Heartbreaking and only just starting this drought every drought hurts us all, why can we not have another bigger better Snowy River scheme? sent our sewage inland and turn some part of rivers at least some flood waters inland?

Yes Belly it is tough for those experiencing it. In this large country someone always has it tough. We can't complain here really. It has been a dry few moths, but we had more rain in January & February than we had all year in 93 & 94, & are still above average for year to date. Lucky.

I read Ion Idriess book on turning the northern rivers inland, as a kid at school. I love the idea, but it's not that easy.

Unfortunately it takes a huge amount of energy to pump water up hill. This is the problem with Turnbulls Snowy 2.0 scheme. The power losses in his water "battery" are huge.

By the time you have treated & pumped our sewage over the range it becomes too expensive for irrigation of fodder crops. The same with flood waters. Then floods don't last long. It took only 3 days to wash a kilometre of my fences into Morton bay last year. That flood was almost a kilometre wide, & up to 30 metres deep. It takes huge pumps & huge amounts of electricity to move much of that, before it has gone out to sea.

Then the energy problem. Windmills are useless for this. They just can't produce enough power quickly enough, without covering all the coast with the things. You would need at least a couple of Swanbank size huge coal fired power houses to do anything much. Good luck getting that past the greenies, who want the farmers to fail anyway.

Then of course, like the Snowy, the greenies would demand most of the water for "environmental" uses.

Perhaps a better scheme would be some huge dams, like Cubbie station, to catch the inland river water when it does flow, to prevent it getting to Lake Eyre salt flats, becoming useless as it evaporates away. Good luck getting that past the greenies & vested interests as well.

Droughts are part and parcel of Australia; always have been, always will be. Our climate is another reason why mass immigration is so idiotic.

Hey Belly,
If you are all willing to pay me a reasonable sum of money I'm sure I can fix the problem.

Let this country first look at Israel, what they have done, then maybe small steps look at what we have done, my sewage is, and must be here about 40 klm as the crow fly,s from the coast, recycled, its every drop of water makes my garden grow, without it no garden, tank water, to the north coastal sewage is pumped about the same distance inland, this time from a highly populated area, it is cleaned and used on a hardwood plantation, planted for that purpose, we still pump even sewage untreated in to the sea in places. so why not pump that inland, why not a chain of lakes, like those we build for power stations? to keep the pumping lengths manageable? we can do it, in some cases solar power can do it, pumping only in the day? thoughts, we have only begun why not take river water too? solar in the day power at night much more in flood time

Hi Belly, the problem is also one of over exploration of resources. Many farms are situated on marginal land, which is fine in good seasons, but a disaster in bad. Farmers have become much better at land management and animal husbandry, but still find it difficult when disasters like droughts hit.
I know the sceptics will not agree, but all the creditable scientific evidence is indicating more extreme, and more frequent adverse weather patterns for Australia. Those who pooh-hooh climate change do so at our peril.
Your proposals for new and greater projects similar to the Snowy Mountains scheme are certainly ambitious, but not without merit. I dare say it will take governments greater than we have now with the intestinal fortitude to kick start those kinds of projects.

Paul I took a Sunday drive, like doing that radio on ABC for football and went not all that far away from coast, about 80 klm, in to prime farming land, frosts, the worst in my 38 years here, left the grass dead,even some trees, but dams and rivers in high rainfall country are truly horrible, your point is true, but we could change even that, maybe not for its current use, but bring some of it back, we can never drought proof our country, never turn poor soil in to much than just a bit better but if we start now, small steps, who knows what the next 100 years will bring in better ways to pump water inland, remember, right now, water is being trucked in to some areas for people to drink.

Stop the clucking. There is absolutely nothing we can do about drought, or any other aspect of weather/climate. Stop trying to attribute supernatural powers to mere human beings who are becoming less capable of solving even simple problems with each generation. Drought has always been a feature of climate in Australia. People have been aware of it, and have dealt with it, for 230 years, and they will continue to do so, despite the scaremongering media and the silly questions and fussing of people with nothing better to think about. And, forget the crap about 'plenty of water if only governments did something about moving it about'. It's not going to happen; nor should it. Stopping mass immigration and respecting our country for what it is instead of talking twaddle about the impossible is what is needed.

A farm of a different sort, the Ifigen wind farm, has posted a profit of $200 million this year. Of that $200 million, $120 million CAME FROM SUBSIDIES. That $120 million of taxpayer money would be better spend on fodder for the drought areas, surely?

ttbn you have zero chance of me finding anything you say worthwhile, we have put men on the moon and it is said we can not pump water inland? from little things big things do grow, if only coastal sewage was cleaned, pumped in land and reused we would at least have done something, if we created those dams, even only 50, say 40 klm apart, and filled them, we would bring about something, right now, about three farmers are killing themselves each week NSW gave to subsidise fead and transport, imagine what we could do with that much every year, from every state, toward bringing a greener out back.

Dear Belly,

There is something we can all do to help those
suffering from the drought.

I found out about this only recently
after a death in our family of my brother's
wife's father who owned property in Quirindi
NSW. He had asked that instead of flowers, people
donate to the "Need For Feed," organisation (sponsored
by the Lions Club), and made up of volunteers to help
farmers in need during the drought. Every cent goes
directly to those that need help and are in strife.
We sent our donation to them. Anyone who wants to
help can also do so.

Here's a link that gives the addresses and explains
further:

http://www.needforfeed.org/donate.html

Donating would really help - no matter how much you give
it all matters.

The wettest period in NSW, the area currently suffering, was 1955-56, the time of the really big floods. A farmer out west put down a huge amount of silage (green, undried grass stored anaerobically in pits, where it ferments and last for decades). Sixty years later, his grandson was able to use it during the Millennium Drought, 2001-2009. I suspect that there's none left for this drought.

It's interesting that the media seem to have forgotten all about the Millennium Drought, with their current headlines 'Worse Drought Ever!' I can still remember the rainfall figures for my town for one year, I think 2007, 165mm for the entire year of which about 65mm fell between 6pm and midnight on New Years Eve.

The idea of pipelining coastal water inland has been around for a long time. Apart from the issue of cost, there's the question of practicability. Just how would you propose to sprinkle enough of the piped water over those vast hectares of dust that you have seen on the TV, to make the grass grow?

Belly,

My comments were addressed to people with a much, much higher IQ than yours. The impracticality and cost of your ramblings highlight your lack of intelligence. Anyway, you vowed never to respond to a troll like me. Your goldfish memory seems to have let you down.

Cossomby yes silage lasts and lasts and is great food, now back in the 1960,s drought a book was written I think by a bloke named MacDonald, he spoke of using dams and silage as a part of drought proofing, thinking back to those days we younger folk, then living in the City mowed lawns and saw the grass bailed and take to them, hardly worthwhile today, Foxy have given to that group not just of late but in its Victorian work last year,my dam and pump theory will not even try to address the pump from dam to farm problem, first get the water to the right place, surely we know I am not talking about some huge rain making garden sprayer? if we start now, and only achieve some of the dams and most sewage around the country turned inland we do something?if our first achievement leads to an area mass cattle feed can be grown for distribution it is a start

'Let this country first look at Israel'

one of the smartest things you have said Belly. Such a tiny population who saw the barren desert converted to such fruitfulness. World leaders in medicine, agriculture and defense.

Don't forget Israel is a postage stamp. You could fit it on the Darling downs half a dozen timed.

It is also basically flat, so easy to pump stuff about.

Do be careful Belly. That idiot Turnbull is pretty good at grabbing the impossible, & wasting billions proving the fact.

The Turnbull government can find only $44 million to LOAN to Australian drought-stricken farmers, but GIVES AWAY $210 million to foreign farmers EVERY YEAR. Turnbull has given $21 BILLION of our money to foreigners in aid since 2014.

What was that debt figure built up by Turnbull again?

My 50 dams may in fact become a thousand, we need to remember it is only limited to both what we want and how in the next 100/200 year new tec can help, wind powered pumping, direct or by powering other pumps can be part of a starting point, if we just turn half a million liters a day from one system multiply that by the possible hundreds around the coast Israel may be small but it was even worse than some of our land,we can and should consider the long term benefit of starting something now

Belly,

You are on the right track.
Add solar to wind turbine power to lift water inland. Solar and wind energy is being used to lift water into mountains during the day and at night that water flows back down through turbines to generate electricity at night.

Innovation should be examined and proven achieveable or not.

Google; Australian Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper.
Click Supporting Information.
See Index: F. Fairfax J.C. That's JF Aus.

Trouble is that paper was an Abbott government initiative and along came Turnbull who is anti Abbott.

Electricity for inland pumping can also be produced by using sewage to grow algae to make biofuel.

This is not about sprinklers to wet the whole inland.
Drought proofing can be achieved by intensive (small area) hay making.
Shortage of feed is more the problem, not drinking water.

Sewage fed algae to produce biofuel to assist pumping nutrient rich effluent inland is not impossible.

http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/07/09/1534625/0/en/Global-Algae-Biofuel-Market-Will-Reach-USD-9-88-Billion-by-2024-Zion-Market-Research.html

In 1969 agricultural economist, Bruce Davidson, published 'Australia Wet or Dry? The physical and economic limits to the expansion of irrigation'. He analysed the economics of irrigation, asking whether we would have been better off without irrigation schemes; if the huge amount of money spent on them had instead been directed to improving dry-land farming. The idea of piping coastal water inland to grow fodder crops for stock in times of drought is 'irrigation'.

Fifty years later, it's still a fascinating read because, as he wrote, even then 'the belief in the need for irrigation (was) so deeply embedded in Australian thinking'. He concluded 'the present-day Australian is a poorer man than he would have been if the resources used in irrigation had been invested in dry land farming'. I'm not aware of any current continuation of Davidson's research, it's not my field. I came across the book accidently about 15 years ago; however I live in an irrigation area in WNSW so I know the issues well.

As noted earlier, the proposals discussed here have a long history: from the 1870s suggestion of a canal from Port Augusta to Lake Eyre, to the 1930s Bradfield scheme, which gets regularly revived. Leaving aside Davison's basic issue, it's been demonstrated repeatedly that these are economically and environmentally unviable.

So what should we do? Well, we could stop letting coastal cities expand forever over some of the best soils in the best well-watered areas, though it may be a bit late on that one. We could look at new versions of the Kidman 'chain of stations' approach, where stock were moved regionally from drought affected areas to better watered localities. This would be better for the soil; removing the stock while there's still some stubble, to minimise wind erosion - so that it never reaches the bare sand that we see on TV at the moment; expand the use of no-till cropping. In general, recognise that when droughts get really bad, it may make more sense just to move off the land affected entirely, until it rains and the country recovers

Times have changed.

There is now greater demand and need and better technology than ever before.

There is no pipe and no earth canal in the steel aqueduct water harvesting and transportation system I have suggested.

How about put forward some evidence of non-feasibility or non-viability in this present day and age?

I see this as nation building and some thing that in the end will pay us back many times, tossing about the subject of inland pumping it struck me that part of my Sunday drive was alongside four huge water pipelines, taking water over a hundred kilometers to Newcastle, we do it, in reverse right now, even further Kalgoorlie gets its water from I think Perth, again if we start small but never stop we can create jobs and growth away from the coast and could be growing food for stock within a few years too some rivers run inland and are farmers water supplies now, Cubby station a controversial place, could receive water that would find its own way along the river other rivers too could do this if we pumped to them

I have, without much luck, searched for the book about droughts I mentioned from the 1960,s that drought was very bad, and several books written at that time spoke of more on farm water storage and other things, we should re look at those too, water however can not always fill extra dams and in drought that something extra is needed I remain convinced others have good ideas to help this work, and just my septic recycling system maintaining a growth of trees and gardens that could not exist without it is a micro system that proves it can be done

the extraordinary high electricity prices that everyone is paying due to the mindless flawed ideology of wasting millions on renewables would certainly be hurting farmers and pensioners. We need a few pollies with a backbone to stand up against and reverse the regressives ideology. We keep feeding coal in records amounts to China and India while we become a laughing stock refusing the sensible path of coal fired stations. Talk about dumb and dumber all based on marxist media pressure and fake science.

runner I know we wander of topic at the drop of a hat, but tell me how your lurch helps farmers in this drought? right now price or not I bet if water was there to be used the pumps would run non stop,watching for other thoughts even denials, that we could in time,move water inland, remember one of the earliest methods was that simple screw to ,lift water and along the Nile water has for a very long time been moved from one place to another

I agree, Runner.

I have overlooked one simple thing we all can do, right now, if we go without a few beers or cups of coffee this week we could contribute to those sending help, we however can never ignore if we put together even a billion dollars the feed and water will still run out,willing always to debate coal Vs renewables in a thread dedicated to that subject

I am currently watching the W2BH pipeline being built - Wentworth to Broken Hill. This will move 37meg a day through a 762mm wide pipe 270km from the weir pool on the Murray at Wentworth to Broken Hill. The cost of construction is $500 million. The water has to go uphill, so there are three pumping stations along the way; I can't find any figures for the electricity running costs.

So isn't this great? Well, it's pretty controversial out here, even in Broken Hill which stands to benefit. The biggest concern is that it will permit the lower Darling River to be turned off. Previously, water had to be allowed to flow to the Menindee Lakes to supply Broken Hill, and that water also serviced irrigation at Menindee, the town of Pooncarie and irrigation on the lower Darling. Now there's no need to send them any water down the river so they'll go out of business. Who will benefit? The big irrigators at the top of the Darling and its tributaries who have been rorting the system. They're are being rewarded, being able to keep all the water that would have otherwise have gone downstream.

How do we know the Darling will be turned off? Water used to be released from the Menindee Lakes down the Anabranch channel to the west of the Darling. About 15 years ago, a pipeline for stock water was built from the Murray to the Lower Anabranch, and the Anabranch as not flowed since; partly that was due to the Millenium Drought, but no flow will happen again except in extreme floods.

Did we get consulted about W2BH? Well, yes, if by consulting you just mean a visit from some FIFO Sydney politicians and public servants who announce: 'We've come to consult with you. We're going to build a pipeline. Goodbye.' Wentworth had the first demonstration ever in its nearly 160 year history; but of course the town and the irrigation areas are a well-known hot-bed of those greenie, commie, liberal and one nation party voting anarchists, so the government paid no attention.

Cossomby did not know about that,but if we could deliver the same amount to the headwaters of the mentioned river? or pump coastal water over the great divide would it not for a time run down on its own, the Snowy diverted a river and gave us power, could we use it again to produce both power and inland water? I have a horrible feeling by the time this drought ends we will have much pain to think about and try to fix

About putting in more dams on farms, does anyone remember when the Government put a tax on stored water?

One property that I hunt on has about a dozen large dams, the owner put the dozer through the lot and never paid tax; another local bloke has dams of various sizes all over his property and all holding water and he paid no tax.

When he was billed for tax he pointed out to the Government that they had asked him if he minded them building said dams on his property as an experiment; so he told them that if they didn't want THEIR dams to hold water then they could breach them.

Dams can stop natural water supply getting to other people.
Belly is talking about using ptesebtly unused waste water, waste water that is causing problems in ocean ecosystems.

Belly, if water was piped from coastal Qld or northern coastal NSW across the mountains to the headwaters of the Darling, it would just be used to expand irrigation farming in the upper Darling and upper tributaries. An impractically huge amount would needed to be transferred to get any flow in the lower Darling after seepage into the groundwater and evaporation (seepage into the groundwater is very useful, and not a waste because it helps the soil, dilutes salinity etc.)

The upper irrigators, mostly big corporations, some global, who have huge farms (compared to the family farms on the lower Darling) couldn't bear to see so much water going past, and they have the muscle to pressure government to get more of it and to avoid prosecution if they take it illegally, which is what has been happening already. Indeed an economic rationalism argument can be made for getting rid of all the small irrigators and just supporting the big guys up north. But is that what we really want?

Then there's another factor. The coastal areas of northern NSW and southern Queensland, from Port Macquarie to the Gold Coast, have some of the fastest growing populations outside the big cities; there would be a strong pushback against their water being taken inland.

I think this is really the heart of the issue with the idealistic proposals to move water from the coastal rivers inland. Because of the cost and logistics, in general it wouldn't actually help the small farmers and graziers whose plight we're hearing about; it would more likely benefit big agribusiness

At least Belly is aware of damage being done by nutrient over-load waste water dumped into rivers and ocean coast waters.
I wonder when other people and Australian government will wake up.

http://www.mypalmbeachpost.com/weather/new-why-red-tide-killing-spree-florida/pKBrmy4zR75rMrQK1JVwsM/amp.html?__twitter_impression=true

And, unprecedentedly strong;

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092585741400263

Of course there'll be droughts when they cut down all the trees. Anyone ever see droughts in forests ?

Well let us not start plowing the ground to grow food for China yet, my view is improving life and productivity for our suffering farmers and nation building over maybe two hundred years starting with small steps, however ABC online news this morning talks of use of trees and grasses to help, their words not mine, drought proof the out back,are we forever to dump our waste including sewage in to the sea? let us first pump that inland, even if it is less than 100 kilometers inland.the costs surely can be no more than what is paid to pump drinking water around our cities even to them via existing dam to city pipes

let us first pump that inland, even if it is less than 100 kilometers inland
Belly,
Great idea ! With so much more run-off now in comparison to before absorbtion into the ground was blocked by infrastructure, that run-off should be irrigated inland via a Bradfield scheme like system. The employment this would create is unfortunately beyond investors' mentality so it has to be a Government project. The voting public would show its appreciation. if only we could have a Government with such foresight.

There are people who don't want food and fibre and fuel productivity in Australia.
Those people have used politics to cause reduction of local production.
Those people then sit back without really working and getting their hands dirty while they import food and fibre and fuel. They put profit from commissions and trade deals into their own pockets. Those in the know with political influence and brown paper bags and foreign tax haven bank accounts just sit back and press a few buttons to make multi millions.

Look at imported fuel and our refineries shut down and gone. Former PM Howard has connections with fuel importers. Former PM Keating got into overseas pork production while world ocean fish depleton was being reported (alternative white meat).

Look at fish. Over 70 percent is now being imported annually because local fishing town economies can no longer supply demand, due to fish depletion linked to river and coast ecosystem devastation being allowed to continue unchecked.

Think about motives.
Why are politicians and government and media not addressing the huge cost to consumers for fresh wild fish that are free without production cost (if they are there to catch) ?

Big producers in other countries don't want productivity in Australia unless they own it. They want all possible control and profit for their, big business. How big?

Fifty million tonnes of aquaculture fish is now being produced worldwide annually from aquaculture.
50 million tonnes x 1,000 kg per tonne x $5 per kilo annually, is beyond capacity of my calculator.

Politics of the motives may already be stopping Aus farmers getting infrastructure to supply water to Australian farmers in general.

There is a way of bringing fresh water to many farmers without costly pumping over the mountains.
See the following link Index F. Fairfax J.C.

Would it be impossible? If so, why?

http://agwhitepaper.agriculture.gov.au/supporting-information/published-submissions-green-paper

There is no economically viable way to pump water over large distances. A cubic metre of water weighs a tonne. However, much of the water that is already inland is used by a few large cotton farmers.

Water can be engineered to flow long distances without pumps.

Food for thought in this food and fibre producing nation of Australia.

http://www.quora.com/How-does-the-California-Aqueduct-transport-water

Well note the who owns this country type post but it will not deliver a drop of water to our inland,my dam thought is to use each one first as a stop off place for water than will be pumped further inland, too it can be used locally, some places the first dam went to may have no need for the water,we, in building dams build country towns that can support jobs, surely as part a decentralisation thing

Water was moved 300 km before electricity and engines were invented

http://www.waterhistory.org/histories/morocco/

Windmills can pump water indefinitely, no matter how far. No excuses for not instigating getting water into the interior. Such irrigation could run along the same corridor as a rail line.
ALP can you do it ?
LNP can you do it ?
Greens have you got the sense not to throw a spanner in the works ?

A side issue is we are giving cash to help out and an NRL club Penrith gave $200.000 soon millions more will come in BUT we will run our of feed long before people stop giving,we can do anything if we want to, something like this would show leadership surely the Nationals would get behind it?

Come on fellers, dreams are wonderful, but you have to face the facts.

One of my neighbours built 2 ten acre 20 ft. deep turkey nest dams. He has a flood harvesting licence for 2 x 48 inch pumps. His licence only allows him to harvest water when it is "cross land" flow. IE the river has broken it's banks & is flooding open country.

As we are only 28 miles above the salt tidal mark in the river, this water is only causing damage before running out to sea. His harvesting requires very little power, as the water is already at his dam level.

He did this to supply water for his very large turf farm which earns a good return on his investment & running costs. The dams are also great water skying venues.

He has a couple of hundred acres of deep black soil river flats, extremely fertile, but not suitable for turf growing. He decided to irrigate forage crops on this, to use as a feed lot, to bring bush bought cattle up to marketable levels of fatness. This is the same system used by dairy farmers to produce milk.

He stopped this as just driving the traveling irrigators cost more than he could earn from the cattle. He now grows fresh green Lucerne for the horse racing industry on that land, the only thing he has found that makes a profit.

Just up river a family of Vietnamese started a 20 acre market garden on the same great river flat soil. They worked their butts off, but gave up after 2 years of making little money above the costs. One told me the only money they made was from a roadside stall selling their high quality produce. Pumping costs had astounded them.

In this country where bureaucrats want their cut, the council closed them down for lack of permits. They demanded $26,000 of road works before a permit would be given.

Only a high value industry can earn the cost of pumping, & government now costs us enough, without adding another loss making business.

One of the problems has already been highlighted just moments into starting the thread.
What problem ?
Impatience !
A project such as irrigating some of the suitable interior of Australia for permanent habitation is not one of instant success & reward. This would be an on-going generational project with employment for decades.
A federal Govt needs to set aside a sort of futures fund & engage every citizen & permanent resident to contribute.
For crying out loud, the ancient Greeks & Romans managed to dig canals which still work today after two thousand years. Their secret probably was that they had no share holders maggotting behind them. Their initiative was to provide for their civilisation. One would be forgiven to think that with today's technology irrigating some of Australia would be no problem apart from insipid bureaudroids.
Start with permanently flooding Lake Ayre.

A solution for farmers is for governnent to provide innovation for farming.
For example solar energy in Australia's sunny outback could pump a lot of water.
I am not sure about turbines sapping energy from wind currents.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-04/drought-stricken-community-welcomes-renewable-investment/10069890

I am not sure about turbines sapping energy from wind currents.
JF Aus,
To begin with such a project the last thing you'd need is complicated, vulnerable technology.
Simple, mechanical, reliable wind mill driven pumps are the only way to get started. Build the irrigation at the same time & location as the rail line. This would provide a backup system second to none. No roads needed, everything goes by rail even the trucks.
Non union labor would ensure a complete success.
A perfect opportunity to establish a National Service & kiss unemployment goodbye for at least two decades.

Hasbeen might know about bureaucracy at work here.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2018-08-04/north-burnett-farmers-want-action-on-water-crisis/10071992

Sunday drive, down to the central coast of NSW and back very dry we, have zero doubt, are in for the worst bushfires in decades, may even start this month, tin rattlers at the maret day, BUT are they aware while things are terrible it is the live stock not the farmers who need to eat and drink?,windmill, yes a part for sure in pumping water inland,if we have the will, we can use many different ways to get the water/treated sewage there

We have touched on the centuries old unpowered methods of moving water, it can be done, and pipes need not always be massive 100 mm or even half that, pumping 24/7 would move a lot of water in a year

About this drought.

What can be done immediately is that government can provide cash to impacted farmers so they can buy feed and water to keep breeding stock alive and healthy.

The national herd needs to increase, not decrease because of severe drought.

Government should also have impacted farmer interest payments suspended or subsidized via a tax holiday or similar for lenders.

Get the rope off farmers necks.
Prevent the suicide.
Many farmers need financial assistance immediately. Then they can look after themselves and their stock as best as possible

Thank you, JD, for the link to the article on Moroccan khettaras. However the system described (and the similar qanats in the Middle East) cannot be easily related to Australia.

The Atlas Mountains, which stretch the whole length of Morocco and make up about a quarter of the country, are high, up to 4000m, and although the climate is dry, they direct rainfall and snow melt to surface streams and ponds and more importantly groundwater to the lower alluvial slopes. The khettaras harvest this shallow groundwater through earth canals to small-scale fields.

The article describes 300km of channels supplying 9000ha, through a dense networks of channels. So there isn't a single 300km channel; the local groundwater is tapped in many places through many small channels, most just a few kilometres.

We already do this sort of distribution on a much larger scale. Just Southern Riverina Irrigators alone supplies water through 3,000km of earthen channels to an area of 748,000ha. This is the Deniliquin-Moulamein-Wakool area, to the east of Balranald. https://southernriverinairrigators.com.au /. But this water is extracted from the Murray, and depends on rainfall upstream, on Australia's piddling mountains. Southern Riverina Irrigation has to compete with all the other water users along the river. There is no local source of groundwater to be tapped.

Distributary channels for irrigation water are one thing, but the real problem is sourcing enough water, whether from a large river with many competing interests, or by finding and piping enough water over long distance which is very costly, before you can distribute through local channels, whatever length these add up to.

Apologies, JF Aus!

No worry Cossomby. I will get back to you later tonight or tomorrow.

Yes individual, windmills are great. My neighbour has one down by the river.

It lifts water from 45 metres down his bore, & pumps it 300 metres across & up 30 metres to a tank at his house. It gives him 4400 litres a day at that height, or 6400 litres a day at the mill.

Another neighbour has 5 windmills putting out about 5000 gallons a day each. This goes into his dam, from which he uses an electric pump to irrigate his small turf farm. It takes 26000 gallons of water to put one inch on one acre of land. His 5 windmills allow him to irrigate one acre a day.

I have seen some supply a little water at 200 metres height, a few litres not gallons. Can you imagine how many windmills, power generating or water pumping, it would take to move a meaningful amount of water 130 kilometres from the coast & up 800 metres to the top of the tablelands. The practically is not too good.

Can you imagine the scream that would go up if you start taking water from coastal irrigators & cities to supply inland. In my 26 years here irrigators have been on water restrictions in at least 12. We are often reduced to 4 hours pumping 3 or 4 days a week. Some years our river is dry for more than 5 months in late winter/spring. Thus serious irrigators have to build their own storage, & harvest water during floods.

The only time excess water is available is during floods. As I said in an earlier post, you would need huge pumps & power supply to move much in the few days that coastal floods last. It would be nice, but we have to be practical. Pumping water up over the coastal ranges is just not viable to produce feed for millions of cattle.

Continued

Continued.

Perhaps the best idea is a channel from the Bight to Lake Eyre to flood the place completely. Evaporation should produce some rain, & make the area much more humid, so should help, but supplying irrigation water to graziers is just not viable.

Local aborigines claim exclusive rights to the lake. They prevented sailors racing on it. May be a good fight flooding it too.

PM Malcolm Turnbull, if you can give over 400 million to Great Barrier Reef cronies you can give a billion or more to drought impacted Australian farmers.

It's worse than we are being told.

http://amp.abc.net.au/article/10074216?__twitter_impression=true

I have always thought this should be done, that small steps, put in place over 100,s of years, will build our country, even been searching for other ways to retrieve water, see others over the years have tried to find a way, Hasbeen has told of small amounts that could, if put in place, build some inland dams, remember the dams would be take off points for pumping water to the next dam further inland,any water saved/reused would benefit

imagine the scream that would go up if you start taking water from coastal irrigators
Hasbeen,
Well, tit for tat, stop supplies of farm produce. Seriously, no directly potable water would need to be taken, run-off could be redirected into collection pits then pumped beyond the Great Dividing range where it'd filter into the Aquifers.
The Nr1 priority would be to get water beyond the great Dividing range thence via a series of pits or small dams progressively farther west. Evaporation would very likely help precipitation & the ground would gradually become saturated in places which in turn would then become non-engineered waterways. The very first wet season in the tropics upon beginning construction would saturate the presently dry river beds & once continued flow is happening more rain will occur.
It really is not as technical as some hand-rubbing consultants want to make it, just common sense is all that's needed & long-term patience.

Surely you are not fair dinkum? saying this in any way would take water from coastal irrigation? for a start sewage is not yet used that way in other than minor use in very few places, stormwater drains end up in the sea and most river water ends there too,right now wet season water in the NT is wasted, just think if flood pumps in place to pump high volumes of water when a river is in flood sent it inland

I caught the bus from Mildura to Swan Hill this morning and am now on the train south to Melbourne. So some observations from the front line. First, not much rain for the last 8 months, but the Murray has water. The biggest contrast is between small areas of irrigated pasture, chock full of sheep or cattle, presumably on abutment, and bare ground with just a bit of grass stubble everywhere else, where they are handfeeding. Hay bales in every paddock.

Cont. There is some irrigated cropping, which seems to be a lot of hay, because of the hundreds of hay bales stacked near the road presumably waiting transport. Otherwise there are many bare paddocks which have clearly been cropped in the past, but not this year. Most striking are old abandoned irrigation channels, supporting in their beds red gum saplings. Their size dates this to Mill. Drought.

The short posts are due to the ads blocking the space for writing and menu tabs on the mobile phone screen. Any solution to this?

Cossomby thanks found that interesting ,they had 3 to 7 mm today, almost taunting those in need, my area is diary and the export hamburger meat trade, but just 40 klm inland it is best beef country suffering in what should be high rainfall areas, big, huge, winter frosts have killed of any feed, paddocks nearby have silage round bales too close to roads sadly off to be sold for well over the odds prices to those who need it most we can change some of this from happening over and over again

Surely the line 'of droughts and flooding rains..' was a hint that farming the land in Australia is somewhat of a flawed business venture.

God knows I am sick of bailing them out. Any other occupation is told to up skill when conditions change, but farmers are given all this sympathy and government help to prop up a patently hopeless business model with our taxes.

Houelle,
Are you one of those people who thinks our food grows in supermarkets?

Cossomby,
I expected a bite. However if there are 300km of aqueduct then water is being moved 300 km, but not necessarily in a straight line between two points.
Anyway I accept your view as you are fundamentally correct.

Google: Central Arizona aqueduct. Which is 540 km long though twisting, not straight. Nevertheless water is being moved 540 km.

My point is Australia could run excess wet season water in steel aqueduct say about 2,000 km from the Gregory Range in NQ to headwaters of the Murray Darling catchment inland from Frazer Island, Queensland.
From there the flow would help provide water for the Coorong in SA, plus for wetlands and farmers and towns along the way. Especially if eastern Great Dividing Range top of river catchment flow is diverted via tunnels into the the aqueduct water harvesting system.

What do you think about that?

What do you think about that?
JF Aus,

What do ALP/LNP/ON/GREENS etc think about that ? Haven't heard from any of these groups yet, not even flak let alone some insightful contribution.
Surely, these parties have OLO watchers on $150,000/year ?

That's right, Individual.

Nothing from the media either, especially the publicly funded ABC.

Nothing despite previous discussion about it here on OLO either.
And nothing about suggestion if it being published in the federal government Agricultural Competitiveness White Paper - Supporting Information - Index F - Fairfax JC.

Lets see what Cossomby, new on OLO, has to say.

Belly,

JF beat me to it.

The cost of tunnelling is high but once it's in the ongoing running costs are very low.,and water runs downhill at no cost at all.

And, Is Mise, when water is running downhill sometimes it can generate electricity.

Note:
Post limit will slow my further comment here.
And these threads become buried down the list, out of sight of new input.
With Admin allowing such posts, how about we start new discussions and head the next one; Belly's Water for Farmers - Chapter 2.
Then when Ch 2 starts to get buried off the list, Belly's Water for Farmers - Chapter 3, and so on.

The start and end of each thread could be linked by each chapter's URL.

Maybe Individual could be the Chairperson or Editor at Large. Chairman whatever.

As for agenda I would like to draw expression of interest from the iron ore mining and steel industry re use of prefabricated and demountable steel aqueduct.

Politics must not hold Australians back.
Chat here on OLO should move opportunities forward.

Cheers.

cost of tunnelling is high
Is Mise,
Tunnelling should only come into the equation if there's no alternative. Water is actually smarter than many engineers as it will always find a route, all it requires is a saturated bed to flow on. It will create its own collection ponds from whence windmills can lift it over obstructions. Sure, some shortcuts by way of channels could be created. Natural corridors will be longer but will also keep the costs down, no need for ultra expensive feats of engineering needed. Once a water corridor is in place, vegetation will take hold which in turn will hold water & enhance the evaporation rate & more rain will result. Of course this won't happen overnight because the depleted artesian water will need to be replenished first but once that is achieved it'll be all systems go.
I have heard of Cotton farming requiring massive amounts of water, so why not explore alternatives or relocte to where water is not short ?
Once the dirty rivers cease flowing into the Barrier Reef, perhaps Turnbull's $444 milllion might not be needed ? Sorry academic environmentalists if you're already rubbing your hands in anticipation of the PM's gift.

JF, further comment from me will have to wait till I'm home, too hard on the phone. By the way, I'm not new to OLO, just go through phases depending how busy I am. I'm an historian with an interest in water history, and live in Murray-Darling Basin.

Have we a big enough readers group to expect a politician to pop up here, not sure one would expose themselves to public opinion, last night on Q and A the Minister did, his ego must be a little hurt this morning Meg a farmer had a truth to tell, if one day, we put as much work in to this as we do in raising tinned food and cash for a part of our country we *can not live without* we can move mountains, remember when we rode on the sheep's back? hard times for mineral exports always see farm exports prop us up, this is not them and us, it is our country first not in Trump like rants but in filling a need that if done, will get that future country of and running

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradfield_Scheme

With today's machinery this should just about be child's play.

What if the recent government grant given to private enterprise was in fact used to start heading our waste inland right now, if unemployment in the bush was no longer a problem, if farmers, as they have in Queensland in the past, could supplement their income by working on such a scheme? in reference to threads being buried? why not alter your seen threads by increasing those you see by more than the 5 or one month by choosing say 20 threads? action is out of our hands but talking about it may lead to action

Belly,
I've been trying to get ALP/LNP people to comment for a long time, they're just not inerested in doing anything positive for society.

Cossomby,
It's good you know OLO. And History of water is an intriguing interest to have especially while living in the MDB.
I have background as a jackaroo then overseer then assistant manager on a 240,000 acre Paroo River station. Plus as manager of a big NT station on the Calvert River. Though I have spent most of my life exploring inside water, underwater within ocean ecosystems, while making wildlife adventure films.
I look forward to further discussion.

Belly,
There is new evidence indicating government must help farmers to also save and increase the national livestock breeding herd and cropping because of worsening acute shortage of affordable amino acid type - essential protein supply worldwide.
Ocean protein supply is oresebtky nit sustainable.
Dissolved sewage nutrient pollution is feeding algae that is choking seagrass food web nurseries. Algae is also impacting weather. I am involved in exploring El Nino waters, underwater.
Evidence of substance indicates the IMF must supply governments with resources to manage the water ecosystem of this planet. Anything sensible is possible.

Individual,
There are ways to draw troglodites out of their ivory towers and away from their self interest agendas.

Correction:
Ocean protein supply is presently not sustainable,
including to sustain nutrition in feed for aquaculture.

Las Vegas that American city we hear so much about gets its water via a very expensive channel dug for that purpose, as aid before some of our city's water is pumped great distances, possibly none more than Kalgolies, it is being done,it will, one day be done, why wait? why not try nation building?

JF Aus,
Sounds like we have a lot in common, any websites to look at ?

ABC web site or SMH read this morning China has built a channel over 14.000 long? surely 1.400? to bring water to its place it will be used we can if we want do it in small steps or as we did in the Snowy in big ones we plant trees we will not live long enough to see grow, at least I do, we can if we start get this done

That's right Belly. Start to get it done like China did one day.
Interesting numbers here for water historians too.
But this is about a pipe whereas I am suggesting aquduct.

http://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/284300/

JF Aus think, but not sure the China one is as you are talking about let us hope we can starting thinking of the future in this matter not just the costs

Beyond the Great Dividing range are natural water courses where the tropical wet season monsoonal water runs towards lake Eyre. They should be utilised & where possible prevent water running off to waste. A series of small dams or containment channels would be needed but technically that would be insignificant.

Belly,
Correct. The Chinese system uses pipes whereas I suggest steel aqueduct.
But look at what the Chinese have achieved while we have done virtually nothing lije that.
Australian tall poppy syndrome knockers come to mind.

Individual,
Despite its harsh nature, Lake Eyre has a fragile ecosystem that I would not like to touch, except by adding some water if excess was available.

I think it best to harvest water up north but also from high slopes on the eastern side of the Great Dividing Range, and use tunnels to run it downhill into holding dams and aqueduct on the western side.

Eastern rivers often flood and/or send too much water out to sea. It's that lost volume that could be harvested off the top of the catchment, and that harvest should be under remote control so as not to deprive already existing water users downstream on the eastern rivers.

JF Aus,
As I have stated before, the run-off from built up area has become so massive now that it affects the oceans. Much of this run-off was previously contained underground & taken up by plants/trees. It has now caused a severe unbalance & if at all possible should be reversed by redirecting it beyong the Great Dividing range. Ever large coastal settlement should have collection dams for run-off from whence it could be pumped by windmills to where it is needed & does no damage ecologically. It is not an insurmountable over-ambitious task, it's just not sexy enough for the ivory tower elites. Cost would be recouped by new settlemnts along it's route. It certainly would give the Great Barrier Reef a new lease on life.

Found a 1932 plan, the Bradfield irrigation scheme, to bring water to the north, so it has been on our minds for a long time sooner we get over fighting over little things and start planning for the future the better [ps few problems with pc if I fade away it will not be for long]

Just some observations, this drought, now 100 percent of NSW and eighty percent of Queensland, has been made even worse by a cold frosty winter not see for decades, soon, unavoidable bush fires will devastate the great dividing range and other areas, horrible at any time but as the dry is not going to see rain following it will be much worse than it need be we have run out of puff here like our country in every past effort to consider long term solutions for this, even in part, we will all pay at the check out and even inflation may be a by product

Belly,
If they had any sense they would engage the Army & start back-burning now. Alas, they'll wait till all hell breaks loose & then they'll scream catastrophe again & the blame game does a new round.

individual I will take it as read you know these days a weeks paper work must take place just to get a Sunday burn off started, in fact rural bush fire brigades rarely if at all back burn in winter now, the tree huggers not understanding our bush has for centuries been cold burned stand in th4e way,left active service in my last because the stupidity of the need to protect brigades and council from being sued over rides the life threatening/takeing hot burn that is the result, this year, mark my words, our worst fire year has arrived, too late to burn now only a horrible fire storm would be the result

There are islands in Qld which have Guinea Grass 2+ metres high because some moron bureaucrats in Brisbane will not permit back-burning. My guess is that sooner or later a fire will wipe out most of the bush & power poles & destroy a lot of whatever wildlife there is & some houses & infrastructure..
The the bleating for funding will start in earnest & the insipd bureaudroid responsible will probably be stood down on full pay, courtesy taxpayer.
How is that such incompetents can exist within our public Service ? It can only be for their votes in my opinion.
Back to topic, directing water beyond the Great Dividing Range is vital to save this nation from ecological & social collapse.

yes individual what you describe is happening all over this country as ill informed people control things they know nothing about,you do not have to be psychic to know before this drought and fire emergency have gone we will again see investigations that lead to no action taking place on how to fix both issues

SMH Saturday, farmers are upset current law forbids them re using clean sewage water! we may yet be the lucky country but we have the unaware award wrapped up

Only reporting part of the drought situation is not enough.
There is need for whole of water ecosystem management.
Media is fixated on CO2 emissions agenda and reports nothing about impact and consequences of sewage nutrient pollution and unmanaged dumping by government departments.
Unprecedented nutrient overload pollution is feeding unnatural mass of algae that is causing unnatural increase in warmth in ocean and lakes. That warmth in water is sometimes changing weather in areas or regions but not globally at the same time.
Warmth of linked to algae can be seen in charts of Sea Surface Temperature (SST) that is an anomaly in AGW science.

Evidence of substance indicates it needs full understanding and communication of the situation to bring about solutions that will mitigate and reduce impact of El Nino events on farmers.

P.S.
Correction above.
Should read: Warmth linked to algae.....

N.B.
I can't just make up the situation I am writing about.
What I am writing is backed by evidence of substance.
It has come to me from long term observation underwater especially.
Take it or leave it.

JF Aus agree with every word, new has it Sydney's desalination plant may be switch on soon,take it that water will be pumped over some distance? in far less than 100 years we may well be turning the sea water inland in some areas

Belly,
I think they will jst pressurise that water to upush it backwards into Sydney water mains that already exist.

Yes ocean desalination may be commonplace in the future if they continue with CO2 emissions spin to promote and sell renewables while ignoring nutrient pollution impact on weather and rainfall.

Meanwhile inflation linked to shortage of seafood and fishmeal and fertilizer and increased demand will hurt people not able to afford adequate nutrition.

JF Aus yes that would be how it is distributed, and yes to future pumping desal water inland, today market day, two markets and a street stall collecting tinned food, ok great stuff, but! it is watching the stock die, knowing your lifetime farm maybe lost, that sends farmers rope in hand, to the shed for the last time *another place, facebook, is full of knuckle draggers telling us farmers are rich squatters* who do not need help! proving we all have opinions some however are as mad as you can get

The environmental cost of desalination is higher than the economic one. Saving water from run- off is cheaper, simpler & safer.
Just keep the 'experts' away & just do it.

All farmers must hang in there and not give up.

Yes some people on fb refuse to wake up, for example anti live sheep activi$t$ that can't figure lack of refrigeration requires live animals to take home to feed families, instead of killing in Australia.

PM Malcolm Turnbull has had a $10 million grant to make rain in a cloudless sky. But he has now gone to ground. Maybe after getting some clues here on OLO he is into ocean chemistry and algae.

I think the future for farming will involve manipulating ocean and lake algae to make clouds and rain. I have photo evidence of algae linked to precipitation. It would be cheaper than pumping water that is so heavy to lift.

Desalination is a reasonable option for small island communities but not for large mainland towns. The power requirements are massive as is the chemical usage & machinery service.
The overall waste product from production of equipment to final brine outflow is not what i'd call economical nor environmentally sustainable. Just ask those who maintain equipment in that industry.

Out in El Nino waters where I have been living and observing 6 months a year, observing algae associated heat since 2008, it appears there is an association between algae and weather.
Concerning topic of this OLO thread, that observation leads me to think the best way to sustain water supply to farmers is to manage the nutrient load that proliferates ocean algae.
However I think there will be considerable delay in establishing such management (to control El Nino events) because media that is driving government policy is not even acknowledging world ocean fish population and ocean ecosystem devastation.

Government has aquaculture policy not ocean ecosystem policy. Media focus is on renewable energy policy, not on world ocean devastation.

Government is not yet seeing or admitting that sewage including industrial animal production nutrient pollution is occurring and causing damage.
Government is not admitting nutrient pollution is the fundamental cause of world ocean fish depletion.

Government is not seeing that the same cause of world ocean fish and ecosystem devastation is ALSO the same cause that is changing weather and climate.

While future advances in science most definitely will give us other methods and other ways to pump water, surely we should not pump our sewage treated or not in the ocean? and yes we know we have a dry hot country and that droughts are always here in some place, every achievement must first take the first step, if we treat this as we would if it was a war we would soon find the money to start

JF Aus,
Control pollution of the oceans & get some control over the weather. Algal proliferation is a direct result of pollution & it should not require a scientist to work out that it is the core of our environmental problems. if only education could be pushed up to a basic level, more people would be receptive & curb the present mentality of out of sight, out of mind.
Methane does to our Air what sewage does to our oceans. Industrial emission is not far behind the pollution caused by mass travel.
I observed algal growth smothering healthy coral at the northern extreme of the great Barrier Reef. I put that down to outflow from that Goldmine in PNG, tourism (Sunscreen lotion) & I suspect seepage of chemicals from mainly WW2 wrecks in the Coral Sea. Commercial shipping has in my opinion hardly any impact.
The biggest impact by far in my book is from Mass tourism.

All point sources of relevant nutrient have to be measured to find the total nutrient load that sometimes amounts to an overload and nutrient pollution.

Fresh water with bonded nutrient from Aus east coast town and city sewage dumping flows northwards and that of it not taken up en route flows into GBR waters and beyond.
Alongshore current energy to move the flow is strong enough to transport heavy sand northwards to Frazer Island where the sand falls over the Continental Shelf. But the fresher surface water with bonded nutrient continues northwards inside the GBR lagoon reaching Cape York.
Other point source nutrient is added along the way.

Here is the sediment dispersal system involved.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.2112/08-1120.1

JF Aus while I understand nutrient pollution you know much more than me it seems we can both only hope in time we start looking after our environment and stop having the wool pulled over our eyes by the self interests of the few

Keep in mind that irrigation has its downside too, if not managed properly it leads to degradation of the soil; currently some 20% of Australia's irrigation areas is badly affected by salinity.

Evidence of substance indicates that when the human activity-linked cause of change to underwater El Nino and La Nina phenomena and association with severe weather is scientifically understood, it will be possible to understand and manage restoration of natural and very predictable weather.
Correct prediction of weather can amount to drought proofing for farmingb.

Natural weather has not caused soil worldwide to be excessively salty.

Ocean and lake algae plant matter and associated warmth linked to precipitation are presently not included in established meteorology.

Regarding any of the above, what science proves otherwise?

Both posts are well said Is Mise the salty water is because of both use of underground water and that water rising because of misuse and rising water table our water as I propose may in fact add to or stop that problem but first we need to get the water there consideration of what to grow to help that problem must be given,we if we turned this water inland and as a result grew trees as well, we could bring about more rainfall

irrigation has its downside too,
Is Mise,
Yes, but what we're advocating is to bring freshwater into the periodically drought affected areas & even more importantly, recharge the groundwater which has been used up to the point of no water left to pump. Redirecting the monsoonal flood waters from the north via their natural channels to the south is a no brainer. All it needs is a will by Governments to prolong that flow. Which major party has the sense to start such a project & which minor parties have the sense to support it instead of standard ideological sabotage ?
As I stated previously, such a project is a long term one with long term investment involving all for a long term benefit to all.

individual every word could have been mine just why politics has not come up with at least a start must concern us all

Meanwhile, up in a land where things get done:
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Tiruchirapalli/‘Water-of-west-flowing-rivers-of-Karnataka-remains-unutilised’/article12546162.ece

The main difference to Australia, being one of direction!!

Bradfield thought of the same for Australia in 1932. it's 2018 now & what ? I wonder if the people over there will have 86 years of indecision ? btw., do they have Greenies ?

individual,

Unfortunately the answer is, Yes.
http://www.greenparty.in

Two dates have been put on the Bradfield plan, 1932 and 1936, not sure what one is true, but we can bet someone will come up with another plan before this drought is over, too, unfortunately, it will not be put in place, NSW is facing dust storms again today as our farming land is blown away, if as it looks, this drought will be both long and worse than past ones farmers in good rainfall areas may stop growing other things to get on board the profiteering already seen in hay prices

The next monsoon is only a few months away so why not send out the Army to survey the natural water courses ? Some small blasting exercises could possibly result in a lot of water being redirected at little expense.
The Army's getting paid anyway so why not use them ? I for one can not see a single soldier not being interested in something like this.

You may well be right, however first the government needs to start looking at ways to deliver water, this mornings press tells us this drought may get far worse, that rain is unlikely till after next month at the earliest and that a fifty percent chance exists we are headed for an el nino, just maybe saving some of that water to grow fodder is a step in the right direction

We should just let the Farmers who refuse to plan for drought crash and burn

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/our-concern-about-the-drought-isn-t-fair-dinkum-20180821-p4zypf.html

One point of interest is the fact that over 7,000 farms in Australia are foreign owned, covering more than 52 million hectares. British interests own the largest slice, about 27.5 million hectares, followed by American investors with 7.7 million hectares. No doubt many of these foreign owned farms will also be drought affected. My question is will Australian taxpayer money, and public charitable donations, be used to bail out these often very rich absentee foreign landlords?

BTW, many farms in Australia are owned by very large corporations, and not by the idealised Man from Snowy River, battler types.

Surely farmers in need of true drought assistance are already means tested.

I'm not to sure about that JF Aus.

From the NSW government web site;

The NSW Government will waive LLS rates for all landholders for 2019.

The NSW Government will provide financial assistance of up to $4,000 to all general security licence holders (and supplementary water access licence holders) in rural and regional NSW across surface and groundwater systems.

All existing Farm Innovation Fund customers, and all applicants who submitted an application on or before 30 July 2018. The refund will be applied and processed automatically.

The NSW Government has announced a $500 million Emergency Drought Relief Package to help farmers manage the effects of the current drought.

Surely the genuine drought assistance cases will receive due assistance without corruption milking the funding initially allocated.