and the cost of pumping that water 'out west'. Without breaking down what costs there would be, you'd have to consider the people doing the work are the ones who are trying the resurrect their lives. It would be a logistical nightmare, and by the time the politicians decided who was going to pay for it and organized everything needed to do the job, the water would be gone.

If those same politicians had removed their heads from various cavities years ago, the ideas you are putting forward would be in place and we wouldn't have the water issues we are having.

pericles- why should the pollies give you good management? are they notable for any quality beyond egotism or arrogance?

if you are unwilling to demand democracy, unwilling to manage your own affairs, unwilling to be responsible for state and national decisions, why do you imagine the fairy godmother will look out for you? you wouldn't let real estate developers have control of your savings, would you? would you put your children in the hands of pedophiles? why then do you imagine politicians are some kind of non-human creature who does not use power for personal advantage?

why? probably because you're frightened of the responsibility of citizenship. it's so much easier to shrug your shoulders and complain about pollies, isn't it?

Belly, I reckon it is time to hunker down, and certainly not build huge new water schemes.

We should learn to live with what we have now and what is going to be viable within an economic regime of greatly increased oil prices and reduced oil availability (and of all things and stuffs made from oil or by way of the use of oil-derived energy).

I believe we’ve got to stop thinking about expansionism when it comes to water resources and agriculture and start thinking about what water resources will be economically viable and reliable, and concentrate on protecting and consolidating those. This might mean building some new dams and pipelines, but not massive projects or the opening up of whole new regions.

This approach of course needs to go hand in hand with greatly reduced immigration and population stabilisation, and an overall sustainability ethic.

Careful Demos, your medication is slipping.

>>if you are unwilling to demand democracy, unwilling to manage your own affairs, unwilling to be responsible for state and national decisions, why do you imagine the fairy godmother will look out for you?<<

Are you seriously proposing that every individual becomes responsible for his or her own water supply? That would, I suggest, be a very popular concept among the very rich, and within organized crime syndicates, but less so among senior citizens, people in hospital and the physically handicapped.

>>why then do you imagine politicians are some kind of non-human creature who does not use power for personal advantage? why? probably because you're frightened of the responsibility of citizenship<<

The inference here is that you believe that a) anyone to whom we entrust power is entitled to abuse that trust and b) that the responsibility of citizenship is some form of "every man for himself, full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes"

All very macho and ultra-Ayn Rand, but strangely unconvincing.