Posted by David Hare-Scott on January 9, 2008, 6:17 am
Here is a review from the Department of the Environment
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/techpapers/series1/pubs/wateruse.pdf
Which says amongst other things:
"The appreciation of such economic and environmental costs is now very much
greater, especially in the context of schemes for urban water supply and
hydro-electric power. However, the same cannot be said of water storage for
irrigation, particularly in terms of pressures to increase supply through the
inland diversion of water from coastal streams. Proposals such as the
Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New South
Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There is
no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally, there
is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally feasible.
As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the
assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. The same
observations apply to proposals to pipe water from the Kimberleys and/or Lake
Argyle to Perth and other southern locations. In Perth, the water would cost
$3.45 per kilolitre compared with $0.53 from south-western sources and $1.80
from desalination "
I am not saying this document is 100% right or the last word on the subject
but at least the author is a professional and it is published by a reasonable
authority.
If you are looking for big thinking have a look at this:
http://www.cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Water_Projects.pdf
It's a wish list in the form of a map, which looks very spoofy but keep in
mind there are zero costings or environmental impacts supplied.
The Citizens Electoral Lobby is the Australian arm of the American La Rouche
organisation whose grab-bag of ideas and policies (on their main page) are
very interesting. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about how valuable
such views are to the debate.
David
Posted by Jonno on January 9, 2008, 7:51 am
David Hare-Scott wrote:
> Here is a review from the Department of the Environment
>
> http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/techpapers/series1/pubs/wateruse.pdf
>
> Which says amongst other things:
> "The appreciation of such economic and environmental costs is now very much
> greater, especially in the context of schemes for urban water supply and
> hydro-electric power. However, the same cannot be said of water storage for
> irrigation, particularly in terms of pressures to increase supply through the
> inland diversion of water from coastal streams. Proposals such as the
> Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New South
> Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There is
> no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally, there
> is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally feasible.
> As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the
> assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. The same
> observations apply to proposals to pipe water from the Kimberleys and/or Lake
> Argyle to Perth and other southern locations. In Perth, the water would cost
> $3.45 per kilolitre compared with $0.53 from south-western sources and $1.80
> from desalination "
> I am not saying this document is 100% right or the last word on the subject
> but at least the author is a professional and it is published by a reasonable
> authority.
>
> If you are looking for big thinking have a look at this:
>
> http://www.cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Water_Projects.pdf
>
> It's a wish list in the form of a map, which looks very spoofy but keep in
> mind there are zero costings or environmental impacts supplied.
>
> The Citizens Electoral Lobby is the Australian arm of the American La Rouche
> organisation whose grab-bag of ideas and policies (on their main page) are
> very interesting. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about how valuable
> such views are to the debate.
>
> David
>
>
The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
is panning out.
Posted by David Hare-Scott on January 9, 2008, 9:22 pm
> >
> >
> The problem is the powers that are have made scarce resources by not
> allowing dams and privatisation would like to keep it this way, making
> water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
> is panning out.
Which powers? How are they holding people to ransom? Why?
David
Posted by Jonno on January 10, 2008, 12:01 am
David Hare-Scott wrote:
>>>
>> The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce
resources by not
>> allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making
>> water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
>> is panning out.
>
> Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
for water.
Why? Think about it.... To make money...
Are you sure youre not Farm1?
He asks the same type of questions.
Posted by David Hare-Scott on January 10, 2008, 1:00 am
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> >>>
> >> The problem is the powers that be, "the Government" have made scarce
resources by not
> >> allowing dams and privatisation, would like to keep it this way, making
> >> water a resource by which to hold people to ransom... This is the way it
> >> is panning out.
> >
> > Which powers? The government and corporate bodies
> How are they holding people to ransom? By making them pay excessively
> for water.
Do you have any evidence of this? What do "they" do to make water more
expensive?
> Why? Think about it.... To make money...
> Are you sure youre not Farm1?
I am sure.
> He asks the same type of questions.
Thankyou. I think.
David
XML site map
>
> http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/techpapers/series1/pubs/wateruse.pdf
>
> Which says amongst other things:
> "The appreciation of such economic and environmental costs is now very much
> greater, especially in the context of schemes for urban water supply and
> hydro-electric power. However, the same cannot be said of water storage for
> irrigation, particularly in terms of pressures to increase supply through the
> inland diversion of water from coastal streams. Proposals such as the
> Bradfield scheme have involved a number of rivers in Queensland and New South
> Wales, especially the Clarence (Cameron McNamara 1982; NSWDWR 1988). There is
> no doubt that such proposals are feasible in engineering terms; equally, there
> is no doubt that they are not economically viable or environmentally feasible.
> As with other irrigation-related schemes, they are predicated on the
> assumption that water costs would be subsidised by government. The same
> observations apply to proposals to pipe water from the Kimberleys and/or Lake
> Argyle to Perth and other southern locations. In Perth, the water would cost
> $3.45 per kilolitre compared with $0.53 from south-western sources and $1.80
> from desalination "
> I am not saying this document is 100% right or the last word on the subject
> but at least the author is a professional and it is published by a reasonable
> authority.
>
> If you are looking for big thinking have a look at this:
>
> http://www.cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/Water_Projects.pdf
>
> It's a wish list in the form of a map, which looks very spoofy but keep in
> mind there are zero costings or environmental impacts supplied.
>
> The Citizens Electoral Lobby is the Australian arm of the American La Rouche
> organisation whose grab-bag of ideas and policies (on their main page) are
> very interesting. I leave you to draw your own conclusions about how valuable
> such views are to the debate.
>
> David
>
>