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.

We can get lost in side issues like population growth or the quality of our leadership, but why waste the water?
And we can if we are truly lost, consider the nature of our country and say leave it as it is, but why?
We can change for the better some of our country, to think we ever could divert all the flood waters inland would indeed by the birth of an inland sea , but not with todays technology's.
Once this country stood in awe as plans for the Snowy river scheme came true.
We can indeed and must on day send some flood waters inland, we can and will one day send sewage other than into the sea.
Australians must get some of that can do attitude we once had and understand the love of money is never a reason to stop actions that make our country better.

This is the wrong sort of “can do” attitude Belly. In fact it is the same of attitude that has led us into the massive problems we now have with the Murray/Darling and much of our agricultural belt; overdevelopment without understanding the consequences of our actions.

The sort of ‘can do’ attitude that we desperately need is the sort that brings us into a genuine balance with our life-supporting resource base, with very large safety margins to see us through the hard times.

When we overcome our innate desire to be forever larger in terms of numbers and levels of human activity, and to respect the land instead of trying to subdue it, then and only then will we be on the right track to making “our country better”.

pericles, i commend to you a study of the word 'democracy', and the political ideal it represents.

Demos, when it comes to democracy, remember I'm pericles.

Athenian democracy had one big plus: officials were personally responsible for performing their duties, and were punished - even executed - for failure and dishonesty.

Sure as anything, the populace wouldn't have allowed them to get away with a tiny fraction of what we let ours screw up.

Belly

So the Hunter River floods about once in how many years? So you build all the pumping equipment and pipelines which otherwise are idle. And you keep everywhere flooded for several months (a novel use for a levee system) and use massive amounts of electricity while you pump the sewage contaminated water inland at a cost of about $1 per kilolitre per 300 kilometres. Then the water dries up within a couple of years.

I reckon spouting a scheme like that could get you locked up in a nut house, which is quite an achievement in Australia these days. There might be some very cost effective ideas, but the idea of taking Mohammad to the mountain might be a bit simpler.

Fester is your self assurance miss placed? do you not understand even in drought water runs into the sea?
And while not all rain is flood water once at sea it is not doing anyone much good?
Taking your lets do nothing ,let us not try to improve anything idea do we abandon all but the coastal land?
Ludwig yes I understand you are concerned at population growth and long term damage it brings, and unplanned growth may be our downfall but.
While reluctant to divert the discussion can we be assured it will always be us who occupies this country?
I wounder what others would do if we one day lost control of it?
Not every change man has made has proved to be wrong , the food we could grow by truly farming water this way would if used properly be a great asset to us.
It is clear we will have growth in population want it or not ,it is also true the world will need more food.
Just maybe this country one day can have income generated by timber and food grown from many new ways of harvesting and using water.

“It is clear we will have growth in population want it or not.”

Belly, I’m not going to resign myself to Australia having a significantly larger population. I dearly hope that our populace and pollies will see the light, what with climate change, peak oil, the water crisis, etc, etc….and will very soon embrace the need for genuine sustainability and population stability.

If we want to hold on to this country, then the first prerequisite is to keep our society healthy and coherent. The biggest threat is large-scale resource stress.

We are about to learn a huge lesson from becoming overdependent on cheap oil. The lessons from overallocation of water are already highly evident, with much talk about the merit of pulling back or downgrading our demand in the Murray/Darling and other agricultural areas. So now we just need to fully develop the concept of matching the demand with the ability for the land to provide a secure level of supply.

Building huge new water schemes will attract more people to new areas and provide food for more people in urban areas, and perhaps some extra export income. For as long as we uphold this absurd continuous growth paradigm, it is not going to help us at all, except perhaps initially for a short period. It is just going to struggle to provide the same level of food and income for more and more people.

Now, if we were to genuinely embrace the need for a stable population, then and only then could I consider the possibility of some large-scale expansion of water resources and agriculture, if the economics add up, if the long-term environmental factors are ok and if it can be shown to provide a genuine improvement for current citizens.

continued

“While reluctant to divert the discussion can we be assured it will always be us who occupies this country?”

This is not really diverting the discussion; it is thinking about the issue in the bigger picture.

To reiterate; if we want to hold on to this country, the first thing we need to do is uphold a strong and coherent society. The essential element of this is to develop harmony with our resource base. This means stabilising our level of activity, NOT massively expanding it!

Some people might worry about Australia looking very empty and thus inviting to our northern neighbours. But if we massively developed the north, with huge dams, agricultural areas and towns, it would still look very empty in terms of population compared to Indonesia or China, but it could look a whole lot more inviting with established infrastructure.

Ludwig I find nothing to disagree with in your post, but my ideas may not be explained as well as I wish.
For a start my wish includes plantation trees a lot of them grown to replace the endless victims of wood chips and needless waste.
That wast includes water ,we just do not use it with real planning .
I strongly hold the view we are wasting time and that future generations will re use water many times and that includes some flood water.
It includes sewage and not always just to grow more food, surely it must happen we are blind in our relation to drought, once it breaks we forget the pain it bought.

I would prefer we made rivers run uphill?
Perhaps using big Ram pumps, that use water energy? or Off-peak coal power?

The cost of the little Wyong to Mardi dam pipeline is 60Mil.

I would love us to fill up the Murry-Darling Basin in Qld. anyway we can.I am sure it would be economic in the long run.

I live on the Central Coast of NSW surrounded by power stations that use salt water to cool the plants.

I have often wondered (with 16% (+ now) water in the dam) why the power stations can't also desalinate water

I talked to a Guy at a recent conference who worked for a big power Station up north.
I ran the "de-sal at power plant" idea by him and he thought it was a good idea.
Power Stations, as you know, need to keep a base load going.
At night, he said, they need to gradually "step down" their massive generators. CO2 wise, this is not very efficient use of the energy produced by burning the coal. A lot of energy is wasted gradually stepping down the massive generators over a period of hours.
Sometimes they need to expend a lot of energy going to get an extra power station on line to cope with peak demand.

He also said that seawater used for cooling is warmed to 50C anyway, so it is not a lot more to get to 101C.

I suppose it is a matter of economics, perhaps of perception, perhaps of conservative thinking;
but
the Professor's new technology (below) looks good.
What do you think?

ScienceDaily: Professor Discovers Better Way To Desalinate Water
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060211134405.htm
On desalination and putting back the salt
http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/desalination/01.htm