Why can't the Top End pipe some of its abundant water south to assist drought-stricken states?

Every political cycle, a cavalcade of federal and state politicians dust off their Akubras, RMs and plaid shirts and head north, ready to pledge the nation's drought-ravaged farmers everything but actual rain.

The possibility of piping the water resources of northern Australia to quench thousands of thirsty southern agricultural paddocks has been floated by a litany of leaders keen to make use of the annual downpours of the tropical wet season.

But how plausible is the idea of pumping water from the Northern Territory down south to ease the dry soils of pastoral properties in Queensland, NSW and Western Australia? Or is it just a pipe dream?

According to scientists, water experts, and those who have been involved with some of the Top End's biggest-ever water infrastructure projects, the idea could work — in theory.

But no government would ever have the cash surplus needed to fund it, with experts warning any such a plan would cost billions and billions — even trillions — of taxpayer dollars.

And besides, is the notion that the NT has an endless supply of rainwater just a myth, anyway?

Project would sink billions

Although nearly 2 metres of rain falls each year in Darwin, the city does not have the infrastructure in place to capture enough of it and pump it out, Power and Water Corporation's Jethro Laidlaw said.

"We would need massive dams," he said.

"We already have Darwin River Dam, but we sort of need all of that for Darwin.

Despite the walls of water hitting Top End soil each year, "it's incredibly expensive to pump it to southern parts of Australia", CSIRO research scientist Andrew Ash said.

"Just the energy requirements on an operational scale means that it's very expensive, let alone the capital costs of building channels or pipelines to southern Australia."

** The rest of the article is at the link, interesting read. **

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-18/why-cant-top-end-pipe-water-south-assist-drought-stricken-states/10615440

Our debt is now over half a trillion dollars. The political class, with their vote buying from people who just want free stuff, has put the mockers on big projects. Then there is the stifling grip of the Greens that has put a stop to dam building. Our only hope now is to reduce our population to fit in with our diminishing wealth, fear of using our natural resources, and lack of infrastructure. Despite what our beaming PM says, Australia is in big trouble.

Who needs pumps ? Ever heard of gravity feed ? Dig channels where the ground is too high & let the water find its way. Water can do that without some insipid academic's interference.
Besides, where is the land higher west of & than the great Dividing Range ?

All we need to do is live within our means; something that we have forgotten how to do since the Leftist trashing of our society and values began in the sixties.

We have been here done that, but yes why not
And costs? what about the benefits
The Snowy River scheme kicked off massive growth and this can too
If we are brave we can build a Nuclear power station to, at first just power the water transfer and that will bring further decentralization
Worth supporting

The nearly completed Murray to Broken Hill pipeline is 270k, cost $500 million and will deliver just 37 megalitres a day. That may be enough for a small town (18,000) and its mines, but would not go far in terms of irrigation. And it needs three pumping stations.

I'll leave readers to extrapolate that to pipelines of 2-3000 km, carrying enough water south from the tropics to drought proof grazing and irrigation over hundreds of square kilometres. Where would the water be delivered? Into the headwaters of the Darling? Then a large percentage of the expensive piped water would just evaporate. A reticulated water system through western Queensland and western NSW? Add many more 1000s of kilometres of pipes, or lose much more in open channels.

Keep in mind that Australia is not dead flat, there are lots of ups and downs. Just because Darwin is north doesn't mean it's downhill all the way south! Think one pumping station per 100+ km. Also, the monsoon is only a short period of the year. Consider just how many dams would be needed to store water for delivery through the dry.

If we really had the money that would be needed, it's likely we could use it much more productively in other ways. Agriculturely, it might be cheaper to demolish all the suburbs round Sydney and Melbourne and return that well-watered land to farming.

I have tried to inject some practical facts into this debate a few times.

Like the fact that it takes 26,000 gallons of water to put just one inch on one acre. That is more than we use in our household in a year. Of course being on our own tank water means we use less than town water users. I use 145000 gallons of irrigation water year on my one acre house paddocks shrubs & trees, with not a single drop used on grass areas ever. That is just enough to keep them alive in a dry period.

No my sandy loam in a dryish time, not full drought, half an inch a week will keep the place mildly productive. An inch a fortnight is basically useless, as the vegetation is severely stressed by losses from evaporation after about 10 days.

On my better black soil country, it won't even notice an inch. It takes at least 3 inches for it to even start to green up, & about 5 inches to start to become productive.

A local lucerne farmer told me he doesn't irrigate at all until there has been the first good spring/summer rain. He found it took ridiculously large amounts of irrigation to get anything happening, before a good natural downpour. It was just not economically viable to pump enough water to get stuff growing. This is with a high value crop, pumping from a river adjacent to his crop.

Don't forget western grazing rates are one beast to a minimum of 20 acres. That would require half a million gallons of water per beast, for just one inch of irrigation, which in a major drought would do very little.

I would like to be able to do it, as much as anyone, but the facts are it is just not economic, or even possible.

The Sydney Morning Herald had this interesting
article on solutions to Australia's drought
problems. I'm no expert, but I think the article
is worth a read:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/underground-dams-the-solutions-to-australias-drought-problems-20140316-34v8m.html

Bradfield had a plan to turn the Northern rivers around.
One factor many forget is that water is heavy. If it has to be pumped
then it is expensive water.
If dams can be built on the ranges somewhere then maybe it could be diverted into south west flowing rivers.
Certainly worth a study.

Bradfield and his plan figured in a thread I started along much the same lines
Parts of the USA saw water transported great distances in man made ground systems
Israel can show us a lot
Costs? if we wish to continue to grow we will be faced with them one day why not now
The Snowy River while a power source is also an irrigation system
IF we stopped dumping sewage in to the sea, pumped it less than 100 klm,s inland, costs in doing so would be returned ten fold over time

Flooding Lake Eyre could be done with sea water from the south. Then, with that large a body of water evaporation will do the rest. Cost ? The cost of a canal is less than daily wasting by bureaucracy.
The Bradfield scheme is a viable proposition as long as it remains a Govt project without the involvement of overseas companies. Hundreds of young people could cut their teeth on such a project. Imagine the value of lakeside real estate & the leisure industry. I can see nothing but economic & environmental windfall.

individual,
Flooding Lake Eyre with sea water would cost orders of magnitude more than you think - it's a very long way from the sea (were you perhaps conflating it with Lake Torrens?). Plus all that extra salt would destroy the Lake Eyre ecosystem. But most importantly, it wouldn't affect the climate in the way you think. Consider: the Indian Ocean is an even larger volume of water, yet the Pilbara's still arid!

It's technically possible to divert rivers, albeit at enormous cost. But environmental issues must take priority (however much the dinosaurs on this board disagree). There are some rivers that, for environmental reasons, should not be dammed. And there are also some that, to stop the spread of pest species, should not be connected.

But assuming the environmental issues can be overcome, why do you think inland agriculture deserves such a huge subsidy to get it going? Won't the money it makes be at the expense of currently viable farms elsewhere?

Also what are you going to do to stop the salt water contaminating the underground fresh water, there is already a problem around Perth.

Some highlight costs and how much water it takes to be useful
Surely the costs today balanced against future benefits are quite small.
In fact job creation and decentralization are benefits that alone make it worth while
The future if we wait ,costs will be far more
But the changes in just our lifetimes should remind us turning water inland one day should be very easy

Philip S,
Fyi, freshwater floats on saltwater so it is a no-brainer that flooding Lake Eyre with seawater which will cause precipitation which in turn will collect & store from the surface down.
Also, once the lake is flooded for some time & a new local weather pattern has established it may even be possible to shut off the link to the sea.
This needs to be looked at with a long-term view not from an investor mentality view of invest this morning & expect a profit in the afternoon. The whole project would literally pay for itself by the infrastructure itself. Housing, roads & industry requirements will in no time create a huge boost to the economy at no environmental damage.

There is zero chance of any scheme happening, so there's no point in getting worked up about it. The last big one was the Snowy Mountains and there is absolutely no chance that anything like that will be seen again. Those were the days when immigration of people who actually wanted to work occurred, and there was no fixation with environmental issues. Money was cheaply available. Now, money is not available, and the type of immigrants we get are not coming here to work - or not very hard, anyway. It's non-productive jobs or, for to many, welfare. There is no work ethic, no pride and values left in Australia. We are more interested in the gender of politicians than we are in in the quality of politicians. Globalisation has made us too soft and weak to do anything not approved by the corrupt United Nations, or by some fly-bitten country because it is the-largest-Muslim-country-in-the-world. Our educational standard 39th out of 41. Australia is rooted.

I grabbed a globe and placed a drop of water on the Northern Territory. It quickly ran down hill toward NSW.

We just need to scale it up.

This whole country is screwed;
Nothing but incompetence and a total failure to develop policies beneficial to the nation.
The whole system needs to be completely overhauled and re-evaluated.
The system isn't built to benefit the people anymore.

individual Not a problem, I think not.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-10/groundwater-bores-pulling-up-salt-water-off-kwinana-coast/10594444

Sea water sucked 1 kilometre inland as Kwinana bores placed under intense pressure

Groundwater bores are designed to draw fresh water out of the ground, but the pressure on bores has been so intense in some locations along Perth's south coast that the bores have begun pulling up salt water instead.

A Department of Water and Environmental Regulation report has found the amount of groundwater being extracted in the Kwinana industrial area was causing sea water from deeper underground to rise up and take its place.

Effectively it meant the sea water was being sucked back under the land, and once salt water moved into stores of fresh water the damage was difficult to reverse.

The department claimed the issue of sea water turning bores salty was the biggest problem facing groundwater users — residents, market gardeners and industry — along the coast.

Fresh water and sea water typically meet along the coast, with lighter fresh water sitting on top of a wedge of salt water. But in parts of the Kwinana industrial area that balance has changed, and the so-called "seawater interface" has pushed up to 1 kilometre inland.

Drawing more water from fewer freshwater bores not only increased the risk of more saltwater contamination, but also threatened to disturb decades-old contamination plumes laying dormant underground.

** More people in the area more underground water would be needed, and you want to bring in billion of liters of salt water ** Note last 2 paragraphs.

My my some of us seem to have the black dog living on their shoulder
We will do things like the Snowy river again
in fact it still is a Turnbull announced government backed plan to upgrade it even more
We are not up to our chin in unemployed bludgers, in fact unemployment is low
Governing is not just throwing money around we still have a deficit
Our future, after the coming financial crisis, is bright
We will pump water inland

Indi (Joe),

I don't know what you're thinking?
The idea is to channel/divert abundant 'fresh water' from the North, possibly along the edge of our semi-arid WA interior (and perhaps underground). And, Foxy's link is very much worth a look here - subterranean diversion through the aquifer system 'the Great Artesian Basin'. What a ripper idea! How you add water to the basin I have no idea, but apparently it is being done! Whether you can put the water in right where (or near where) it is abundant, and it will work its own way from there I also don't know. But, most definitely worth investigating.
(And, let's not get carried away - Perth can look after itself - with desalination if necessary. Any southerly diversion could (and should) be in stages - let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.)

From Foxy's link: >>Australia has attributes that can make us a global leader in wise water management. To give just two examples: we have developed some of the world's most sophisticated modelling systems for measuring and predicting underground water resources which, when fully developed and tested, will provide the basis for effective decision making in future. And we are pioneers in the art of managed aquifer recharge - or water banking - in which water is stored underground during times of plenty and can be pumped up again in times of scarcity. These water banks have been tested around the continent in places such as the Bowen and Namoi basins (for agriculture) and in cities such as Adelaide and Perth (for horticulture and urban watering). They work.<<
>>Indeed, water expertise could be one of our most potent diplomatic and export initiatives in years to come (just as agricultural aid and trade have been in the past 60 years). All we need to do to achieve this is invest wisely in the necessary science, technology and management skills. Water science and training are not high-cost items, relative to other activities such as building huge dams or ports.<<
(TBCont'd)

Continued:

>>They represent a form of ''infrastructure'' that lasts for generations and only needs topping up, not repair. They pay off immediately in water savings. They provide essential insurance against drought, climate change, and the loss of water-dependent industries, towns and landscapes. They can reduce the economic and social costs of drought greatly.<<

>>In a dry land like Australia, we should be saving our water wisely for the future. Let's hear it for a National Water Bank.

Craig Simmons is professor of hydro-geology at Flinders University and director, National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training.<<

Me now:
As for the cost (of channels or piping, if necessary), where's the good old Aussie 'can-do' attitude! If we go get-tum, as our pioneers have done so often in our recent history, we can do, and should do. Can't you just see some hundreds of kilometers of solar-powered hydroponics greenhouses stringing like the drover's dog all the way from Kununurra to Broome, to Derby and eventually to Carnarvon (or beyond).

In future years, the food producing capacities of such a certainly ambitious project/investment would hold Aus in good stead for our ultimately burgeoning population - and the employment in getting there, and on-going, would be a massive boost to our national productivity, resilience and security.
So, what are we waiting for? Do we really need more expressways, more high-rises and more congestion in our already established major cities?
Or, the world as our productive and visionary oyster!

And, relatively minor as it may well be (and I think it's grossly underestimated) we should not forget the greenhouse gas capture, climate mitigation, potentials of this project. (Looking, Scomo?)

No more BS from our fearless pollies, let's see them do something right (and necessary) for a most welcome change.

C'mon Scomo! Show us what you're really made of! (Cause so far you are making a right muck of it. Though it's good you visited the troops and wished them a safe and reasonably Merry Christmas.)

The same thing happened in Bundaberg Phillip S They lost the use of many near coastal bores due to over extraction. I don't know if the last very big flood up there would have fixed any of them.

Belly it is possible that something might be found to profitable use a million gallons of fresh water a month, but it will not be to support one cow grazing. It would cost more a fortnight than the animal was worth. It is just not viable.

It may not be fun, but you have to sit down & do some simple math before you are entitled to give fearless forecasts, which have no basis in real life.

When my little river has a fresh in it, it is 25 metres deep by 160 metres wide. When in flood add another 250 metres wide by 7 metres deep, traveling at 15+ kilometres down stream.

That is a huge amount of water, & this little river would need a 35 meter diameter pipe to pump it up to the Darling downs. The problem is that it has gone out to sea in a couple of days.

To hold this much water, & pump it over many weeks you would have to dam the entire Moreton bay, to manage it & the other rivers, not counting the Brisbane river, as there are no dam sights on this or any coastal plane. I very much doubt the Port Authority or the people of Brisbane would agree to this, although it would cure the bull shark problem for them.

Ok, I'll try again; In order to get water precipitation is needed. To get precipitation, evaporation is needed. How do you get evaporation ? You first set up a huge body of water i.e. Lake Eyre & presto, you have (a natural phenomenon) evaporation. Step two (also a natural phenomenon) you get precipitation & presto, you have water saturating & filtering into the ground where it then gradually displaces saltwater. Eventually (sorry greedy investors, not instantly) there will be a change in that area's weather pattern & this change will be increased humidity.
The only hurdle is stupidity which is also a natural phenomenon & which includes another stumbling block, greed. My guess is that it'd take about three seasons to see a positive effect.
They fill abandoned mines & quarries with waste etc instead of letting them fill with water to increase evaporation. Oh, yes and, greens, don't worry about those animals drowning because unlike you they have an instinct to crawl to higher ground once their butts get wet.

individual,
It's a lack of uplift, not a lack of evaporation, which is the cause of a lack of precipitation at those latitudes.

Saltpetre, unless you are going to have a few hundred meter diameter holes right down to the artesian basin water, forget about anything but kids stuff in recharging it.

In fact the research shows that most of the water in it comes from PNG rain forest of the Owen Stanley ranges, & the stuff we are pumping now is up to a million years old. Perhaps you should be starting your recharge up there.

People have no idea of the quantities involved. A neighbour turf farmer has 4 of 4Ft diameter high flow axial pumps to recharge his 2 by 5 acre 3 meter deep ring tanks, [turkey nest storage], from floods & rarely gets them full before the flood has passed.

Aidan,
of course there's a lack of uplift because of lack of a big body of water.

Hasbeen look at what Israel has done, with sand
Look at the schemes we have put in place small but done
A couple of posts from a returnee are well worth the read thanks SP
Even the Murrumbidgee re uses water that once went to sea
Looking for reasons why it will not work may be fun
But ignore future developments like cheap power and pumping at you peril

individual A problem with your evaporation scenario.

Inland salt water lake being fed more salt water form the ocean, when the water evaporates the water over a short period of time will become more salty (water evaporates salt does not) you will possibly end up with something like the dead sea.

The amount of evaporation inland as in the Nth of Australia is pretty harsh because of the heat.

I also doubt you would get your desired change from hot to good weather in a short time, long time maybe.

Quote "My guess is that it'd take about three seasons to see a positive effect." You must be joking, start summer -> Autumn -> Winter
there 3 seasons 9 months, NO WAY.

PhilipS,
yes of course that's supposed to be three years. Once the lake is full from rain it can be topped up by controlled doses of seawater. This would assure a gradual desalination over the years. It'd not be necessary to construct a canal. To deliver a few mega litres/day for top-up a pipeline could suffice.
Of course a freshwater feed via a Bradfield scheme would be the best alas, there's always someone who fails to look ahead for more than next week's pay packet.
Flooding Lake Eyre would be a project for generations akin to the snowy scheme albeit only a fraction of the cost & a permanent shelf life.
It can be done easily if only the Greens & other academics are kept away. We're already paying them for doing nothing so staying away would save the cost of interference.

Well, Hasbeen,
Have you checked out Foxy's link of 21 December, on Page 2 of this thread:
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/underground-dams-the-solutions-to-australias-drought-problems-20140316-34v8m.html
(You may have to cut and paste to your address-bar.)

The ideas in the link are from: "Craig Simmons, professor of hydro-geology at Flinders University and director, National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training" - not my idea at all.
And, as a professor of 'hydro-geology', you'd think he might just know what he's talking about, hey?
I just borrowed what I thought sounded like a better alternative to cutting channels or installing masses of piping and pumping stations - although even such pumping stations could possibly be totally solar-powered (the latest 'smart idea', you know).
(And, the pipe and pumps could be Aussie-made, you think?)(Maybe even the solar panels/array?)
(And, installed by a whole heap of tremendously happy immigrants?)

What is food security (and potential export) worth?

Na, everyone says "it'a too hard", "it'll cost a bucket-load", "it won't work".
What a lot of myopic, small-minded, peekaboo pessimists. I've got no time for all the hyped-up negativity.

And, the idea is not for grazing cattle, it's for horticulture - greenhouses as far as the eye can see. Beeautifullll!
And masses of lovely wheat-grass, maybe lentils, snake beans, tomatoes, cucumbers - and even avocados-under-glass. Spectaculaaar!
(Where there are ideas, there also needs to be inventiveness and fortitude, not squeamishness.)

And, if 'Basin' water is coming from PNG, then sling in some sweet potato, PNG 'Koa-koa', for good measure!

And hey, might help Scomo to meet Kyoto protocols? He can take credit for the idea - I ain't proud.

Oz, grow up! (The world's going to hell in a hand-basket and everyone's busy whittling a new-style toothpick! Bah, humbug.)

a professor of 'hydro-geology', you'd think he might just know what he's talking about, hey?
Saltpetre,
talk yes, do ? Well that's another part of the story.
Such a project should not involve any high tech for reliability's sake nor is it needed.
In comparison to the snowy scheme, this one would be child's play in a sand pit

Saltpetre, the talk is about getting water to the drought stricken in the inland, hence my remarks. I did mention that we may sometime find a product that could afford the cost of getting water inland.

However, why the hell do you want to move the water & people to a rather inhospitable bit of the country to do this. Surely it makes more sense to move the people to where the water is. That way you save a fortune in water moving activity, & there is nothing wrong with the country up north.

The Ord scheme was a financial flop. They developed the water, but nobody came for the party. It took almost 20 years, & a huge amount of experiment & loss by farmers to develop suitable models for agricultural production in the area. Now it is a success, so could be a model for similar development in similar regions, where nature supplies the water, & we just have to catch & store it.

No pie in the sky dreams, academic or general public required, & no pointless expense required. We are not likely to run out of suitable productive land in more suitable areas where the water is available, in a hell of a long time.

One of my neighbours has spent a few million on centre pivot irrigation systems to irrigate from Canungra Creek on a couple of hundred acres of laser levelled land. Guess what he grows. Turf of course, he is too smart to grow food, that's a mugs game. He has another thousand acres suitable for development, if a profitable crop could be found. He even tried sugar, but freight costs to the mill killed that.

There is at least 50,000 acres of top land in this district alone capable of producing almost anything, all within spitting distance of the rivers, doing nothing but a bit of grazing. It used to be dairy country, but that is no longer viable due to pumping costs & competition from Gippsland, where irrigation is not required.

Continued

Continued.
Belly old mate, Israel is a postage stamp compared to what we have done with the Snowy. The same with the Darling, where flood catchment is a huge success, although much hated by the greens. Think Cubbie station. However mate, all that, Israel & here is down hill irrigation. No one is trying to shove water up hill where it doesn't want to go. Now the greenies want it all for environmental flows.

We have a couple of irrigation dams around Boonah. The farmers pay $25,000+ a year in access & infrastructure maintenance, plus per megalitre charge. When it got a bit dry that bludger Beattie, [you know Labor premier], pinched all their water for power house cooling. Sent quite a few broke, with no income, but still expected to pay their $25,000 access fees. He was in the business of pinching all our irrigation water here. We had conferences, meetings & hundreds of bureaucrats all over us, until it rained & the dams filled. Never saw another bureaucrat. [Note. I am secretary of our local irrigation committee].

We used to have a great rice industry on the Burdekin river until the Magpie geese & restrictions on controlling them killed that. I don't think they have found a new use for all that water, & the land is right there. Why the hell would you want to pump it west?

As I said, you have to be mad to grow food on Oz. If the government doesn't kill you directly, their pandering to the greens will.

Hasbeen,
Practically all of the water in the Great Artesian Basin comes from the Great Dividing Range. What is the "research" that says otherwise?

The water from the GAB doesn't come up in hundred metre diameter holes (even if thats what some of the mound springs look like) so they certainly won't be needed for recharge.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

individual,
>of course there's a lack of uplift because of lack of a big body of water.

Big bodies of water don't cause uplift. As I said further up the thread, the Pilbara is arid despite being next to the enormous body of water known as the Indian Ocean!

Uplift is caused by:
• Mountains (Australia's mountains are relatively small so don't cause a huge amount of rain, but they're still a lot wetter than the lowlands).
• Convection (air rises in some parts of the world and descends in others. Air pressure is LOW where it rises and HIGH where it descends. In central Australia it's usually HIGH, even when Lake Eyre is full).
• Weather fronts (when two air masses meet, one tends to go over another. But these are also associated with low pressure systems - they're effectively blown away from the highs).

Hasbeen pandering to the greens?
Now you may mean the party, at times both sides need the greens to pass things in the chook pen we call senate
But I think you are referring to CONSERVATIONISTS a group that is from all sides of our population
No government dare try to tell them they have no right to have concerns
EG Cubby station

Big bodies of water don't cause uplift. As I said further up the thread, the Pilbara is arid despite being next to the enormous body of water known as the Indian Ocean!
Aidan,
Any village idiot can tell you that. Try a large body of water amidst heated land.

Yada, yada, yada from all the 'experts' on water. Nothing is going to happen. Amen.

I'm sorry Hasbeen, old mate, we appear to be talking at cross purposes.
My take-up was, and is, to expand Oz' productive farm/food-growing capacity, and concurrently reduce population concentration increase/exacerbation along our coastline - not to deprive people of the myriad benefits of coastal living, but, you know, we have quite a few hard-pressed graziers who battle away in semi-arid inland Oz, pushing the proverbial to eke out a sustenance for their families and put some food on the table for Oz, or for export. So, if they can do it, can we not help some others to breast some other (uninhabited) parts of those vast (sweeping) plains, beneath the towering mountain ranges, midst a lack of flooding rains? So they too can eke out a living, raise a family, and not have to put up with all the nitty-picky tom-foolery of the Potts Point wingers?

And how to do this? To tap into the gigs and gigs of runoff-to-the-sea up North, where they can already go for gangbusters growing melons, rice, whatever, and drag some of those bountiful gigs South, kicking and screaming if necessary, to open up and make bountiful use of those gigs in whatever is the best way forward. Of course, I am not forgetting that growth takes sustenance, and the semi-arid is near dead, as far as soil nutrient composition and levels - so, treated poo has to be channeled to where it can be put to good use (instead of contributing to ocean pollution) - and those coastal yokels are full of it anyway, with no where useful (and non-damaging) for it to go.

So, expansive solar-powered greenhouses, and, in due course, re-establishment even of some tillable expanses, or even forests, and the odd alpaca? Indi reckons if you can get evaporation, you may ultimately get rain. (You know, how rain forests work - and how the wiping-out of rain forests in parts like the Amazon is adversely damaging the rain forest climate/ecosystem/biodiversity, wrecking not only the local climate but contributing substantially (and not yet fully appreciated) to this blessed climate-change scenario.
So?
TBContinued.

(Cont'd):
As for the big dry affecting our farmers, you have to grab back the climate, me old mate. No amount of channeled or pumped or sucked-from-the-atmosphere (manually that is) water, water, water, can meet that demand. Only rain, flooding, spilling, running and raging can do that.

Climate change, where is thy sting? Man, we are living it. And, if the world doesn't wake up and do something about it, seriously and more seriously, we are just going to get more of it. More drought here, more floods there (mostly where they do no good), islanders living in pole houses with sharks dropping by for snacks, and polar bears rummaging in people's dust bins.

We are here, IT is here, and where we go is in the hands of the Wall Street bankers.
Can we take back our heritage, our rights, or is the UN going to remain a worn-out vestigial figment of its rightful purpose and ambition, and the US, Russia, China and the EU going to veto the world into self-destruction.
Arab Spring, a dismal failure, and a shocking mess (thank you GW), so who the hell do you trust to tackle climate, tackle unbridled economic expansionism, crony world domination by the elites and poop-on-the-heads of the masses? I know Trump don't give a proverbial (an he is such a liar), Teresa is attacked on all sides by small-minded hypocrites, Xi is Emperor in waiting (for the final Chinese Revolution - by stealth), and the EU is full of bureaucratic pin-heads full of their own self-importance (we/EU were ruling the world you know, while England was still in the Dark Ages), or SCOMO with balls big as basketballs?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Have a good one, and a Merry Christmas to all.

Saltpeter sorry you have been told yada yarda yarda, that the thread should shudder to a Holt
Sorry if I got your tag wrong it happens to me a lot
I am finding your posts interesting so do not take the unwanted stuff to heart
we will pump water inland and once started it will grow fast

we will pump water inland and once started it will grow fast
Belly,
I think it will happen as soon as someone can see money in it & convince those insipids who are holding everything back.
No pumps needed, a gravity-fed Bradfield scheme will guarantee an environmental enhancement this country hasn't seen for several thousand years.

individual,
The subtropical high persists even when Lake Eyre is full. However much you expect Lake Eyre to cause uplift, the fact remains that it doesn't, and any plan that's based on your ignorance of meteorology is worthless.

Individual the Bradfield plan need only be part of what takes place but it proves we have thought about it for decades
In time cheap power better pumps will see micro schemes develop too
We will be better for it

Thanks Belly and Indi,
I'm not giving up, but said about as much as I think might be persuasive.
Can't figure out how topping-up of the Artesian Basin via aquifers can be done - as I also appreciate the Basin's accumulation (or that of so many, as I understand there are quite a few, over various parts of our fabulous land) have trickled in there over thousands and millions of years. Imagine, dinosaurs' pee diluted over millennia ending up in someone's tea in Perth! Yum.

The why's and wherefore's of that trickle-down, and of the basins' (and aquifers') susceptibilities to disruption, are in my view sufficient to chuck out any ideas of using 'fracking' in our beloved Oz. If oil and gas are running out (as indeed they must, sooner or later), then so be it. Grow oil-bearing algae, or find another way to do things. Electric vehicles, plasma energy, whatever.

I'm not familiar with the 'gravity-fed Bradfield scheme', Indi - perhaps a link? Though I've learned over time to accept what you have to say - something I am most reluctant to accord to many of the weirdos we seem to be getting on OLO lately. (Trump included, though he's too conceited and arrogant to go on OLO - and some of us might give him hell, and he don't fight fair.)

Oz has a vast land mass, and most (but not all) activity is restricted, or limited, to the coastal strip, whereas so much is begging for attention - as long as it doesn't interfere with 'culture' or sensitive spaces. So, fine, trek across country with camels and stumble over dinosaur bones, or maybe, just maybe there are great untapped potentials - and I don't mean just underground minerals/gems/coal/Uranium/iron-ore/bauxite ... Those are great, and I hope our First Peoples can get right in there with royalties, jobs, towns (of whatever style suits), healthcare, education, aged-care, the good old Aussie backyard and veggie patch (if it suits), and all the luck in the world. God knows (or maybe somebody) they have waited long enough.

I understand our inland used also be forest (after a sort-of inland sea - I think, though not sure on that), else where the hell do people think all that blessed coal came from? Like so much of the Sahara used be forest - but not sure if deforestation was to blame for rendering it to sand, sand, desert with an occasional oasis, or climate change (or some other blink in infinite space). So maybe inland Oz could be forest again.
(Ok, I know our coal seems to be mostly (or totally) nearer the coast, but it was a nice thought - and if the inland wasn't ever a forest, that doesn't mean it couldn't be, does it?)

With so much of the world's natural landscape being raped, pillaged and otherwise destroyed (sorry, converted to more economically attractive alternative-use) - and to hell with the Sumatran Tiger, the Orang, the dik dik deer, or equivalent, the stinging ants, Rhesus macaque, the Sun Bears, etc, etc), because Palm Oil makes her skin sooo soft, and your toothpaste sooo smooth - we can and must do better to restore some worthwhile splendour to our ancient planet, mustn't we?

Forests counter greenhouse, fight global warming (alias Climate Change), and build the biosphere, as a 'bonus', and can be both a medicine cabinet and a food locker. (And they harbour birds, insects, fungi and such, and are blessed attractive to boot!) So, where's the downside? Takes too long, I need my dummy now, Mummy!

One day will come a new environmentalist crusader who people will listen to, for such will come with promise of ginormous watermelons, comfy-cosy eco-friendly high-rises replete with jacuzzi, whirlpool bath, and forest views, and scrumptious oysters laid on by the bucket-load (and a blonde - M/F or who really knows these days - in the bedroom if you're lucky).

I can't wait.

Belly Just out of interest this "Bradfield plan" you talk about who has peer reviewed it and verified it is in fact something that can be done and is likely to succeed if done.

Also how many have peer reviewed it and said the opposite of what he suggests in other words it will not work?

Interesting topic. Well let's do some back of the envelope calculations.

Desalination has been a big provider of water to our major cities in many cases freeing supplies up for agriculture and environmental flows.

Take an average figure for desalination plant pressure 60 bar although as membrane technology improves this keeps coming down. That is the equivalent of a 600 mt pump head. So the question becomes can water be transported the 3000kms or so over hill and dale with less than 600 mts total vertical head?

Possibly. The Romans were able to move substantial amounts of water about using very shallow gradient.

“The gradient of the Pont du Gard is only 34 cm per km, descending only 17 m vertically in its entire length of 50 km (31 mi): it could transport up to 20,000 cubic metres a day.” Wikipedia

17 mts over 50 kms translates to 1020 mts and is over the 600mt cut off. One suspects that modern technology may be able to improve on the 1:3000 ratio.

But that aqueduct would have to be continuous from start to finish. Never mind the hills and valleys it would require a 600mt head at the start.

Now of course due to environmental initiatives solar technologies have improved dramatically. One could envisage solar pumps doing the work at various stages quite cheaply. No need for long high voltage powerlines supplying coal generated power from distant stations.

But it must however stack up against the power used by a desalination plant supplied by renewable energy.

So why does anyone think this is feasible again? Happy to tease it out though.

Philip S,
Peer review is for science, whereas the Bradfield Scheme is engineering (which uses things such as feasibility studies instead).

But you can read more about it, including some of the criticisms, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradfield_Scheme

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Saltpetre,
>Can't figure out how topping-up of the Artesian Basin via aquifers can be done
Why did you say "via aquifers"?
Earlier you seemed to understand that artesian basins ARE aquifers, and now you seem not to!
It's easy to understand that water is being pumped out of the GAB, so why is it so hard to comprehend water being pumped in?

BTW the GAB doesn't stretch to Perth, and though slow on a human scale, the water in it's nowhere near as old as the dinosaurs!

"Bradfield plan"
Philip S,
this plan is a no-brainer for anyone with an ounce of brain,

your ignorance of meteorology is worthless
Aidan,
if it's any consolation I've worked on water projects & I can relate to your type.

that aqueduct would have to be continuous from start to finish
Steele Redux,
that kind of academic logic is what didn't build the Snowy scheme & won't do a thing towards a Bradfield scheme project. Any pragmatist knows that this is a generational project that will take advantage of natural channelling & some tunnels, not aqueducts.
This very low technology project requires pragmatism rather that countless unworkable theories.
Desalination is something I have above average experience with & it is not a viable nor an environmental solution for more than small communities.
For city water supply we can't go past dams & large underground storage. Every storm or squall dumps massive amounts of water which then run off, carrying pollutants into the ocean.
This water must be stored by way of its own free force.
Pragmatists would have no problem building this infrastructure.

Quote "this plan is a no-brainer for anyone with an ounce of brain,"

The fact that it has not been does would indicate something is wrong with the plan.

Aidan thanks for the link it appears that the original calculations were wrong and there are other issues, like if you divert water from a to b, what will be the effects on c where the water was going and all along the way.

From Aidans link.
Bradfield's scheme and others have been criticised because they are not practical.[3] This scheme has been criticised because of the high capital and ongoing running costs which would make the project uneconomic.

Elevation measurements were taken with a barometer, leading to inaccuracies in land heights and mistakes in the proposal.[5] In most cases no flow record of the rivers were available to Bradfield. He used an empirical formula which assumed 33% of the water flow would be lost to evaporation and seepage. The estimated water available for the scheme was 114 cubic metres per second (4,000 cu ft/s).[5]

The extreme evaporation rate in the interior is another negative determinant. No clear evidence has been provided that the amount of water supplied will exceed the evaporation rate. The reduction in river discharge to the Great Barrier Reef Lagoon may diminish coastal fisheries by reducing the supply of terrestrial organic matter to the coastal and estuarine environment.

In 1947, W.H.R. Nimmo, conducted a critical review of the scheme.[5] He proved that Bradfield's estimates of the amount of water available from the easterly flowing rivers were about two and half times greater than it actually was. The error was attributed to the methodology used to calculate flow estimates was based on German rivers where the average temperature was much less than in northern Australia.[5]

There is a modified plan with some support not sure what it is, too lazy to find out at the moment.

individual,
If it's any consolation, your type gave the nickname to the inhabitants of my state.

A popular myth at the time was that good agricultural practice would lead to increased rainfall. "The rain follows the plough" they said, blindly assuming that what worked in Britain would succeed here too. And for a while it looked like it would, with a couple of unusually wet seasons as cropping expanded into the northern Flinders Ranges. But it soon turned out to be coincidence. Crops failed year after year, and soon there wasn't even anything for the farmers to eat...

...except crows.

My, my, my, what an incredible life we lead.
So many misunderstandings of the project in mind, perhaps from skip-reading, or other's poor explanation of the concept, the idea, the essence; or maybe because people are too buried in their own views, their own ideas, or in head-in-the-air science (that wonderful aspirational explainer of all things except of how people may best get along and help one another to a better world, a more peaceful and harmonious world, a unified and sharing world, where no-one need fear persecution or abuse or enslavement to the God of Capital, materialism and ivory towers (like Trump's).

Firstly, we are talking of taking a portion of the excess flooding waters from the North of Western Australia, the Kimberley and environs, or thereabouts (or from western Queensland, as a sister project), (not away from the Great Barrier Reef, and not saline, or polluted, and not as otherwise needed for human establishment or agriculture in the area of origin). Free water which would otherwise just flow in great floods to the sea, the ocean, the world.

Why are we examining this?
To open up some vast semi-arid, sparsely populated areas by taking excess runoff fresh, unpolluted water from the North, towards the South, in stages, and through channels or pipes or underground using natural aquifers, and using this, with biomass fertilizer from coastal settlements, villages, cities, towns, to grow food, employ people, create jobs, opportunities, satellite self-sustaining encampments, towns, villages, cities - based initially at least on solar-powered greenhouse horticulture, and progressively, hopefully, to broad-acre farming - of lentils, wheat, sunflowers, rice, soy, etc, and then on to some bush, then some forest, then some introduced bio-diversity.

A pipe dream? Maybe, but, if we don't strive to create such opportunity, here in Aus, ourselves, then sooner or later someone will do it, and then, it won't be for us, it will be for them, for the new Chinese Order, or nihilsville after the nuclear holocaust.

You pick what you prefer, and then decide - too hard, too expensive, too destructive to the sand, too ambitious, too ...

Climate Change, Global Warming, Greenhouse. Someone on OLO suggested that almost all of the agriculture in the world could not stave-off greenhouse - but how does that person think the world got along when there weren't 7 billion people burning millennial-old fossil fuels, and pouring dioxins and heavy metals and human waste willy-nilly into the ocean, and clear-felling forests, and sucking the guts out of the GAB?

Bah, humbug. If you build it they will come - those on Nauru and Manus, and Bangladesh and Myanmar, and maybe Great Britain?
A heart as big as all outdoors, is Oz, husbanded by the oldest continuous cultural collective on Earth, and now under the care (or at the risk) of some new-bees, some immigrants, called Australians, all.

I leave the world in your capable hands, for I am one, and you and they are many, so it will take someone far greater than me - maybe you can stand up? (Where are you Dick Smith?) And, where the hell are you, Scomo?

(And, goodonya Indi, for being there.)

Aidan,
it seems that you're one of those who are more concerned about having to forfeit a couple of Dollars towards such a project than the benefits for the following generation.

individual,
>it seems that you're one of those who are more concerned about having to forfeit a
>couple of Dollars towards such a project than the benefits for the following generation.
Your perception is incorrect. You need to get rid of it now, because it's preventing you from thinking objectively about what I'm saying.

I am not dismissing anything on cost alone. But nor do I think it should be disregarded. My concerns, in order of priority are:

EFFECTIVENESS: You should learn about the conditions that cause rain, because they're not what you assume them to be. And there's no point spending gigabucks on a scheme that won't work.

ENVIRONMENT: So much of our natural environment's gone that we shouldn't have the luxury of disregarding it any more. We need to consider the environmental impacts of everything we do, and switch to an alternative course of action (or at least offset the damage) if it threatens a species or ecosystem.

DEMAND: You may not like to hear this, but the limiting factor of how much is grown isn't what's technically possible, but what's cost effective - and that depends as much on demand as it does on supply. Unless and until there is an increase in demand, it's a zero sum game. Devoting massive government resources to expanding farming in one area is very unfair if it's at the expense of farmers in another area. Maybe after populations grow, diverting rivers will be a viable option that could benefit us all. But at the moment it's clearly not.

EFFICIENCY: Schemes need to compared to other options. For instance, more farming around the Gulf of Carpentaria (making use of Artesian water) could be a much more cost effective way of expanding agriculture than diverting rivers would. Similarly, more use of greenhouses (consuming very little because most of their water's reused) can be a much more cost effective way of coping with water shortages.

Has any one considered how the city of Kalgoorlie gets its water
It should prove it can be done
Why are we thinking in terms of only massive water transfer
In fact many different transfer methods can be used and the massive ones the country needs will follow, in time
Harvesting storm water before it enters the sea is just one way we can move water

Aha, Aidan,

Neo liberalism is alive, as per the article on OLO by Rob Stewart - 20/12/2018. That's one tough read, and the message is disturbing.
So, Aidan, you're right of course, economics, economics, you can't survive without it, and you can't control the beast - all you can do is try to make the best of it, and hopefully hope, in huge letters, that one day (and I most certainly hope soon) a greater sanity will, as it duly must, prevail, and the children of the world may at last awaken to a new dawn, a new and embracing euphoria filled with hope and promise of no bombs, no scary cultural and social protocols designed to inhibit, to quell, to crush the masses into a submission alien to all species except Man, to accept the Order of Those who have the inalienable right to talk to God and to hurtle that crushing and demoralizing message down on the heads of the sheeple.

Sometimes, Aidan, one must do what is right, for the future, irrespective of the vested interests of those who want to control everything - everything you see, read, are told, and yea, what indeed you are allowed to believe.

The outlined project is one for the future, for hope, for freedom, for an ultimate good - for people.

Look at the world and think - is this how it must be? Must Man destroy everything in pursuit of the mighty dollar, or can we rise above and beyond and strive with every cell of our being to leave a world that future generations can enjoy fully, and can share fully with all the myriad of life we are so very blessed to be able to enjoy, even from a great distance - in the certain comfort that they are there, they were saved the fate of the Dodo, the Tassie Tiger, and so very many, many more. Our watch, 20th and 21st Century watch, has thus-far been such an indictment on human folly. We can and must do better.

Aus is getting a Space Agency, Branson is offering zips into near space, and NASA and the Ruskie's are heading for colonies on Mars.
Exodus the fallen garden.
How terribly smart we are - not content with what's in our laps, smashing it, like so many spoiled and conceited undisciplined children, moving on, pushing aside. Me, me!
Hell is already here.

more farming around the Gulf of Carpentaria
Aidan,
Cyclonic weather wipes out any produce. The most useful thing to do in the Gulf country would be to build dams to divert water inland. Aqua culture would probably be a winner there instead of the overfishing on the GBR.
We must have large amounts of fresh water run into the sea because that's how Nature works but nowadays we have too much run-off because urban infrastructure prevents soakage so, this excess can go inland.

Has any one considered how the city of Kalgoorlie gets its water
Belly,
excellent point ! Imagine Kalgoorlie drug dealers & brothels short on water. Unthinkable ;-)

Look at the world and think - is this how it must be?
Saltpetre,
Very profound & let's hope it makes some take stock of themselves !

Saltpetre,
Despite being pro free trade, I'm certainly not a neoliberal. Indeed I oppose neoliberalism.
Economics is something that can and should be controlled to keep the nation productive.

BTW your strawman rant would have been ineffective against neoliberals, because it makes you look like a conspiracy nut.

OF COURSE WE MUST DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR THE FUTURE. And there is much we could and should do to develop inland Australia, starting with sealing the Birdsville Track. But trying to massively expand irrigation agriculture in the absence of strong demand is wrong for the future. It may even damage our future ability to react to the demand when it eventually comes.

_________________________________________________________________________________

individual
>Cyclonic weather wipes out any produce.
Yet there's still a lot of farming in the more cyclone prone areas along the East Coast.

Dear individual,

You said;

"that kind of academic logic is what didn't build the Snowy scheme"

Sorry old chap but that was exactly what did build it, not only that it took it from a simple irrigation project to a nation building hydroelectricity scheme.

Rather inconvenient I know but you can't wish the physics away.

Now do you agree with the proposition that if the costs involved in transporting this water 3000kms are greater than those of providing desalination water closer to the end use then we should be using the latter?

Look know I am not a Saint, never ever claim to be
But do we need to insult?
Is it strengthening our case
indy the water feeding what you seem to think is one big brothel is pumped a very long way, that was my point
Inland need not be Airs Rock, reusing water can begin just 50 klm from the coast

Come on kiddies, try to be practical. The amount of water pumped to Kalgoorlie, over relative flat land, no big range to cross, would be enough to irrigate perhaps 50 acres. Not enough to be noticed in the west.

How do I get the message across about availability of water. Most floods are very short duration events. You can't pump much in 3 days. Billions of gallons flow past my place in a big one. From that my neighbour with his 3 of 40 inch high flow pumps can usually not quite fill one of his 5 acre ring tanks. It takes 3 freshes in the river in a season to get both his ring tanks filled. That is 15 acre feet, enough with normal rain to irrigate 40 acres of turf, & 10 acres of sorghum forage crop.

There are no sights on coastal planes to build dams to hold large quantities of water, & you can't pump it anywhere once it is in the ocean.

Individual I have lived through many cyclones, about 6 in the Whitsundays alone. Only one of these did any real agricultural damage. It wasn't even a very big or dangerous one, but stalled nearby. The resulting heavy rain caused flooding, which did damage some cane crops.

I realise some crops, like bananas are severely damaged by strong winds. But such storms are rare. Cyclone Ada was 1970 was very damaging. It was 47 years before another very damaging one hit the area. In fact cyclones do less crop damage overall, than do the hail storms further south so recently in the news.

Aidan, do some research & you will find maps of the strata that brings New Guinea water under Torres straight, & back up in the artesian basin. Much of what we are using has over a million years underground, & came from PNG.

Perhaps,instead of bothering about pipe dream schemes that are highly unlikely to ever occur, we should be concerned about who is using our water and what for. Although China is now the largest foreign owner of Australian land, the government is refusing to release the Water Register.

All foreigners are required to register their interests in registrable water entitlements and contractual water rights.

Despite requests for the information by Australian Conservatives, the Register, which was supposed to have been released before the end of this sitting year, has failed to materialise

Belly and Foxy why have you not welcomed your idol nicknamenick back under his original name Saltpetre

Philip S you can do better than this
Look at the poster who wants in one post to stop the thread
Then in another post wants to divert it in to a racist rant
You show signs of a very bright mind, but too seem to need to needle
Why
Will it in any way help get your view across
If saltpeter is NNN has he a lessor right than you to his opinions?
Can it be he/she is a lesser person just because you do not agree with the posting style?
In the end this is a discussion forum,each view has a right to be heard

So how do we know that Saltpetre is nicknamenick? Apart from Saltpetre's posts being too long and boring to read, nicknamemick's were short and complelty meaningless. No similarity. Who cares anyway? What happened to the topic?

Belly,
Didn't you notice the wink ? Anyhow, your point was that it can & should be done & I agree.

Hasbeen,
I recall talk about a test done with dye in PNG & it apparently came out in the Jardine river.
The whole debate here appears to degrade into a slanging match about cost vs what's good to improve some of the arid interior.
Pumping keeps cropping up but I ask, is pumping really necessary ? Excess flood water could be diverted into creek beds on the western side of the GDR. of course the'd be a need for the odd channel or tunnel but in general as long as water runs west of the GDR all is good.
The east coast has so much run-off that could be stored in big lagoons that could double as recreational lakes. for such, obviously pumping would be required. Much of the cost could be recovered by real estate along with recreational infrastructure.
One of the better things to come of such planning would be that periodical flooding could be reduced to a no-damage level. Parallel flood canals to large rivers could be used as canal real estate. The options are more promising than insurance payouts every season.

Steele redux,
Academic mentality was healthy then, unlike now.

Belly Quote "Look at the poster who wants in one post to stop the thread
Then in another post wants to divert it in to a racist rant"

Q1 Evidence please, where do I want to stop the thread?
Delusional, you are the one ranting about racism. To make you look more biased YOU are the only one to bring racism into the thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8560&page=0

Q2 ** More evidence needed Please point out which parts of the thread are a "racist rant"? **
I expect like usual you will fail to answer my questions especially the one above here Q2.

Q3 Belly Quote "If saltpeter is NNN has he a lessor right than you to his opinions?"

Like usual you read one thing and interpret it to mean something else.
I stated "Belly and Foxy why have you not welcomed your idol nicknamenick back under his original name Saltpetre"

Q5** Please show me where it states or even implies that he has no right to an opinion or even is not able to post here? **


ttbn Click on the little head icon bottom left for Saltpetre then open another pge open forum again find under user list nicknamenick compare the two.

The original posts here were fro an intelligent and educated person, his last one gives the game away when comparing history of both of them.

He originally open here under Saltpetre 31-03-2011 then opened under nicknamenick 17/09/2015

nicknamenick stopped posting here 5/12/2018

Saltpetre restarted posting regularly here after a 2 year gap on 5/12/2018 (5 minor post few days before) Left the forum 9/08/2016

Quote "Aus is getting a Space Agency, Branson is offering zips into near space, and NASA and the Ruskie's are heading for colonies on Mars.
Exodus the fallen garden.
How terribly smart we are - not content with what's in our laps, smashing it, like so many spoiled and conceited undisciplined children, moving on, pushing aside. Me, me!
Hell is already here."
** That has NNN written all thru it. **

Quote "Who cares anyway?" If you don't care why ask the question?

Right, Philip. So, we are talking split personality here. Figures.

ttbn Grow up, go back approx 3 months NNN posted a lot of very informative well written posts compare them to those written by Saltpetre approx same intellectual level.

I thought you did not care anyway.

Philip S

You take yourself too seriously. No need to get shirty.

ttbn - Quote "You take yourself too seriously." I would rather do that than be the village idiot (no implication that I consider you to be one).

Replying to something you did not care about anyway would be what a troll would do.

Hasbeen,

Yes, the geological strata extend all the way under the Torres Strait. But water leaks out into the sea, and very little water (or more likely, none at all) from PNG reaches mainland Australia. Scientists know enough about pressure and flow direction to completely refute the PNG origin hypothesis.

Most of the water in the Great Artesian Basin comes from the Great Dividing Range. The rest comes from other rock formations, mostly on the western side.

I suggest you download the Hydrogeological Atlas of the Great Artesian Basin from http://d28rz98at9flks.cloudfront.net/79790/79790_GAB_Atlas.pdf

Aidan,
That atlas is great ! Even if its accuracy were only 50% it still shows remarkable & interesting diagrams. I wonder how much change in the water levels occurs at those depths by the shifting of plates.
One thing it does show is that, flooding Lake Eyre would be beneficial all round. Seawater or freshwater. Again, it must be viewed with a long-term view. Short-term is not realistic, long-term is.
A diver mate told me a number of years ago that he once felt a kind of rush of cold water coming from a rocky cleft in Endeavour Strait. Having heard of PNG water flowing to cape York he took down a bottle & sure enough when he tasted it it was hardly salty. Even flying around the Torres Strait on calm, clear days one can see swirls of stirred-up sediment in isolated places which i assume are underwater springs.
High water demand industry must be seriously discouraged & the focus should be on sustainability of habitation of inland Australia to ease the pressure on the coastal environment. Population will continue to blow out for as long as religion is allowed to dictate against the environment & against common sense. Our education system should also change its direction & focus on opening peoples' eyes & include common sense in the curriculum. It would make us a more cohesive society free of the yoke of Superstition.

Philip,

You are continuing to rise to the trolling, if that's what you think I'm doing:). You are starting to sound like Belly.

Seriously, what has seen you having coniptions and carrying on like a panty waist was my comment that a poster was suffering from split personality disorder, moving between two identities; and you tell me to "grow up"! Perhaps you don't understand what a split personality is. Which is strange, given the schizophrenic babble that goes on here.

ttbn Your 7 word comment is hitting below the belt, now I am offended.

To the people who want put lots of people in the inland of Australia.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-24/weather-bureau-meteorology-heatwave-hot-temperature-christmas/10666026

How many of you would want to go there and live?

BOM warns Australians to expect 'extreme heatwaves' after Christmas

Extreme heatwaves are forecast to sweep through parts of Australia over the Christmas and New Year period, with some locations set to swelter in the 40s for days on end and average temperatures up to 12 degrees higher than usual.

It is part of a sustained heatwave affecting parts of South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales.

In the days after Christmas, the mercury will push 46 degrees Celsius at Coober Pedy in South Australia, Mildura in Victoria and Hay in New South Wales.

It will be the first time that Mildura, on the Murray River in Victoria's north-west, has had six consecutive December days above 40C, with the previous record of five days set in 1931.

** It would be unlikely many people would want to go there to live and work because of the heat, isolation, and cold in winter **

Pumping water inland addresses the proximate rather than the underlying cause which is excessive world population. We should be spending our efforts on this rather than using our valuable engineering talent on windmills.

Caneum Maylum and Belly,
World population! Iran and Thailand have already solved the problem.

Both countries have shown that with government sponsored family planning the birth rate for women can go down from about 6 to about 2. Google family planning in each country.

The UN should concentrate on this. If they can achieve this so can others. Especially those subject to famine. Populations can be reduced to sustainable levels without drastic measures.

Interesting article.

Australia’s desalination plants

Cost: $10 billion for many to sit idle

At the height of the early 2000s drought, various state governments went on a spending splurge building hugely expensive desalination plants that could filter salt from seawater and pump it to homes should the dams run dry. Problem is, the dams then went and filled up again.

Melbourne’s $4 billion plant was announced in 2007 when dam levels were below 30 per cent. When it opened in 2012, the city’s dams were 81 per cent full.

Similar plants built in Adelaide and Perth have been used. It took years before Melbourne’s was turned on and even then some have questioned if it’s really needed, while desal plants on the Gold Coast and Sydney have never been used and remain in so-called “hot standby” mode ready and waiting but chewing up more cash in the process.

In 2017, Professor Stuart Khan of the University of NSW told the ABC they might never come online.

“We actually jumped the gun, it’s been a financial disaster really. It’s an insurance policy, but whether it’s a good value insurance policy is a very different question.”

“We actually jumped the gun, it’s been a financial disaster really.
Philip S,
Well, how many less educated had input in that decision-making ?
Desalination is too demanding on power, too polluting & too costly to provide cities with freshwater.
Water storage is the answer to all this both above & below ground level. Flooding Lake Eyre permanently would prove to be an environmental & economic success.
Let less educated people make the decisions. No academic experts involved would guarantee a success.

individual,
"One thing it does show is that, flooding Lake Eyre would be beneficial all round."
Exactly how does it show that?

"Seawater or freshwater."
You think making Lake Eyre hypersaline would be beneficial?

"High water demand industry must be seriously discouraged"
Shouldn't that depend on how much water is available?

"Population will continue to blow out for as long as religion is allowed to dictate against the environment & against common sense"
Possibly, but it's dubious - antienvironmentalism is not usually driven by religion.

"Our education system should also change its direction & focus on opening peoples' eyes & include common sense in the curriculum. It would make us a more cohesive society free of the yoke of Superstition."
They won't be able to do so, as there's no common sense of what constitutes common sense!

"Desalination is too demanding on power, too polluting & too costly to provide cities with freshwater."
No it isn't. Though it does have high power usage, that's less of a problem than it used to be - renewables have reached the stage where we don't have to rely on fossil fuels any more. And evolving technology is reducing the amount of power needed. The cost is comparable to other water sources - generally higher, but worth it when the certainty is taken into account.

"Flooding Lake Eyre permanently would prove to be an environmental & economic success. "
Disaster rather than success!

"Let less educated people make the decisions."
And watch money be wasted on superstitions! [see my 10pm Sunday post]

I agree with Individual that a skilled mechanic often gives better results than a qualified engineer. In "the army" a young officer does themselves a favour listening closely to their sergeant.

In regards to the unused desal plants...

It seems that the only ones benefiting from the plants are the construction engineers and perhaps the contract project teams working for the governments. Maybe the ones making the decisions really don't ask the correct questions- they get an idea into their heads and make a decision without fully understanding the implications.

The community cannot afford to invest in projects that make them weaker.

Those working in contemporary government are under pressure to consider the public benefit so perhaps more pressure is not going to give better results than the ones seen with desal plants and other government projects. The call for more privatization driven solutions doesn't seem to offer better results for the community either- just see the failure of privatization to reduce utility prices.

I would like to see more family sized solutions to some of these problems. This means that utilities such as electricity, telecoms, water, sewage are managed within the family with the help of simple powerful technology. This also means that government will become smaller and less taxing.

It seems that some are advocating pumping water inland- to better utilize our land- to grow more crops- to boost trade and productivity- to increase Australian wealth. There may be other reasons for this strategy. Overall it appears to be a policy to benefit the insatiable growth appetites of the business community and the small l liberals.

To me one of the best ways to increase per capita wealth is decrease the number of people- but the small l's wouldn't be happy with that- neither would the lefties. We should ban selling of land to foreign interests.
I'll have to research some of the quoted solutions to "water the desert"

Aidan,
Are you one of those Academics ? You certainly debate like one ! The questions you ask me have already been answered throughout this thread.
1; flooding the basin would raise the freshwater level
2; measured doses would aid maintaining the surface water level to make up for evaporation
3; that is a typical opportunist mentality.
4; it's not driven by religion, religion is the prime cause of out-of-hand populations.
5; again the non-comprehension of the meaning of the word is standard academic ignorance.
6; brine, antiscalent, backwash, cleaning chemicals, membrane production etc are polluting.
7; wildlife & a greening around a huge lake would be beneficial & would also take environmental pressure due to human habitation away from the coastal area.
8; How would you know ? Less educated pragmatists have never been inducted in the decision-making circles hence the evidence of waste due to "educated" people's mismanagement.
As you don't show any evidence in contributing to find solutions I'll ignore your questions
from now on until you provide useful & constructive posts.

individual,
>Are you one of those Academics ? You certainly debate like one !
Logically?
(FWIW I've never been employed in academia.)

>The questions you ask me have already been answered throughout this thread.
>1; flooding the basin would raise the freshwater level
It may have escaped your attention, but saltwater and freshwater mix. So unless you're referring to raising the level of the tributaries of Lake Eyre, which could more easily be done by damming though there's no point in doing so, you are wrong on this point.

>2; measured doses would aid maintaining the surface water level to make up for evaporation
No use maintaining the surface water level if the ecosystem's being poisoned by excess salt!

>3; that is a typical opportunist mentality.
Is there anything wrong with taking opportunities when they arise?

>4; it's not driven by religion, religion is the prime cause of out-of-hand populations.
No, religion is very much a secondary cause, and most religions aren't the cause at all. The primary cause of out of hand populations is people not being confident that their children will survive long enough to have children of their own. And when that's the case, they tend to overcompensate by having lots of children.

>5; again the non-comprehension of the meaning of the word is standard academic ignorance.
Firstly that's absurd; academics are far more likely to comprehend what words mean.
Secondly, you seem not to understand the problem. People often regard what they think they know as "common sense" even when they're totally wrong.

>6; brine, antiscalent, backwash, cleaning chemicals, membrane production etc are polluting.
Brine, when disposed of at sea, is (in the Australian context at least) heavily diluted to ensure it isn't a problem. Backwash is a process not a substance. And have you any evidence at all of environmental problems caused by antiscalents and cleaning chemicals from desalination plants?

(TBC)

individual (continued)

>7; wildlife & a greening around a huge lake would be beneficial
A huge hypersaline lake wouldn't result in much greening around it, and would not be beneficial for wildlife.

>& would also take environmental pressure due to human habitation away from the coastal area.
Not really - the reasons people want to live on the coast would continue to be as strong as ever. People already have the opportunity to move to remote areas, but choose not to.

>8; How would you know ? Less educated pragmatists have never been inducted in the decision-making circles
That is simply false.

>hence the evidence of waste due to "educated" people's mismanagement.
Mismanagement is mismanagement regardless of education levels.

I don't know if the point you're trying to make is that the people with experience on the ground should be involved in the decision making process. If it is, I agree (and I'd go further, encouraging crowdsourcing of ideas).

But all you seem to be doing is dissing education. You seem unaware of the fact that although education doesn't completely eliminate the false assumptions that costly decisions are based on, it does make them much less likely.

>As you don't show any evidence in contributing to find solutions I'll ignore your questions
>from now on until you provide useful & constructive posts.
Wasn't my link to the GAB atlas a useful post? You thought so, but you responded with the lie that it supported your position.
What do you think constructive posts are? Do you think a yes man, agreeing with you even when he knows you're wrong, is constructive?
When I suggested more farming near the Gulf of Carpentaria, taking advantage of the ample water supply of the northern GAB, was that not evidence in contributing to find solutions?

If Individual is from South Australia it would explain why he is promoting development of Lake Eyre- but South Australia is the driest State.

Canem malum,
I'm from very near the Gulf country & only yesterday I checked the rising river down the road from the effect of the overnight rain.
The floodwaters are pushing a massive brown streak of mud out into the GBR as do all the other flooded creeks for several hundred km along the coast. I thought would't it be great if the excess run-off that is prevented from soaking into the ground by coastal infrastructure could be diverted into the western slopes of the GDR.

To HenryL- India will have a population of two billion by 2050 unless something is done (India had 50% population under 15 in 2003, as of 2017 still has 4 births per female)- I suspect that something will break well before then- but their excesses will continue to affect the world- it will take a long time till the world can recover. Africa is also a serious issue- continent wide they have a comparable population to India with 50% population under 18. It seems likely that India and Africa will add well over two billion to world population by 2100.

See medium prediction from UN below. (Not that I trust the UN).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/World_population_v3.svg/260px-World_population_v3.svg.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

This ones interesting...

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

So you're not from SA. I stand corrected.

It's a concern that the flood waters are affecting the Great Barrier Reef (GBR)! Yes Northern Queensland is know for its sudden downpours. The Great Dividing Range (GDR) is where the water is originating from I guess- but that's not the same as diverting the water inland. Perhaps damming some of the rivers could be a useful and not an overly expensive possibility. But many of the great rain forests are located there so there would be opposition and environmental impact with such things. A dam would also probably encourage more human activity near the Great Barrier Reef. Probably farming around places like Tully (Bananas) contributes to the mud ending up on the GBR. Thanks for your thoughts Individual.

You'd have to find a way to get the water through the Great Dividing Range to the Western side I guess. It would be expensive. Tunnels cost about a hundred million per kilometre. Building "one" tunnel is likely a $10B project. "You would need a few" to divert runoff from the Great Barrier Reef. So project cost would run to $50B or more on those figures.

Any way I believe the answer to man's problems lies in more "conservative responsible discipline" and less "liberal progressive freedom" (in this case free trade).

I wouldn't want our "water flood diversion" program to "create a flood of Indian immigrants" to middle Australia. India needs to solve it's own problems. Not use tax payers money to fund an Indian invasion.

Aiden- Just a point of order. The Great Dividing Range produces fresh water whereas the Gulf of Carpentaria produces sea water I believe. Your other points appear in order.

Canem,
Fresh water flows from the Great Dividing Range to the Gulf of Carpentaria.

There is a limit to how much water we can extract, as if too much water were extracted, salt water from the Gulf of Carpentaria would enter the GAB. But we're nowhere near that limit at the moment.

Tunnels could be negated to a great extent by deepening natural gorges & existing water courses to get a fall towards the western side of the GDR.
Where pumping is unavoidable, water wheels or wind mills can do the job. We must not forget that the aim is to gradually, not instantly refill the GAB. Most objectors to the scheme for some reason appear to envisage massive streams being diverted in a short period. That is not so. It has to be a gradual saturation of the ground so as to finally start having an effect on the weather pattern. Once permanent vegetation takes hold, wildlife remains in the area then & only then should larger human settlements be considered.
It's not something investors & australian investors in particular would not be all that interested in due to it being a long-term, generational project that'd enable long-term outback employment to start with. It'd be a National project in the interest & for the guaranteed benefit of this nation.
The argument that "it'd cost too much" is opportunism-based on selfishness.
We could introduce a "Greening the interior" Levy of $1/month from wages, $2/month from salaries & $2/month from companies. That'd fund earth moving gangs to start immedeately. As there have already been surveys from A-Z no more hyper-expensive "studies" are required, only dumpy level crews.

Canem Malum.
Thanks for that. some very interesting graphs.

When somebody mentions world population I think it is worthwhile pointing to the work done in Iran and Thailand in relation to government sponsored family planning. It has shown that all is not lost and that realistic birth reductions can be made if governments have the will.

The sooner some countries start birth reductions the better off we will be

HenryL - Thanks for your feedback.

Aidan- Thanks for the clarification.

Wouldn't, according to illogical bureaucratic thinking, a greater population provide more taxpayers i.e. increase funding availability for projects ?
Just kidding !

Thanks Individual for your morning humour. Kudos.

103 posts, and still 'pumping'. Let's know when someone with the money, the ability and the need to actually do something is ready to go for it.

Why post then?
Are we to believe you are the only one to tell us what to post
You spend a lot of time abusing not just me
The question is RUOK?
We have often spoken about this subject ,it always brings a lot of posts
Why again does it pain you

Belly,
threads like this one expose those who don't ask what they can do for their country.

individual,,
>threads like this one expose those who don't ask what they can do for their country.
Really?
Who would that be?

Indy yes agree we can dream and surely this subject reminds us what our country can be
My thread on nearly the same subject proved we dream it too got interest
We here are what we are, contributors to a forum
We are free to talk about most things
And when we find a subject like this we post
Hope/am sure we in our future will return water inland and see our country gain much by doing it

Who would that be?
Aidan,
Those who need that explained.

>Those who need that explained.
Then it's as I thought: it's showed you nothing of the sort, and you're instead forming that opinion based on whether people agree with you.

Aidan,
Hitting your nerve is getting tiresome, over & out.

individual,
Hitting anyone's nerve would be tiring when it always rebounds on you.
So rather than hitting out at those you hastily identified as enemies, I suggest you read up on meteorology and ecology.

I am reasonably confident Aiden Individual was not having a shot at you
Not sure why such a thread, both interesting and timely, bought out bickering
But it seems we can not avoid that no matter what the subject
I have faith in our future and do not doubt many schemes to return or re use water inland will come

I suggest you read up on meteorology and ecology
Aidan,
Will reading meteorology and ecology divert much needed freshwater inland ?
I know where you're coming from with your argument but just placing projects beneficial to environment & people into the too hard basket simply because there's no immediate profit doesn't cut it.
Don't you think a Bradfield-type scheme would be beneficial all round ? Don't you think bringing at least some of the greening of the inland back & reverse the drying of the interior since the arrival humans wouldn't be beneficial ?
The project would be very basic, low technology & that is what would make it so viable.
Don't think about your Super, think about how your Grand children can use your Super to make Australia a better place than what you helped make it.

Hi Individual,

Australia is a big country, with its northern rivers carrying more water into the surrounding seas than the entire Murray-Darling system. [The 'Darling system' ? Really ? ]. A lot of country would be near those major rivers, not necessarily hundreds of km away, maybe only ten or twenty km. There is no need for grandiose schemes pumping water a thousand km or more, only practical schemes which irrigate the nearby country, bit by bit, over the next fifty or a hundred years. And maybe, as time passes and experience grows, moving a bit further out from there. There's plenty of country, and plenty of time, to get it right.

I'm sort of in favour of tree-planting schemes from the Kimberley across the NT and the Gulf, to Cape York. Nothing fancy, maybe patches here and there in the most suitable areas, moving out and joining up over the coming decades. And of course, not just any trees, but furniture timber, sandalwood, fruit trees, all types of nuts, even date palms. That might provide full employment for Aboriginal communities across the north, forever. All sorts of spin-off industries could be developed, irrigation and hydrology expertise, milling (in 20-30 years), nurseries, transport, jobs for mechanics, etc. And if Aboriginal people were once, as the current myth goes, farmers, they should take to it like ducks to water. Sure-fire projects, they can't lose. They just need a bit of initial funding from joint private and government sources.

Cheers,

Joe

Loud mouth liked that, from little things big things grow
And quite sure many little things will be used
We know trees bring more rain

Loudmouth & Belly,
Thank you for understanding my argument.
Water wheels & wind mills don't require much of technology nor does the odd stick of dynamite.
Several small but permanent earth moving gangs would have freshwater flowing west in no time, especially without the interference of "experts".
Such work would also provide much needed experiencing of work for many unemployed by way of linking it to a National Service. As I suggested earlier, a very small levy would cover the cost of everything.
Do think there'd be a smart enough Politician Federal or State to grasp the significance re the benefits of such a project ?
I beleve Peter Beatty of all Politicians was all for it but the other insipid mutts voted him down.
I think it's time in the coming year to show them some sense at the polling booths. Give the two majors a real scare & we will get things done again.

individual,
>Will reading meteorology and ecology divert much needed freshwater inland ?
No, but it will enable you to understand why harebrained schemes you support (such as pumping seawater into Lake Eyre) are a bad idea. And it will inform you of the environmental hazards of diverting rivers

>I know where you're coming from with your argument but just placing projects beneficial to environment
>& people into the too hard basket simply because there's no immediate profit doesn't cut it.
If that's what you think I'm arguing for then you don't know where I'm coming from at all!

>Don't you think a Bradfield-type scheme would be beneficial all round ?
Not necessarily. I think it has the potential to be beneficial all round if certain obstacles are overcome and criteria met, but I'm not going to blindly assume it to be beneficial all round.

>Don't you think bringing at least some of the greening of the inland back &
>reverse the drying of the interior since the arrival humans wouldn't be beneficial ?
It certainly could be beneficial. But rather than blindly rushing in, we should try to understand the environmental impacts.

>The project would be very basic, low technology & that is what would make it so viable.
No, viability depends not on the level of technology but on whether it meets a need, and if so, whether it can fulfil that need more efficiently than alternatives.

>Don't think about your Super,
I'm not. I've realised if I'm going to get rich it will be through work, not investments.

>think about how your Grand children can use your Super to make
>Australia a better place than what you helped make it.
That's not what Super is for.
If a project's not viable without raiding the nation's Super, it's not viable.

Do I have to explain how this is about ,much more than immediate profit? Or can you figure it out yourself?

Aidan,
This thread's debate should about finding ideas & solutions for the future not for proving how brilliant you are in looking up links on Google.
How do you think some of the great civil engineering in the past was achieved ? Definitely not by being scared that it might actually be beneficial for both society AND environment & that it might cost every citizen $10/year.

individual,
>This thread's debate should about finding ideas & solutions for the future
Not just finding, but also evaluating. There's no point implementing "solutions" that fail to solve real problems. And solutions that create new problems can be worse than the Do Nothing alternative.

>not for proving how brilliant you are in looking up links on Google.
Now you're really clutching at straws! Of the ten links on this page, I provided two - one of which you described as "great" and the other being a topical Wikipedia link that I did not use Google to find.

>How do you think some of the great civil engineering in the past was achieved ?
Mainly by careful study to see what would work and what would not.

>Definitely not by being scared that it might actually be beneficial for both society AND environment
In the past the environmental effects were often overlooked. We can't afford to do that any more. And while nobody's scared of schemes being beneficial for both society and environment, the problem is that they may be detrimental.

>& that it might cost every citizen $10/year.
If it's to be an ongoing financial drag, is it really worth building? That's not a rhetorical question; there may be grounds for building financially unviable infrastructure, but it should not merely be assumed to be worthwhile.

Aiden you are a bright poster so should know we are only talking
Individual is not all that far from your track and you from his
Sure we all want the subject to become a reality one day
And sure in one form or the other it will

https://kenkenkenkenkenkenkenkenken.wordpress.com/2015/10/07/the-great-artesian-basin-of-australia/
I'm still working on finding some info on a rumour I heard years ago that the only thing stopping water from one river from permanently flowing west is a rock ridge about 200 yards wide.
As I said it's a rumour.

>& that it might cost every citizen $10/year.
If it's to be an ongoing financial drag, is it really worth building?
Aidan,
Unaffordable ? How much do those who don't give a damn about us cost us a year ?