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.